Search is not available for this dataset
uid
int64 | person
string | institution_name
string | pdf_files
sequence | pdf_data
string |
|---|---|---|---|---|
7,570 | George Field | Southwestern Michigan College | [
"7570_101.pdf",
"7570_102.pdf",
"7570_103.pdf",
"7570_104.pdf",
"7570_105.pdf",
"7570_106.pdf",
"7570_107.pdf",
"7570_108.pdf"
] | {"7570_101.pdf": "George Field // Photo provided The victim in a case of criminal sexual conduct will have to wait two more weeks to face her former professor. 57-year-old George Field is accused of forcing a student to have sex with him. He is charged with Criminal Sexual Misconduct. Wednesday\u2019s hearing was delayed. The prosecution was prepared to call witnesses, including the victim, for the scheduled preliminary exam. But Field did not have an attorney and the court decided he needed more time. Court scheduled for former professor charged with criminal sexual conduct by Cassidy Williams 22 Reporter Wed, October 11th 2017 at 11:54 Updated Wed, October 11th 2017 at 6:07 2/13/25, 9:54 Court scheduled for former professor charged with criminal sexual conduct 1/2 Loading ... It was in a psychology course at Southwestern Michigan College that Field and the alleged victim met. According to court documents, she asked him where she could get help and he pointed her to his practice at the Family Center. The records alleged what started as counseling turned into a romantic relationship. Police reports say the victim was afraid to say no. \"It has been a very traumatic thing for her and at some point it became too much to bear. She did indicate to employees that she didn't want to see this happen to anyone else and that's why she finally came forward,\u201d said President of Southwestern Michigan College, David Matthews. Field now faces four counts of criminal sexual conduct and one count of practicing psychology without a license. \"We want to make sure this is done according to what our constitution requires, and we're ready to go on our next date,\u201d said County Prosecutor, Victor Fitz The court has now appointed Field a public defender and he still has the option of hiring his own attorney. For now, the victim and the courts will have to wait, but the work keeps on going. The prosecutor says there is still the potential for other victims in this case. He encourages anyone with information to contact the Cass County Sheriff's department. Field will be back in court in two weeks 2/13/25, 9:54 Court scheduled for former professor charged with criminal sexual conduct 2/2", "7570_102.pdf": "Appeals court blasts Ala. university in harassment ruling Josh Moon The Mongtomery (Ala.) Advertiser Published 11:54 a.m Sept. 4, 2013 Updated 11:56 a.m Sept. 4, 2013 Key Points 3 women accused university of creating a hostile work environment 2 administrators made numerous inappropriate racial comments%2C sexual comments and touching University refused to answer whether the officials had ever been disciplined in the case MONTGOMERY, Ala. \u2014 Alabama State University lost its appeal of a sexual harassment ruling in which three former employees were awarded more than $1 million. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday issued a 23-page ruling upholding a Montgomery district court's ruling granting Jacqueline Weatherly, Cynthia Williams and Lydia Burkhalter back pay and lost wages. The three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit also slammed the university for creating and condoning a hostile work environment. \"The facts of this case should greatly concern every taxpaying citizen of the state of Alabama, especially because it involves a public university largely funded by tax dollars paid by the people of Alabama,\" according to the court's ruling. \"We are left to wonder who is in charge at ASU,\" the federal judges wrote. \"Regardless, however, we are unnerved by the apparent acquiescence to, if not outright condoning of, the abusive work environment created by its high-level employees.\" Late Tuesday interim President William Harris issued a statement saying university officials maintain their innocence in this matter but will not be pursuing additional appeals Alabama Add Topic 2/13/25, 9:55 Appeals court blasts Ala. university in harassment ruling 1/3 or hearings could petition the court for a rehearing or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. \"While (ASU) has great respect for this court, we vehemently disagree with today's court ruling,\" Harris said. \"We believe we raised legitimate concerns about the trial court's initial finding of fault. We continue to deny the discrimination as alleged by the plaintiffs in this case. However, the court has spoken.\" The court was highly critical of the university's lawyers for failing to meet appeals deadlines and offering arguments that the court had no standing to rule on. The case began when Weatherly, Williams and Burkhalter filed lawsuits claiming that two administrators \u2014 Chief Executive John Knight and Associate Executive Director LaVonette Bartley \u2014 made numerous inappropriate comments and created a hostile work environment. Knight is also a longtime Democratic state representative. Among many examples the court cited in its opinion, Weatherly said Bartley, who is black, routinely used the N-word and that a report to ASU's human resources about her often abusive and inappropriate behavior never resulted in action. Burkhalter said Bartley used the racial epithet in referring to her 7-year-old son, causing the boy to hide under a desk, and that Knight made repeated sexual advances, asking her once to think of the \"wildest thing\" she could do for her birthday and on one occasion asked her to dance for him. Burkhalter also claimed that Bartley inappropriately touched her on numerous occasions. Williams said Bartley also called her the same epithet said Knight threatened employees in the office to prevent them from participating in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation into complaints against Bartley. The Montgomery Advertiser asked the university if either Knight or Bartley had been disciplined for their roles in this case. The university declined to answer district court jury ruled in May 2012, granting Williams $392,648.23, Burkhalter $376,509.65 and Weatherly $309,453.06. Those figures have been earning interest since being awarded. Additionally, Alabama State will be forced to pay the plaintiffs' legal fees and court costs such as filing fees, but an exact amount has yet to be determined. The original trial lawyers have 2/13/25, 9:55 Appeals court blasts Ala. university in harassment ruling 2/3 asked the court to award more than $1.2 million in fees. \"We're very hopeful that we can get my clients paid and these ladies can go on about their lives,\" said lawyer Mark Montiel, who represented Williams and Weatherly during the appeals portion of the case. \"They've been through quite a bit already.\" Key facts in the case \u2022 Three plaintiffs accused Alabama State University officials of creating a hostile work environment in which racial slurs and inappropriate comments were the norm district court jury awarded the plaintiffs more than $1 million in May 2012 for back pay and lost wages. \u2022 The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its opinion that taxpayers should be troubled by the case. \u2022 When lawyers' fees, court costs and interest are added, the total could cost the university more than $3 million. 2/13/25, 9:55 Appeals court blasts Ala. university in harassment ruling 3/3", "7570_103.pdf": "Case against former professor to move forward South Bend Tribune Report South Bend Tribune Published 6:08 p.m April 25, 2018 \u2014 The case against former Southwestern Michigan College instructor George Field, who is facing a charge of criminal sexual conduct and other charges, will proceed after a preliminary hearing Wednesday afternoon. Field, 57, of Dowagiac, faces 17 felony charges, including first-degree criminal sexual conduct during the commission of a felony, second-degree criminal sexual conduct, third-degree criminal sexual conduct, fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, perjury, insurance fraud and unauthorized practice of a health profession. Cass District Judge Stacey Rentfrow found probable cause to bind Field over for trial on all 17 charges at the conclusion of the hearing. Field remains in jail and will be arraigned May 7 in Cass Circuit Court trial date will be determined later. The alleged incidents occurred between 2014 and March 22, 2018. The latter date is when he is accused of perjuring himself during court testimony. At that time, he denied having sexual relations with one of his students, although he had admitted to police last year that he had. On Wednesday, Field's alleged victim testified about her interactions with the instructor. Also testifying were two detectives, a representative of Blue Cross Blue Shield and another of Field\u2019s clients who went to him for marriage counseling. The insurance representative and the two detectives testified that Field is not licensed as a counselor or psychologist. 2/21/25, 6:47 Case against former professor to move forward 1/1", "7570_104.pdf": "Former instructor scheduled for April trial Published 8:56 am Monday, January 13, 2020 By Debra Haight ( new trial date has been set for former Southwestern Michigan College instructor George Field. Field had been set to go to trial last week on Jan. 7 in Cass County Circuit Court on charges for criminal sexual conduct, perjury and insurance fraud. (https: Field, 59, of Dowagiac, is charged with 17 felony counts including first-degree criminal sexual conduct, practicing psychology/counseling without a license, perjury and insurance fraud. The incidents occurred between September 2015 and early 2018, when he allegedly perjured himself during a court hearing. The Cass County Prosecutor\u2019s Office reported that Field is now set to go to trial April 28 pretrial conference is set for April 17 in Allegan, as Allegan Circuit Judge Roberts Kengis is presiding over the case. Cass Circuit Judge Mark Herman recused himself in 2018 after it was discovered that he had served on the board of directors of the counseling center where Field worked in addition to teaching at SMC. Field\u2019s trial has been delayed a number of times over the last two years, including in 2018 after Judge Herman recused himself and another judge had to be found. The most recent delay came when defense attorney James Miller asked for additional time to prepare. The trial had been delayed last summer due to health problems Miller had. Field was arrested in fall 2017. The investigation of Field began earlier that summer after a former student told college officials about Field\u2019s alleged actions against her. They began investigating and recommended she contact the sheriff\u2019s department completed their investigation in late September 2017 when they fired Field. The alleged victim testified in April 2018 that Field was her professor at starting in September 2015, and she started going to him for counseling in the same month. The counseling took place at the Family Center in Dowagiac and the sexual relations at Field\u2019s home next door to the center. Field is free on $50,000 cash or surety bond after being held on a higher bond for several months after his arrest in September 2017. He ended up being released on bond in July 2018. Subscribe to Leader Publications' free newsletter email address Subscribe SportsPlus How to Watch the Clippers vs. Pacers Game: Streaming Channel Info for February 6 ( streaming-tv-channel-info-for-february-6/) The Indiana Pacers (28-21) battle the Los Angeles Clippers (28-22) at Intuit Dome on February 6, 2025. Watch\u2026 Best Bets for Basketball Picks Against the Spread for Thursday, February 6 ( spread-for-thursday-february-6/) The college basketball lineup on Thursday should provide some fireworks. Our computer model has recommended picks against the\u2026 How to Watch Women\u2019s College Basketball Games \u2013 Thursday, February 6 ( games-thursday-february-6 squads are on Thursday\u2019s college basketball schedule for seven games, including the Stanford Cardinal taking on the\u2026 How to Watch Top 25 College Basketball Games \u2013 Thursday, February 6 ( thursday-february-6/) One game on the Thursday college basketball schedule features a ranked team, the matchup between the Maryland Terrapins\u2026 Top 25 College Hoops Picks Against the Spread \u2013 Thursday, February 6 ( thursday-february-6/) Thursday\u2019s college basketball schedule includes one game with a ranked team in play. That matchup? The Maryland Terrapins\u2026 How to Watch (/category/how-to-watch/) Injury Report (/category/injury-report/) Player Props (/category/player-props/) Tickets (/category/tickets/)", "7570_105.pdf": "College professor to stand trial for criminal sexual conduct Updated: Oct. 24, 2017, 8:40 p.m. | Published: Oct. 24, 2017, 7:40 p.m. Subscribe George Field By Emily Monacelli | [email protected] college professor and counselor will stand trial for rape in Cass County. George Field, 57, waived a preliminary examination scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 25, and was bound over to Cass County Circuit Court on several criminal sexual conduct charges. Field was arraigned Sept. 27 on five charges: first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by life in prison or any term of years; second-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to 15 years; practicing psychology or counseling without a license, a felony punishable by up to four years; and two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, a high-court misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in prison. Police allege Field committed the crimes from September 2015 through June 2016 at The Family Center, 56332 M-51 in Dowagiac, and at Field's residence adjacent to the business. Field has a degree in psychology and practiced at The Family Center in Dowagiac. He also was a professor at Southwestern Michigan College at the time of the charged crimes Driver hurt in Cass County crash after hitting a tree Feb. 10, 2025, 7:50 a.m. New top teams in divisions 1, 2 headline Week 6 boys hoops rankings Feb. 11, 2025, 1:11 p.m. Southwestern Michigan College in Dowagiac became aware of the alleged crimes and encouraged the victim to contact law enforcement, according to Cass County Prosecutor Victor Fitz. Field remains in the Cass County Jail on a $200,000 cash or surety bond. His case now is pending in Cass County Circuit Court. His pretrial and trial dates have not yet been set. Anyone with information, possible evidence or other possible victims should contact the Cass County Sheriff's Office at (269) 445-2481. If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy. About Us Contact Us Jobs at MLive MLive Media Group Our Team Advertise with us Accessibility Statement Subscriptions MLive.com Newsletters The Ann Arbor News The Bay City Times The Flint Journal The Grand Rapids Press Jackson Citizen Patriot Kalamazoo Gazette Muskegon Chronicle The Saginaw News Already a Subscriber Manage your Subscription Place a Vacation Hold Make a Payment Delivery Feedback MLive Sections Jobs Autos Real Estate Rentals Classifieds News Business Sports Advice High School Sports Betting Life Opinion Obituaries Your Regional News Pages Saginaw Jackson Kalamazoo Muskegon Ann Arbor Bay City Flint Grand Rapids Mobile Mobile apps More on MLive Video Weather Post a job Archives Classifieds Sell your car Sell/Rent your home Sponsor Content Follow Us Twitter Facebook YouTube | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Ad Choices Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement, (updated 8/1/2024) and acknowledgement of our Privacy Policy, and Your Privacy Choices and Rights (updated 1/1/2025). \u00a9 2025 Advance Local Media LLC. All rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local. Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. YouTube's privacy policy is available here and YouTube's terms of service is available here. Ad Choices", "7570_106.pdf": "exposure/article_4bd8df59-f8ee-5633-a54e-e2ba542953a8.html Cass County Circuit Court Former instructor gets probation for aggravated indecent exposure Following plea, George Field won't have to register as sex offender By Sep 14, 2021 Field \u2014 The criminal case against former Southwestern Michigan College instructor George Field has come to an end nearly four years after he was first arrested. Field, 60, of Dowagiac \u2013 who pleaded no contest in July to seven counts, including perjury and attempted aggravated indecent exposure \u2013 was sentenced Friday in Cass County Circuit Court to probation and credit for time served. Privacy - Terms 2/13/25, 9:56 Former instructor gets probation for aggravated indecent exposure | News | heraldpalladium.com 1/2 2/13/25, 9:56 Former instructor gets probation for aggravated indecent exposure | News | heraldpalladium.com 2/2", "7570_107.pdf": "Trial delayed for former instructor Staff reports South Bend Tribune Published 5:00 p.m June 12, 2018 \u2013 Former Southwestern Michigan College instructor George Field will have to wait to go on trial on criminal sexual conduct and other felony charges. Field, 57, had been scheduled to go to trial June 19 on 17 felony charges. Cass Circuit Judge Mark Herman granted a prosecution motion Monday to adjourn the trial because three witnesses were unavailable to testify and the need to find an insurance fraud expert witness. Herman granted a defense request to reduce Field\u2019s bond from $200,000 cash or surety to $50,000 cash or surety to give him a better chance of being released on bond. Field has been in jail since last September. Field is accused of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with an student he was counseling at the Family Center in Dowagiac. The incidents occurred between September 2015 and earlier this year when he allegedly perjured himself during a court hearing. He was terminated by shortly before his arrest last fall. 2/21/25, 6:48 Trial delayed for former instructor 1/1"} |
8,482 | Antonello Bonci | National Institute on Drug Abuse | [
"8482_101.pdf",
"8482_102.pdf",
"8482_103.pdf"
] | {"8482_101.pdf": "\ue908 \ue908 \ue908 Science chief at drug abuse institute resigned after sexual misconduct probe sources unhappy with leaders\u2019 silence on reasons for Antonello Bonci\u2019s departure 5 2019 Until August Antonello Bonci directed the intramural research program of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, housed in this Baltimore, Maryland, building In August, Antonello Bonci, scientific director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), resigned, and the agency's director told employees in an email that Bonci would be running an addiction institute in Florida. Science has learned that Bonci's departure followed an investigation spurred by an internal complaint, which alleged that he sexually targeted a trainee and later directed resources to another trainee with whom he was in an intimate relationship. Sources at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is part of, said they were disturbed by NIDA's lack of transparency. Because there was no public accounting of the reasons for Bonci's departure, they said, rumors have swirled, depressing morale at the $1.4 billion institute. NIH, speaking for and its director, Nora Volkow, declined to comment on Bonci's resignation cannot comment on personnel matters as they are confidential,\" a spokesperson emailed. Attempts to reach Bonci by phone, text, and email were unsuccessful The latest news, commentary, and research, free to your inbox daily \ue908 2/13/25, 9:57 Science chief at drug abuse institute resigned after sexual misconduct probe | Science 1/5 Bonci had been NIDA's scientific director since 2010. On 9 November 2018, Volkow sent an email to employees of the institute's intramural research program. It said: \"Dr. Anto Bonci has a very special opportunity to undertake a sabbatical experience to enhance his executive leadership skills\" for up to 1 year. The sabbatical removed Bonci from the reporting line of the trainee with whom he was in an intimate relationship, according to sources policy \"strongly discourages\" intimate relationships in which one person has real or perceived professional authority over the other, and requires the prompt disclosure of such ties. The agency may then remove one person from the reporting line as a remedy.) In March, a senior scientist at filed a complaint, which alleged that while on sabbatical, Bonci assigned projects and resources to the trainee. It also alleged that he had previously sexually targeted a different trainee, who had been strongly advised against reporting the behavior when she first sought to do so, in the best interest of her career sources say that advice came from a senior person in NIDA's intramural research program.) After receiving the complaint hired an external contractor to investigate. On 21 August, after the investigation was complete, Volkow sent an email to employees stating that Bonci had \"resigned his position as scientific director. \u2026 His new position will be as President of the Global Institutes on Addictions\" in Miami. That institute is a for-profit corporation that was registered in Florida on 31 July. On 4 September, Volkow held a town hall meeting with employees at NIDA's intramural campus in Baltimore, Maryland. At the meeting, Volkow said she could not provide details about Bonci's departure. (The 1974 Privacy Act bars federal agencies from making such disclosures.) But she said takes sexual misconduct very seriously; she noted points of contact for employees experiencing misconduct and she met separately with trainees while on campus. Some credited for taking the complaint seriously and acting upon it swiftly. One scientist said: \"They did it 80% right. He's gone.\" This story was supported by the Science Fund for Investigative Reporting. *Editor's note, 26 February, 10 a.m.: This story was revised to clarify that allegations related to sexual misconduct rather than sexual harassment. In addition, Antonello Bonci, through counsel, denied that he engaged in, or was found to have engaged in, sexual harassment or workplace discrimination of any kind. doi: 10.1126/science.aba1158 Meredith Wadman \ue95a\ue91d Author Meredith Wadman has been a staff writer in Science\u2019s Washington, D.C., bureau since 2016 Researchers face impossible decisions as U.S. aid freeze halts clinical trials 13 2025 Silk Road merchants may have introduced cats to China 1400 years ago 13 2025 Can read pain and other emotions in your dog\u2019s face? 13 2025 LEST\u00c9 2/13/25, 9:57 Science chief at drug abuse institute resigned after sexual misconduct probe | Science 2/5 Got a tip for Science's news department? CONNECT\ue908 Sign up for ScienceAdviser Get Science\u2019s award-winning newsletter with the latest news, commentary, and research, free to your inbox daily \ue937 Researchers face impossible decisions as U.S. aid freeze halts clinical trials 13 2025 Welcome to Trump Tracker 13 2025 Senior official who helped lead high-profile China and sexual harassment initiatives retires 13 2025 Senate confirms Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine opponent, as health secretary 13 2025 Popular weight loss drug could stifle alcohol abuse 13 FEB. 2025 Science explains why you feel better in the morning 7 2025 Scientists uncover mechanism behind \u2018vicious itch-scratch cycle\u2019 31 2025 \ue908 2/13/25, 9:57 Science chief at drug abuse institute resigned after sexual misconduct probe | Science 3/5 Asteroid may collide with Earth in 7 years, though impact risk low 30 2025 All News ScienceInsider News Features Subscribe to News from Science News from Science About News from Science Donate to News Careers Articles Find Jobs Employer Hubs Opinion Analysis Blogs Science Science Advances Science Immunology Science Robotics Science Signaling Science Translational Medicine Science Partner Journals Information for Authors Information for Reviewers Manage Your Institutional Subscription Library Admin Portal Request a Quote Librarian FAQs Advertising Kits Custom Publishing Info Post a Job AAAS.org Communities EurekAlert! Science in the Classroom Leadership Work at FAQs Access and Subscriptions 2/13/25, 9:57 Science chief at drug abuse institute resigned after sexual misconduct probe | Science 4/5 Prizes and Awards Order a Single Issue Reprints and Permissions Alerts and Feeds Contact Us \u00a9 2025 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved is a partner of HINARI, AGORA, OARE, CHORUS, CLOCKSS, CrossRef and COUNTER. Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Accessibility 2/13/25, 9:57 Science chief at drug abuse institute resigned after sexual misconduct probe | Science 5/5", "8482_102.pdf": "Dr. Antonello Bonci Monday, August 2, 2010 Leading Addiction Researcher Antonello Bonci joins to lead Intramural Research Program Antonello Bonci, M.D., one of the world's leading researchers in neuropsychopharmacology, has been appointed the Scientific Director of National Institute on Drug Abuse's (NIDA) Intramural Research Program (IRP) in Baltimore is part of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bonci is currently professor in residence in the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where he holds the Howard J. Weinberg Endowed Chair in Addiction Research. He is known for the elegance and multidisciplinary breadth of his studies on the long-term effects of drug exposure on the brain. Dr. Bonci and his colleagues were the first to demonstrate that drugs of abuse, such as cocaine, modify the strength of the connections between neurons. This finding cast a new light on the phenomenon of drug addiction, which could now be seen as a process of maladaptive learning. This new understanding, in turn, helped explain why drug taking can often become an automatic, compulsive behavior. \"We think Dr. Bonci will bring tremendous strength to our already robust intramural research portfolio,\" said Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow. \"His impressive background as a superb neuroscientist with strong clinical training brings an exceptional investigator committed to translational science, and will bring us closer to new and better medicines for the treatment of addiction am thrilled to be a part of one of the world's most important scientific organizations looking at the challenging problem of drug abuse and addiction,\" said Dr. Bonci especially look forward to working with Dr. Volkow and her colleagues in the extramural program, as well as the many top level investigators at the Intramural Research Center who have been responsible for many advances in addiction science hope that the experience bring as a neurologist and a translational neuroscientist will help their already impressive scientific program thrive even further.\" Dr. Bonci has been with since 1998, becoming principal investigator at the Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center in 1999 and professor in residence in 2007. He received the Jacob P. Waletzky Memorial Award at the Society for Neuroscience in 2004, given to young scientists for innovative research in drug addiction and alcoholism. He also received the Daniel H. Efron Award at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology in 2009 for outstanding basic and translational research. Dr. Bonci received his medical degree at the Sacred Heart School of Medicine in Rome, with summa cum laude honors, and in 1995 he became a neurologist at University of Rome \"Tor Vergata\" with summa cum laude honors. Before joining the faculty at UCSF, he did 2/13/25, 9:57 Leading Addiction Researcher Antonello Bonci joins to lead Intramural Research Program | National Institutes of Health (NIH) 1/3 postdoctoral work in 1995 at the Vollum Institute for Advanced Biomedical Research in Portland, Ore. and worked as a visiting professor in the Department of Psychiatry at in 1998. He is a member of the United Nations Scientific Committee on Drug Dependence. Dr. Bonci replaces Dr. Barry Hoffer, who has served as the scientific director since 1996. Dr. Hoffer is stepping down from his role as scientific director to be a tenured principal investigator and chief of the Cellular Neurophysiology Section of the Cellular Neurobiology Branch of the IRP. Dr. Hoffer is currently on detail to the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. \"We are deeply grateful to Dr. Hoffer for his contributions to the Intramural Research Program,\" said Dr. Volkow. \"Under his leadership, the evolved into an organization focusing on cutting-edge neuroscience research, supporting and nurturing a strong core of investigators who lead highly productive laboratories and conduct first-class research on the neurobiology of drug abuse and addiction.\" Dr. Hoffer is also recognized for his role as a skilled scientific mentor. Dr. Bonci begins his new position at the on August 29, 2010. The mission of the Intramural Research Program (IRP) of the National Institute on Drug Abuse is to conduct state-of-the-art research on basic mechanisms that underlie drug abuse and addiction, and to develop new methods for the treatment of drug abuse and addiction. Research is supported at the molecular, genetic, cellular, animal, and clinical levels and is conceptually integrated, highly innovative, and focused on major problems in the field. The long-term goal of the research is to better understand the biological and behavioral factors contributing to initiation, maintenance, and elimination of drug abuse and addiction (and associated diseases), and to translate this knowledge into improved strategies for preventing, treating, and reducing the negative consequences for the individual and for society caused by drug abuse and addiction. An important aspect of the program is the training of young investigators and career development of more experienced investigators in basic and clinical sciences related to drug abuse research. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is a component of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services supports most of the world's research on the health aspects of drug abuse and addiction. The Institute carries out a large variety of programs to inform policy and improve practice. Fact sheets on the health effects of drugs of abuse and information on research and other activities can be found on the home page at To order publications in English or Spanish, call NIDA's new DrugPubs research dissemination center at 1-877 or 240-645-0228 (TDD) or fax or email requests to 240-645-0227 or [email protected]. Online ordering is available at NIDA's new media guide can be found at About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about and its programs, visit NIH\u2026Turning Discovery Into Health ### \u00ae Institute/Center National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Contact Press Office 301-443-6245 2/13/25, 9:57 Leading Addiction Researcher Antonello Bonci joins to lead Intramural Research Program | National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2/3 NIH\u2026Turning Discovery Into Health National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Connect with Us Subscribe to news releases Feed \u00ae 2/13/25, 9:57 Leading Addiction Researcher Antonello Bonci joins to lead Intramural Research Program | National Institutes of Health (NIH) 3/3", "8482_103.pdf": "\uf099 \uf09a \uf0e0 \uf075 Survey: 1 in 5 workers were sexually harassed in past year Young, nonbinary and bisexual employees were most likely to experience harassment; about half of all respondents said they experienced \u201cincivility\" By Sarina Neote Oct. 9, 2020 he results of the National Institutes of Health\u2019s Workplace Climate and Harassment Survey, released Sept. 29, show that the agency still has work to do to make its institutes and centers safe for and inclusive of its employees, trainees and contractors. Of the 16,000 survey respondents, about half reported experiencing \u201cincivility,\u201d defined as disrespectful, rude or condescending behaviors, from supervisors or co-workers; 22% reported experiencing sexual harassment in the past 12 months; and 10% said they had been bullied. Young employees and those who identify as nonbinary and bisexual were more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment than other groups. The survey asked follow-up questions about the circumstances surrounding sexual harassment. Most respondents indicated that the perpetrator was an employee (78%) and a man (72%), and 35% said the perpetrator was their supervisor or manager. The also asked the survey takers to evaluate the NIH\u2019s performance at encouraging employees to report harassment, and 78% indicated that the agency has done \u201can excellent or good job\u201d at that. 2/13/25, 9:57 Survey: 1 in 5 workers were sexually harassed in past year 1/5 The Workplace Climate and Harassment Survey found that workers with a disability were more likely to experience sexual harassment than those without a disability. Still, more than half of respondents said that did not talk about being harassed with anyone, and only 14% said they had reported the harassment through a dedicated channel. When asked why they did not talk about or report sexual harassment, 64.9% said they believed their careers might suffer, and 77.6% said they didn\u2019t think the experience was serious enough to report. The survey report did not discuss race or ethnicity. \u201cThe survey is an important effort to determine how people on campus feel and where more effort needs to be made. The results are alarming. You see clearly how uncomfortable the workplace can be \u2014 particularly if you are a young woman or a gender minority in science,\u201d said Benjamin Corb, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology\u2019s public affairs director hope that the leadership responds with aggressive changes to change the culture on campus and set an example for the scientific enterprise.\u201d The NIH\u2019s efforts to address sexual harassment On the heels of the National Academies\u2019 groundbreaking report on the cumulative effect of sexual harassment on women in in 2018, Francis S. Collins, director of the NIH, penned several blog posts and statements (see here, here and here) about the importance of addressing the harassment in STEM. Most notably, in a September 2018 blog post, he outlined the NIH\u2019s next steps to end sexual harassment. \u201cSexual harassment is about power...It\u2019s morally indefensible, it\u2019s unacceptable, and it presents a major obstacle that is keeping women from achieving their rightful place in 2/13/25, 9:57 Survey: 1 in 5 workers were sexually harassed in past year 2/5 SURVEY, 2020 The surveyors assessed participants' experiences using what is called the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire. \"The items are grouped into the three categories (gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion)... Since respondents could indicate multiple sexual harassment experiences in different categories in the past 12 months, the categories are not mutually exclusive,\" the report explained. science,\u201d he wrote. Collins pointed readers to the NIH\u2019s anti-sexual harassment webpage and wrote about the NIH\u2019s plans to update its policy on harassment, making it easier for individuals to report incidents, and to launch a communication, training and education campaign. Around the same time as Collins published his blog outlining the NIH\u2019s steps to end sexual harassment, the also began to investigate 35 sexual assault allegations within the Intramural Research Program. So far, 10 staff members have been disciplined with what the agency calls \u201cinformal disciplinary actions,\u201d such as counseling/training and cease and desist warnings while 10 others resulted in formal actions, such as reprimands to termination of employment. Trouble with directors and workplace harassment In 2019, Antonello Bonci, former scientific director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, resigned after an investigation into whether he sexually targeted a trainee and later directed resources to another trainee with whom he had an intimate relationship. The gave the public no other information or reasoning behind Bonci\u2019s departure. 2/13/25, 9:57 Survey: 1 in 5 workers were sexually harassed in past year 3/5 SURVEY, 2020 Eight women filed equal employment opportunity complaints against between 2013 and 2019 against Constantine Stratakis, then the scientific director at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Their allegations came amid concerns raised by others at the institute that Stratakis prevented women from progressing to leadership positions. Stratakis stepped down from the director position February but still runs a lab at NICHD. Enjoy reading Today? Become a member to receive the print edition four times a year and the digital edition weekly. Sarina Neote \uf0e0 Sarina Neote is ASBMB's director of public affairs 2/13/25, 9:57 Survey: 1 in 5 workers were sexually harassed in past year 4/5 Sign up for the advocacy newsletter \uf105 Featured jobs from the career center Assistant Professor - Biomedical Discovery Research Toronto University of Toronto Biochemistry/Genetics (Open Rank Faculty) El Paso Texas Tech University View All Jobs 2/13/25, 9:57 Survey: 1 in 5 workers were sexually harassed in past year 5/5"} |
8,880 | David Bwambok | California State University - San Marcos | [
"8880_101.pdf",
"8880_102.pdf",
"8880_103.pdf"
] | {"8880_101.pdf": "archive.today webpage capture Saved from history \u2190prior next\u2192 search 10 Feb 2025 22:39:34 All snapshots from host share download .zip report bug or abuse Webpage Screenshot Cal State agreed to keep sexual harassment findings against two professors under wraps Students on the campus of Cal State San Marcos. (Howard Lipin / San Diego Union-Tribune) By Alexis Timko July 26, 2022 5:30 After a few alcoholic drinks at a pizza joint near campus, a professor in the psychology department at Cal State San Marcos allegedly insinuated to a female student that he was turned on and started kissing her neck. In the chemistry department, a professor pinned a female student\u2019s arms to her side, lowered his hands to her back and pressed his groin against her hips, she said. Both professors denied the claims but investigations conducted by the campus Title office concluded the professors had engaged in egregious sexual harassment and Share Sections 2/13/25, 9:59 Cal State agreed to keep sexual harassment findings against two professors under wraps - Los Angeles Times 1/8 misconduct in violation of university policy. The professors\u2019 accounts of the events were found to be not credible. Instead of pursuing disciplinary action, however, the university agreed to generous settlements with the professors, Roger Morrissette and David Bwambok, which included voluntary resignations, paid administrative leave and, in one case, expunging records of disciplinary action from his personnel file, according to university reports obtained by The Times that detail the investigations and settlements. In both cases, the university agreed to only confirm the professors\u2019 position and dates of employment if contacted by prospective employers and would not volunteer any additional information. One works at a community college not far from San Marcos; the school was unaware of the allegations against the professor, a spokesperson said. The other works at an out-of-state university, which declined to comment Cal State San Marcos spokeswoman said the settlements were reached after consideration of several factors, including the prospect the professors could maintain their employment contracts through arbitration. \u201cThe university\u2019s priority was protecting its student and employee community and the quickest and, more importantly, most assured route to these individuals no longer working for the campus was via settlements,\u201d said Margaret Chantung, chief communication officer at the university. \u201cThis route also avoided placing the complainants in the situation of being questioned about their testimony and going through the painful experience of reliving their experiences.\u201d The revelations are the latest jolt to the California State University system, where a series of scandals have called into question its handling of sexual harassment and other misconduct claims What you need to know about the sexual misconduct scandals at Dec. 14, 2022 At San Marcos, the investigations of Morrissette and Bwambok included graphic allegations. In 2016, a student said Morrissette, a former adjunct professor of psychology, drove her to a pizza place after class to answer an \u201cacademically related question.\u201d 2/13/25, 9:59 Cal State agreed to keep sexual harassment findings against two professors under wraps - Los Angeles Times 2/8 During the conversation, Morrissette told the student that his penis was erect, she said. Later that night, at a bar, he described intimate relations with another woman while stroking the student\u2019s hair and shoulders, she said. The student said she felt unsafe but tried to be nice because she didn\u2019t want to jeopardize her grade. Morrissette denied the allegations. Upon learning the incident was under investigation, he filed a grievance through the faculty union. In 2019, a former student of Bwambok\u2019s said he invited her into his office to catch up. When she tried to leave, the former assistant professor of chemistry and biochemistry insisted on hugging her and would not loosen his grip, she said. He then pressed his erect penis \u201cagainst her upper thigh and pelvic area.\u201d After getting home, the student and her mother reported the incident to campus police. Bwambok denied the allegations to campus police and the Title office. As a result of the campus police investigation, the university notified Bwambok of its intent to dismiss him, which Bwambok appealed. Under the terms of the settlement, documents relating to the disciplinary action were withdrawn from his personnel file. \u201cThe parties desire to avoid the expense, inconvenience and uncertainty of continued proceedings and wish to resolve all disputes and claims between them,\u201d the settlement stated. The Title investigation uncovered that Bwambok was previously cautioned by his department chairman about inappropriately touching students. In early 2019, another student of Bwambok\u2019s requested that the chairman bring up the topic after she described a lingering hug that made her uncomfortable formal complaint was never filed. Neither of the professors responded to phone and email requests for comment. Under the terms of the settlements, Morrissette and Bwambok did not acknowledge any wrongdoing. The Times obtained the settlements under the state\u2019s open records law. 2/13/25, 9:59 Cal State agreed to keep sexual harassment findings against two professors under wraps - Los Angeles Times 3/8 Both professors\u2019 settlements came with a stipulation that they would not seek employment in the Cal State system again. The university agreed that if contacted for a reference, it would not comment on their eligibility to be rehired and would only confirm their titles and dates of employment. Bwambok collected more than $11,300 after his resignation to cover more than a month of pay and $2,800 for a tuition fee waiver for a semester of Cal State classes for a dependent. He is now an assistant professor of chemistry at Ball State University in Indiana. The university declined to comment, saying it was a personnel matter. Morrissette collected paid administrative leave and benefits following the investigation, according to his settlement, which was dated May 2017. He previously had been suspended for several months with pay. While working at Cal State San Marcos, he was also employed by Palomar College, a community college just three miles from the San Marcos campus spokesperson at Palomar, where Morrissette is now a tenured professor, said the college was not aware of Morrissette\u2019s record at San Marcos and declined to comment further. Many legal experts and advocates criticize university practices that allow professors to find new jobs without revealing past findings of misconduct, a phenomenon that has become known as \u201cpass the harasser.\u201d \u201cIt is a legal gap,\u201d said Nancy Cantalupo, assistant professor of law at Wayne State University. \u201cThere\u2019s no legal obligation for one institution to tell another institution of the fact that this person has been found to have harassed someone on campus.\u201d Absent a legal obligation, institutions prioritize safety within their own campuses and communities, Cantalupo said. In a statement to The Times, Chantung said San Marcos is \u201cextremely committed to providing a campus environment that promotes respect, human dignity and an environment where everyone can thrive in their academic, professional and personal pursuits.\u201d Experts said settlements such as those reached with Morrissette and Bwambok are not uncommon. \u201cAllowing resignation is one clear way for the university to ensure that individual leaves the community,\u201d said Brett Sokolow, president of the Assn. of Title Administrators. \u201cThe discipline process is a crapshoot; you don\u2019t know how it\u2019s going to turn out.\u201d 2/13/25, 9:59 Cal State agreed to keep sexual harassment findings against two professors under wraps - Los Angeles Times 4/8 In the Cal State system, a grievance can be filed with the California Faculty Assn., allowing a professor to appeal a disciplinary decision and potentially return to his position at the university. Institutions threatened with lengthy grievance proceedings or lawsuits will often opt to settle and take what Sokolow calls a \u201cwin-win-win situation, with a lowercase w.\u201d By settling, experts said, universities avoid lawsuits that could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend, money they argue could otherwise be spent on students. In addition, victims can avoid encountering those they accuse of misconduct on campus and the faculty member can walk away with no damage to their reputation and career. In Morrissette\u2019s case, though, the settlement will not prevent potential contact with students from Cal State San Marcos. San Marcos psychology students can take core classes at Palomar for transfer credit. Enrolling in community college classes for major or general education requirements is common for college students who are looking to save on tuition. Palomar College is also a primary feeder campus for San Marcos. San Marcos has a webpage intended to make a transfer from Palomar as easy as possible. The California State University system is already facing an independent investigation ordered by state lawmakers that focuses on how sexual harassment and retaliation complaints are handled at Sonoma State, Fresno State and San Jose State. In February, Joseph I. Castro stepped down as chancellor amid outcry over his handling of sex harassment and workforce bullying accusations against a top Fresno State official while he was president of the campus. Times staff writers Colleen Shalby and Robert J. Lopez contributed to this report More to Read Charges that a Davis professor threatened Zionists are unresolved. Regents want action Jan. 23, 2025 Serious misconduct alleged in report former professors sought to block. They moved on with no discipline Jan. 19, 2025 2/13/25, 9:59 Cal State agreed to keep sexual harassment findings against two professors under wraps - Los Angeles Times 5/8 resolves federal civil rights complaints of antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias Dec. 20, 2024 Sign up for Essential California The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning. You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times. Alexis Timko Alexis Timko was the inaugural Ida B. Wells Society investigations intern at the Los Angeles Times Long Beach native and graduate of the University of Southern California, she worked at Annenberg Media where she exposed issues related to campus sexual assault and student government corruption as a reporter and investigative desk editor. Previously, Timko has worked with the International Rescue Committee and Human Rights First to aid in legal assistance and resettlement for Afghan refugees. She has also traveled to Kyrgyzstan and India to work on human rights issues in the regions and wrote several papers and articles about human rights issues in Cameroon. More From the Los Angeles Times California joins legal fight to stop cuts that could be a blow to UC, CSU, other universities 41 minutes ago Two transgender athletes navigate teen life on front lines of raging national debate Feb. 9, 2025 cuts put medical research at risk, scientists say, raising concerns at and elsewhere Feb. 8, 2025 What has Donald Trump not done yet? Here are some policy areas where he might act next Feb. 8, 2025 Most Read in California Powerful new rainstorm brings risk of debris flows \u2018Built to burn.\u2019 L.A. let hillside homes multiply Enter email address 2/13/25, 9:59 Cal State agreed to keep sexual harassment findings against two professors under wraps - Los Angeles Times 6/8 Subscribe for unlimited access Site Map \u200b \u200b \u200b \u200b eNewspaper Coupons Find/Post Jobs \u200b \u200b \u200b \u200b Crossword Obituaries Recipes \u200b \u200b \u200b About/Contact For the Record L.A. Times Careers to L.A. fire zones this week Feb. 10, 2025 without learning from past mistakes Feb. 9, 2025 Major atmospheric river storm is barreling toward California: \u2018Prepare for the worst\u2019 Feb. 10, 2025 Leaked document says \u2018large scale\u2019 immigration enforcement action coming soon to L.A. Feb. 7, 2025 Subscribers are Reading Cal Fire\u2019s updated fire-hazard maps will double the area of locally managed land that must comply with safety codes Finally we know where toxic ash from the L.A. wildfires could end up Hollywood\u2019s spiciest writing group? It\u2019s at a retirement home for showbiz veterans Lakers\u2019 trade for Charlotte\u2019s Mark Williams rescinded after failed physical Trump amends \u201960 Minutes\u2019 lawsuit and demands $20 billion Latest California Man may face prison after books tossed onto U.S. 101 during immigration policy protest 1 hour ago Luka Doncic hasn\u2019t made L.A. debut, but Laker assists with $500,000 fire relief donation 2 hours ago San Bernardino shaken by magnitude 3.5 earthquake \u2014 and 3.0 quake four minutes later 2 hours ago Newsom wants homeowners in burn areas to get interest earned on insurance payouts Feb. 10, 2025 California loves Dungeness crab. But concerns over whale safety have put the industry in peril Feb. 10, 2025 2/13/25, 9:59 Cal State agreed to keep sexual harassment findings against two professors under wraps - Los Angeles Times 7/8 Follow Us \u200b \u200b Place an Ad Media Kit: Why the L. A. Times? \u200b \u200b Guides L.A. Times Store \u200b \u200b Manage Subscription Reprints and Permissions Copyright \u00a9 2025, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy Notice of Collection | Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information 2/13/25, 9:59 Cal State agreed to keep sexual harassment findings against two professors under wraps - Los Angeles Times 8/8", "8880_102.pdf": "K-12 Home / News THU, 07/28/2022 Yet another California State University school is accused of covering up allegations of sexual misconduct. The latest allegations involve Cal State San Marcos. You can read the entire investigative report from the Los Angeles Times. After a few alcoholic drinks at a pizza joint near campus, a professor in the psychology department at Cal State San Marcos allegedly insinuated to a female student that he was turned on and started kissing her neck. In the chemistry department, a professor pinned a female student\u2019s arms to her side, lowered his hands to her back and pressed his groin against her hips, she said 2/13/25, 10:00 Cal State San Marcos Accused of Sexual Harassment Cover-Up | CalSchoolNews.org 1/4 Both professors denied the claims but investigations conducted by the campus Title office concluded the professors had engaged in egregious sexual harassment and misconduct in violation of university policy. The professors\u2019 accounts of the events were found to be not credible. Instead of pursuing disciplinary action, however, the university agreed to generous settlements with the professors, Roger Morrissette and David Bwambok, which included voluntary resignations, paid administrative leave and, in one case, expunging records of disciplinary action from his personnel file, according to university reports obtained by The Times that detail the investigations and settlements. These are just the latest in a swarm of misconduct allegations involving California State University officials. Similar complaints have been made against officials at Sonoma State, San Diego State, San Jose State, Cal State Channel Islands, and Fresno State. Joseph I. Castro was forced to step down as chancellor in February over his handling of sexual harassment allegations against a top Fresno State staffer while Castro was the school\u2019s president. Last month, state lawmakers ordered an independent investigation that will probe CSU\u2019s treatment of harassment and retaliation claims Education Recovery Scorecard Sh California Districts Performing Abo Pandemic Levels California Teachers Unite in Push f Pay and Benefits White House Readies Executive Or Dismantle Department of Educatio Palo Alto School Board Member Un for Social Media Repost Sexual Abuse Lawsuits Threaten Districts\u2019 Solvency Warns Sexual Abuse Lawsuits Threaten Districts\u2019 Solvency Warns Downey Superintendent Announ Retirement Candidate for Vacant San Rafae Seat Withdraws to Avoid Costly Sta Trump Asks School Sports Orga to Strip Titles from Transgender At Centinela Valley School District $881,100 for Student Success Prog Tweets by calschoolnews 2/13/25, 10:00 Cal State San Marcos Accused of Sexual Harassment Cover-Up | CalSchoolNews.org 2/4 13, 2025 - 11:04 Downey Unified Superintendent John A. Garcia announced his retirement Wednesday, effective August 1 SECTION: Candidate For Vacant San Rafael Board Seat Withdraws To Avoid Costly Stalemate Sexual Abuse Lawsuits Threaten School Districts\u2019 Solvency Warns Trump Asks School Sports Organizations To Strip Titles From Transgender Athletes Centinela Valley School District Awarded $881,100 For Student Success Program Education Recovery Scorecard Shows 11 California Districts Performing Above Pre- Pandemic Levels 19, 2024 - 08:57 The Conejo Valley Unified School District can continue teaching about the birds and the bees without legal repercussions SECTION: The Uncertain Future Of California\u2019s Ethnic Studies Curriculum 11, 2025 - 09:11 Thirty-four years ago, West Contra Costa Unified (formerly Richmond Unified) became the first district in the state to declare insolvency SECTION: Gavin Newsom Unveils 2025-26 Spending Plan Gavin Newsom Previews 2025-26 Budget Proposal Record Lotto Sales Produce $2 Billion For California Schools Voters Pass $10 Billion Construction Bond 12, 2024 - 09:38 The Greenfield Union School District ha lawsuit after learning that Kern County allowed 108 people to vote in the wrong school board SECTION: Recalled Board President Jos Komrosky Takes His Seat Back After Tracking Early Vote Data For Californ Sam Liccardo Rescinds Endorsemen Trustee Grace Mah 16 And 17-Year-Olds To Vote In Some School Board Elections Voters Recall Two School Board Mem Alameda County K-12 11, 2025 - 09:21 The COVID-19 pandemic led to steep le loss among the nation\u2019s youth SECTION: Nation's Report Card Signals Ongoin In Student Achievement \u2014 But Why? 2/13/25, 10:00 Cal State San Marcos Accused of Sexual Harassment Cover-Up | CalSchoolNews.org 3/4 High Schools Want More Clarity On Math Requirements Newsom Signs Fentanyl Education Bill Co- Sponsored By San Diego County Newsom Signs Law Requiring Financial Literacy For High Schoolers Assembly Speaker Kills \u2018Science Of Reading\u2019 Bill School Bond Measure Leads Slightly In New Poll Napa Valley Unified Tries To Protect Undocumented Students Pasadena Unified Announces Phased Reopening Plan San Francisco Unified Owes $1.18 Services To Special Education Stude California School Board Urged To Re Commandments Displays In Its Class Project of GrassrootsLab 2/13/25, 10:00 Cal State San Marcos Accused of Sexual Harassment Cover-Up | CalSchoolNews.org 4/4", "8880_103.pdf": "Hometown Newspaper of Valley Center, Pauma Valley, Pala, Palomar Mountain & North Escondido since 1974 settles with man over sexual harassment charges By Roadrunner on August 03, 2022 Warning. This article contains material of a sexual nature that some might find disturbing Valley Center man, Roger Morrissette, is one of two professors at Cal State San Marcos who were given settlements for resigning their positions in the face of sexual harassment allegations made by female students. Morrisette is currently a soccer coach. Morrissette denied the allegations but an investigation by the university\u2019s campus Title office concluded that his account of the event was not credible. Morrisette and the other professor, David Bwambok, agreed to resign, were paid administrate leave and in one case the record was expunged from the personnel file. These matters came to light after the Los Angeles Times did a California Public Records Act and published an investigative report on the investigations and settlements. According to The Times\u2019s report, a spokesman for the university said it took into account the possibility that both professors could maintain their contracts through arbitration in making its decision to buy them out. The spokesman told The Times: \u201cThe university\u2019s priority was protecting its student and employee community and the quickest and, more importantly, most assured route to these individuals no longer working for the campus was via settlements,\u201d adding, \u201cThis route also avoided placing the complainants in the situation of being questioned about their testimony and going through the painful experience of reliving their experiences.\u201d The incident in question occurred in 2016 when Morrissette was an adjunct professor of psychology. According to the Times report, a student related that he drove her to a pizza restaurant after class to answer an \u201cacademically related question.\u201d The student said that during the conversation Morrissette announced that he was sexually aroused. She added that later on he talked about intimacy with another woman while stroking the student\u2019s hair and shoulder. She said she felt unsafe but didn\u2019t want to do anything to harm her grade. According to the settlement, \u201cThe parties desire to avoid the expense, inconvenience and uncertainty of continued proceedings and wish to resolve all disputes and claims between them.\u201d Morrissette contacted The Roadrunner and submitted this statement: Statement From Roger Morrisette: \u201csix years ago, on the night in question was teaching a night course on Brain, Drugs, and Society started each class by playing a song that referenced drug use and then we discussed the lyrics as an open discussion in class. At times these discussions also talked about the sexual behavior associated with drug use. After class, an adult (21+) student asked me if we could chat said usually go across the street to get a slice of pizza and a beer before head home. Could we chat over there asked her if it was that had a beer while we talked, and she said that was fine. We had a nice evening chatting. There was only one discussion about sex and that was initiated by the woman who asked me if thought her boyfriend was gay because he liked to watch gay porn while they had sex was a bit shocked by the question, but responded \u201cyes, he was probably gay.\u201d She said her boyfriend vehemently denies that he is gay. The rest of the evening we talked about her possible career in neuroscience.\u201d Note: In the statement Morrisette denies making any statement about being aroused. His statement continues below: 2/13/25, 10:00 settles with man over sexual harassment charges - Valley Roadrunner 1/2 \u201cPerhaps she misunderstood something said or just fabricated that part. The article also states that stroked her hair while telling a sex story. That is not true at all. There was no hair stroking or anything close also did not tell any sex stories did tell a story about a woman knew as an undergrad in the 80\u2019s who had an orgasm while doing a group meditation on world peace during the harmonic conversion. That story did have the word orgasm in it but was totally non-sexual. The evening ended pleasantly, and we gave each other a platonic hug goodbye. There was no kiss. At one point, the all-female title panel asked me why this person would not be telling the truth thought maybe the boyfriend pressured her. The boyfriend was with her when she filed the claim. He may have had very good reason to keep his specific sexual behavior in the closet and was a threat to him. The woman was Middle Eastern, and believe the boyfriend was as well. Some cultures and/or families are much less open and understanding to rights than others. Perhaps this pressure made the boyfriend push her to make this false claim. Honestly don\u2019t know just know that did not engage in sexual harassment. The all-female committee claimed that she had no reason to lie, but did (to save my job), so they found in favor of her. And just like that, 11 years of service, some of the highest student evaluations at the school, and multiple teaching awards are gone. As an at-will part-time employee had no choice but to resign my position.\u201d To prevent any further distraction this matter might cause to the athletic program, Morrissette has agreed to resign from his coaching position gag order was issued at the time of the settlement which prevented any disclosure of the existence or details of the settlement. Related Stories by Valley Roadrunner Go To The Community News Section New chairman elected for planning group, or maybe not In a planning group officer election, you need to be able to count to eight. In a razor close election... Fire board accepts new property tax allocation The Valley Center Fire Protection District (VCFPD) Thursday night, December 19 voted to accept the new property tax allocation that... No presence at schools, Super says Despite some parents who have been alarmed by what they thought were immigration officers loitering at Valley Center schools, VC\u2019s... Load More 2/13/25, 10:00 settles with man over sexual harassment charges - Valley Roadrunner 2/2"} |
9,021 | Lee E. Downing | Temple University | [
"9021_101.pdf",
"9021_102.pdf"
] | {"9021_101.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Nelson v. Temple University United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Feb 14, 1996 920 F. Supp. 633 (E.D. Pa. 1996) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Rethink the way you litigate with CoCounsel for research, discovery, depositions, and so much more. Try CoCounsel free Civ. A. No. 95-5141. February 14, 1996. *634 634 Edmond A. Tiryak, Philadelphia, PA, Lisa M. Rau, Kairys, Rudovsky, Kalman Epstein, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiffs T. Doe, Traci B. Nelson. John B. Langel, David S. Fryman, Kelly A. Walenda, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews and Ingersoll, Philadelphia, PA, for defendant Temple University. David J. Gaier, Dessen, Moses Sheinoff, Philadelphia, Jonathan D. Herbst, Kean K. McDonald, Pamela Tobin, LaBrum Doak, Philadelphia, PA, for Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/11 YOHN, District Judge. defendant Lee Downing Currently before the court is defendant Lee Downing's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims against him. Specifically, Downing argues that plaintiff's Title claim against him should be dismissed because Title does not provide for a cause of action against individuals. Defendant then asks that the court exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367 and dismiss plaintiff's remaining state law claims against him. Plaintiff asserts that, in fact, Title does authorize causes of action against individuals, and, even if it does not, the state law claims against Downing should remain before this court. Downing's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Title claims against him will be granted. The court, however, will continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims against Downing. 1 1 After Downing filed this motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which contained a Title claim against Temple University and Downing, in addition to the claims asserted in the original complaint. In light of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' recent ruling in Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 1996 36283, at *12-13 (3d Cir. Jan. 31, 1996), individuals cannot be liable under Title VII; therefore the Title claim against Downing will be dismissed. I. Background: Because the court is considering a motion to dismiss, plaintiff's version of the underlying facts as set forth in her complaint will be accepted as true. Plaintiff is a twenty-eight year old female student who has attended Temple University's Ambler campus since September 1993. (Am.Compl. \u00b6 7.) Plaintiff was also an employee at the Student Activities Office of the Ambler campus from September 1994 to December 1994. (Id.) *635 Defendant Downing was an administrative level employee in charge of student organizations and activities at the Ambler campus, and he was also 2 635 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/11 responsible for the Student Activities Office where plaintiff was employed. (Id. \u00b6 11.) 2 The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Sturm v. Clark, 835 F.2d 1009, 1011 (3d Cir. 1987). In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court must \"accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them after construing them in the light most favorable to the non-movant.\" Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing Rocks v. Philadelphia, 868 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir. 1989)). Dismissal is not appropriate unless it \"is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.\" Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Jordan, 20 F.3d at 1261; Robb v. Philadelphia, 733 F.2d 286, 290 (3d Cir. 1984 complaint may be dismissed when the facts pled and the reasonable inferences therefrom are legally insufficient to support the relief sought. Pennsylvania ex. rel. Zimmerman v. PepsiCo, Inc., 836 F.2d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 1988). Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Downing subjected her to repeated and unwelcome sexual harassment and sexual assault from early September 1993 and continuing through the filing of her administrative complaint with the University's Office of Affirmative Action on September 22, 1994. (Id. \u00b6 14.) Thereafter, plaintiff met with the Dean and an Assistant Dean of the Ambler campus to discuss the alleged harassment. (Am.Compl. \u00b6 17-20.) The Office of Affirmative Action embarked upon an investigation of the allegations and, in February 1995, determined that there was a basis for believing that a violation of the University's sexual harassment policy had occurred. (Id. \u00b6 27(f).) At that time, the University apparently suspended Downing. (Id. \u00b6 28.) On June 5, 1995, plaintiff received a letter from the Office of Affirmative action which concluded that the actions of Downing \"as alleged, constitute a violation of the policy on sexual harassment.\" (Id. \u00b6 27(g).) After filing the formal administrative complaint, Downing allegedly retaliated against plaintiff by adversely treating her and the student organization she managed, by defaming plaintiff, by attempting to organize students to impeach her as the general manager of a student organization, 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/11 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681. and by filing a civil complaint against plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. (Id. \u00b6 21-26.) Plaintiff filed sexual harassment and retaliation complaints with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; she received right to sue letters from each agency. (Id. \u00b6 29-30.) Plaintiff filed this action against Downing and Temple University on August 10, 1995, asserting violations of, and seeking damages under, Title and various state law claims. II. The Title Claims: For purposes of the motion currently before the court, none of the material facts are in dispute; the sole issue under consideration is whether Title supports a cause of action against individuals brief review of the history of litigation under Title reveals that the issue has not yet been settled. 3 3 Title provides, in part: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal Financial assistance . . . In 1979, the Supreme Court determined that Title is enforceable through an implied private right of action. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 689, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1953, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). In 1992, the Supreme Court settled a divide among the courts of appeals by finding that the implied right of action supports a claim for monetary damages. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1037-38, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (adopting the stance of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pfeiffer v. Marion Ctr. Area Sch. Dist., 917 F.2d 779 (3d Cir. 1990)). In Cannon and Gwinnett, however, the Court did not indicate whether individuals were among those against whom the implied cause of action could be brought majority of the few cases explicitly addressing the issue have concluded that Title does not authorize a cause of action against individuals. See Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 901 (1st Cir. 1988) (\"In 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/11 implying a cause of action under Title IX, the Supreme Court has considered only actions against educational institutions. . . . Accordingly, the separate liability of the supervisory officials must be established, if at all, under section 1983, rather than under Title IX.\"); Clay v. Board of Trustees of Neosho County Community College, 905 F. Supp. 1488, 1495-96 (D.Kan. 1995); Doe v. Methacton Sch. Dist., 1995 549089, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 12, 1995) (opinion by Magistrate Judge Powers); Leija v. Canutillo Sch. Dist., 887 F. Supp. 947, 952 (W.D.Texas 1995); Aurelia D. v. *636 Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 862 F. Supp. 363, 367 (M.D.Ga. 1994); Bowers v. Baylor, 862 F. Supp. 142, 145-46 (W.D.Texas 1994); Seamons v. Snow, 864 F. Supp. 1111, 1116 (D.Utah 1994); Doe v. Petaluma, 830 F. Supp. 1560, 1576-77 (N.D.Cal. 1993); Bougher v. University of Pittsburgh, 713 F. Supp. 139, 143 (W.D.Pa.), aff'd on other grounds, 882 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1989); Bagley v. Hoopes, 1985 17643, at *5 (D.Mass. Aug. 6, 1985). 636 In Petaluma, a junior high school student brought an action against the school district, a school counsellor, and the principal, alleging that all of the defendants failed to stop the sexual harassment of the student by her peers. Petaluma, 830 F. Supp. at 1564-65. The court held that there is no cause of action against individuals under Title and, therefore, dismissed plaintiff's Title claims as to the school counsellor and the principal. Id. at 1576-77. The court in Petaluma reasoned that \"[s]ince the Act prohibits discrimination against beneficiaries in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, . . . it is the educational institution that must be sued for violations of Title IX.\" Id. The court further asserted that the \"fact that administrative enforcement is directed at the institution that receives federal funds suggests that the private right of action is similarly confined to actions against the institution.\" Id. at 1577. 4 4 The Petaluma court noted that the plaintiff did not oppose defendants' argument that there could be no action against individuals under Title IX. Id. at 1576. The court also looked to recent legislation to find more validation of its position. In 1986, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000d-7, which provided that remedies under Title are available against a state \"to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/11 or private entity other than the state.\" 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000-7(a)(2). The court inferred that \"the 1986 Amendment is consistent with the conclusion that there is no private right of action against individuals, since only remedies against `public or private entit[ies]' are mentioned.\" Petaluma, 830 F. Supp. at 1577. The Petaluma court also drew an analogy between Title and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e to 2000e-17, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (\"ADEA\"), 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 621-634. Because Title and the attack evils \"so intimately related to Title IX's history and the evils it attacks that it would make little sense to interpret Title to permit individual liability absent clear direction from Congress.\" Id. Petaluma appears to be the only decision in which a court finding no individual liability under Title engaged in a lengthy analysis of the issue. Nonetheless, as noted above, the great majority of cases presented with a Title cause of action against an individual have found, albeit in a conclusory fashion, no such liability. 5 5 In 1993, the Ninth Circuit held that individuals could not be held liable under Title or the ADEA. Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l, Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587- 88 (9th Cir. 1993). As noted earlier, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently adopted that position as well, ruling that Title does not support a cause of action against individuals. Sheridan, 1996 36283, at *12-13. Two district court opinions, cited by plaintiff, seem to allow a Title cause of action against individuals. See Mennone v. Gordon, 889 F. Supp. 53, 56-57 (D.Conn. 1995); Mann v. University of Cincinnati, 864 F. Supp. 44, 47 (S.D.Ohio 1994). The Mann court, however, did not allow a Title cause of action to proceed against an individual in his personal, or individual, capacity. Instead, the *637 court allowed a Title claim against an individual in his official capacity. 6 637 7 6 Plaintiff cites Pfeiffer v. Marion Center Area Sch. Dist., 917 F.2d 779 (3d Cir. 1990), in support of her assertion that Title does authorize a cause of action against individuals. Pfeiffer, however, held only that Title allowed an award of damages. Id. at 787-88. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling in Franklin, 503 U.S. 60, 112 S.Ct. 1028, discussed earlier, some courts of appeals determined that Title victims could seek only declaratory or injunctive relief, and others, like the Third Circuit, approved of damages 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/11 Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3104, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (discussing official and personal capacity in terms of a 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 action) (citations omitted). Suit against an individual in his official capacity is really a suit against the entity in receipt of federal funds, thus the Mann decision cannot be read to allow Title suits against individuals. awards. The Franklin decision confirmed the latter view. Certainly some of the defendants in Pfeiffer were individuals, and, as plaintiff notes, the court declined to dismiss them from the action when it remanded the case to the district court. The issue of individual liability, however, was not squarely before the court then, and has not been since. Thus, Pfeiffer is not instructive. 7 In Mann, the court explicitly stated that \"the Plaintiff's suit is properly brought under Title against the University and against Mr. Monast and Mr. Clemens [the individual defendants] in their official capacity.\" Mann, 864 F. Supp. at 47. The distinction between suit against an individual in his personal capacity and suit against an individual in his official capacity is not without significance. The Supreme Court has noted: Official capacity suits . . . `generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.' . . . As long as the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity. . . . It is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity. 8 8 The court assumes, absent any contrary indication in plaintiff's pleadings, that she is asserting claims against Downing in his personal or individual capacity. Neither the caption nor any of plaintiff's pleadings suggest that she is suing Downing in his official capacity. In fact, Downing characterized plaintiff's claims against Downing as one that \"seeks injunctive and monetary relief against Lee Downing in his individual or personal capacity.\" (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Compl. at 3, \u00b6 7.) Plaintiff has not contested this characterization. 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/11 Id. (emphasis added). Here, however, Temple University is the operator of the education program; Downing was simply an employee, not an operator of the educational program. See Clay, 905 F. Supp. at 1494 (\"Title actions may only be brought against an educational institution, not an individual acting as an administrator or employee for the institution.\"). The Mennone decision thus represents the only finding of a cause of action against individuals under Title IX. Adopting the reasoning of Mennone, plaintiff argues that the regulations promulgated under Title favor imposing liability on individuals such as Downing. In particular, plaintiff refers to 34 C.F.R. \u00a7 106.2 which provides that a \"recipient of federal funds\" includes any State or political subdivision thereof, or any instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or other entity, or any person, to whom Federal financial assistance is extended directly or through another recipient and which operates an education program or activity which receives or benefits from such assistance including any subunit, successor, assignee, or transferee thereof. Other indications favor this narrow reading of \"recipient\" over that adopted by the Mennone court and that which plaintiff would have the court adopt. Provisions from the same part of the Code of Federal Regulations suggest that \"recipient\" is limited to educational institutions or the owner or operator of a education program or activity, and should not extend to employees of such programs or activities. For instance, 34 C.F.R. \u00a7 106.8 requires each recipient to designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under this part, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to such recipient alleging its noncompliance with this part or alleging actions which would be prohibited by this part. The recipient shall notify all its students and employees of the name, office address and telephone number of the employee or employees appointed pursuant to this paragraph. 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/11 Id. Such a regulation clearly does not indicate an understanding that \"recipient\" was to include employees of a federally funded educational institution. In addition, other regulations discuss the recipient's obligations in publishing policies, admitting students to its program, hiring employees, running athletic programs, offering counselling, and other activities *638 which an individual employee could not be expected to perform or meet. The full body of regulations promulgated under Title IX, found at 28 C.F.R. pt. 106, suggests that the \"person\" language cited by the Mennone court and by plaintiff likely refers to an owner or operator of an independent education program or activity, rather than individual employees of the operator of an education program or activity. But see Bustos v. Illinois Inst. of Cosmetology, 1994 710830, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 15, 1994) (finding no individual liability under Title against the president, principal owner, and instructor of the education program who allegedly harassed students). 638 9 9 Other courts have adopted the narrower version of \"recipient.\" Most decisions have read Title IX's language to preclude a cause of action against individuals precisely because they are not recipients of federal funds within the meaning of Title and its implementing regulations. See, e.g., Petaluma, 830 F. Supp. at 1576 (\"Since the Act prohibits discrimination against beneficiaries in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, . . . it is the educational institution that must be sued for violations of Title IX.\"); Methacton, 1995 549089, at *1 (\"Giano and DiFonzo were not the recipient[s] of federal funds and, therefore, Title claims cannot be maintained against them.\"); see also Snow, 864 F. Supp. at 1116 (\"[The private damages] remedy is available only when suit is brought against an `education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.'\"). This court is persuaded by the reasoning in Petaluma and the absence of any clear authority suggesting that plaintiff can maintain a Title cause of action against an individual. Plaintiff's Title claims against Downing will be dismissed. III. The Remaining State Law Claims Downing also asked the court to dismiss plaintiff's state law claims against him under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c)(3). Downing asserted that if plaintiff's only federal claim against him were dismissed, the 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/11 court could, in its discretion under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c)(3), dismiss plaintiff's state law claims against Downing. Section 1367(c)(3) provides that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all claims over which it has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. All such claims have not, however, been dismissed. Although the only federal claims against Downing have been dismissed, the court clearly retains jurisdiction over them by virtue of their relationship to the claims against Temple University, the other defendant named by plaintiff. Plaintiff's Title and Title claims against Temple remain before this court under its original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331. Section 1367(a) provides that the \"district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all such other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article of the United States Constitution.\" Here, Temple University's crossclaim against Downing arises from the same facts involved in the Title and Title claims; the claims form part of \"the same case or controversy.\" Section 1367(c) provides that the district court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c); see also Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995) (\"Section 1367(c) was intended simply to codify those instances in which a district court is authorized to decline to hear a state law claim it would have the power to hear because of its relationship to an original federal jurisdiction claim.\"); Palmer v. Hospital Auth. of Randolph County, 22 F.3d 1559, 1569 (11th Cir. 1994) (\"[S]upplemental jurisdiction must be exercised in the absence of any of the four factors of section 1367(c).\"). As defendant notes, the only possibly relevant factor is dismissal of all claims over which it has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c)(3). Because claims over which the court has original jurisdiction \u2014 Title and Title \u2014 remain in the case, however, the court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's related state law claims against Downing. *639 639 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/11 About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/13/25, 10:00 Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F. Supp. 633 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/11", "9021_102.pdf": "Case Law ( Nelson v. Temple University Decision Date 14 February 1996 Docket Number Civ. A. No. 95-5141. Citation 920 F. Supp. 633 Parties Traci v and Lee Downing. Court U.S. District Court \u2014 Eastern District of Pennsylvania Your World of Legal Intelligence (/) United States | 1-800-335-6202 Document Cited authorities 30 Cited in 58 Precedent Map Related 920 F. Supp. 633 Traci v and Lee Downing. Civ. A. No. 95-5141. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. February 14, 1996. Edmond A. Tiryak, Philadelphia, PA, Lisa M. Rau, Kairys, Rudovsky, Kalman & Epstein, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiffs T. Doe, Traci B. Nelson. John B. Langel, David S. Fryman, Kelly A. Walenda, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews and Ingersoll, Philadelphia, PA, for defendant Temple University. David J. Gaier, Dessen, Moses & Sheinoff, Philadelphia, Jonathan D. Herbst, Kean K. McDonald, Pamela Tobin, LaBrum & Doak, Philadelphia, PA, for defendant Lee Downing YOHN, District Judge. Currently before the court is defendant Lee Downing's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims against him.1 Specifically, Downing argues that plaintiff's Title claim against him should be dismissed because Title does not provide for a cause of action against individuals. Defendant then asks that the court exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367 ( and dismiss plaintiff's remaining state law claims against him. Plaintiff asserts that, in fact, Title does uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041 authorize causes of action against individuals, and, even if it does not, the state law claims against Downing should remain before this court. Downing's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Title claims against him will be granted. The court, however, will continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims against Downing. I. Background: Because the court is considering a motion to dismiss,2 plaintiff's version of the underlying facts as set forth in her complaint will be accepted as true. Plaintiff is a twenty-eight year old female student who has attended Temple University's Ambler campus since September 1993. (Am.Compl. \u00b6 7.) Plaintiff was also an employee at the Student Activities Office of the Ambler campus from September 1994 to December 1994. (Id.) Defendant Downing was an administrative level employee in charge of student organizations and activities at the Ambler campus, and he was also responsible for the Student Activities Office where plaintiff was employed. (Id. \u00b6 11.) Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Downing subjected her to repeated and unwelcome sexual harassment and sexual assault from early September 1993 and continuing through the filing of her administrative complaint with the University's Office of Affirmative Action on September 22, 1994. (Id. \u00b6 14.) Thereafter, plaintiff met with the Dean and an Assistant Dean of the Ambler campus to discuss the alleged harassment. (Am.Compl. \u00b6 17-20.) The Office of Affirmative Action embarked upon an investigation of the allegations and, in February 1995, determined that there was a basis for believing that a violation of the University's sexual harassment policy had occurred. (Id. \u00b6 27(f).) At that time, the University apparently suspended Downing. (Id. \u00b6 28.) On June 5, 1995, plaintiff received a letter from the Office of Affirmative action which concluded that the actions of Downing \"as alleged, constitute a violation of the policy on sexual harassment.\" (Id. \u00b6 27(g).) After filing the formal administrative complaint, Downing allegedly retaliated against plaintiff by adversely treating her and the student organization she managed, by defaming plaintiff, by attempting to organize students to impeach her as the general manager of a student organization, and by filing a civil complaint against plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. (Id. \u00b6 21-26.) Plaintiff filed sexual harassment and retaliation complaints with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; she received right to sue letters from each agency. (Id. \u00b6 29-30.) Plaintiff filed this action against Downing and Temple University on August 10, 1995, asserting violations of, and seeking damages under, Title and various state law claims. II. The Title Claims: For purposes of the motion currently before the court, none of the material facts are in dispute; the sole issue under consideration is whether Title supports a cause of action against individuals.3 brief review of the history of litigation under Title reveals that the issue has not yet been settled. In 1979, the Supreme Court determined that Title is enforceable through an implied private right of action. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 689, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1953, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ( In 1992, the Supreme Court settled a divide among the courts of appeals by finding that the implied right of action supports a claim for monetary damages. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1037-38, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) ( (adopting the stance of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pfeiffer v. Marion Ctr. Area Sch. Dist., 917 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1990)). In Cannon ( and Gwinnett ( however, the Court did not indicate whether individuals were among those against whom the implied cause of action could be brought uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service majority of the few cases explicitly addressing the issue have concluded that Title does not authorize a cause of action against individuals. See Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 901 (1st Cir.1988) ( (\"In implying a cause of action under Title IX, the Supreme Court has considered only actions against educational institutions.... Accordingly, the separate liability of the supervisory officials must be established, if at all, under section 1983 ( rather than under Title IX.\"); Clay v. Board of Trustees of Neosho County Community College, 905 F.Supp. 1488, 1495-96 (D.Kan.1995) ( Doe v. Methacton Sch. Dist., 1995 549089, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 12, 1995) (opinion by Magistrate Judge Powers); Leija v. Canutillo Sch. Dist., 887 F.Supp. 947, 952 (W.D.Texas 1995) ( Aurelia D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 862 F.Supp. 363, 367 (M.D.Ga.1994) ( law.vlex.com/vid/aurelia-d-v-monroe-889559580); Bowers v. Baylor, 862 F.Supp. 142, 145-46 (W.D.Texas 1994) ( Seamons v. Snow, 864 F.Supp. 1111, 1116 (D.Utah 1994) ( Doe v. Petaluma, 830 F.Supp. 1560, 1576-77 (N.D.Cal.1993) ( 891754201); Bougher v. University of Pittsburgh, 713 F.Supp. 139, 143 (W.D.Pa.) ( law.vlex.com/vid/bougher-v-university-of-885366344), aff'd on other grounds, 882 F.2d 74 (3d Cir.1989) ( Bagley v. Hoopes, 1985 17643, at *5 (D.Mass. Aug. 6, 1985). In Petaluma ( a junior high school student brought an action against the school district, a school counsellor, and the principal, alleging that all of the defendants failed to stop the sexual harassment of the student by her peers. Petaluma, 830 F.Supp. at 1564-65 ( The court held that there is no cause of action against individuals under Title and, therefore, dismissed plaintiff's Title claims as to the school counsellor and the principal.4 Id. at 1576-77 ( city-891754201). The court in Petaluma ( reasoned that \"since the Act prohibits discrimination against beneficiaries in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, ... it is the educational institution that must be sued for violations of Title IX.\" Id. ( The court further asserted that the \"fact that administrative enforcement is directed at the institution that receives federal funds suggests that the private right of action is similarly confined to actions against the institution.\" Id. at 1577 ( The court also looked to recent legislation to find more validation of its position. In 1986, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000d-7 ( which provided that remedies under Title are available against a state \"to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than the state.\" 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000-7(a)(2). The court inferred that \"the 1986 Amendment is consistent with the conclusion that there is no private right of action against individuals, since only remedies against `public or private entities' are mentioned.\" Petaluma, 830 F.Supp. at 1577 ( city-891754201). The Petaluma ( court also drew an analogy between Title and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2000e to 2000e-17 ( 945060306), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (\"ADEA\"), 29 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 621-634. Because Title and the attack evils \"so intimately related to Title IX's history and the evils it attacks that it would make little sense to interpret Title to permit individual liability absent clear direction from Congress.\" Id.5 uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041 To continue reading Request your trial Petaluma ( appears to be the only decision in which a court finding no individual liability under Title engaged in a lengthy analysis of the issue. Nonetheless, as noted above, the great majority of cases presented with a Title cause of action against an individual have found, albeit in a conclusory fashion, no such liability. Two district court opinions, cited by plaintiff, seem to allow a Title cause of action against individuals. See Mennone v. Gordon, 889 F.Supp. 53, 56-57 (D.Conn.1995) ( gordon-no-885193218); Mann v. University of Cincinnati, 864 F.Supp. 44, 47 (S.D.Ohio 1994) ( law.vlex.com/vid/mann-v-university-of-890803958).6 The Mann ( university-of-890803958) court, however, did not allow a Title cause of action to proceed against an individual in his personal, or individual, capacity. Instead, the court allowed a Title claim against an individual in his official capacity.7 The distinction between suit against an individual in his personal capacity and suit against an individual in his official capacity is not without significance. The Supreme Court has noted: Official capacity suits ... `generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.' ... As long as the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.... It is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3104, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) ( law.vlex.com/vid/kentucky-v-graham-no-886427616) (discussing official and personal capacity in terms of a 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 ( action) (citations omitted). Suit against an individual in his official capacity is really a suit against the entity in uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041 40 cases Search in 40 citing cases \uf014 Niles v. Nelson ( United States U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of New York October 25, 1999 ...586, 588 n. 3 (E.D.N.Y.1998); Burrow v. Postville Community Sch. Dist., 929 F.Supp. 1193, 1207 (N.D.Iowa 1996); Nelson v. Temple Univ., 920 F.Supp. 633, 636-37 (E.D.Pa. 1996); Pallett v. Palma, 914 F.Supp. 1018, 1025 (S.D.N.Y.1996), rev'd on other grounds, 119 F.3d 80 (2d Cir.1997); Torres ...... Smith v. Metropolitan School Dist. Perry Tp. ( school-894342687) United States U.S. Court of Appeals \u2014 Seventh Circuit December 16, 1997 ...or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,' not individuals.\") (quoting Lillard, 76 F.3d at 730); Nelson v. Temple University, 920 F.Supp. 633, 638 (E.D.Pa.1996) (holding that a plaintiff cannot maintain a Title cause of action against an individual); Clay v. Board of Trustees o...... Winter v. Pa. State Univ. ( United States U.S. District Court \u2014 Middle District of Pennsylvania March 22, 2016 ...2014 4914186, at *11 (M.D.Pa. Sept. 30, 2014) (holding that Title does not impose individual liability); Nelson v. Temple Univ. , 920 F.Supp. 633, 635 (E.D.Pa.1996) (concluding that \u201c[a] majority of the few cases explicitly addressing the issue have concluded that Title does not au...... Schultzen v. Woodbury Central Community School ( woodbury-central-889423013) United States U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of Iowa February 22, 2002 ...1119, 1125 (N.D.Ohio 1998); Buckley v. Archdiocese of Rockville Centre, 992 F.Supp. 586, 588 n. 3 (E.D.N.Y.1998); Nelson v. Temple Univ., 920 F.Supp. 633, 636-37 (E.D.Pa.1996) 2000; Pallett v. Palma, 914 F.Supp. 1018, 1025 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), rev'd on other grounds, 119 F.3d 80 (2d Cir.1997); ...... Request a trial to view additional results uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041 2 books & journal articles Search in 2 citing books & journal articles \uf014 Athletics and title of the 1972 education amendments ( books.vlex.com/vid/athletics-and-title-ix-951151925) United States Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIV-2, January 2023 January 1, 2023 ...1983, rather than under Title IX.\u201d), superseded by statute on other grounds , 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1981, 1988, 2000; Nelson v. Temple Univ., 920 F. Supp. 633, 638 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (holding that individuals acting in their personal capacities cannot be held personally liable because they are not reci...... Athletics & title of the 1972 education amendments ( books.vlex.com/vid/athletics-title-ix-of-951129667) United States Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIII-2, January 2022 January 1, 2022 ...1983, rather than under Title IX.\u201d), superseded by statute on other grounds , 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1981, 1988, 2000; Nelson v. Temple Univ., 920 F. Supp. 633, 638 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (holding that individuals acting in their personal capacities cannot be held personally liable because they are not reci uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041 1-800-335-6202 Terms of use ( \u00a92025 vLex.com All rights reserved uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041"} |
8,952 | Dashiel Buntjer | Stanislaus State University | [
"8952_101.pdf",
"8952_102.pdf"
] | {"8952_101.pdf": "The California State University system continues to wrestle with additional revelations of Title complaints following former chancellor Joseph Castro\u2019s resignation this year More sexual misconduct cases emerge at Fresno State The California State University system continues to wrestle with additional revelations of Title complaints following former chancellor Joseph Castro\u2019s resignation this year 3, 2022 \u00b7 \ue92e3 \ue917 \ue93f \ue940 2/13/25, 10:01 More sexual misconduct cases emerge at Fresno State 1/6 Education trade publication EdSource published case summaries of 54 employees that were named in sexual harassment reports from 2017 to 2021. That included three Fresno State employees which resulted in one termination. On May 31, 2018, gardening specialist Theodore Woods was reported in a complaint for incidents ranging from 2016 to 2018. Woods was accused of sexual harassment, as well as the unwelcome conduct of sexual nature including inappropriate comments, asking personal questions and holdings hands and not letting go. Fresno State suspended Woods for 10 days and required him to take three sessions, online and in-person Title training and mandated that he stay away from the complainant. International Admissions and Recruitment Coordinator Danny Wan was the subject of a report on Feb. 19, 2019, for an incident that occurred one week earlier. Wan was accused of sexual harassment and an intimidating and hostile work environment by spreading rumors about the complainant\u2019s personal life. Fresno State issued Wan a written reprimand. Former assistant wrestling coach Israel Silva was the subject of a report on Jan. 24, 2020, for incidents that occurred between September 2018 and December 2019. Silva was accussed of sexual harassment, inappropriately encouraging and allowing student-athletes to engage in inappropriate behavior and failing to report it. He was also accused of engaging in inappropriate physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature. Silva was fired in July 2020. 2/13/25, 10:01 More sexual misconduct cases emerge at Fresno State 2/6 While the case summary does not explicitly detail the allegations against Silva, the Fresno State wrestling program faced an investigation two years ago for a stripper that danced at a party that involved potential recruits visiting the university. Fresno State eventually axed the popular wrestling program \u2013 along with men\u2019s tennis and lacrosse \u2013 in October 2020 in an effort to sustain the financial viability of the university\u2019s athletics programs. Along with Fresno State, Stanislaus State also had three reported Title incidents in recent years. Heavy equipment operator and bus driver Larry Stone was accused of making multiple inappropriate comments that constituted sexual harassment in January 2019. Stone underwent counseling on appropriate behavior and workplace policies and behaviors. Athletic trainer Dashiel Buntjer was accused of engaging in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, which was found to have created a hostile environment between June 2019 and February 2020. Stanislaus State did not renew Buntjer\u2019s contract when it was up for renewal. Maggie McCloud, a disability services for students advisor, was found responsibile for sexual misconduct, not sexual harassment. Stanislaus State found that she enganged in sexual activity without the complainant\u2019s affirmative consent. McCloud left the university prior to the conclusion of the investigation. 2/13/25, 10:01 More sexual misconduct cases emerge at Fresno State 3/6 Bakersfield claimed to not have any cases involving sexual misconduct or discrimination from 2017-2021. The focus on sexual harassment and Title cases within the system blew up after details involving former Fresno State Vice President of Student Affairs Frank Lamas were revealed about many sexual harassment complaints made against him during his tenure. Just a few weeks after the report, Castro \u2013 who served as the Fresno State president from 2013-2021 \u2013 stepped down just 13 months into the job. The California Legislature approved an independent state audit into the system to take place in the coming months. \ue949Share \ue94cTweet \uf0d2 Author Daniel Gligich Daniel Gligich is senior editor of The San Joaquin Valley Sun. Email him at [email protected]. 2/13/25, 10:01 More sexual misconduct cases emerge at Fresno State 4/6 Related Posts Fresno County announces two more coronavirus-related deaths Fresno County announced 18 more positive cases of coronavirus on Friday, bringing the total to 191 Fresno City Council Member Steve Brandau will pitch Veterans Boulevard in D.C. for funds to complete the project Fresno Council of Governments will present a wish list to the Trump Administration this week for big infrastructure and economic development projects in dire need of funding 2/13/25, 10:01 More sexual misconduct cases emerge at Fresno State 5/6 \u00a9 2019 - 2025 The San Joaquin Valley Sun, a project of Valley Future Foundation, Inc. With his practice closed, Fresno dentist begins producing coronavirus test swabs While his practice is on pause, a Fresno dentist is finding a way to give some much-needed aid to combat the coronavirus pandemic Newsom drops into Fresno just days before recall \u2013 with barbs for Elder, Nunes Just five days ahead of the recall election, Gov. Gavin Newsom swung through Fresno to drum up support among local labor union advocates in an effort to remain in office 2/13/25, 10:01 More sexual misconduct cases emerge at Fresno State 6/6", "8952_102.pdf": "CSU's Title Reckoning New batch of records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment Records show students suffered sexual advances from professors 2, 2022 2 2/13/25, 10:01 New batch of records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment | EdSource 1/7 San Francisco State is among the campuses that reported cases of inappropriate behavior by faculty. Photo: Larry Gordon/EdSource Fifty-four faculty members, coaches and other non-mangagement employees at 12 California State University campuses were found to have committed violations of sexual misconduct and discrimination policies in cases resolved between 2017 and 2021, some resulting in firings and resignations, new information released by the university system shows. The violations included unwanted sexual advances, including requests for sex, unwanted touching and kissing, and discrimination based on gender and race, according to the records. The case summaries were released in the wake of recent controversies over how the 23-campus system, the nation\u2019s largest four-year public university, has handled sexual harassment complaints and disciplined employees. 2/13/25, 10:01 New batch of records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment | EdSource 2/7 The records reveal cases involving 54 employees, six of whom committed two or more offenses. They include 38 people with academic job titles, such as professor or assistant professor, and almost all of them involve complaints by students. Cases from another five campuses will be released later this month. The remaining six campuses had no records of such misconduct, a university official said. EdSource originally filed a public records request for all case files in May but agreed to receive the summary information after university officials said it could take up to a year to review and redact information identifying victims in the voluminous files. In at least one case, a professor found to have committed violations of the university\u2019s policies prohibiting sexual and gender harassment and sexual misconduct, resigned from one campus only to later land a teaching job at another. Another professor resigned after San Francisco State University decided to fire him after it found he had \u201can intimate relationship with two students during a time when he had significant academic authority over both.\u201d That person now teaches at a university in South Carolina The remaining campuses that released summary information on sexual harassment cases are listed here with links to the cases: Cal Poly Pomona Cal State Fullerton Cal State Los Angeles Sacramento State Fresno State San Marcos San Diego State Stanislaus State Sonoma State Note Channel Islands Dominguez Hills Northridge San Bernardino, and San Jose State are expected to release records later this month Bakersfield, Cal Poly Humboldt Long Beach Maritime 2/13/25, 10:01 New batch of records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment | EdSource 3/7 Monterey Bay, and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo claim to have no records of cases in which employees were disciplined for sexual misconduct or discrimination between 2017 and this year. For 30 of the employees, the misconduct investigations led to the end of their careers at the campus where the misconduct occurred. Many resigned during the investigations, while others were fired, not reappointed to teaching positions or entered retirement. Other cases resulted in suspensions for weeks and sometimes semesters, letters of reprimand and counseling for the offending employee, the summaries show. The investigations themselves can take years. At system headquarters, a spokesman for the Chancellor\u2019s Office defended the review and disciplinary process. \u201cWhile the circumstances of each instance outlined in the summaries can vary significantly, after a finding of misconduct or policy violation was substantiated, the respective campuses worked to resolve the issues by taking appropriate action and following necessary procedures,\u201d the spokesman, Michael Uhlenkamp, wrote in a statement Monday. The new documents did not include any possible court decisions after the actions if the employee filed an appeal. \u201cFaculty and staff are represented by unions and have various additional rights to their employment, including the right to appeal any discipline for review and decision by an outside agency,\u201d Uhlenkamp added. The summaries were released nearly six months after Chancellor Joseph I. Castro resigned in the wake of a revelation that Castro failed to aggressively discipline an underling and personal friend, Frank Lamas, when Castro was president of Fresno State in 2020. Castro agreed to pay Lamas $20,000 in Fresno State funds and write him a letter of recommendation for other jobs in exchange for Lamas resigning after an investigation found he sexually harassed an employee. 2/13/25, 10:01 New batch of records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment | EdSource 4/7 Students protested and faculty called for Castro\u2019s removal when the deal became public trustees ordered an independent investigation of sexual harassment across the massive system. Earlier this year released similar summaries of management employees who committed sexual misconduct, including viewing pornography on university computers and managers who sexually harassed people on their staffs. The newly released summaries of non-management cases show students were often victims professor at Chico State resigned before he could be disciplined while facing charges of gender harassment of a student and having what was called a \u201cprohibited consensual relationship\u201d with a student, according to the summaries. The professor, Michael Regan, was then hired to teach in the kinesiology and sociology departments at Cal State East Bay in Hayward where he remains spokesperson for Cal State East Bay said the school was \u201clooking into\u201d Regan\u2019s hiring. At Chico State, a spokesman told EdSource by email it could not be immediately determined if the East Bay school requested any information on Regan\u2019s tenure at Chico. In an email, Regan told EdSource was open about pursuing a consensual relationship and decided to resign at the conclusion of the semester and not to return for my final visiting semester due to policy on conflict of interest on relationships.\u201d In another case, a San Francisco State business professor, Oscar Stewart, \u201cengaged in consensual sexual relationships with students when he had significant academic authority over both,\u201d according to summary information that was drawn from a misconduct investigation into his actions. \u201cThe sustained allegations were not based on formal complaint against (Stewart) but the university investigated after learning of the allegations,\u201d the summary states. It does not say how the university learned of the allegations. 2/13/25, 10:01 New batch of records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment | EdSource 5/7 The university officials decided to fire Stewart, but then allowed him to resign, the records show. He is now a professor at the College of Charleston in South Carolina. In an email on Monday, Stewart said that the university released \u201cfalse information\u201d about him resigned so as not to deal with a university that never supported me throughout the process of retaliation by a group of conservative students who coordinated to retaliate against my anti-racist pedagogy spokesperson for San Francisco State didn\u2019t respond to an email sent late Monday. An expert in college sexual harassment cases said it is clear that professors should know better than to pursue relationships with their students. \u201cJust having a relationship is a violation of the school\u2019s duty of care and a violation of the truth, and the authority a professor has over a student,\u201d said Nancy Hogshead-Makar, an attorney and advocate for Champion Women: Advocacy for Girls and Women in Sports. One out of every 4 women in college have been sexually harassed or assaulted, she said, adding that the complaints show that the victims are willing to speak up. Hogshead-Makar said it can be difficult to prepare young people, especially women, for what to do when they encounter these incidents. Unfortunately, these incidents can really impact their lives, she said, adding that some choose to change their majors or their professions as a result. \u201cI\u2019m just so impressed with this current generation that is speaking out,\u201d she said just turned 60 in April. In my lifetime, the difference between women stepping out to speak on peer and professional sexual harassment is just night and day.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:01 New batch of records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment | EdSource 6/7 436 14th St. Suite 310 Oakland 94612 Phone 510-433-0421 Fax 510-433-0422 [email protected] Privacy Policy 2025 RESERVED. Get daily updates on California education news We are committed to keeping you informed with the latest \u2014 always free, always independent. Sign up for our daily newsletter today to stay on top of education news. indicates required Subscribe Email Address * * 2/13/25, 10:01 New batch of records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment | EdSource 7/7"} |
8,584 | Todd Kashdan | George Mason University | [
"8584_101.pdf",
"8584_102.pdf",
"8584_103.pdf"
] | {"8584_101.pdf": "CHURCH, Va prominent George Mason University professor who studies the link between happiness and human sexuality is suing the school, saying he was wrongly punished for frank sexual discussions with students that prompted complaints. Psychology professor Todd Kashdan filed the lawsuit in 2019 judge in U.S. District court in Alexandria dismissed the suit last month, but Kashdan is appealing to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. Kashdan acknowledged in the lawsuit that he spoke about his own personal exploits in class, describing his sexual encounter with a woman who insisted that others watch the sex act. He also admitted inviting his grad students to his home for a party in which they all sat in a hot tub while he described his experiences in a German brothel. Kashdan, though, maintains that such talk was entirely appropriate for a teacher whose topics include human sexuality. The public sex act, he said, was an example of exhibitionism and \u201cfit into Plaintiff\u2019s pedagogical approach of utilizing examples, stories, case studies, and interesting scientific research so that students better understand and remember what they are being taught,\u201d Kashdan\u2019s lawyers said in the lawsuit. The hot tub party, he said, should be viewed no differently than a swimming pool. Kashdan was named George Mason\u2019s Faculty of the Year winner in 2010, and his research on a variety of topics has received significant publicity. In 2017, he was featured in a variety of popular media after conducting a study of 152 undergraduates that found, perhaps unsurprisingly, a link between sexual activity and happiness. Kashdan did not return a call or email seeking comment. George Mason professor sues after sanctions for sex talk Published 4:49 CST, May 1, 2020 Live updates: Trump tariffs \u2018Saturday Night Live\u2019 California storm Danielle Sassoon Harry S. Tru 2/13/25, 10:06 George Mason professor sues after sanctions for sex talk News 1/3 Last year, Kashdan\u2019s Well-being Laboratory at George Mason received $1.1 million in funding from the libertarian Charles Koch Foundation to \u201cstudy ways to improve open-minded discourse in a polarized society,\u201d the university said in a news release. George Mason receives tens of millions of dollars annually from the foundation, more than any school in the U.S., and critics have alleged that money influences what is taught at the school. Samantha Parsons, a former student and a spokeswoman for UnKoch My Campus, said Kashdan\u2019s work fits into the Koch rubric in two significant ways. First, she said \u201cwell-being initiatives\u201d like the one for which Kashdan has worked at are a favorite project of the Koch machine. Often, these programs link well-being with economic freedom, she said, which fits into Koch\u2019s libertarian agenda. Another favorite policy point for Koch is free speech and civic discourse, like the $1.1 million provided by the foundation to Kashdan\u2019s lab last year. She said the Koch Foundation and other conservatives are primarily concerned about left-wing protesters who disrupt speeches from right-wing provocateurs. The Koch free-speech movement, she said, \u201cis focused on punishing college students who stand up to hate speech,\u201d Parsons said. Kashdan never lost his teaching position at the university, where he holds full tenure, but after multiple students complained, Kashdan said he was required to undergo sexual harassment training, denied a pay raise and restricted in his ability to supervise grad students. In his lawsuit, Kashdan said those punishments hampered his teaching and inhibited his free speech. U.S. District Judge Liam O\u2019Grady dismissed Kashdan\u2019s lawsuit on April 23. He also rejected Kashdan\u2019s request to proceed anonymously, which forced Kashdan to identify himself publicly in his subsequent appeal. O\u2019Grady said Kashdan\u2019s free-speech rights do not prevent his employer from sanctioning him. The judge also ruled that the sanctions imposed on Kashdan were not so severe as to require a remedy from the courts university spokesman, Michael Sandler, said the dismissal \u201cconfirms that the university handled this matter in accordance with the law.\u201d In court papers the school\u2019s lawyers argued Kashdan admitted to the misconduct for which he was sanctioned. Kashdan \u201cadmits that he ... shared stories with graduate students about his personal sexual experiences, asked a graduate student about her pornography preferences, visited a strip club with students, and spent time in a hot tub with students talking about his experience at a brothel. The outcome of the investigation cannot be \u2018erroneous\u2019 when the Plaintiff admits that the key underlying factual findings are correct,\u201d the school\u2019s lawyers wrote. 2/13/25, 10:06 George Mason professor sues after sanctions for sex talk News 2/3 White House says it has the right to punish reporters over Gulf naming dispute is in disarray after the announces that its security priorities lie elsewhere Judge removes key legal hurdle for Trump\u2019s plan to trim federal workforce with deferred resignations Elon Musk calls for the to \u2018delete entire agencies\u2019 from the federal government Trump\u2019s pick for education chief sketches a roadmap for dismantling the department 1 2 3 4 5 2/13/25, 10:06 George Mason professor sues after sanctions for sex talk News 3/3", "8584_102.pdf": "Todd Kashdan v. George Mason University, No. 20-1509 (4th Cir. 2023) Read more Justia Opinion Summary Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More \u203a Plaintiff, a tenured psychology professor at George Mason University (GMU), appealed the district court\u2019s dismissal of his Title IX, procedural due process, and First Amendment claims against and other defendants sued after he was disciplined for creating a hostile educational environment that amounted to sexual harassment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiff\u2019s erroneous-outcome claim. Such a claim requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that (1) he was subjected to a procedurally flawed or otherwise flawed proceeding; (2) which led to an adverse and erroneous outcome; and (3) involved particular circumstances that suggest \u2018gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding. Here, Plaintiff does not connect these generalized pressures to his case in a way that creates a reasonable inference that anti-male bias-motivated GMU\u2019s finding that he sexually harassed his students. Thus, as the district court explained, Plaintiff \u201chas provided no basis from which to infer the existence of bias in his specific proceeding.\u201d Further, Plaintiff\u2019s \u201callegations of selective enforcement are not supported by any well-pled facts that exist independent of his legal conclusions.\u201d Finally, the court explained that while Plaintiff\u2019s research, publishing, and teaching about sex may qualify as matters of public concern, his contested speech veered well outside his teaching and scholarship into areas of private, personal interest. 2/13/25, 10:07 Todd Kashdan v. George Mason University, No. 20-1509 (4th Cir. 2023) :: Justia 1/4 Download 2/13/25, 10:07 Todd Kashdan v. George Mason University, No. 20-1509 (4th Cir. 2023) :: Justia 2/4 2/13/25, 10:07 Todd Kashdan v. George Mason University, No. 20-1509 (4th Cir. 2023) :: Justia 3/4 Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 2/13/25, 10:07 Todd Kashdan v. George Mason University, No. 20-1509 (4th Cir. 2023) :: Justia 4/4", "8584_103.pdf": "4TH v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Todd KASHDAN, f/k/a/ John Doe, Plaintiff \u2013 Appellant, v UNIVERSITY; Rector and Board of Visitors of George Mason University; Jennifer Renee Hammat, in her official and individual capacity; Julian Robert Williams, in his official and individual capacity; Keith David Renshaw, in his official and individual capacity; Ann Louise Ardis, in her official and individual capacity; Szuyung David Dwu, in his official and individual capacity, Defendants \u2013 Appellees. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. No. 20-1509 Decided: June 13, 2023 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. ARGUED: Kara L. Gorycki & MILTENBERG, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant. Andrew Nathan Ferguson VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees BRIEF: Andrew T. Miltenberg & MILTENBERG, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Keonna Carter Austin, Deputy Attorney General, Eli Samuel Schlam, Assistant Attorney General, Toby J. Heytens, Solicitor General, Martine E. Cicconi, Deputy Solicitor General, Michelle S. Kallen, Deputy Solicitor General, Jessica Merry Samuels, Assistant Solicitor General, Kendall T. Burchard, John Marshall Fellow \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 1/13 VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon (FIRE), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Earl N. \u201cTrey\u201d Mayfield DAY, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Amicus Curiae. Todd Kashdan, a tenured psychology professor at George Mason University (GMU), appeals the district court's dismissal of his Title IX, procedural due process, and First Amendment claims against GMU, Jennifer Renee Hammat, Julian Robert Williams, Keith David Renshaw, Ann Louise Ardis, and Szuyung David Dwu. Kashdan sued after he was disciplined for creating a hostile educational environment that amounted to sexual harassment. The district court dismissed Kashdan's complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and we now affirm. I. Kashdan has been a psychology professor at for over fifteen years and primarily studies sex, human sexuality, and cultural norms. In December 2018, four current and former female graduate students accused Kashdan of sexually harassing them. In essence, the complainants alleged that during two graduate courses and in interpersonal interactions in his laboratory, at professional conferences, and at student events hosted in his home, Kashdan told them explicit stories about his personal sexual experiences, as well as made explicit remarks and asked intimate questions about their sex lives. One complainant also recounted that Kashdan went to a strip club with her and other graduate students, and another complainant alleged Kashdan hugged her in a manner she believed was inappropriate. From the complainants' perspectives, Kashdan provided educational, research, and other opportunities to graduate students based on favoritism, and having sexually explicit conversations with Kashdan was a prerequisite to getting on his good side. They claimed that Kashdan's conduct made it more difficult to pursue their educations investigated the allegations. Investigators interviewed more than twelve witnesses, including Kashdan (who they interviewed three times). For his defense, Kashdan submitted a witness list and more than 150 pages of documentation. Although he admitted many of the factual allegations, Kashdan disputed that his interactions with the complainants amounted to sexual harassment. Rather, he argued he had positive relationships with all four complainants and helped them educationally and in their careers, as reflected in their glowing reviews of his course instruction, the opportunities they received to research and publish with him, and letters of recommendation he wrote on their behalf. He also contended many of the allegations concerned protected academic discourse. Finally, Kashdan theorized that the complainants accused him of sexual harassment because he fired one of them from his lab, and she convinced the others to join her in leveling bad faith accusations against him. Jennifer Hammat, then GMU's Title Coordinator, found that Kashdan sexually harassed all four complainants. Relying on Kashdan's admissions and her own substantiation of other factual allegations, she concluded that Kashdan's repeated sexual conversations and physical interactions with his students 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 2/13 were unprofessional and created a hostile environment for students in the classroom, in the laboratory, and at professional conferences. Kashdan appealed, proffering new evidence and alleging procedural irregularities in the investigation. Julian Williams, then GMU's Vice President for Compliance, Diversity, and Ethics, denied the appeal and upheld Hammat's determinations. Central to Williams's decision was Kashdan's \u201capparent lack of professional boundaries\u201d with his graduate students, demonstrated by \u201cnumerous instances of non- pedagogical discussions of sex\u201d and \u201csexual encounters\u201d as well as by Kashdan's creation of \u201ca sexually- charged environment.\u201d J.A. 323. Students \u201cfelt as though they had to participate\u201d in that environment \u201cin order to remain in [Kashdan's] favor.\u201d J.A. 323. In denying Kashdan's appeal, Williams emphasized the \u201cnegative effects of hyper-sexual conversations/interactions between a faculty member and graduate students under his supervision and instruction.\u201d J.A. 322. Keith Renshaw, the chair of GMU's psychology department, disciplined Kashdan for his violations of GMU's sexual harassment policy. Most relevant here, Renshaw's sanctions precluded Kashdan from teaching graduate-level courses, mentoring new graduate students, or hiring new graduate students as research assistants, all for a period of roughly two years. Additionally, following a recommendation from a Faculty Grievance Committee and Ann Ardis, the dean over the psychology department, Renshaw required Kashdan to disaffiliate from the department's accredited clinical psychology program for five to six years. The disaffiliation meant Kashdan could no longer teach clinical psychology courses or seminars, hire doctoral students to conduct clinical psychology research with him, serve on clinical psychology student committees (e.g., dissertation committees), or mentor doctoral students in the program. Under the sanctions, Kashdan's salary remained the same, but he became ineligible for certain pay increases. In September 2019, Kashdan filed the instant lawsuit alleging, among other claims, violations of Title IX, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the First Amendment. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motions and dismissed Kashdan's complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.1 II. \u201cWe review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).\u201d Holloway v. Maryland, 32 F.4th 293, 298 (4th Cir. 2022). \u201c[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.\u201d Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In evaluating a complaint's sufficiency, we construe the allegations and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009). However, we need not accept as true \u201clegal conclusions drawn from the facts\u201d or any other \u201cunwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.\u201d Giarratano v. 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 3/13 Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition to the complaint, we may consider \u201cdocuments incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.\u201d Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007). We may also consider documents \u201cattached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.\u201d Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). A. We turn first to Kashdan's argument that the district court erroneously dismissed his Title claim. Title provides that \u201c[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.\u201d 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a). The implied right of action by which private plaintiffs may sue to enforce Title \u201cextends to employment discrimination.\u201d Preston v. Virginia ex rel. New River Cmty. Coll., 31 F.3d 203, 206 (4th Cir. 1994). To state a Title employment discrimination claim, a plaintiff must allege facts that, \u201cif true, raise a plausible inference that the university discriminated against [him] on the basis of sex.\u201d Sheppard v. Visitors of Va. State Univ., 993 F.3d 230, 235 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Satisfying this standard requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege a but-for \u201ccausal link between [his] sex and the university's challenged disciplinary proceeding.\u201d Id. at 236. Kashdan pleaded his Title claim under the so-called \u201cerroneous outcome\u201d and \u201cselective enforcement\u201d theories, which are two accepted ways to plead a Title employment discrimination claim. See id. at 235 n.6, 236. The district court correctly dismissed Kashdan's erroneous-outcome claim. Such a claim requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that \u201c(1) [he] was subjected to \u2018a procedurally flawed or otherwise flawed proceeding\u2019; (2) which \u2018led to an adverse and erroneous outcome\u2019; and (3) involved \u2018particular circumstances\u2019 that suggest \u2018gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding.\u2019 \u201d Doe v. Loh, 767 Fed. App. 489, 491 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709, 715 (2d Cir. 1994)). The improper motivating factor must be a but-for cause of the erroneous outcome in the challenged disciplinary proceeding. See Sheppard, 993 F.3d at 236\u2013237. Assuming without deciding that Kashdan plausibly alleged the first two prongs, his claim falters on the third. To allege bias, Kashdan cites prior public statements by Hammat and Williams, as well as pressure from the Department of Education and the general climate at to find sexual harassment accusations substantiated. But the university officials' statements on which Kashdan relies do not plausibly show anti-male bias or demonstrate that anti-male bias was a but-for motivating factor in GMU's disciplinary actions against him. And while pressure from the Department of Education or the general campus climate is relevant, it does not suffice by itself to plausibly allege sex discrimination in a particular instance. See Doe v. Univ. of Sciences, 961 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2020); Doe v. Purdue Univ., 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 4/13 928 F.3d 652, 669 (7th Cir. 2019); Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 586 (6th Cir. 2018). Kashdan does not connect these generalized pressures to his case in a way that creates a reasonable inference that anti- male bias motivated GMU's finding that he sexually harassed his students. Thus, as the district court explained, Kashdan \u201chas provided no basis from which to infer the existence of bias in his specific proceeding.\u201d J.A. 944. Kashdan's Title claim also fails under a selective-enforcement theory. To state a selective- enforcement claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that regardless of his guilt or innocence, his gender was a but-for cause of the severity of the sanctions or of the decision to initiate the challenged disciplinary proceeding in the first place. See Sheppard, 993 F.3d at 235 n.6, 236\u2013237; Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 715 plaintiff like Kashdan can do this by plausibly showing that a similarly situated person of the opposite sex was treated more favorably. See Sheppard, 993 F.3d at 235 n.6, 237. Kashdan's allegations fall short of this standard. Kashdan alleges \u201cupon information and belief\u201d that does not formally investigate female professors accused of sexual-or gender-based harassment at the same frequency as males, and that when does find female professors in violation of its policies, it sanctions them less severely. Although a plaintiff may initially plead parts of his case \u201cupon information and belief,\u201d his allegations may not be wholly conclusory. See Sheppard, 993 F.3d at 234 (\u201c[S]imply reciting the cause of actions' elements and supporting them by conclusory statements does not meet the required standard.\u201d (internal quotation marks omitted)). Kashdan's allegations on this score are far too speculative, and as the district court reasoned, Kashdan's complaint \u201cis devoid of facts supporting the allegations that were pleaded upon information and belief.\u201d J.A. 947. In other words, Kashdan's \u201callegations of selective enforcement are not supported by any well-pled facts that exist independent of his legal conclusions.\u201d J.A. 947. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Kashdan's Title claim.2 B. We next turn to Kashdan's procedural due process claim. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, an individual has \u201cthe right to due process where [his] good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him.\u201d Sciolino v. City of Newport News, 480 F.3d 642, 646 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). To state this type of claim, a plaintiff must plausibly \u201callege that the charges against him: (1) placed a stigma on his reputation; (2) were made public by the employer; (3) were made in conjunction with his termination or demotion; and (4) were false.\u201d Id.; see Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 167, 172 n.5 (4th Cir. 1988). Where, as here, the claim rests on a demotion, the demotion must be \u201csignificant.\u201d Stone, 855 F.2d at 172 n.5 \u201csignificant demotion\u201d is \u201ca job far beneath the one [the plaintiff] had, where being so demoted is to be as effectively excluded from one's trade or calling as by being thrown out on the street.\u201d Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 311 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 5/13 Kashdan alleges that the sanctions imposed were a significant demotion tantamount to dismissal. We disagree. Before the disciplinary sanctions, Kashdan was a tenured professor in GMU's psychology department. He remained so afterward. Although Kashdan was forced to disaffiliate from the clinical psychology program, he continued to be a member of the psychology department and was allowed to teach general psychology courses. Moreover, the disciplinary sanctions did not prevent Kashdan from writing and publishing in the field of clinical psychology, attending clinical psychology conferences, collaborating with other professors in the clinical psychology field, or from consulting or engaging in other clinical psychology work. Finally, although Renshaw imposed the sanctions for a period of years, they are not permanent. Accordingly, the sanctions do not effectively exclude Kashdan from his trade or calling and are not a significant demotion. We therefore affirm the dismissal of Kashdan's procedural due process claim. C. Finally, we address Kashdan's First Amendment claim. In the public-university context, we apply the Pickering-Connick 3 framework to determine whether an employee was wrongly sanctioned for protected speech. See Adams v. Trs. of Univ. of N.C.-Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550, 560\u2013561, 564 (4th Cir. 2011). Under that framework, we examine \u201c(1) whether the public employee was speaking as a citizen upon a matter of public concern or as an employee about a matter of personal interest; (2) whether the employee's interest in speaking upon the matter of public concern outweighed the government's interest in providing effective and efficient services to the public; and (3) whether the employee's speech was a substantial factor in the employee's adverse employment decision.\u201d Id. at 560\u2013561 (quoting McVey v. Stacy, 157 F.3d 271, 277\u2013278 (4th Cir. 1998)) (brackets omitted). The district court dismissed Kashdan's claim on the first prong. \u201cTo determine whether speech involves a matter of public concern, we examine the content, context, and form of the speech at issue in light of the entire record.\u201d Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401, 406 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc); see Adams, 640 F.3d at 564. Speech is of public concern if \u201cit involves an issue of social, political or other interest to a community.\u201d Urofsky, 216 F.3d at 406\u2013407; see Adams, 640 F.3d at 564. In short, we ask \u201cwhether the public or the community is likely to be truly concerned with or interested in the particular expression.\u201d Arvinger v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 862 F.2d 75, 79 (4th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted disciplined Kashdan for speech that concerned topics of purely personal interest. Specifically, Kashdan's comments were about his personal sex life and the sex lives of his students. Besides two personal stories Kashdan used as examples in class sanctioned him for speech outside of his curricula, formal scholarship, other published work, or public discourse. Indeed, his sanctioned speech primarily involved casual, interpersonal interactions with students about personal sexual matters that Kashdan does not plausibly connect to a larger public discourse or matter of public concern. Kashdan's 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 6/13 employment at and his role as his students' teacher, mentor, and supervisor enabled and facilitated these interactions. Although Kashdan relies heavily on the fact that his teaching and research focused on sex and sexuality, the district court aptly reasoned that \u201cone's position as a professor of sexual taboos does not confer carte blanche and render all speech protected.\u201d J.A. 961. While Kashdan's research, publishing, and teaching about sex may qualify as matters of public concern, see Adams, 640 F.3d at 565, his contested speech veered well outside his teaching and scholarship into areas of private, personal interest. It is simply implausible that the public is \u201ctruly concerned with or interested in\u201d Kashdan's personal sexual exploits or the intimate and private details of his students' sex lives. Arvinger, 862 F.2d at 79 (internal quotation marks omitted). \u201c[I]n the absence of unusual circumstances, a public employee's speech upon matters only of personal interest is not afforded constitutional protection.\u201d Grutzmacher v. Howard County, 851 F.3d 332, 343 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Kashdan's speech falls squarely within this category, the district court did not err by dismissing his First Amendment claim. III. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is 1. We have jurisdiction to hear Kashdan's appeal under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1291. 2. In his complaint, Kashdan also alleges that engaged in selective enforcement by investigating him while ignoring his claim that one of the complainants brought her accusations against him in bad faith. At oral argument, however, Kashdan conceded that this complainant is not a proper comparator. Oral Arg. at 14:48\u201315:10. 3. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983); Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). RUSHING, Circuit Judge: Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Rushing wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Agee joined. 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 7/13 Was this helpful? Yes No Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) Docket No: No. 20-1509 Decided: June 13, 2023 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 8/13 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Legal issue need help near (city code or country) New York, New York \uf057 For Legal Professionals 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 9/13 Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 10/13 Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 \uf105 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 11/13 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Legal issue need help near (city code or country) New York, New York \uf057 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 12/13 US: \uf09a \uf16a \uf16d By Name Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/13/25, 10:07 v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Amicus Supporting Appellant. (2023) | FindLaw 13/13"} |
7,886 | Bernardo Gallegos | Washington State University – Pullman | [
"7886_101.pdf",
"7886_102.pdf"
] | {"7886_101.pdf": "professor facing sexual harassment suit resigns Fri., May 11, 2007 By Shawn Vestal [email protected] (509) 459-5431 professor facing a highly publicized sexual harassment trial has resigned from Washington State University, as part of an agreement in which the school will provide him legal representation and reimburse him for his lost tenure. The school will also indemnify Bernardo Gallegos, which means he wouldn\u2019t be responsible for paying any judgment in the civil case. He will be paid more than $87,000 for his tenure, though he will lose some benefits. His salary was more than $132,000 a year. Gallegos, a distinguished professor of multicultural education who was brought to with some fanfare in 2004, is accused of making advances toward a married graduate student in his home in February 2005. The student, Christina Garcia, sued both him and the university, arguing the incident damaged her ability to get an education and that hadn\u2019t appropriately disciplined Gallegos, despite the fact that a university investigation concluded that he violated school policies. Gallegos has maintained his innocence. He didn\u2019t return a message seeking comment Thursday, nor did Suzanne Parisien, an assistant attorney general representing WSU. Washington Idaho > Menu Search News Sports Business Weather 2/13/25, 10:10 professor facing sexual harassment suit resigns 1/4 According to the agreement between Gallegos and the board of regents, which was approved Friday, he first asked the university to provide him with legal counsel in November 2005 and was denied. He then retained a private attorney. In return for his resignation will defend and indemnify him until the case is closed, the agreement says. The lawsuit, filed against Gallegos and in Whitman County Superior Court, alleges Gallegos committed sexual harassment when he took Garcia to his candlelit home and made an advance in February 2005. Gallegos was not her direct supervisor or instructor but was in a position to influence her education, a judge ruled earlier this year in allowing the claim to move forward trial is set for September. Guy Nelson, who represents Garcia, said he was happy to see the agreement. \u201cWe believe the board of regents took a very positive step,\u201d he said. The regents also adopted a new policy on sexual harassment and discrimination on Friday. The revisions to the policy were first proposed shortly after the lawsuit was filed and controversy was stirring about the issue in the College of Education, where Gallegos worked, and around campus. The new policy creates new reporting responsibilities for supervisors and establishes a more specific range of disciplinary action, among other things. Local journalism is essential. Give directly to The Spokesman-Review's Northwest Passages community forums series -- which helps to offset the costs of several reporter and editor positions at the newspaper -- by using the easy options below. Gifts processed in this system are not tax deductible, but are predominately used to help meet the local financial requirements needed to receive national matching-grant funds. Active Person 2/13/25, 10:10 professor facing sexual harassment suit resigns 2/4 Subscribe now to get breaking news alerts in your email inbox Get breaking news delivered to your inbox as it happens. Sign up 2/13/25, 10:10 professor facing sexual harassment suit resigns 3/4 fresh start: One Spokane woman\u2019s journey to a new life We can all use a little hope and redemption. \u00a9 Copyright 2016,The Spokesman-Review 2/13/25, 10:10 professor facing sexual harassment suit resigns 4/4", "7886_102.pdf": "professor accused of harassment resigns Originally published May 12, 2007 at 12:00 am | Updated May 12, 2007 at 2:02 am washington State University professor sued by a student alleging sexual harassment has resigned as part of an agreement that will provide... By The Associated Press Washington State University professor sued by a student alleging sexual harassment has resigned as part of an agreement that will provide legal representation and pay any judgment in the lawsuit. Bernardo Gallegos, a professor of multicultural education since 2004, is accused of making advances toward a married graduate student in his home in February 2005. In exchange for his resignation, he will be paid more than $87,000 to buy out his tenure, though he will lose some benefits. His salary was more than $132,000 a year. The student, Christina Garcia, sued Gallegos and the university, saying her ability to get an education was damaged and that Gallegos wasn\u2019t adequately disciplined, although a university investigation concluded that he violated school policies. Gallegos has maintained his innocence. He did not return a call for comment Friday. The Associated Press Local News 2/13/25, 10:11 professor accused of harassment resigns | The Seattle Times 1/1"} |
8,486 | Stephen Bronner | Rutgers University | [
"8486_101.pdf",
"8486_102.pdf",
"8486_103.pdf",
"8486_104.pdf"
] | {"8486_101.pdf": "Prominent Rutgers professor under investigation for sexual harassment retires Updated: Nov. 11, 2019, 9:16 a.m. | Published: Nov. 11, 2019, 8:38 a.m. Longtime Rutgers University Political Science Professor Stephen Bronner retired last week former student's sexual harassment allegation against him, for actions she said occurred 20 years ago, is ongoing. By Susan K. Livio Advance Media for NJ.com Subscribe prominent Rutgers University political science professor under investigation for sexually harassing a graduate student nearly two decades ago retired earlier this month, a university spokeswoman confirmed. Stephen Bronner, a renowned political theorist and professor for more than four decades, had been sidelined from teaching this year while the university investigated a claim he had inappropriately touched a student during a meeting in his office. University spokeswoman Dory Devlin confirmed Bronner retired on Nov. 1. But Devlin said on Friday she was unable to determine the status of the investigation. An attorney for Kristy King, the former graduate student and now a Arizona State University professor, told Advance Media the investigation is ongoing, and expected the university to see the case through. \u201cWe know that our client\u2019s complaint is still being investigated, and Dr. Bronner\u2019s retirement in no way changes our expectation that Rutgers conduct a fair and thorough investigation and that it implement all necessary changes to its policies,\" said Iliana Konidaris, one of King\u2019s attorneys. \u201cThe culture in Rutgers\u2019 Political Science Department must change, and it\u2019s unfortunate that it has taken so long,\u201d Konidaris said. \u201cWe are committed to ensuring a fair process for our client and for others who come forward in the future.\u201d Bronner, 70, could not be reached for comment. But he has previously denied any misconduct, and said he had no recollection of the incident. King claimed Bronner ran his hand up thigh on her first day at Rutgers nearly 20 years ago, according to the complaint she filed last year, along with other allegations of sexual harassment against him. The encounter always troubled her, she said, and she filed the claim years later because she was inspired by the #metoo movement don\u2019t have any knowledge that his retirement is related to my persistence, but still have plenty of opinions,\" King said. The university told her it typically did not investigate incidents more than two years old. But Rutgers dropped that two-year policy within hours of the publication of an Advance Media report in October 2018, detailing King\u2019s case and several incidents involving other professors. The university also formed a task force, which in May recommended major changes to its sexual misconduct policy, including a ban on dating relationships between professors and students. According to his university biography, Bronner was director of Global Relations at the Center for the Study of Genocide, Conflict Resolution, and Human Rights at Rutgers, and member of the Executive Committee of the Chair for Genocide Prevention. He published 25 books and 200 journal articles, the biography said. In a Nov. 3 Facebook post, Bronner announced his retirement after 43 years of teaching and alluded to two manuscripts in the works. He made no mention of the investigation, but lamented the change of direction and \u201cdebilitating conflicts\u201d inside the political science department. \u201cDebilitating conflicts have soured the atmosphere, the professional and pedagogic culture is changing, new students who share my interests are not being admitted, and have no graduate classes to teach,\u201d Bronner wrote. \u201cLike any relationship, however, this one should not be judged by how it ends have had the opportunity to pursue my research and was lucky enough to receive three teaching awards.\u201d Bronner taught \u201cthousands of undergraduates\u201d and supervised more than 50 doctoral candidates, his post said. Richard Lau, chairman of the political science department, notified colleagues of Bronner\u2019s departure in an email last Friday. \u201c(Bronner) plans to devote more time to his new conflict resolution (non- governmental organization) International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue,\" Lau\u2019s announcement said want to thank Steve for all of his contributions to the department over the past 43 years, and wish him great success with his new mission and in all his future endeavors Advance Media Staff Writer Kelly Heyboer contributed to this report Rutgers raced to an early lead. Then Iowa rallied and Scarlet Knights reached new low in loss. Feb. 12, 2025, 8:37 p.m. Cancer and other medical research at Rutgers will take a $22M hit under Trump\u2019s cuts Feb. 12, 2025, 11:52 a.m. Susan K. Livio may be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @SusanKLivio. Have a tip? Tell us. nj.com/tips Get the latest updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.com\u2019s newsletters. If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy. About Us About NJ.com Advertise with us Contact Us Newsletters Jobs at Advance Media Accessibility Statement Subscriptions NJ.com The Star-Ledger The Times of Trenton South Jersey Times The Jersey Journal Newsletters Already a Subscriber Manage your Subscription Place a Vacation Hold Make a Payment Delivery Feedback NJ.com Sections N.J. News Local News N.J. Politics Sports High School Sports Entertainment Food & Recipes Events Business Opinion Jersey's Best Legal Notices Obituaries Jobs Autos Real Estate Rentals Classifieds Special Sections Local Life Contribute to NJ.com Submit an event Follow Us YouTube Facebook Twitter Instagram More on NJ.com Place an ad Sell your car Post a job Sell/rent your home Apartments & rentals Weather Site map Sponsor Content Search NJ.com Store Archives Newspaper stories and photos Learn more about our newspapers The Star-Ledger The Times of Trenton The Jersey Journal South Jersey Times Hunterdon County Democrat Mobile iPhone, Android apps | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Ad Choices Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement, (updated 8/1/2024) and acknowledgement of our Privacy Policy, and Your Privacy Choices and Rights (updated 1/1/2025). \u00a9 2025 Advance Local Media LLC. All rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local. Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. YouTube's privacy policy is available here and YouTube's terms of service is available here. Ad Choices", "8486_102.pdf": "Stephen Bronner, a Rutgers professor in the Department of Political Science, retired while he was under investigation for sexual assault. U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation 11, 2019, 7:31 P.M. Stephen Bronner, a Rutgers professor in the Department of Political Science, retired earlier this month after being under investigation for the sexual harassment of a graduate 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 1/11 student two decades ago, University spokeswoman Dory Devlin confirmed, according to an article in Advance Media. This past year, Bronner had not been teaching while the University investigated the claim that he had inappropriately touched a student during a meeting in his office, according to the article. Devlin confirmed Bronner\u2019s retirement but was unable to determine the status of the investigation, according to the article. The investigation is ongoing and expects the University to continue the case, said an attorney for Kristy King, the former graduate student of Bronner\u2019s and current Arizona State University professor, according to the article. \u201cWe know that our client\u2019s complaint is still being investigated, and Dr. Bronner\u2019s retirement in no way changes our expectations that Rutgers conduct a fair and thorough investigation and that it implement all necessary changes to its policies,\u201d said Iliana Konidaris, one of King\u2019s attorneys, according to the article. Bronner could not be reached for comment, but has previously denied the allegations and said he had no recollection of the incident, according to the article. \u201cThe culture in Rutgers\u2019 political science department must change, and it\u2019s unfortunate that it has taken so long,\u201d Konidaris said, according to the article. \u201cWe are committed to ensuring a fair process for our client and for others who come forward in the future.\u201d King claimed Bronner ran his hand up her thigh on her first day at Rutgers approximately 20 years ago, along with other allegations of sexual harassment, in the complaint she filed last year, according to the article. She filed the claim years later because she was inspired by the #MeToo movement, King said, according to the article don\u2019t have any knowledge that his retirement is related to my persistence, but still have plenty of opinions,\u201d King said, according to the article. 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 2/11 The University told King that it does not typically investigate incidents that are more than two years old, but dropped the policy hours after Advance Media reported King\u2019s case and several other incidents in 2018, according to the article. The University also formed a task force, which recommended major changes to its sexual misconduct policy in May, including the ban of dating relationships between professors and students, according to the article. Bronner announced his retirement in a Facebook post on Nov. 3, after 43 years of teaching. He did not mention the investigation but spoke on the change of direction and conflicts within the Department of Political Science, according to the article. \u201cDebilitating conflicts have soured the atmosphere, the professional and pedagogic culture is changing, new students who share my interests are not being admitted and have no graduate classes to teach,\u201d Bronner said, according to the article. \u201cLike any relationship, but, this one should not be judged by how it ends have had the opportunity to pursue my research and was lucky enough to receive three teaching awards.\u201d Bronner\u2019s colleagues were notified of his retirement in an email sent by Richard Lau, chairman of the Department of Political Science. \u201c(Bronner) plans to devote more time to his new conflict resolution (non- governmental organization) International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue,\u201d Lau said want to thank Steve for all of his contributions to the department over the past 43 years, and wish him great success with his new mission and in all his future endeavors.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 3/11 'Squid Game' season 2 remains thrilling, but cracks under pressure 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 4/11 'Unlawful, unconstitutional, unprecedented': Platkin leaders condemn federal executive orders 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 5/11 U. says not on New Brunswick campus, RWJ, despite social media claims 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 6/11 Special Report resolution fails in after hours-long debate during 1st spring meeting 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 7/11 Rutgers assistant professor on leave after animal abuse allegations U. Democrats, Republicans speak on Trump cabinet picks, post-election outlooks COMMENTARY: Freedom of expression through Rutgers lens 'Squid Game' season 2 remains thrilling, but cracks under pressure 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 8/11 U. Catch up on the latest stories with the Targum Digest UP! 'Unlawful, unconstitutional, unprecedented': Platkin leaders condemn federal executive orders U. says not on New Brunswick campus, RWJ, despite social media claims Special Report resolution fails in after hours- long debate during 1st spring meeting 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 9/11 About Us Editorial Complaints & Corrections Advertising Contact Us Get Involved Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions News New Brunswick Newark Sports Opinions Editorials Letter to the Editor Inside Beat Videos Podcasts Humans of Rutgers Targum Spotlight Letter to the Editor & Commentary Classifieds Alumni TikTok YouTube Facebook Instagram Donate Newsletter 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 10/11 \u00a9 2025 Targum Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Powered by SNworks - Solutions by Media. Made with in . 2/13/25, 10:12 U. professor retires following sexual harassment investigation - The Daily Targum 11/11", "8486_103.pdf": "Rutgers Professor Accused of Sexual Assault Retires Amid Investigation By Joanna Szabo | November 26, 2019 Category: Legal News Lawsuits & Settlements Legal News Class Actions Explained Am a Lawyer About Us 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers Professor Accused of Sexual Assault Retires Amid Investigation 1/9 professor from Rutgers University who was accused of sexual harassment against a graduate student almost 20 years ago retired at the beginning of the month, according to a spokesperson for the university. Stephen Bronner, who has taught political science at Rutgers for decades, was accused by a former graduate student of inappropriate touching while in a meeting in his office. Bronner has been under investigation over a report of sexual harassment, during which he has been sidelined from teaching. Rutgers is not alone in sexual assault and harassment claims. Other universities, like Dartmouth, have settled sexual assault cases against multiple professors at the university. The doctoral student who filed the complaint, Kristy King, was 23 at the time and said that Bronner invited her back to his office for a meeting on her first day as a political science 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers Professor Accused of Sexual Assault Retires Amid Investigation 2/9 graduate student at Rutgers. \u201cAs we talked, he ran his hand all the way up the inside of my thigh,\u201d King said, according to Advance Media. She says got out of the office as soon as she could, she said, and then spent the rest of her time working on her Ph.D. avoiding Bronner when she could. She also says that other female students told her that they had also been targeted by Bronner. The incident took place nearly twenty years ago, and King did not file a complaint at the time. However, after the growth of the #MeToo movement and as women came forward to talk about their experience with sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape, King felt empowered to come forward with a formal complaint against Bronner in February 2019. While the university said that its policy is to not investigate incidents of sexual assault that are more than two years old, when Advance Media reported about King\u2019s incident along with reports from several others, the university dropped the policy and began an investigation. Since the university dropped that two-year time limit, six complaints have been filed against professor and campus employees. Bronner has denied any misconduct and said that he did not recall such an incident taking place. Bronner announced his retirement on Facebook on Nov. 3 and did not mention the investigation. Instead, he talked about \u201cdebilitating conflicts\u201d in the political science department that have \u201csoured the atmosphere,\u201d according to Advance Media. Filing a Sexual Assault Lawsuit Of course, sexual assault, abuse, and harassment can happen anywhere and can be committed by anybody, including authority figures in positions of power in trusted organizations. Sexual assault has been reported in schools, in organizations like the Boy Scouts of America and in churches, as well as across a wide variety of industries. More and more victims are coming forward with the stories of their own sexual assaults, filing lawsuits not just against their abusers, but also against any organizations that allowed the 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers Professor Accused of Sexual Assault Retires Amid Investigation 3/9 abuse to take place, or even actively covered up the abuse. If you or someone you love has been a victim of sexual assault or abuse, even if that abuse took place years or decades ago, you may be able to join this lawsuit investigation. This article is not legal advice. It is presented for informational purposes only. We tell you about cash you can claim WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter. Email * Email First Name * Country * United States State * Privacy \u2022 Terms 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers Professor Accused of Sexual Assault Retires Amid Investigation 4/9 Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked * Comment Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association Top Class Actions Legal Statement \u00a92008 \u2013 2025 Top Class Actions Various Trademarks held by their respective owners This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens E-mail any problems with this form to: [email protected]. 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers Professor Accused of Sexual Assault Retires Amid Investigation 5/9 Name * Email Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers Professor Accused of Sexual Assault Retires Amid Investigation 6/9 Parkinson\u2019s disease and paraquat mass tort lawsuit $7.25M Berry Dunn McNeil & Parker data breach class action settlement $275K Generational Equity data breach class action settlement Hot Topic class action claims retailer advertises \u2018fake\u2019 sale prices Whirlpool class action over service plan dismissed hit with new lawsuits over compensation restrictions $4.4M Streamlabs Pro auto renewal class action settlement $975K One World Observatory ticket processing fees class action settlement 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers Professor Accused of Sexual Assault Retires Amid Investigation 7/9 Ozempic causes serious health issues, class action claims Homeaglow class action claims company made unsolicited robocalls Judge recommends certifying class in Amazon military leave class action $9M Fandango ticket fee class action settlement Email * Email First Name * Country * United States State * Subscribe Now Legal News Open Class Action Settlements Lawsuits To Join Our Mission 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers Professor Accused of Sexual Assault Retires Amid Investigation 8/9 @2025 Top Class Actions. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers Professor Accused of Sexual Assault Retires Amid Investigation 9/9", "8486_104.pdf": "Rutgers can\u2019t substantiate decades-old sexual harassment claims against renowned professor 1, 2020 Accuser\u2019s attorneys speculate witnesses refused to cooperate for fear of \u2018retaliation\u2019 After interviewing 15 witnesses, and failing to reach at least six other potential witnesses, Rutgers University came up short verifying a former student\u2019s sexual harassment allegations against a renowned political science professor. \u201cThe evidence adduced pursuant to the investigation could not lead to a conclusion that the respondent violated the [sexual Email \ue607 1 Colleges celebrate Valentine\u2019s with \u2018ethical porn,\u2019 abortion \u2018party\u2019 and \u2018Genital Diversity Gallery 13, 2025 2 After objecting to schools\u2019 \u2018equity\u2019 programs, liberal parents attacked, called \u2018racist 8, 2025 3 New research identifies more than 1,100 DEI- related jobs at University of Michigan 30, 2025 4 Harvard students more focused on ARTICLE: 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers can\u2019t substantiate decades-old sexual harassment claims against renowned professor | The College Fix 1/4 harassment] policy, harassed students or engaged in violation of the policy such that students were put at risk,\u201d Rutgers officials told Stephen Bronner ( ) in a above Leading scientists spar about Trump order stating sex is binary Indiana University walks back controversial speech ban, but some say not far enough extracurriculars than academics: report 3, 2025 5 Leftist student groups recruiters at Duke job fair a \u2018societal attack against our humanity 8, 2025 ARTICLE: 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers can\u2019t substantiate decades-old sexual harassment claims against renowned professor | The College Fix 2/4 Immigration experts disagree on benefits, consequences of skilled worker visas Colleges celebrate Valentine\u2019s with \u2018ethical porn,\u2019 abortion \u2018party\u2019 and \u2018Genital Diversity Gallery Greg Piper Associate Editor Piper served as associate editor of from 2014 to 2021. Greg The College Fix Website \ue608 Facebook \ue601 Twitter ARTICLE: 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers can\u2019t substantiate decades-old sexual harassment claims against renowned professor | The College Fix 3/4 \u00a9 2025 ARTICLE: 2/13/25, 10:12 Rutgers can\u2019t substantiate decades-old sexual harassment claims against renowned professor | The College Fix 4/4"} |
9,070 | Joseph Berning | New Mexico State University | [
"9070_101.pdf",
"9070_102.pdf"
] | {"9070_101.pdf": "Former professor Joseph Berning. Credit Lawsuit alleges ex-professor at New Mexico State University committed sexual harassment by Ariana Parra Mon, January 15th 2024 at 6:13 Updated Mon, January 15th 2024 at 10:10 7 2/13/25, 10:12 Lawsuit alleges ex-professor at New Mexico State University committed sexual harassment 1/5 CRUCES, N.M. (KFOX14/CBS4 woman filed a lawsuit alleging she was sexually harassed by former professors at New Mexico State University. The lawsuit for the Jane Doe alleges that did nothing about the incident. Joseph Berning is the former professor at the center of this lawsuit. The complaint alleged that Berning wasn't alone in the misconduct. The docket claimed Berning's partner, Carole Carson, played a role in grooming and sexually assaulting his students. Paul Linnenburger is the attorney representing the Jane Doe in the case. He told CBS4, the blame is not just on the professors, but also the university and overseeing faculty who failed to stop the misconduct from happening. \u201cThere are numerous individuals who were in positions of authority that could have been should have stopped this,\u201d Linnenburger said. This allegedly isn't the first time Berning was accused of harassing a student, according to Linnenburger. \u201cProfessor Berning had somewhat of a reputation within the department,\" Linnenburger said. This started with a previous incident in 2013, when a different woman submitted a Title complaint against Berning, but nothing was done. \u201cUltimately the way that that played out, it should have and could have been the end of this,\" Linnenburger said. 2013 was the same year the Jane Doe met Berning as a student in one of his classes, according to the lawsuit few years later, my client was again, put in touch with Professor Berning,\u201d Linnenburger said. Berning then acted as her mentor and boss 2/13/25, 10:12 Lawsuit alleges ex-professor at New Mexico State University committed sexual harassment 2/5 The nearly 40-page docket stated several instances of abuse. Ariana Parra reports on new lawsuits against for sexual harassment \u201cHe started slowly testing the waters more and more,\u201d Linnenburger said. \u201cThere were instances of sexual violence on campus, off campus, in his home in vehicles.\u201d The abuse started with pulling her onto his lap in one instance. On a separate occasion, Berning is accused of taking her to his office, locking the door, removing all of his clothing and \u201cmaneuvered his penis around in front of her,\" the complaint stated. RECOMMENDED: Former basketball players facing felony charges in hazing scandal could wait over a year before going to trial and it's Board of Regents are named in the lawsuit, along with 14 other people. Included in the defendants is Berning's spouse, Carole Carson. Linnenburger said Carson also taught at the University 2/13/25, 10:12 Lawsuit alleges ex-professor at New Mexico State University committed sexual harassment 3/5 The lawsuit states Carson allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct with the Jane Doe while also advising her to do \"anything Berning wished.\" \u201cTogether, they ultimately convinced her to move in with them,\" Linnenburger said. Once she was able to get out of the situation, the Jane Doe learned that another female graduate student was working for Berning. Linnenburger told CBS4 that knowledge is what prompted her to put together her own Title report. \u201cThrough the title line office, there was an investigation done,\" Linnenburger said. However, Linnenburger claimed Berning was allowed to retire quietly just one day before the hearing was set to happen. \u201cWe were informed that the university was dismissing the action and had allowed him to quietly leave,\" Linnenburger said. The lawsuit alleged that during the investigation, the Jane Doe was told not to access her \"Aggie accounts\" that potentially held evidence of her claims. The account allegedly appeared to have been wiped by defendants, according to the complaint. CBS4 reached out to for a comment on the lawsuit and is waiting to hear back. Below is the 40-page docket detailing the lawsuit 2/13/25, 10:12 Lawsuit alleges ex-professor at New Mexico State University committed sexual harassment 4/5 Loading ... No preview available Click here to view the file. RECOMMENDED: Four women sue and driving instructor over alleged sexual assault Sign up to receive the top interesting stories from in and around our community once daily in your inbox 2/13/25, 10:12 Lawsuit alleges ex-professor at New Mexico State University committed sexual harassment 5/5", "9070_102.pdf": "by: Skylar Soto, Dave Burge Posted: Jan 15, 2024 / 06:40 Updated: Jan 16, 2024 / 03:19 PASO, Texas lawsuit filed against New Mexico State University alleges that a longtime professor engaged in \u201cpervasive sexual misconduct for a decade or more,\u201d according to a news release sent out by the attorneys representing an unnamed student. The suit \u2014 Jane Doe vs. New Mexico State University \u2014 alleges that Joseph Berning, a long- time professor in the university\u2019s Kinesiology Department, \u201charassed and groomed female professor preyed on students for more than a decade 48 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 1/12 students for years, coercing them into sexual relations and bragging about the same,\u201d according to the news release. The lawsuit was originally filed in state court back in 2022 but was sent over to federal court in November 2023, a search of court records show. The suit alleges that Berning \u201cwielded power over students in mandatory classes he taught, including a course taught with Berning\u2019s partner, Carole Carson, who was also a former student of Berning\u2019s,\u201d according to the news release. The lawsuit alleges that knew about Berning\u2019s misconduct by 2013 when a female student reported him for sexual misconduct, according to the news release. \u201cAnother student made allegations and submitted a Title action to in 2013 involving the same professor with very similar circumstances. And that individual, fortunately, was able to stop it at the get-go,\u201d said Albuquerque attorney Paul Linnenburger who is representing the plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the new lawsuit, the student said she told authorities at she filed the complaint to make sure \u201cno other student be put at risk.\u201d \u201cThe driving force for our client is she wants to make sure that not only is Professor Berning stopped from being able to move on to another university and do this all over again, but also that changes how they do things to make sure that the next time they get a report like they did in 2013, that it stop then and there,\u201d Linnenburger said. The lawsuit claims \u201cdid not take action to stop Berning or correct his behavior and he continued to become more brazen with his aggressive and inappropriate sexual advances towards students and staff.\u201d The plaintiff in the lawsuit alleges she notified and the university conducted a Title investigation. According to the lawsuit, \u201cafter the investigation uncovered damaging information about Berning dismissed the proceedings without notifying the victim and let Berning > Next > Cancel \u2715 Next story in > Cancel Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 2/12 quietly leave the university with his retirement intact.\u201d The suit also claims NMSU\u2019s conduct was \u201creckless, callously indifferent and suggestive of an evil motive,'\u201d according to the news release. The suit was filed by Albuquerque attorneys Paul Linnenburger and Meredith Baker. The lawsuit also claims was \u201csilencing (the plaintiff) voice\u201d and \u201crevictimizing her in violation of the state\u2019s Civil Rights Act and her constitutional rights.\u201d Linnenburger told that Jane Doe is not in it for the money; it\u2019s about protecting others and making sure that those that did wrong are held accountable. \u201cBecause unless we can hold everyone accountable and the system accountable, the reality is this will just keep happening,\u201d Linnenburger said. We reached out to NMSU, and the university stated they do not discuss pending litigation was the entity that petitioned to have the lawsuit moved to federal court. It was removed on grounds that the allegations of gender discrimination/equal protection rights fall under constitutional rights. Linnenburger says anyone who suffered abuse by Berning or others at State or if they have information about the case, they can call (505) 226-7979. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 3/12 Top Stories Heavy rain pummels slide-prone Southern California \u2026 Man charged with Michigan murder arrested in considers guaranteed income for some families Bill would prohibit transgender athletes from playing working to expand university\u2019s presence > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 4/12 Heavy rain pummels slide-prone Southern California \u2026 Plane carrying Secretary of State Rubio to Europe \u2026 Judge orders Trump administration to temporarily \u2026 Armed fighters have raped scores of children in eastern \u2026 Man accused of shooting Missouri teen to change plea Issa Rae cancels Kennedy Center after Trump takeover Would-be school shooter had collage of killers: Docs Human bird flu cases may be undercounted, study suggests More Stories 13 - Breaking News, Albuquerque News, New Mexico News, Weather, and Videos Video > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 5/12 More Videos > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 6/12 More New Mexico Living New Mexico Living Pet Pics February 13, 2025 New Mexico Living Sponsored Content 6 hours ago 1 Winter storm moving into New Mexico tonight 2 Victims of scheme file class action lawsuit 3 Bryan Cranston visits \u2018Breaking Bad\u2019 store 4 considers guaranteed income for some families 5 Deputies find dead 5-year-old during Silver City \u2026 6 Former student doctor pleads guilty to child porn \u2026 7 Mild & dry weather before stronger storm on Valentine\u2019s > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 7/12 Winter storm moving into New Mexico tonight Weather Video Forecast 4 hours ago Family reunited with cat who was missing for nearly \u2026 New Mexico News 3 days ago > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 8/12 What\u2019s happening around New Mexico February 7-13 Events and Notices 6 days ago \u2022 What\u2019s happening around New Mexico January 31-February \u2026 Events and Notices 2 weeks ago PHOTOS: Piled- up snow covers communities Photo Galleries 3 months ago > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 9/12 MAP: 2022 Albuquerque Homicides News Resources 3 years ago 10 Presidents Day small appliance deals you shouldn\u2019t \u2026 Holiday 9 hours ago Best Buy Presidents Day Sale: Apple, Samsung, Dyson \u2026 Holiday 11 hours ago Score Presidents Day deals right now on Amazon Holiday 3 days ago Best Valentine\u2019s Day gifts under $100 Holiday 6 days ago The best early Presidents Day deals to shop now Holiday 2 days ago Walmart\u2019s \u2018Flash Deals\u2019 are filled with hidden gems \u2026 Holiday 1 week ago > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 10/12 Local Reporting You Can Trust News Weather Roads/Traffic Sports Always On ReportIt! NMLiving.com New Mexico CW/NM50 About Media Group \u2013 Contact Us Sitemap Mission Applications 13 Broadcast Pl SW, Albuquerque, NM, 87104 File Public File Public File Public File Public File Public File Public File View All BestReviews Picks > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 11/12 Get News App Get Weather App Stay Connected Privacy Policy 11/18/2024 Terms Of Use Applications Public File Assistance Contact The Hill NewsNation BestReviews Content Licensing Nexstar Digital Journalistic Integrity Sitemap Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information \u00a9 1998 - 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:13 professor preyed on students for more than a decade 12/12"} |
8,568 | Harold Marcus | Michigan State University | [
"8568_101.pdf",
"8568_102.pdf",
"8568_103.pdf",
"8568_104.pdf",
"8568_105.pdf"
] | {"8568_101.pdf": "Lawsuit: Late professor treated university as his 'own sexual playground' Kara Berg Lansing State Journal Published 10:00 p.m April 6, 2020 Updated 8:06 p.m April 8, 2020 \u2014 Cheryl Edwards thought her professor wanted to mentor her. Over time Michigan State University history professor Harold Marcus' comments became more personal, Edwards and her husband, Jon, said in a lawsuit. Marcus would touch her, tapping or grabbing her shoulder. Cheryl went to Marcus' office one day during her junior year to talk about a research assignment. Marcus said he wanted to show her a book and closed the office door. He pushed Cheryl against a wall, kissed her, groped her and exposed his penis really want to have sex with you,\" he told her. That was more than 30 years ago, but Jon and Cheryl \u2014 who now live in New Jersey, Jon a retired coordinator at Princeton University's Office of Institutional Technology and Cheryl teaching English online at an elementary school in Beijing \u2014 filed a federal lawsuit against in late February. They're seeking $75,000 in damages for the pain and suffering they say and Marcus caused them. Marcus was not named as a party in the lawsuit. He died in 2003. Marcus was a prominent expert in Ethiopian history and taught at for 35 years before his death named him a distinguished professor of history in 1994. Marcus routinely questioned Jon and Cheryl about their sex life and made \u201clascivious\u201d comments about Cheryl and other female students, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey. The Edwardses argue knew of the many allegations about sexual harassment against Marcus, but failed to respond appropriately. 2/13/25, 10:13 sued by former students for handling of sex harassment complaints 1/5 \u201cMarcus seemingly viewed as his own sexual playground and did not care if girls were old, young, black or white,\u201d according to the lawsuit. \u201cMarcus pursued them all.\u201d Emily Guerrant, an spokesperson, said Marcus\u2019 status as an emeritus professor was revoked in 2019 after a university investigation found him responsible for sexual harassment. She declined to comment on the lawsuit. That university investigation was one of eight reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault involving faculty where the actions took place more than a decade ago. The faculty members were all found to have violated policy between 2015 and Nov. 1, 2019 ninth report, though not sustained, led to the resignation of former Spartan Marching Band Director John Madden in August 2017. Investigators determined Madden did not violate university policy, but the College of Music and Academic Human Resources deemed his conduct unprofessional and unacceptable for someone in his position. These reports, and many others like them, came in the wake of the revelation that disgraced sports medicine doctor Larry Nassar had sexually assaulted hundreds of women and girls. The women involved in Nassar's case \u2014 and dozens of others who have been sexually assaulted or harassed at \u2014 have criticized the university's handling of the cases. \u2018I'd like to have sex with you\u2019 Cheryl enrolled as an African studies minor in 1976 as an undergraduate student. Marcus seemed to want to mentor her. He paid attention to her, according to the lawsuit. Marcus would have been 40 at the time. She was in her early 20s. On the day when Marcus pushed Cheryl up against the wall and kissed her, she told him \"no\" and said she needed to leave, according to the lawsuit. But he began calling her and saying things like, \u201cPlease come over. I\u2019d like to have sex with you.\u201d She worried her grades would be impacted if she continued to rebuff his advances. When he found out Jon and Cheryl had begun dating, he made comments like hope he\u2019s satisfying you,\u201d and hope he\u2019s better than we would have been together,\u201d according to the lawsuit. 2/13/25, 10:13 sued by former students for handling of sex harassment complaints 2/5 Stuck with his adviser Marcus was Jon\u2019s Ph adviser. At mandated office hour visits, Marcus would ask Jon about his dating life and tell Jon about his own \u201cconquests.\u201d At one point, he told Jon about techniques he used in oral sex. Jon considered complaining to other faculty members but worried about the consequences. As his adviser, Marcus had immense power over Jon\u2019s life, according to the lawsuit. Marcus regularly hosted parties for students, typically graduate students from the history department, whoever he was in a relationship with at the time and female undergraduate students. He regularly invited \u201cyoung, attractive and nai\u0308ve female students,\u201d according to the lawsuit. \u2018That\u2019s just Harold\u2019 The Edwardses aren\u2019t alone in their complaints about Marcus. When Donna King was a graduate student at in the \u201890s, she alleged Marcus sexually harassed her. She filed a lawsuit in 1997. \u201cProfessor Marcus\u2019 reputation in the educational community is such that female graduate students are advised by other students, some faculty and some administrators to beware of him,\u201d King said in the lawsuit. King said Marcus treated her differently than other students in the class, looking down on her \u201cno-name college\u201d \u2014 Northern Kentucky University \u2014 and referring to her as autodidactic, that is, self taught. His comments eventually turned sexual, and he began telling her about his marital and personal problems. When she approached Marcus about a teaching assistant position, Marcus reached out and touched the star of David necklace on her chest and asked her \u201cin a manner in which (King) believed contained sexual innuendo, \u2018What do you want?\u2019\u201d At a Thanksgiving dinner at King\u2019s house, Marcus said he wanted to \u201csuck\u201d her brains, she said. He made comments that fueled rumors that he was having an affair with King and that he was going to make her his fourth wife, according to the lawsuit. 2/13/25, 10:13 sued by former students for handling of sex harassment complaints 3/5 Her adviser, Ken Harrow, told King \u201cThat\u2019s just Harold,\u201d when he heard details of the complaint. He cautioned that any actions she took might jeopardize a project she was working on, according to the lawsuit. Reached March 28, Harrow told the State Journal he remembers thinking at the time the behavior was not out of the ordinary for Marcus. Harrow said it wouldn't be ethical to malign Marcus now, as he isn't able to defend himself. The department chair, Philip McGuire, told King she shouldn't spar with Marcus because \"some men deliberately banter with women as a form of 'sexual playfulness,'\" according to the lawsuit. McGuire did not respond to a request for comment. When the university made a motion to dismiss King's case, they said the hostile words and actions came from King and that she was offended by Marcus\u2019 \u201coverly familiar manner and offbeat sense of humor.\u201d An attraction to female students Marcus\u2019 ex-wife, Susan Drabik, filed an affidavit with the court in January 1999. In it, she said Marcus had a \u201cvery long history of becoming sexually involved with his female students, one of which was me.\u201d In the affidavit, she said Marcus spoke about King so much that she asked him more than once if she was the next \u201cperson on his list\" to marry. Marcus had told her that the \u201cnumber of young women students in the university was an attraction for him even being in education,\u201d according to the affidavit. She said he had a reputation at the university as a \u201csexual predator of female students.\u201d Jon and Cheryl Edwards allege knew about their case, King's case and many other complaints made about Marcus, but failed to stop him. \u201cMSU\u2019s responses were clearly unreasonable as Marcus continued to sexually assault individuals until he retired from MSU,\u201d according to the lawsuit. If you have reported sexual harassment or sexual assault by faculty or staff members at and would be willing to share your story and investigative report from the Office of Institutional Equity, please email [email protected]. 2/13/25, 10:13 sued by former students for handling of sex harassment complaints 4/5 Contact reporter Kara Berg at 517-377-1113 or [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @karaberg95. 2/13/25, 10:13 sued by former students for handling of sex harassment complaints 5/5", "8568_102.pdf": "Two alums sue for failing to act against late professor for sexual misconduct Michigan Public | By Virginia Gordan Published April 7, 2020 at 1:32 Emma Winowiecki / Michigan Radio Jon and Cheryl Edwards filed suit against Michigan State University in federal court in late February. The lawsuit alleges a pattern of sexual misconduct by the late history professor Harold Marcus more than 35 years ago when they were students at MSU. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the pain and suffering they sustained because \"of Marcus' misconduct, all of which was enabled by MSU.\" Marcus was on the faculty of from 1968 until his death in 2003. His scholarship focused on Ethiopian history and politics. Donate World Service Michigan Public 2/13/25, 10:15 Two alums sue for failing to act against late professor for sexual misconduct 1/6 Jon Edwards was a Ph.D. candidate at from 1975 to 1982, studying under Marcus. Cheryl was an undergraduate student at from 1975 to 1980 and later an employee. The Edwards met at MSU, subsequently married, and are currently residents of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that beginning in 1976 Marcus \"sexually assaulted, abused, and molested Cheryl by engaging in nonconsensual sexual touching, assault, and harrassment.\" According to the complaint, during an office hour visit during Cheryl's junior year, Marcus closed his office door, groped and kissed her and exposed his genitals while pushing her against the wall. Despite her saying no and leaving, Marcus called her several times with requests to have sex. Marcus allegedly repeatedly boasted about his \"sexual exploits, questioned Jon routinely about his sex life, and made lascivious comments regarding Cheryl and other women to Jon.\" Jon did not complain to any faculty members because of the power Marcus had over his life as his Ph.D. advisor. \"Marcus seemingly viewed as his own sexual playground and did not care if the girls were old, young, black or white. Marcus pursued them all,\" states the complaint. The complaint alleges that was put on notice in 1987 of \"predatory misconduct in the History Department\" because of a lawsuit that was filed in November of that year in Ingham County Circuit Court by a female faculty member against Marcus and MSU. The Edwards claim since that time knew about the many allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct against Marcus, but the university failed to appropriately investigate, remedy and respond to them. They say because of MSU's lack of action, Marcus' misconduct continued unchecked could not be reached for comment. Want to support reporting like this? Consider making a gift to Michigan Radio today World Service Michigan Public 2/13/25, 10:15 Two alums sue for failing to act against late professor for sexual misconduct 2/6 Tags Education Michigan State University World Service Michigan Public 2/13/25, 10:15 Two alums sue for failing to act against late professor for sexual misconduct 3/6 Virginia Gordan Virginia Gordan has been a part-time reporter at Michigan Radio since fall 2013. She has a general beat covering news topics from across the state. See stories by Virginia Gordan Latest Stories Trial opens on Michigan's abortion laws that remain on the books World Service Michigan Public 2/13/25, 10:15 Two alums sue for failing to act against late professor for sexual misconduct 4/6 Stay Connected \u00a9 2025 Contact Us Work with Us Public Documents Michigan Public Hourly News Michigan AG, other state AGs sue to stop \"unlawful delegation\" of executive power to Elon Musk health system unpauses gender-affirming care for new pediatric patients As Michigan State marks second anniversary of campus shooting, former student sues \u201cDeal is on the table now\u201d for compromise on sick leave, tips, minimum wage in Panel hears arguments over Palisades restart plans World Service Michigan Public 2/13/25, 10:15 Two alums sue for failing to act against late professor for sexual misconduct 5/6 Contest Rules Privacy & Terms of Use Applications World Service Michigan Public 2/13/25, 10:15 Two alums sue for failing to act against late professor for sexual misconduct 6/6", "8568_103.pdf": "Gave Degree Decades After Sexual Harassment October 5, 2021 / 3:22 / CW50 Detroit LANSING, Mich Michigan State University official delivered a doctorate degree to a New Jersey man in 2019, decades after he and his wife were sexually harassed by a professor when they were students. Jon Edwards said he stopped pursuing an advanced degree in history to protest the behavior of Harold Marcus, although he had only a few steps remaining, the Lansing State Journal reported. Cheryl Edwards received $25,000 from Michigan State, the newspaper reported. She said Marcus got physical with her, propositioned her for sex and exposed his genitals when she was an undergraduate. Jon Edwards said Marcus, his Ph.D. adviser, would regularly talk to him about sex in the late 1970s and early '80s. Marcus died in 2003. The couple filed a complaint with Michigan State in 2018 when the school was dealing with a scandal related to campus sports doctor Larry Nassar, who sexually assaulted gymnasts. \"Had completed the final small requirements for the degree was fully convinced that Marcus would have used my successes to recruit others to a program that did not believe was worthy,\" Edwards wrote in an email to Michigan State's Office of Institutional Equity, explaining why he left News Weather Sports Videos 19\u00b0 Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/13/25, 10:15 Gave Degree Decades After Sexual Harassment Detroit 1/3 \u00a92025 Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. \u00a9 2021 Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved 2019 investigation by Michigan State found that Marcus had violated the university's sexual misconduct policy, the State Journal reported. Thomas Jeitschko, associate provost for graduate and postdoctoral studies, said he delivered Jon Edwards' doctorate to his home in Mercer County, New Jersey, in 2019. He found that Edwards had successfully defended his dissertation decades earlier but was \"placed in an untenable situation\" because of Marcus' conduct. \"It's an utter miracle have computing to fall back on,\" Jon Edwards said. \"It's nothing to complain about, but my passion for African history, Cheryl's passion for Africa, was quashed.\" \u00a9 2021 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. More from News Sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Wayne County sheriff Judge tosses opera singer's lawsuit against University of Michigan over firing Man accused of posing as trooper to see his dead wife in the morgue Scam calls about missed jury duty fines reported in Michigan again Watch News Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/13/25, 10:15 Gave Degree Decades After Sexual Harassment Detroit 2/3 Terms of Use Privacy Policy Cookie Details Detroit News Sports Weather Entertainment Video Contests & Promotions Program Guide Sitemap Advertise Television Jobs Public File for Detroit Public File for / Detroit 50 Public Inspection File Help Applications Report Watch News 2/13/25, 10:15 Gave Degree Decades After Sexual Harassment Detroit 3/3", "8568_104.pdf": "Jon Edwards says he stopped pursuing an advanced degree in history to protest the behavior of Harold Marcus, although he had just a few steps remaining Michigan State University official personally delivered a doctorate degree to a New Jersey man in 2019, decades after he and his wife were sexually harassed by a professor when they were students. Jon Edwards says he stopped pursuing an advanced degree in history to protest the behavior of Harold Marcus, although he had just a few steps remaining. Edwards says Marcus would regularly talk to him about sex in the late 1970s and early \u201980s. Marcus died in 2003. Edwards' wife says Marcus propositioned her for sex. She received $25,000 from Michigan State. Michigan State gave victim degree decades after sexual harassment caused him to drop out Author: Associated Press Published: 8:05 October 5, 2021 Updated: 8:05 October 5, 2021 How honored the live lost in mass shooting 2 yea ago \uf110 00:00 / 02:16 \uf026 \uf064 \uf20a \uf013 \uf04b \uf0e2 \uf01e x 2/13/25, 10:16 Michigan State gave victim degree decades after sexual harassment caused him to drop out | wzzm13.com 1/2 The Lansing State Journal says a 2019 investigation by Michigan State found that Marcus had violated the university's sexual misconduct policy ranked 19th best team in new poll \u25baMake it easy to keep up to date with more stories like this. Download the 13 app now. Have a news tip? Email [email protected], visit our Facebook page or Twitter. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Related Articles Judge denies halt to MSU's vaccination mandate over lawsuit Michigan State names Haller as new athletic director of make jumps in rankings ARTICLE... 2/13/25, 10:16 Michigan State gave victim degree decades after sexual harassment caused him to drop out | wzzm13.com 2/2", "8568_105.pdf": "17\u00b0 Lansing Closings and Delays \uf00d \uf0c9 News First Alert Weather Livestream couple from New Jersey is suing Michigan State University for failing to act against a professor they say sexually harassed and assaulted them. Jon and Cheryl Edwards went to back in the 80's. The lawsuit filed in late February claims a late professor and advisor, Harold Marcus, routinely sexually harassed the students and even molested Cheryl in his office. Professor Marcus worked for for 35 years before in died back in 2003. Copyright 2020 WILX. All rights reserved. Most Read Couple suing over harassment (WILX) By News 10 Published: Apr. 7, 2020 at 4:15 Illinois governor declares Lake Michigan is now Lake Illinois \uf144 Mom of 2 kids who froze to death while sleeping in a van says she asked for help: \u2018I\u2019m sorry, but tried\u2019 2/13/25, 10:16 Couple suing over harassment 1/4 Latest News Nessel reacts to temporary restraining order against Trump\u2019s medical research funding cuts \uf144 Man shot in Lansing early Wednesday morning \uf144 Saturday is a First Alert Weather Day Igloo recalls over a million coolers after handle hazard causes fingertip amputation injuries Michigan Stadium to host first-ever concert in September What snow removal am responsible for \u2013 and when? \uf144 Tom Izzo and Michigan State men\u2019s basketball react to heartbreaking loss to Indiana on Tuesday night 2/13/25, 10:16 Couple suing over harassment 2/4 Tom Izzo speaks after his 'historic night' gets postponed with a Michigan State loss to Indiana \uf144 Jase Richardson and Jaden Akins speak after Michigan State's loss to Indiana on Tuesday night \uf144 \uf144 Wolf scores 15 and No. 20 Michigan men\u2019s basketball holds off No. 7 Purdue 75-73 Highlights: No. 20 Michigan men's basketball takes down No. 7 Purdue 75-73 \uf144 Highlights: Indiana men's basketball upsets No. 11 Michigan State 71-67, delays history for Tom Izzo \uf144 \uf144 Indiana men\u2019s basketball upsets No. 11 Michigan State 71-67, delays history for Tom Izzo Tom Izzo explains what means more than breaking records and winning championships at 2/13/25, 10:16 Couple suing over harassment 3/4 \uf144 Public Inspection File [email protected] - (517) 393-0110 Terms of Service Privacy Policy Statement Applications Advertising Digital Marketing Closed Captioning/Audio Description At Gray, our journalists report, write, edit and produce the news content that informs the communities we serve. Click here to learn more about our approach to artificial intelligence Gray Local Media Station \u00a9 2002-2025 News Studio 10 Community Facebook First Alert Weather Style Careers Sports Featured Guests Make An Impact Instagram Livestream Schedule Contact Us YouTube 500 American Road Lansing 48911 (517) 393-0110 2/13/25, 10:16 Couple suing over harassment 4/4"} |
7,413 | Mahmood G. Ghamsary | Loma Linda University | [
"7413_101.pdf",
"7413_102.pdf",
"7413_103.pdf"
] | {"7413_101.pdf": "The Wayback Machine - Loma Linda professor is arrested on suspicion of sexually touching a student without consent By 18, 2016 | 5:00 2/13/25, 10:18 Loma Linda professor is arrested on suspicion of sexually touching a student without consent 1/6 Mahmood G. Ghamsary, 63, of Studio City was arrested on suspicion of sexual battery on a student at Loma Linda University. (San Bernardino Sheriff's Department 63-year-old public health professor at Loma Linda University was arrested Thursday on suspicion of sexual battery during a meeting with a student in his office, authorities said. \uf099 \uf082 2/13/25, 10:18 Loma Linda professor is arrested on suspicion of sexually touching a student without consent 2/6 Mahmood G. Ghamsary, an associate professor who previously directed the private university's biostatistics program, was taken into custody after an unidentified female student reported that he touched her without her consent, according to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. The student told authorities that during a meeting in his office about 3:45 p.m. Wednesday, Ghamsary hugged her and reached under her clothing, sheriff's officials said. He also \"began touching various parts of her body without her consent,\" sheriff's officials said in a statement. The student informed her boyfriend about what happened and they reported the incident late Wednesday. Ghamsary, a resident of Studio City, was booked into a county jail and held in lieu of $25,000 bail. He is scheduled to be arraigned Monday. He could not be reached for comment and it is unclear whether he's being represented by an attorney. See more of our top stories on Facebook >> In a statement, Loma Linda University spokesman Larry Becker said that the university was informed of the alleged incident on Thursday and that Ghamsary was being placed on administrative leave. \"Loma Linda University is fully compliant with Title and prohibits sexual harassment, coercion, assault or any kind of inappropriate contact,\" Becker said in a statement, noting that workplace programs seek to educate employees about such behavior. The school, which is affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is cooperating with sheriff's investigators, Becker added. The 4,500-student university will later conduct its own investigation, he said. \uf107 \uf106 \uf107 \uf106 \uf107 2/13/25, 10:18 Loma Linda professor is arrested on suspicion of sexually touching a student without consent 3/6 Interested in the stories shaping California? Sign up for the free Essential California newsletter >> The Sheriff's Department released Ghamsary's photo in the event that there are other victims. Anyone with information is asked to contact Det. Ken Marshall at (909) 387-3545. For breaking news in California, follow @MattHjourno Construction worker dies after falling 53 stories from downtown L.A. high-rise Sexual harassment outcry at Berkeley Law School spreads to campus provost Merced campus healing after attack last year by possibly 'self-radicalized' student Matt Hamilton \uf099 \uf082 \uf003 Matt Hamilton is a reporter in the Metro section for the Los Angeles Times. He has covered legal affairs, crime and breaking news across California. He joined The Times in 2013 as an intern reporting on criminal trials in Los Angeles County. Hamilton was part of the team of reporters that received a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino. He grew up in Delaware and studied Catholic theology at Boston College. Before completing a degree in journalism at the University of Southern California, he edited magazines in Amman, Jordan \uf106 \uf107 \uf106 \uf107 2/13/25, 10:18 Loma Linda professor is arrested on suspicion of sexually touching a student without consent 4/6 Villaraigosa in the fight of his political life as primary election for California governor nears 48m Police try multiple maneuvers during bizarre, slow-speed chase in San Fernando Valley 1h Two road workers die after getting struck by a car while setting up a sign in Orange 1h Newcomer wins National Spelling Bee when 4-time participant botches 'Bewusstseinslage' 1h For the Record 2h 250-pound bear captured in La Verne 3h Woman found dead in stairwell of San Francisco hospital property was missing from nearby care facility 4h Man pleads not guilty to school bus assault, attempted kidnapping 4h Man suspected in deadly street racing crash had conviction for smuggling marijuana across border 31, 2018 2/13/25, 10:18 Loma Linda professor is arrested on suspicion of sexually touching a student without consent 5/6 Rick Caruso is named chair of USC's trustees, vows swift investigation of gynecologist scandal 31, 2018 Sign up for our newsletters Subscribe for unlimited access About us Contact us Privacy policy Terms Site map E-Newspaper Corrections Archives Classifieds Find a job Shop Advertising \uf099 \uf082 \uf16d \uf167 \uf27d Copyright \u00a9 2018, Los Angeles Times 2/13/25, 10:18 Loma Linda professor is arrested on suspicion of sexually touching a student without consent 6/6", "7413_102.pdf": "Loma Linda University Professor Arrested for Allegedly Sexually Battering Student Mahmood G. Ghamsary, 63, of Studio City, allegedly touched a student without her consent during a meeting in his office on Wednesday, deputies said By KiMi Robinson \u2022 Published March 17, 2016 \u2022 Updated on March 18, 2016 at 1:08 am Loma Linda University professor has been arrested on suspicion of sexually battering a female student at the university's campus, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department said in a statement Thursday. Mahmood G. Ghamsary, 63, of Studio City, was taken into custody on Thursday after a student reported to the police that Ghamsary had touched her without consent in his office on Wednesday. According to the student, Ghamsary allegedly hugged her during their meeting on Wednesday afternoon then proceeded to reach under her clothing to touch various parts of her body. That evening, the victim and her boyfriend contacted the police to report the incident. Ghamsary's bail is set at $25,000. His arraignment is scheduled for Monday, March 21. Anyone who believes they have been victimized is urged to contact Detective Ken Marshall at (909) 387-3545. Those who wish to remain anonymous can call (800) 782-7463. February storm forecast updates Watch News 24/7 \u2614\ufe0fFebruary Storms Resources for Fire Vicitms Help Fire Victims Black Herita\u2026 2/13/25, 10:19 Loma Linda University Professor Arrested for Allegedly Sexually Battering Student Los Angeles 1/3 This article tagged under: Weather Forecast 56\u00b0 Fair 1.38% Precip 51 61 NBC4 52 Public Inspection File Accessibility Employment Information Applications Send Feedback Advertise With Us Privacy Policy Terms of Service Cookie Notice Notice Ad Choices 2/13/25, 10:19 Loma Linda University Professor Arrested for Allegedly Sexually Battering Student Los Angeles 2/3 Copyright \u00a9 2025 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All rights reserved 2/13/25, 10:19 Loma Linda University Professor Arrested for Allegedly Sexually Battering Student Los Angeles 3/3", "7413_103.pdf": "Loma Linda University professor arrested for sexual battery of student, deputies say By ABC7.com staff Friday, March 18, 2016 LINDA, Calif professor at Loma Linda University has been arrested for the sexual battery of a female student, according to San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. Photo provided by the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department via the California Department of Motor Vehicles Loma Linda University professor Mahmood Ghamsary was arrested for the sexual battery of a female student on Wednesday, March 17, 2016, according to officials. 24/7 Live 57\u00b0 2/13/25, 10:19 Loma Linda University professor arrested for sexual battery of student, deputies say - ABC7 Los Angeles 1/4 Deputies said the alleged incident happened on campus at the office of Professor Mahmood Ghamsary, located at 11234 Anderson St., on Wednesday at about 3:40 p.m female student was having a meeting with Ghamsary when deputies said he hugged her, then reached under her clothing and began touching her body without her consent. Authorities said the victim told her boyfriend what occurred later that evening and the couple contacted the sheriff's department together. Ghamsary, 63 of Studio City, was arrested for sexual battery and his bail was set at $25,000. His arraignment was scheduled for Monday in San Bernardino Superior Court. Loma Linda University Medical Center said Ghamsary was a professor in the School of Public Health and had been with the university since 2000. The school said Ghamsary has been placed on leave pending an investigation. Anyone with information about the alleged sexual battery, or who believes they were a victim of an unreported crime related to Ghamsary, is urged to call Det. Ken Marshall with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department at (909)387-3545. 2/13/25, 10:19 Loma Linda University professor arrested for sexual battery of student, deputies say - ABC7 Los Angeles 2/4 Callers wishing to remain anonymous were urged to call the We-Tip Hotline at 1-800- 782-7463. Copyright \u00a9 2025 Television, LLC. All rights reserved. Related Topics Topics Home Weather Traffic U.S. & World Politics Consumer Regions Los Angeles Orange County Inland Empire Ventura County California More Live Video Apps ABC7 En Espa\u00f1ol Investigations 2/13/25, 10:19 Loma Linda University professor arrested for sexual battery of student, deputies say - ABC7 Los Angeles 3/4 Privacy Policy Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Children's Privacy Policy Your State Privacy Rights Terms of Use Interest-Based Ads Public Inspection File Applications Copyright \u00a9 2025 Television, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Shop Company Submit News Tips Listings About ABC7 Meet the News Team Jobs/Internships ABC7 Merchandise 2/13/25, 10:19 Loma Linda University professor arrested for sexual battery of student, deputies say - ABC7 Los Angeles 4/4"} |
7,230 | Leroy Logan | Bennington College | [
"7230_101.pdf",
"7230_102.pdf",
"7230_103.pdf",
"7230_104.pdf"
] | {"7230_101.pdf": "2ND v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherman, Adrienne Marcus, and Liz Pellerin, Defendants. (1995) United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Leroy LOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherman, Adrienne Marcus, and Liz Pellerin, Defendants. Nos. 1630, 1761, Dockets 94-7976L, 94-9012. Decided: December 14, 1995 Before: LUMBARD, ALTIMARI, and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges. Mitchell L. Pearl,Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, Vermont (Ellen Mercer Fallon, Langrock Sperry & Wool, on the brief), for defendant-appellant-cross-appellee. William K. Sessions, Sessions Keiner Dumont & Barnes, P.C., Middlebury, Vermont (Bonnie Barnes, Sessions Keiner Dumont & Barnes, P.C., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant. Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee Bennington College (\u201cBennington\u201d or \u201cCollege\u201d) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Billings, J.), following a jury verdict, awarding plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant Leroy Logan (\u201cLogan\u201d) damages for breach of \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 1/20 contract. We affirm the district court's granting of Bennington's pre-trial motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Logan's due process and negligence claims. We reverse, however, the judgment of the district court denying Bennington's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law on Logan's breach of contract claims, and remand this case with instructions to vacate the verdict and jury award entered against Bennington The present case centers on Bennington, a small college located in Vermont which has always prided itself on progressive and non-traditional pedagogy. Recently, Bennington has been criticized by former faculty members and other educators because its President, Elizabeth Coleman (\u201cColeman\u201d), has undertaken measures to downsize the school. Since 1987, when Coleman took office, nearly one third of the faculty has been dismissed, ostensibly for fiscal reasons. Moreover, Bennington has ended its \u201cpresumptive tenure\u201d plan, under which, absent certain circumstances, professors held a five-year term of employment with the College that was automatically renewed for another five-year term. Logan taught drama for eighteen years at Bennington, until his discharge on July 20, 1990, for alleged sexual harassment. At the time the incidents underlying this case occurred, Logan, like other professors at Bennington, had presumptive tenure. As described in section 9.43 of the Bennington College Faculty Handbook (\u201cFaculty Handbook\u201d), a professor with presumptive tenure held a contract for a five-year term of employment with the College. The College was obligated to extend that contract for another five years, unless the professor substantially failed to perform the terms of his or her employment contract with the College, or exigent financial circumstances or changes in educational policy required elimination of the teaching position. On May 16, 1990, a male student of Logan's (\u201ccomplainant\u201d) filed a complaint with the College alleging that Logan forced the student to have sexual relations with him on Thanksgiving Day, 1989, in Wales, where Logan was directing a College-sponsored program (the \u201cLondon Program\u201d) in which the complainant was a participant. The student's complaint was referred to the College's Sexual Harassment Committee pursuant to an interim policy on sexual harassment instituted by Bennington on September 1, 1989 (\u201cinterim policy\u201d). The interim policy was designed to replace the College's older policy regarding sexual harassment that had existed since 1982 (\u201colder policy\u201d). Bennington's legal counsel had advised the College that the older policy might not comply with state regulations. Moreover, in an unrelated harassment case against Bennington brought before the Vermont Human Rights Commission (\u201cHRC\u201d) by another student, Bennington had signed a conciliation agreement with the which provided that, among other things, Bennington would revise its sexual harassment policy. Accordingly, in 1989 Coleman appointed a six- member committee to draft an interim policy on harassment, which Coleman approved in August, 1989, and the Board of Trustees authorized to take effect as of September 1, 1989. 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 2/20 While the interim policy retains the definition of sexual harassment under the older policy, it is more comprehensive than the older policy with respect to the informal and formal procedures to be followed in cases of complaints alleging sexual harassment. For example, the older policy, contained in Section 1.47 of the Faculty Handbook and consisting of three single-spaced pages, established a three-member grievance committee comprised of both genders which was authorized to investigate complaints of sexual harassment and, if the dispute could not be resolved informally, to hold a hearing. Two of the three grievance committee members were appointed by the College President. The only procedures outlined by the older policy were that (i) notice of the complaint and hearing be given to the parties, (ii) the complainant be allowed to attend the hearing, (iii) minutes of the hearing be kept, and (iv) the result of the hearing could be appealed to the College President. By contrast, the interim policy is seven single-spaced pages, and establishes more specific procedures at all stages of the grievance process, both informal and formal. Among other things, the new policy creates a five-member Sexual Harassment Committee (\u201cCommittee\u201d) to investigate and hear formal complaints alleging sexual harassment. The Committee members are appointed by the College President, and include the Director of Student Affairs, who chairs the Committee, two faculty members, one staff member, and one student. According to the interim policy, the Committee's primary function is to conduct hearings for all formal sexual harassment complaints at the College. The Committee can also hear appeals from decisions by the College in informal harassment proceedings. The interim policy authorizes the Committee to establish its own procedures, and to contact all persons who are involved in the case, provided that notice of such contact is given to the parties. If, after the formal hearing, the Committee concludes that formal disciplinary action against a faculty member is called for, it may recommend to the College President one of several sanctions, including discharge from employment at the College. Appeals from a decision by the Committee may also be taken to the College President within ten days of the decision. The format for such appeals is left to the discretion of the College President. The College President may implement, modify or suspend the sanctions recommended by the Committee, and his or her decision is final. The interim policy further provides that formal complaints of sexual harassment are to be resolved as promptly as possible, and recommends that a written decision be rendered within thirty days of the filing of a complaint. Logan received notice of the complaint and hearing, as well as a list of seven students who would be interviewed by the Committee as potential witnesses. He acknowledged receipt of the hearing notice, and submitted his own list of twelve witnesses. The Committee notified Logan that only those witnesses with potential direct knowledge of the incidents at issue, namely those in the London Program at the time of the alleged harassment, would be permitted to testify five-hour hearing was held on May 31, 1990, at which the complainant, Logan and seven students who had participated in the College's London Program testified. Logan was assisted by a faculty representative. The parties were permitted to question witnesses and read statements, and were examined by the Committee members. 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 3/20 The Committee deliberated for several days, and in a written report and recommendation unanimously recommended termination of Logan. The Committee members found the complainant's testimony detailed and credible, and Logan's testimony vague and uncorroborated by several of the witnesses. The Committee's recommendation was sent to Coleman. Logan appealed the decision to Coleman, who held a hearing on the matter in which Logan was represented by counsel. At the hearing's conclusion, Coleman declined to alter the original decision, and Logan was terminated. On April 25, 1991, Logan commenced the instant action against the College and the individual faculty and staff members who were involved in the decision to terminate him. Seeking reinstatement and damages, Logan's complaint alleged claims for breach of contract, negligence, denial of federal and state due process, and defamation. Prior to trial, Logan stipulated to the dismissal of the defamation claim. Except for the breach of contract claims against the College, the remaining claims were dismissed by the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bennington. The breach of contract claims against the College proceeded to trial. At trial, Logan contended that when he was hired, he was told that the terms of his employment contract were set forth in the Faculty Handbook. He proceeded to present four separate breach of contract theories to the jury. First, Logan contended that Bennington adopted the interim policy in violation of his contractual rights contained in the Faculty Handbook. Second, he contended that Bennington failed to afford him the procedural rights guaranteed under his employment contract. Third, Logan claimed that Bennington lacked good cause to terminate him because the charges against him were untrue. Fourth, Logan claimed that by terminating him, Bennington breached an implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. After a four-day trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Logan in the amount of $500,000. The district court reduced the amount to approximately $200,000, on the ground that the jury disregarded the Court's instruction that punitive damages were not available to Logan as a remedy. The district court also denied Bennington's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Bennington now appeals from the district court's denial of it motion for judgment as a matter of law. Logan cross appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Bennington and dismissing his claims based on negligence and due process, as well as the district court's ruling disallowing the jury's punitive damages award As noted above, the only claim considered by the jury was Logan's allegation of breach of his employment contract. It is unclear from the record, however, which of the four theories presented by Logan as the bases for his breach of contract claims were relied upon by the jury in reaching its verdict. Thus, in order to prevail on this appeal, Bennington must demonstrate that there was no legally 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 4/20 sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found in Logan's favor with respect to any of the four theories underlying his breach of contract claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). As we have previously explained, judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when there is \u201csuch a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or [where there is] such an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the movant that reasonable and fair minded [persons] could not arrive at a verdict against [the movant].\u201d See Concerned Area Residents For The Env't v. Southview Farm, 34 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1994) (internal quotations and citations omitted), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082, 115 S.Ct. 1793, 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995). The Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to Logan, and gives Logan the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the evidence that the jury might have drawn in his favor. See id. In considering the evidence, the Court may not weigh evidence, assess credibility, or substitute its opinion of the facts for that of the jury. See Weldy v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 985 F.2d 57, 59 (2d Cir.1993). Preliminarily, the issue of whether the Faculty Handbook contains the contract of employment between Bennington and Logan must be briefly addressed. Under Vermont law, disputes concerning the agreed-upon terms and conditions of an employment contract are an issue of fact for the jury to decide. See Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., Inc., 146 Vt. 204, 500 A.2d 230, 231-32 (1985). Bennington does not dispute this as a general rule, but contends that, because the Faculty Handbook contains much extraneous information, such as library policy and the available meal plans, it cannot be regarded as a contract. The Faculty Handbook, however, addresses many matters that would typically be included in an employment contract. Indeed, section 9-which contains, among other things, the provisions regarding presumptive tenure-is entitled \u201cConditions of Employment.\u201d The jury, therefore, could reasonably have interpreted the relevant portions of the Faculty Handbook as constituting the contract of employment between Logan and the College, and containing the rights and obligations of the parties. 1. Approval of the Interim Policy. Logan first contended that the adoption of the interim policy constituted a breach of contract, because it was not approved by the faculty as required by the Faculty Handbook. Section 9.46 of the Faculty Handbook provides that in matters relating to personnel policies, including contract terms and discipline, decisions are to be made by a process of mutual consultation between the College President, the Faculty Personnel Committee (\u201cFPC\u201d), the faculty, and the College Board of Trustees. The section further provides that \u201c[n]o changes of policy of substantial importance\u201d may be undertaken \u201cexcept upon the recommendation of the full faculty after a report from the President and the FPC,\u201d and \u201c[n]o substantive administrative decision affecting [the] faculty\u201d can be made except after consultation with the FPC. According to Logan, adopting the interim policy required consultation with the entire faculty because it effected a \u201csubstantial change\u201d from the older harassment policy contained 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 5/20 in section 1.47 of the Faculty Handbook, by transferring control over the disciplinary process from the faculty to the administration. The interim policy was not presented to the faculty or the prior to its implementation; rather, it was approved by Coleman and the Board of Trustees. In a letter dated September 1, 1989, President Coleman notified faculty, students, and administrative personnel that the interim policy would replace the older policy printed in the various college handbooks, including the Faculty Handbook, and that the interim policy would be in place for the 1989-1990 academic year. Despite the lack of faculty consultation, nothing in the College's process of formulating, adopting, and implementing the interim policy supports Logan's contention that Bennington's adoption of the interim policy constitutes a breach of contract under the Faculty Handbook. First, the substantive and procedural standards governing harassment cases in the interim policy are nearly identical to those contained in the older policy. For example, the definition of harassment in the two policies is identical. Each policy also requires the investigation of a formal complaint of harassment by a specially constituted committee, and prescribes both notice to the person charged with harassment, and a hearing on the matter. Both policies further provide for an appeal of the committee's decision to the College President. Significantly, other than requiring an investigation into the charges, notice of the charges to the accused, a hearing on the matter, and an appeal to the College President, the two policies are silent as to what procedures were to be utilized by the committees authorized to handle the matter. Second, the older and interim policies provide for disciplinary and appellate proceedings in the case of sexual harassment allegations which are distinct from the disciplinary and appellate proceedings governing termination of presumptive tenure. Contrary to Logan's contentions, under the older policy neither the faculty nor the had a role in disciplining persons charged with sexual harassment. Section 1.47 of the older policy provided for resolution of harassment claims by a three-member grievance committee, two of whom were appointed by the College President. Their decision could be appealed to the College President. No provision was made in the older policy for review of the grievance committee's decision by the or any other faculty representative. The interim policy provides that all formal harassment complaints shall be handled by the five-member Sexual Harassment Committee, whose members are appointed by the College President. The Committee's decision can be appealed to the President. Like the older policy, the interim policy does not provide for the involvement of the faculty or in disciplining members accused of harassment. Thus, the interim policy did not change the College's harassment policy in any substantial way, such that the faculty-wide and consultation and approval under the provisions of section 9.46 of the Faculty Handbook would be required prior to the policy's adoption. Rather, the interim policy created additional informal procedures in harassment cases, and amplified what procedures could be followed by the 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 6/20 Sexual Harassment Committee in formal complaints, while retaining that Committee's discretion to \u201cdecide on its own procedures.\u201d Indeed, had Logan's case arisen under the older policy, it is clear that the proceedings would not have differed in any significant respect. Finally, assuming for the moment that Coleman's failure to present the interim policy to the faculty for approval constituted a breach of the employment contract, Logan would be entitled to nothing more than nominal damages for that breach. Any monetary damages incurred by Logan in this case could not have been caused by the alleged breach, because the provisions contained in the two policies governing harassment cases are substantively the same. Rather, Logan's monetary damages, if any, resulted from his termination. The College's alleged failure to acquire faculty approval for the interim policy affected all the faculty members in an equal manner, and as a result Logan can only be entitled to-as would other faculty members-nominal damages. See, e.g., Weeks v. Local 1199, Drug, Hosp. and Health Care Employees Union, 892 F.Supp. 568, 574 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (where breach of union contract does not cause economic loss, injured party entitled to nominal damages); cf. Dannhausen v. Business Publications Audit of Circulation, Inc., 797 F.2d 548, 552 (7th Cir.1986) (association's by-laws are in the nature of a contract between the association and its members, and a breach of the by-laws entitles the association's members to nominal damages). Accordingly, the adoption of the interim policy without faculty approval cannot serve as the basis for the jury's verdict and award to Logan. There is insufficient evidence in the record for a reasonable jury to find that Bennington adopted the interim policy in violation of any of the procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook. 2. Procedural Rights Under the Contract. Logan alleges that a variety of \u201cprocedural flaws\u201d occurred during his hearing and appeal, such as his not being able to speak with witnesses prior to the hearing, and the Committee's consideration of his drinking problems during its deliberations. According to Logan, these alleged flaws, which are delineated and discussed more fully below in the section dealing with Bennington's alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violated his procedural rights under his employment contract with Bennington. Logan's contentions are without merit. None of the alleged flaws he cites contravene a specific provision found in the interim policy or elsewhere in the Faculty Handbook. Rather, these alleged flaws concern procedures that Logan believes should have been afforded him. Except for the required notice of charges against the accused and holding a hearing, however, neither the older policy nor the interim policy specifies any particular procedural requirements that the grievance committee or the Sexual Harassment Committee must follow. The interim policy authorized the Sexual Harassment Committee to formulate its own procedures. As a result, because Logan can point to no provision in his employment contract regarding \u201cprocedural rights\u201d that Bennington breached, his claim that Bennington 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 7/20 breached the employment contract as a result of \u201cprocedural flaws\u201d in his disciplinary hearing and appeal is insufficient to support the jury's verdict. 3. Good Cause Logan's third theory of breach of contract was that Bennington lacked good cause to terminate him, as required by the terms of the presumptive tenure provision. To show Bennington's alleged lack of good cause, Logan asserted at the trial that he was actually innocent of the charges and offered evidence which allegedly demonstrated that his hearing was procedurally \u201cflawed.\u201d On appeal, Logan asserts that he should receive a trial de novo in the district court on the question of his guilt. He contends that if the jury believed that he was innocent, it could conclude that Bennington did not have sufficient cause to fire him. Bennington, on the other hand, argues that Logan's innocence is not determinative of the breach of contract action. Moreover, it contends that Logan was only entitled to the procedural protections contained in his employment contract, and that he cannot claim lack of good cause based on what he believes would have been better procedures. Initially, we note that neither the presumptive tenure provisions of the Faculty Handbook nor the interim policy mention \u201ccause\u201d for terminating a faculty member. Rather, the presumptive tenure provisions state that a five-year presumptive tenure contract will not be automatically renewed if the professor substantially fails to perform the terms of his or her employment contract with the College, or exigent financial circumstances or changes in educational policy require elimination of the teaching position. The interim policy provides that termination of the accused is one option the Committee may recommend after it makes a determination that the charges of sexual harassment are substantiated. Clearly, these provisions can be considered as two independent grounds of \u201ccause\u201d for terminating a faculty member. We agree with Bennington that the primary issue under this theory of breach of contract presented by Logan is not his guilt or innocence with respect to the harassment charges. Rather, the primary issues are (1) whether Logan presented any evidence that Bennington discharged him without cause, or (2) whether he received fewer procedural protections than he was entitled to receive under his employment contract. With regard to the first issue, Logan failed to present any evidence at trial establishing that he was discharged without cause. Instead, he merely asserted his innocence in a conclusory manner. His bald assertions of innocence are insufficient as evidence that he was discharged without cause. Given that the College had the authority under the relevant provisions of the Faculty Handbook and interim policy to terminate a faculty member, Logan's claim that he was discharged without \u201cgood cause\u201d in the face of his failure to present any evidence to the contrary is unavailing. With respect to the second issue, Logan's attempt to demonstrate that there was no good cause to fire him because the hearing procedures were \u201cfatally flawed\u201d and a \u201csham\u201d is equally unavailing. As discussed above, there is no merit to Logan's contention that the hearing and appeal were procedurally 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 8/20 flawed. Logan's employment contract did not afford him the right to have all disciplinary proceedings conducted in any manner he wished, or resolved in his favor. Under the older and interim policies, Logan was entitled to a hearing, notice of the charges against him, and a right to appeal to the College president, all of which he received. Logan's assertion that the hearing was a \u201csham\u201d is nothing more than a restatement of his contention that the proceedings were procedurally flawed. This assertion is considered below, in our discussion of Logan's claim that Bennington breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. We conclude that Logan put forth no evidence that Bennington discharged him without cause. Accordingly, the jury's verdict and award to him could not be based on the theory that Bennington breached its contract by discharging him without good cause. 4. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing The final argument Logan relies upon to support his claim for breach of contract is that Bennington breached its obligation of good faith and fair dealing by conducting a \u201csham\u201d hearing. \u201cUnder Vermont law, an \u2018implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing prevails in every contract.\u2019 \u201d McHugh v. University of Vermont, 758 F.Supp. 945, 953 (D.Vt.1991) (citation omitted), aff'd, 966 F.2d 67 (2d Cir.1992). The duty implies that \u201cneither party shall do anything to injure or destroy the rights of the other party to receive the benefits of the agreement.\u201d Shaw v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 126 Vt. 206, 226 A.2d 903, 906 (1966) (citing Kirke La Shelle Co. v. Paul Armstrong Co., 263 N.Y. 79, 188 N.E. 163, 167 (1933)); see also Carmichael v. Adirondack Bottled Gas Corp. of Vermont, 161 Vt. 200, 635 A.2d 1211, 1216 (1993) (the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is broadly interpreted, and \u201cexists to ensure that parties to a contract act with \u2018faithfulness to an agreed common purpose and consistency with the justified expectations of the other party.\u2019 \u201d) (citation omitted). The burden of showing breach of the covenant is on the plaintiff. See Lambert v. Equinox House, Inc., 126 Vt. 229, 227 A.2d 403, 404-05 (1967); Burke v. N.P. Clough, Inc., 116 Vt. 448, 78 A.2d 483, 485-86 (1951). At trial, Logan alleged a variety of errors in the hearing that, even if they did not constitute a violation of an express contractual provision, taken together allegedly demonstrated that his hearing was not conducted in good faith and thus, as he describes it, rendered the hearing a \u201csham.\u201d Specifically, Logan alleged that: (1) the Committee chairperson acted as both investigator and judge because she questioned witnesses prior to the hearing; (2) the chairperson met with the complainant prior to the hearing, and did not disclose this fact to Logan; (3) although Logan was told who the witnesses would be at the hearing, he was forbidden from speaking with them prior to the hearing; (4) the chairperson allegedly sought to uncover evidence of Logan's past behavior (earlier incidents of harassment and excessive drinking) prior to the hearing; (5) Logan was not allowed to present favorable character evidence, nor was he allowed to present evidence impeaching the credibility of the complainant; (6) several Committee members were biased against Logan (one professor had the complainant as a 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 9/20 student, and another professor allegedly thought Logan was an \u201coverweight drunk\u201d); (7) the Committee members allegedly discussed Logan's problems with alcohol during their deliberations; (8) because he was instructed not to speak to witnesses before the hearing, Logan lost the opportunity to speak to Peter Dinklage, who was with Logan and the complainant on the night of the alleged harassment, and who would have allegedly corroborated Logan's account of the incident underlying the charges; (9) Logan was told only immediately prior to the hearing that only he and his advocate could examine the witnesses, and that witnesses could not issue prepared statements; (10) no recording was made of the hearing; and (11) Coleman both suggested the appropriate punishment and heard Logan's appeal. Logan argues that taking these errors together, a jury could conclude that Bennington \u201cbreached its obligation of good faith and fair dealing with Professor Logan when it subjected him to such a mockery of reasoned evaluation of the evidence against him.\u201d These \u201cerrors\u201d that Logan cites do not support his claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, as a matter of law. First, even under the older policy, committee members took active roles in all phases of the hearing. Logan's argument implies that in the private employment context, investigation and decision-making with respect to discipline must always be performed by different persons. However, there is no basis for such a rule. Second, except for the Committee members, neither Logan nor anyone else was permitted to question witnesses prior to the hearing, and Logan was free to examine the witness at the hearing. Third, Logan does not suggest why he could not elicit the alleged favorable information from Peter Dinklage upon questioning him at the hearing, rather than talking to him prior to the hearing. Fourth, no character evidence of any kind was permitted during the hearing with respect to Logan or the complainant. We acknowledge that some of the Committee members were aware of and considered Logan's reputation for engaging in similar conduct in the past, and his excessive drinking. But their considerations do not rise to a level of bad faith, and beyond mere assertion and speculation, Logan has not shown how the Committee's consideration of his past behavior and drinking constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Similarly, his allegation that two members of the Committee were biased against him also rests on speculation. Logan does not suggest why the fact that one professor on the Committee who had the complainant in her class indicates bias on that professor's part. As to the other professor alleged to be biased because he considered Logan an \u201coverweight drunk,\u201d Logan fails to mention that he consented to this professor's presence on the Committee. In essence, Logan's contention is that the procedure at the hearing should have been different, and the fact that it was not evidences that Committee's bias against him. None of his allegations of bias, however, rise to the level necessary for finding a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Moreover, even accounting for all reasonable inferences in Logan's favor, nothing in the record supports the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find for Logan on the claim that Bennington breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Committee's conduct 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 10/20 and the procedures followed by it during the course of Logan's hearing and appeal did not deprive Logan of any substantive or procedural rights or benefits he had under his employment contract. 5. Summary. None of the four grounds raised by Logan to support his breach of contract claim justifies the jury's verdict. As a result, the district court erred in denying Bennington's motion for a judgment as a matter of law and its decision must, therefore, be reversed and the matter remanded to permit vacatur of the verdict and award. Because we conclude that the district court erred in entering judgment for Logan on his breach of contract claim, we need not address Bennington's alternative arguments in support of reversal. We therefore move on to consideration of Logan's cross appeal, although we need not resolve Logan's claim that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could award punitive damages based on Bennington's breach of contract. We consider only that portion of Logan's cross appeal which challenges the refusal of the district court to submit certain theories of liability to the jury 1. Due Process. Logan contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his due process claims. He alleges that both his federal and state due process rights were violated by Bennington's conduct. Although Bennington is a private university, Logan contended before the district court that the Vermont HRC's involvement in the conciliation agreement, which required that Bennington change its harassment policy, constituted enough involvement by the state to render Bennington's conduct \u201cstate action\u201d for purposes of a due process challenge. The district court rejected this argument after affording Logan ample time for discovery. In an unpublished order granting summary judgment in favor of Bennington on the due process claims, the district court held: There is no evidence that the Commission [HRC] had any involvement in preparing, drafting, or revising the College's sexual harassment policy. Nor did it take any part in the proceedings against plaintiff. The Commission's involvement with the College's sexual harassment policy was one of urging the College to revise a pre-existing policy, the Commission having been involved in the settlement of a separate and distinct discrimination complaint between the College and one of its students. Consequently, there is no state action, compulsion or conduct. Logan contends on appeal that there was enough ambiguity surrounding the state's role to preclude summary judgment on this issue. Moreover, he contends that the district court abused its discretion in 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 11/20 quashing his subpoena to depose the executive director of the HRC. Logan's contentions are without merit. With regard to his claim concerning the subpoena to depose the executive director of the HRC, we review the district court's quashing of the subpoena for a clear abuse of discretion. See Cruden v. Bank of New York, 957 F.2d 961, 972 (2d Cir.1992). Logan's assertion that the director would have provided information suggesting that the state was actively involved in fashioning Bennington's policy and prescribing Logan's dismissal, is mere speculation. Moreover, Logan was afforded discovery as to all of Bennington's employees and all written correspondence between Bennington and the HRC. In light of Logan's access to these documents and his failure to suggest why the deposition would produce evidence beyond that which was already memorialized in the documents, the district court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoena. With regard to the merits of the due process claim, a \u201cstate action\u201d occurs where the challenged action of a private party is \u201cfairly attributable\u201d to the state. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982); Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351, 95 S.Ct. 449, 453, 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974) (the conduct of the private party \u201cmay be fairly treated as that of the State itself.\u201d). Private party conduct is fairly attributable to the state when (1) the deprivation is \u201ccaused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible,\u201d and (2) \u201cthe party charged with the deprivation [is] a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor.\u201d Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937, 102 S.Ct. at 2753-54 party may be a \u201cstate actor\u201d because he or she \u201cis a state official, because he [or she] has acted together with or has obtained significant aid from state officials, or because his [or her] conduct is otherwise chargeable to the State.\u201d Id. Characterizing a private party as a \u201cstate actor\u201d is a fact- specific inquiry, and courts considering the issue typically look to such factors as the public function of the party's conduct, whether the private party acted under state compulsion, the nexus between the party's conduct and the state, and whether the party's conduct was jointly undertaken with the state. See id. at 939, 102 S.Ct. at 2754. In the instant case, Bennington reached a conciliation agreement in an unrelated harassment case with the HRC, pursuant to which it agreed, among other things, to settle a student's harassment claim against another Bennington professor, and to revise its harassment policy in order to comply with the law. Because the was involved in the conciliation agreement, the district court noted that the interim policy was adopted at the Vermont HRC's \u201curging.\u201d The HRC, however, had no involvement in Logan's case. The question is, thus, whether Bennington functioned as a state actor solely because the was part of the impetus for the adoption of Bennington's interim policy. According to Logan, any action undertaken in compliance with the interim policy is state action, because the provided part of the impetus for adopting that policy. 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 12/20 Logan's argument stretches the meaning of state action too far. Bennington was revising its policy to comply with Vermont law, but its action in terminating Logan was in no way dictated by state law or state actors. Our decision in Albert v. Carovano, 851 F.2d 561 (2d Cir.1988) (in banc) is instructive in this matter. In Albert, we considered whether a private university's adoption of a disciplinary code in order to comply with state law constituted state action. The state neither drafted the disciplinary code, nor participated in determining what sentence was to be handed out under it. We held that there was no state action under these circumstances, and that state action would not be found unless \u201cthe particular sanction under challenge was imposed as a result of the acts of state officials \u2024 or as a result of \u2018a reasonable and widespread belief\u2019 by college or university administrators that the imposition of the sanction was required [by a particular state law.]\u201d Id. at 570. See also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 2786, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) (\u201c[O]ur precedents indicate that a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State.\u201d). Here, there is an insufficient nexus between the and Logan's termination under Bennington's interim policy to warrant a finding of state action. His termination was neither imposed by the acts of state officials acting alone or in concert with College officials, nor imposed by Bennington in the belief that it was required by law. The interim policy afforded several courses of action that the College could take once the Committee found that Logan committed the harassment, and the ultimate decision to terminate Logan was Coleman's. The district court, therefore, correctly granted Bennington's motion for summary judgment dismissing Logan's federal due process claim. The district court also relied on the lack of state action to grant Bennington's motion for summary judgment with respect to Logan's claim of violation of his due process rights under the Vermont Constitution. The district court assumed, without addressing the issue, that state action is required for state due process protection to be triggered. On appeal, Logan argues that state action is not required for due process protection under the Vermont Constitution, because Vermont's Constitution is based on an \u201cideologically different basis\u201d than the federal constitution, namely libertarianism. In support of this contention, Logan cites to Chapter I, Articles 9 and 10 of Vermont's Constitution, which provide in relevant part that \u201cno part of any person's property can be justly taken from him, \u2024 without his own consent,\u2024 nor can any person be justly deprived of his liberty, except by the laws of the land.\u201d He then contends that because there is no express reference in these passages to state action, the Vermont Constitution must protect life, liberty, and property against deprivation without due process by any entity, not just by action of the state. The only case Logan presents in support of his novel argument is a concurring opinion from State of Vermont v. Kirchoff, 156 Vt. 1, 587 A.2d 988 (1991), in which, according to Logan, the concurrence stressed the libertarian underpinnings of the Vermont Constitution. See id. at 998 (Springer, District 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 13/20 Judge (Ret.), concurring). Notwithstanding the merits of the Kirchoff concurrence's discussion, it is quite another matter-indeed, a gigantic jurisprudential leap of logic-to infer that, therefore, a due process claim under the Vermont Constitution does not require state action. Other than the concurring opinion in Kirchoff, Logan cites no case supporting his proposition that under the Vermont Constitution private entities acting as such are bound to provide due process to private individuals in the absence of state action. The argument is unprecedented. In the absence of authority directly supporting his proposition, we hold that the district court correctly granted summary judgment on Logan's state-based due process claim. 2. Negligence. Logan contends that the district court also erred in granting summary judgment to Bennington on his negligence claim. Logan's complaint alleges that Bennington negligently exercised its duty to investigate, prosecute, and judge him. More specifically, Logan alleges that Bennington was negligent in restricting the testimony allowed at the hearing and refusing to allow a meaningful appeal. The district court granted summary judgment on the grounds that Logan's claim was too \u201cvague,\u201d in that he failed to specify the duty of care that was breached. On appeal, Logan elaborates on the supposed duty of care that Bennington owed him. He contends that Bennington owed him a duty of care by virtue of extending him tenure, and that it breached this duty by modifying the sexual harassment policy without faculty approval. Bennington argues that Logan's claim is a contract claim masquerading as a tort claim. We agree. The duty of care that Logan claims is due him is nothing more than the claim that he is entitled to receive that which is due him under the contract. See Breslauer v. Fayston Sch. Dist., 163 Vt. 416, 659 A.2d 1129, 1132-33 (1995) (explaining that breach of a contractual obligation does not create an independent tort); accord Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R.R., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190, 193-94 (1987) (\u201c[A] simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated.\u201d) (citations omitted). Because Logan is unable to describe a more particular duty that is independent of Bennington's obligations under the employment contract, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Logan's negligence claim Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's grant of Bennington's motion for summary judgment and dismissal of Logan's due process and negligence claims. We reverse, however, the judgment of the district court denying Bennington's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and remand this case with instructions to vacate the verdict and jury award entered against Bennington College 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 14/20 March 11, 1996 It is Hereby Ordered that this Court's decision in Logan v. Bennington Corp., No. 94-7976L, slip op. 8917 [72 F.3d 1017] (2d Cir. Dec. 14, 1995), is amended as follows: At slip op. 8919 [1020], delete the following language appearing at lines 22-32: [Editor's Note: Amendments incorporated for purpose of publication.] The above excerpted language contained background, and has no bearing whatsoever on the disposition of the appeal or the key issues raised on appeal concerning the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Leroy Logan's claims. So Ordered. ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge: Was this helpful? Yes No Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 15/20 Go to Learn About the Law v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherman, Adrienne Marcus, and Liz Pellerin, Defendants. (1995) Docket No: Nos. 1630, 1761, Dockets 94-7976L, 94-9012. Decided: December 14, 1995 Court: United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 For Legal Professionals 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 16/20 \uf105Law Students Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 17/20 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 Email * \uf105 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 18/20 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 19/20 Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles By Name Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/13/25, 10:19 v. Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherma\u2026 20/20", "7230_102.pdf": "Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross- appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant- cross-appellee,trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joangoodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsysherman, Adrienne Marcus, and Lizpellerin, Defendants, 72 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1996 Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 72 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1996) Argued May 18, 1995. Decided Dec. 14, 1995. As Amended March 11, 1996 Mitchell L. Pearl, Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, Vermont (Ellen Mercer Fallon, Langrock Sperry & Wool, on the brief), for defendant-appellant-cross-appellee. William K. Sessions, Sessions Keiner Dumont & Barnes, P.C., Middlebury, Vermont (Bonnie Barnes, Sessions Keiner Dumont & Barnes, P.C., on the brief), for plaintiff- appellee-cross-appellant. Before: LUMBARD, ALTIMARI, and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges. ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge: 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 1/17 Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee Bennington College (\"Bennington\" or \"College\") appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Billings, J.), following a jury verdict, awarding plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant Leroy Logan (\"Logan\") damages for breach of contract. We affirm the district court's granting of Bennington's pre-trial motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Logan's due process and negligence claims. We reverse, however, the judgment of the district court denying Bennington's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law on Logan's breach of contract claims, and remand this case with instructions to vacate the verdict and jury award entered against Bennington The present case centers on Bennington, a small college located in Vermont which has always prided itself on progressive and non-traditional pedagogy. Recently, Bennington has been criticized by former faculty members and other educators because its President, Elizabeth Coleman (\"Coleman\"), has undertaken measures to downsize the school. Since 1987, when Coleman took office, nearly one third of the faculty has been dismissed, ostensibly for fiscal reasons. Moreover, Bennington has ended its \"presumptive tenure\" plan, under which, absent certain circumstances, professors held a five-year term of employment with the College that was automatically renewed for another five-year term. Logan taught drama for eighteen years at Bennington, until his discharge on July 20, 1990, for alleged sexual harassment. At the time the incidents underlying this case occurred, Logan, like other professors at Bennington, had presumptive tenure. As described in section 9.43 of the Bennington College Faculty Handbook (\"Faculty Handbook\"), a professor with presumptive tenure held a contract for a five-year term of employment with the College. The College was obligated to extend that contract for another five years, unless the professor substantially failed to perform the terms of his or her employment contract with the College, or exigent financial circumstances or changes in educational policy required elimination of the teaching position. On May 16, 1990, a male student of Logan's (\"complainant\") filed a complaint with the College alleging that Logan forced the student to have sexual relations with him on Thanksgiving Day, 1989, in Wales, where Logan was directing a College-sponsored program (the \"London Program\") in which the complainant was a participant. The student's complaint was referred to the College's Sexual Harassment Committee pursuant to an interim policy on sexual harassment instituted by Bennington on September 1, 1989 (\"interim policy\"). 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 2/17 The interim policy was designed to replace the College's older policy regarding sexual harassment that had existed since 1982 (\"older policy\"). Bennington's legal counsel had advised the College that the older policy might not comply with state regulations. Moreover, in an unrelated harassment case against Bennington brought before the Vermont Human Rights Commission (\"HRC\") by another student, Bennington had signed a conciliation agreement with the which provided that, among other things, Bennington would revise its sexual harassment policy. Accordingly, in 1989 Coleman appointed a six-member committee to draft an interim policy on harassment, which Coleman approved in August, 1989, and the Board of Trustees authorized to take effect as of September 1, 1989. While the interim policy retains the definition of sexual harassment under the older policy, it is more comprehensive than the older policy with respect to the informal and formal procedures to be followed in cases of complaints alleging sexual harassment. For example, the older policy, contained in Section 1.47 of the Faculty Handbook and consisting of three single-spaced pages, established a three-member grievance committee comprised of both genders which was authorized to investigate complaints of sexual harassment and, if the dispute could not be resolved informally, to hold a hearing. Two of the three grievance committee members were appointed by the College President. The only procedures outlined by the older policy were that (i) notice of the complaint and hearing be given to the parties, (ii) the complainant be allowed to attend the hearing, (iii) minutes of the hearing be kept, and (iv) the result of the hearing could be appealed to the College President. By contrast, the interim policy is seven single-spaced pages, and establishes more specific procedures at all stages of the grievance process, both informal and formal. Among other things, the new policy creates a five-member Sexual Harassment Committee (\"Committee\") to investigate and hear formal complaints alleging sexual harassment. The Committee members are appointed by the College President, and include the Director of Student Affairs, who chairs the Committee, two faculty members, one staff member, and one student. According to the interim policy, the Committee's primary function is to conduct hearings for all formal sexual harassment complaints at the College. The Committee can also hear appeals from decisions by the College in informal harassment proceedings. The interim policy authorizes the Committee to establish its own procedures, and to contact all persons who are involved in the case, provided that notice of such contact is given to the parties. If, after the formal hearing, the Committee concludes that formal disciplinary action against a faculty member is called for, it may recommend to the College President one of 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 3/17 several sanctions, including discharge from employment at the College. Appeals from a decision by the Committee may also be taken to the College President within ten days of the decision. The format for such appeals is left to the discretion of the College President. The College President may implement, modify or suspend the sanctions recommended by the Committee, and his or her decision is final. The interim policy further provides that formal complaints of sexual harassment are to be resolved as promptly as possible, and recommends that a written decision be rendered within thirty days of the filing of a complaint. Logan received notice of the complaint and hearing, as well as a list of seven students who would be interviewed by the Committee as potential witnesses. He acknowledged receipt of the hearing notice, and submitted his own list of twelve witnesses. The Committee notified Logan that only those witnesses with potential direct knowledge of the incidents at issue, namely those in the London Program at the time of the alleged harassment, would be permitted to testify five-hour hearing was held on May 31, 1990, at which the complainant, Logan and seven students who had participated in the College's London Program testified. Logan was assisted by a faculty representative. The parties were permitted to question witnesses and read statements, and were examined by the Committee members. The Committee deliberated for several days, and in a written report and recommendation unanimously recommended termination of Logan. The Committee members found the complainant's testimony detailed and credible, and Logan's testimony vague and uncorroborated by several of the witnesses. The Committee's recommendation was sent to Coleman. Logan appealed the decision to Coleman, who held a hearing on the matter in which Logan was represented by counsel. At the hearing's conclusion, Coleman declined to alter the original decision, and Logan was terminated. On April 25, 1991, Logan commenced the instant action against the College and the individual faculty and staff members who were involved in the decision to terminate him. Seeking reinstatement and damages, Logan's complaint alleged claims for breach of contract, negligence, denial of federal and state due process, and defamation. Prior to trial, Logan stipulated to the dismissal of the defamation claim. Except for the breach of contract claims against the College, the remaining claims were dismissed by the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bennington. The breach of contract claims against the College proceeded to trial. At trial, Logan contended that when he was hired, he was told that the terms of his employment contract were set forth in the Faculty Handbook. He proceeded to present four 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 4/17 separate breach of contract theories to the jury. First, Logan contended that Bennington adopted the interim policy in violation of his contractual rights contained in the Faculty Handbook. Second, he contended that Bennington failed to afford him the procedural rights guaranteed under his employment contract. Third, Logan claimed that Bennington lacked good cause to terminate him because the charges against him were untrue. Fourth, Logan claimed that by terminating him, Bennington breached an implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. After a four-day trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Logan in the amount of $500,000. The district court reduced the amount to approximately $200,000, on the ground that the jury disregarded the Court's instruction that punitive damages were not available to Logan as a remedy. The district court also denied Bennington's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Bennington now appeals from the district court's denial of it motion for judgment as a matter of law. Logan cross appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Bennington and dismissing his claims based on negligence and due process, as well as the district court's ruling disallowing the jury's punitive damages award As noted above, the only claim considered by the jury was Logan's allegation of breach of his employment contract. It is unclear from the record, however, which of the four theories presented by Logan as the bases for his breach of contract claims were relied upon by the jury in reaching its verdict. Thus, in order to prevail on this appeal, Bennington must demonstrate that there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found in Logan's favor with respect to any of the four theories underlying his breach of contract claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). As we have previously explained, judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when there is \"such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or [where there is] such an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the movant that reasonable and fair minded [persons] could not arrive at a verdict against [the movant].\" See Concerned Area Residents For The Env't v. Southview Farm, 34 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and citations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 1793, 131 L. Ed. 2d 721 (1995). The Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to Logan, and gives Logan the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the evidence that the jury might have drawn in his favor. See id. In considering the evidence, the Court may not weigh evidence, assess credibility, or substitute its opinion of the facts for that of the jury. See Weldy v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 985 F.2d 57, 59 (2d Cir. 1993). 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 5/17 Preliminarily, the issue of whether the Faculty Handbook contains the contract of employment between Bennington and Logan must be briefly addressed. Under Vermont law, disputes concerning the agreed-upon terms and conditions of an employment contract are an issue of fact for the jury to decide. See Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., Inc., 146 Vt. 204, 500 A.2d 230, 231-32 (1985). Bennington does not dispute this as a general rule, but contends that, because the Faculty Handbook contains much extraneous information, such as library policy and the available meal plans, it cannot be regarded as a contract. The Faculty Handbook, however, addresses many matters that would typically be included in an employment contract. Indeed, section 9--which contains, among other things, the provisions regarding presumptive tenure--is entitled \"Conditions of Employment.\" The jury, therefore, could reasonably have interpreted the relevant portions of the Faculty Handbook as constituting the contract of employment between Logan and the College, and containing the rights and obligations of the parties. 1. Approval of the Interim Policy. Logan first contended that the adoption of the interim policy constituted a breach of contract, because it was not approved by the faculty as required by the Faculty Handbook. Section 9.46 of the Faculty Handbook provides that in matters relating to personnel policies, including contract terms and discipline, decisions are to be made by a process of mutual consultation between the College President, the Faculty Personnel Committee (\"FPC\"), the faculty, and the College Board of Trustees. The section further provides that \" [n]o changes of policy of substantial importance\" may be undertaken \"except upon the recommendation of the full faculty after a report from the President and the FPC,\" and \" [n]o substantive administrative decision affecting [the] faculty\" can be made except after consultation with the FPC. According to Logan, adopting the interim policy required consultation with the entire faculty because it effected a \"substantial change\" from the older harassment policy contained in section 1.47 of the Faculty Handbook, by transferring control over the disciplinary process from the faculty to the administration. The interim policy was not presented to the faculty or the prior to its implementation; rather, it was approved by Coleman and the Board of Trustees. In a letter dated September 1, 1989, President Coleman notified faculty, students, and administrative personnel that the interim policy would replace the older policy printed in the various college handbooks, including the Faculty Handbook, and that the interim policy would be in place for the 1989-1990 academic year. Despite the lack of faculty consultation, nothing in the College's process of formulating, adopting, and implementing the interim policy supports Logan's 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 6/17 contention that Bennington's adoption of the interim policy constitutes a breach of contract under the Faculty Handbook. First, the substantive and procedural standards governing harassment cases in the interim policy are nearly identical to those contained in the older policy. For example, the definition of harassment in the two policies is identical. Each policy also requires the investigation of a formal complaint of harassment by a specially constituted committee, and prescribes both notice to the person charged with harassment, and a hearing on the matter. Both policies further provide for an appeal of the committee's decision to the College President. Significantly, other than requiring an investigation into the charges, notice of the charges to the accused, a hearing on the matter, and an appeal to the College President, the two policies are silent as to what procedures were to be utilized by the committees authorized to handle the matter. Second, the older and interim policies provide for disciplinary and appellate proceedings in the case of sexual harassment allegations which are distinct from the disciplinary and appellate proceedings governing termination of presumptive tenure. Contrary to Logan's contentions, under the older policy neither the faculty nor the had a role in disciplining persons charged with sexual harassment. Section 1.47 of the older policy provided for resolution of harassment claims by a three-member grievance committee, two of whom were appointed by the College President. Their decision could be appealed to the College President. No provision was made in the older policy for review of the grievance committee's decision by the or any other faculty representative. The interim policy provides that all formal harassment complaints shall be handled by the five-member Sexual Harassment Committee, whose members are appointed by the College President. The Committee's decision can be appealed to the President. Like the older policy, the interim policy does not provide for the involvement of the faculty or in disciplining members accused of harassment. Thus, the interim policy did not change the College's harassment policy in any substantial way, such that the faculty-wide and consultation and approval under the provisions of section 9.46 of the Faculty Handbook would be required prior to the policy's adoption. Rather, the interim policy created additional informal procedures in harassment cases, and amplified what procedures could be followed by the Sexual Harassment Committee in formal complaints, while retaining that Committee's discretion to \"decide on its own procedures.\" Indeed, had Logan's case arisen under the older policy, it is clear that the proceedings would not have differed in any significant respect. 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 7/17 Finally, assuming for the moment that Coleman's failure to present the interim policy to the faculty for approval constituted a breach of the employment contract, Logan would be entitled to nothing more than nominal damages for that breach. Any monetary damages incurred by Logan in this case could not have been caused by the alleged breach, because the provisions contained in the two policies governing harassment cases are substantively the same. Rather, Logan's monetary damages, if any, resulted from his termination. The College's alleged failure to acquire faculty approval for the interim policy affected all the faculty members in an equal manner, and as a result Logan can only be entitled to--as would other faculty members--nominal damages. See, e.g., Weeks v. Local 1199, Drug, Hosp. and Health Care Employees Union, 892 F. Supp. 568, 574 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (where breach of union contract does not cause economic loss, injured party entitled to nominal damages); cf. Dannhausen v. Business Publications Audit of Circulation, Inc., 797 F.2d 548, 552 (7th Cir. 1986) (association's by-laws are in the nature of a contract between the association and its members, and a breach of the by-laws entitles the association's members to nominal damages). Accordingly, the adoption of the interim policy without faculty approval cannot serve as the basis for the jury's verdict and award to Logan. There is insufficient evidence in the record for a reasonable jury to find that Bennington adopted the interim policy in violation of any of the procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook. 2. Procedural Rights Under the Contract. Logan alleges that a variety of \"procedural flaws\" occurred during his hearing and appeal, such as his not being able to speak with witnesses prior to the hearing, and the Committee's consideration of his drinking problems during its deliberations. According to Logan, these alleged flaws, which are delineated and discussed more fully below in the section dealing with Bennington's alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violated his procedural rights under his employment contract with Bennington. Logan's contentions are without merit. None of the alleged flaws he cites contravene a specific provision found in the interim policy or elsewhere in the Faculty Handbook. Rather, these alleged flaws concern procedures that Logan believes should have been afforded him. Except for the required notice of charges against the accused and holding a hearing, however, neither the older policy nor the interim policy specifies any particular procedural requirements that the grievance committee or the Sexual Harassment Committee must follow. The interim policy authorized the Sexual Harassment Committee to formulate its own procedures. As a result, because Logan can point to no provision in his employment contract regarding \"procedural rights\" that Bennington breached, his claim 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 8/17 that Bennington breached the employment contract as a result of \"procedural flaws\" in his disciplinary hearing and appeal is insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Logan's third theory of breach of contract was that Bennington lacked good cause to terminate him, as required by the terms of the presumptive tenure provision. To show Bennington's alleged lack of good cause, Logan asserted at the trial that he was actually innocent of the charges and offered evidence which allegedly demonstrated that his hearing was procedurally \"flawed.\" On appeal, Logan asserts that he should receive a trial de novo in the district court on the question of his guilt. He contends that if the jury believed that he was innocent, it could conclude that Bennington did not have sufficient cause to fire him. Bennington, on the other hand, argues that Logan's innocence is not determinative of the breach of contract action. Moreover, it contends that Logan was only entitled to the procedural protections contained in his employment contract, and that he cannot claim lack of good cause based on what he believes would have been better procedures. Initially, we note that neither the presumptive tenure provisions of the Faculty Handbook nor the interim policy mention \"cause\" for terminating a faculty member. Rather, the presumptive tenure provisions state that a five-year presumptive tenure contract will not be automatically renewed if the professor substantially fails to perform the terms of his or her employment contract with the College, or exigent financial circumstances or changes in educational policy require elimination of the teaching position. The interim policy provides that termination of the accused is one option the Committee may recommend after it makes a determination that the charges of sexual harassment are substantiated. Clearly, these provisions can be considered as two independent grounds of \"cause\" for terminating a faculty member. We agree with Bennington that the primary issue under this theory of breach of contract presented by Logan is not his guilt or innocence with respect to the harassment charges. Rather, the primary issues are (1) whether Logan presented any evidence that Bennington discharged him without cause, or (2) whether he received fewer procedural protections than he was entitled to receive under his employment contract. With regard to the first issue, Logan failed to present any evidence at trial establishing that he was discharged without cause. Instead, he merely asserted his innocence in a conclusory manner. His bald assertions of innocence are insufficient as evidence that he was discharged without cause. Given that the College had the authority under the relevant provisions of the Faculty Handbook and interim policy to terminate a faculty member, Logan's claim that he was discharged without \"good cause\" in the face of his failure to present any evidence to the contrary is unavailing. 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 9/17 With respect to the second issue, Logan's attempt to demonstrate that there was no good cause to fire him because the hearing procedures were \"fatally flawed\" and a \"sham\" is equally unavailing. As discussed above, there is no merit to Logan's contention that the hearing and appeal were procedurally flawed. Logan's employment contract did not afford him the right to have all disciplinary proceedings conducted in any manner he wished, or resolved in his favor. Under the older and interim policies, Logan was entitled to a hearing, notice of the charges against him, and a right to appeal to the College president, all of which he received. Logan's assertion that the hearing was a \"sham\" is nothing more than a restatement of his contention that the proceedings were procedurally flawed. This assertion is considered below, in our discussion of Logan's claim that Bennington breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. We conclude that Logan put forth no evidence that Bennington discharged him without cause. Accordingly, the jury's verdict and award to him could not be based on the theory that Bennington breached its contract by discharging him without good cause. 4. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing The final argument Logan relies upon to support his claim for breach of contract is that Bennington breached its obligation of good faith and fair dealing by conducting a \"sham\" hearing. \"Under Vermont law, an 'implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing prevails in every contract.' \" McHugh v. University of Vermont, 758 F. Supp. 945, 953 (D. Vt. 1991) (citation omitted), aff'd, 966 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1992). The duty implies that \"neither party shall do anything to injure or destroy the rights of the other party to receive the benefits of the agreement.\" Shaw v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 126 Vt. 206, 226 A.2d 903, 906 (1966) (citing Kirke La Shelle Co. v. Paul Armstrong Co., 263 N.Y. 79, 188 N.E. 163, 167 (1933)); see also Carmichael v. Adirondack Bottled Gas Corp. of Vermont, 161 Vt. 200, 635 A.2d 1211, 1216 (1993) (the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is broadly interpreted, and \"exists to ensure that parties to a contract act with 'faithfulness to an agreed common purpose and consistency with the justified expectations of the other party.' \") (citation omitted). The burden of showing breach of the covenant is on the plaintiff. See Lambert v. Equinox House, Inc., 126 Vt. 229, 227 A.2d 403, 404-05 (1967); Burke v. N.P. Clough, Inc., 116 Vt. 448, 78 A.2d 483, 485-86 (1951). At trial, Logan alleged a variety of errors in the hearing that, even if they did not constitute a violation of an express contractual provision, taken together allegedly demonstrated that his hearing was not conducted in good faith and thus, as he describes it, rendered the 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 10/17 hearing a \"sham.\" Specifically, Logan alleged that: (1) the Committee chairperson acted as both investigator and judge because she questioned witnesses prior to the hearing; (2) the chairperson met with the complainant prior to the hearing, and did not disclose this fact to Logan; (3) although Logan was told who the witnesses would be at the hearing, he was forbidden from speaking with them prior to the hearing; (4) the chairperson allegedly sought to uncover evidence of Logan's past behavior (earlier incidents of harassment and excessive drinking) prior to the hearing; (5) Logan was not allowed to present favorable character evidence, nor was he allowed to present evidence impeaching the credibility of the complainant; (6) several Committee members were biased against Logan (one professor had the complainant as a student, and another professor allegedly thought Logan was an \"overweight drunk\"); (7) the Committee members allegedly discussed Logan's problems with alcohol during their deliberations; (8) because he was instructed not to speak to witnesses before the hearing, Logan lost the opportunity to speak to Peter Dinklage, who was with Logan and the complainant on the night of the alleged harassment, and who would have allegedly corroborated Logan's account of the incident underlying the charges; (9) Logan was told only immediately prior to the hearing that only he and his advocate could examine the witnesses, and that witnesses could not issue prepared statements; (10) no recording was made of the hearing; and (11) Coleman both suggested the appropriate punishment and heard Logan's appeal. Logan argues that taking these errors together, a jury could conclude that Bennington \"breached its obligation of good faith and fair dealing with Professor Logan when it subjected him to such a mockery of reasoned evaluation of the evidence against him.\" These \"errors\" that Logan cites do not support his claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, as a matter of law. First, even under the older policy, committee members took active roles in all phases of the hearing. Logan's argument implies that in the private employment context, investigation and decision-making with respect to discipline must always be performed by different persons. However, there is no basis for such a rule. Second, except for the Committee members, neither Logan nor anyone else was permitted to question witnesses prior to the hearing, and Logan was free to examine the witness at the hearing. Third, Logan does not suggest why he could not elicit the alleged favorable information from Peter Dinklage upon questioning him at the hearing, rather than talking to him prior to the hearing. Fourth, no character evidence of any kind was permitted during the hearing with respect to Logan or the complainant. We acknowledge that some of the Committee members were aware of and considered Logan's reputation for engaging in similar conduct in the past, and his excessive drinking. But their considerations do not rise to a level of bad faith, and beyond mere assertion and 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 11/17 speculation, Logan has not shown how the Committee's consideration of his past behavior and drinking constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Similarly, his allegation that two members of the Committee were biased against him also rests on speculation. Logan does not suggest why the fact that one professor on the Committee who had the complainant in her class indicates bias on that professor's part. As to the other professor alleged to be biased because he considered Logan an \"overweight drunk,\" Logan fails to mention that he consented to this professor's presence on the Committee. In essence, Logan's contention is that the procedure at the hearing should have been different, and the fact that it was not evidences that Committee's bias against him. None of his allegations of bias, however, rise to the level necessary for finding a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Moreover, even accounting for all reasonable inferences in Logan's favor, nothing in the record supports the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find for Logan on the claim that Bennington breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Committee's conduct and the procedures followed by it during the course of Logan's hearing and appeal did not deprive Logan of any substantive or procedural rights or benefits he had under his employment contract. 5. Summary. None of the four grounds raised by Logan to support his breach of contract claim justifies the jury's verdict. As a result, the district court erred in denying Bennington's motion for a judgment as a matter of law and its decision must, therefore, be reversed and the matter remanded to permit vacatur of the verdict and award. Because we conclude that the district court erred in entering judgment for Logan on his breach of contract claim, we need not address Bennington's alternative arguments in support of reversal. We therefore move on to consideration of Logan's cross appeal, although we need not resolve Logan's claim that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could award punitive damages based on Bennington's breach of contract. We consider only that portion of Logan's cross appeal which challenges the refusal of the district court to submit certain theories of liability to the jury. 1. Due Process. Logan contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his due process claims. He alleges that both his federal and state due process rights were violated by Bennington's conduct. 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 12/17 Although Bennington is a private university, Logan contended before the district court that the Vermont HRC's involvement in the conciliation agreement, which required that Bennington change its harassment policy, constituted enough involvement by the state to render Bennington's conduct \"state action\" for purposes of a due process challenge. The district court rejected this argument after affording Logan ample time for discovery. In an unpublished order granting summary judgment in favor of Bennington on the due process claims, the district court held: There is no evidence that the Commission [HRC] had any involvement in preparing, drafting, or revising the College's sexual harassment policy. Nor did it take any part in the proceedings against plaintiff. The Commission's involvement with the College's sexual harassment policy was one of urging the College to revise a pre-existing policy, the Commission having been involved in the settlement of a separate and distinct discrimination complaint between the College and one of its students. Consequently, there is no state action, compulsion or conduct. Logan contends on appeal that there was enough ambiguity surrounding the state's role to preclude summary judgment on this issue. Moreover, he contends that the district court abused its discretion in quashing his subpoena to depose the executive director of the HRC. Logan's contentions are without merit. With regard to his claim concerning the subpoena to depose the executive director of the HRC, we review the district court's quashing of the subpoena for a clear abuse of discretion. See Cruden v. Bank of New York, 957 F.2d 961, 972 (2d Cir. 1992). Logan's assertion that the director would have provided information suggesting that the state was actively involved in fashioning Bennington's policy and prescribing Logan's dismissal, is mere speculation. Moreover, Logan was afforded discovery as to all of Bennington's employees and all written correspondence between Bennington and the HRC. In light of Logan's access to these documents and his failure to suggest why the deposition would produce evidence beyond that which was already memorialized in the documents, the district court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoena. With regard to the merits of the due process claim, a \"state action\" occurs where the challenged action of a private party is \"fairly attributable\" to the state. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937, 102 S. Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L. Ed. 2d 482 (1982); Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351, 95 S. Ct. 449, 453, 42 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1974) (the conduct of the private party \"may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.\"). Private party conduct is fairly attributable to the state when (1) the deprivation is \"caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 13/17 imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible,\" and (2) \"the party charged with the deprivation [is] a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor.\" Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937, 102 S. Ct. at 2753-54 party may be a \"state actor\" because he or she \"is a state official, because he [or she] has acted together with or has obtained significant aid from state officials, or because his [or her] conduct is otherwise chargeable to the State.\" Id. Characterizing a private party as a \"state actor\" is a fact-specific inquiry, and courts considering the issue typically look to such factors as the public function of the party's conduct, whether the private party acted under state compulsion, the nexus between the party's conduct and the state, and whether the party's conduct was jointly undertaken with the state. See id. at 939, 102 S. Ct. at 2754. In the instant case, Bennington reached a conciliation agreement in an unrelated harassment case with the HRC, pursuant to which it agreed, among other things, to settle a student's harassment claim against another Bennington professor, and to revise its harassment policy in order to comply with the law. Because the was involved in the conciliation agreement, the district court noted that the interim policy was adopted at the Vermont HRC's \"urging.\" The HRC, however, had no involvement in Logan's case. The question is, thus, whether Bennington functioned as a state actor solely because the was part of the impetus for the adoption of Bennington's interim policy. According to Logan, any action undertaken in compliance with the interim policy is state action, because the provided part of the impetus for adopting that policy. Logan's argument stretches the meaning of state action too far. Bennington was revising its policy to comply with Vermont law, but its action in terminating Logan was in no way dictated by state law or state actors. Our decision in Albert v. Carovano, 851 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1988) (in banc) is instructive in this matter. In Albert, we considered whether a private university's adoption of a disciplinary code in order to comply with state law constituted state action. The state neither drafted the disciplinary code, nor participated in determining what sentence was to be handed out under it. We held that there was no state action under these circumstances, and that state action would not be found unless \"the particular sanction under challenge was imposed as a result of the acts of state officials ... or as a result of 'a reasonable and widespread belief' by college or university administrators that the imposition of the sanction was required [by a particular state law.]\" Id. at 570. See also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004, 102 S. Ct. 2777, 2786, 73 L. Ed. 2d 534 (1982) (\" [O]ur precedents indicate that a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State.\"). 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 14/17 Here, there is an insufficient nexus between the and Logan's termination under Bennington's interim policy to warrant a finding of state action. His termination was neither imposed by the acts of state officials acting alone or in concert with College officials, nor imposed by Bennington in the belief that it was required by law. The interim policy afforded several courses of action that the College could take once the Committee found that Logan committed the harassment, and the ultimate decision to terminate Logan was Coleman's. The district court, therefore, correctly granted Bennington's motion for summary judgment dismissing Logan's federal due process claim. The district court also relied on the lack of state action to grant Bennington's motion for summary judgment with respect to Logan's claim of violation of his due process rights under the Vermont Constitution. The district court assumed, without addressing the issue, that state action is required for state due process protection to be triggered. On appeal, Logan argues that state action is not required for due process protection under the Vermont Constitution, because Vermont's Constitution is based on an \"ideologically different basis\" than the federal constitution, namely libertarianism. In support of this contention, Logan cites to Chapter I, Articles 9 and 10 of Vermont's Constitution, which provide in relevant part that \"no part of any person's property can be justly taken from him, ... without his own consent,.... nor can any person be justly deprived of his liberty, except by the laws of the land.\" He then contends that because there is no express reference in these passages to state action, the Vermont Constitution must protect life, liberty, and property against deprivation without due process by any entity, not just by action of the state. The only case Logan presents in support of his novel argument is a concurring opinion from State of Vermont v. Kirchoff, 156 Vt. 1, 587 A.2d 988 (1991), in which, according to Logan, the concurrence stressed the libertarian underpinnings of the Vermont Constitution. See id. at 998 (Springer, District Judge (Ret.), concurring). Notwithstanding the merits of the Kirchoff concurrence's discussion, it is quite another matter--indeed, a gigantic jurisprudential leap of logic--to infer that, therefore, a due process claim under the Vermont Constitution does not require state action. Other than the concurring opinion in Kirchoff, Logan cites no case supporting his proposition that under the Vermont Constitution private entities acting as such are bound to provide due process to private individuals in the absence of state action. The argument is unprecedented. In the absence of authority directly supporting his proposition, we hold that the district court correctly granted summary judgment on Logan's state-based due process claim. 2. Negligence. 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 15/17 Logan contends that the district court also erred in granting summary judgment to Bennington on his negligence claim. Logan's complaint alleges that Bennington negligently exercised its duty to investigate, prosecute, and judge him. More specifically, Logan alleges that Bennington was negligent in restricting the testimony allowed at the hearing and refusing to allow a meaningful appeal. The district court granted summary judgment on the grounds that Logan's claim was too \"vague,\" in that he failed to specify the duty of care that was breached. On appeal, Logan elaborates on the supposed duty of care that Bennington owed him. He contends that Bennington owed him a duty of care by virtue of extending him tenure, and that it breached this duty by modifying the sexual harassment policy without faculty approval. Bennington argues that Logan's claim is a contract claim masquerading as a tort claim. We agree. The duty of care that Logan claims is due him is nothing more than the claim that he is entitled to receive that which is due him under the contract. See Breslauer v. Fayston Sch. Dist., --- Vt. ----, 659 A.2d 1129, 1132-33 (1995) (explaining that breach of a contractual obligation does not create an independent tort); accord Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R.R., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190, 193-94 (1987) (\" [A] simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated.\") (citations omitted). Because Logan is unable to describe a more particular duty that is independent of Bennington's obligations under the employment contract, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Logan's negligence claim Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's grant of Bennington's motion for summary judgment and dismissal of Logan's due process and negligence claims. We reverse, however, the judgment of the district court denying Bennington's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and remand this case with instructions to vacate the verdict and jury award entered against Bennington College March 11, 1996 that this Court's decision in Logan v. Bennington Corp., No. 94- 7976L, slip op. 8917 [72 F.3d 1017] (2d Cir. Dec. 14, 1995), is amended as follows: 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 16/17 At slip op. 8919 [1020], delete the following language appearing at lines 22-32: [Editor's Note: Amendments incorporated for purpose of publication.] The above excerpted language contained background, and has no bearing whatsoever on the disposition of the appeal or the key issues raised on appeal concerning the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Leroy Logan's claims ORDERED. Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 2/13/25, 10:19 Leroy Logan, Plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant, v. Bennington College Corporation, Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee,trustees o\u2026 17/17", "7230_103.pdf": "Case Law ( Logan v. Bennington College Corp. Decision Date 11 March 1996 Docket Number Nos. 1630,D,1761,s. 1630 Citation 72 F.3d 1017 Parties 106 Ed. Law Rep. 51 Leroy LOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherman, Adrienne Marcus, and Liz Pellerin, Defendants. ockets 94-7976L, 94-9012. Court U.S. Court of Appeals \u2014 Second Circuit Your World of Legal Intelligence (/) United States | 1-800-335-6202 Document Cited authorities 15 Cited in 94 Precedent Map Related Page 1017 72 F.3d 1017 106 Ed. Law Rep. 51 Leroy LOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee Trustees of Bennington College, Elizabeth Coleman, Joan Goodrich, Ronald Cohen, Daniel Michaelson, Betsy Sherman, Adrienne Marcus, and Liz Pellerin, Defendants. Nos. 1630, 1761, Dockets 94-7976L, 94-9012. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued May 18, 1995. Decided Dec. 14, 1995. As Amended March 11, 1996 uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041 Mitchell L. Pearl, Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, Vermont (Ellen Mercer Fallon, Langrock Sperry & Wool, on the brief), for defendant-appellant-cross-appellee. William K. Sessions, Sessions Keiner Dumont & Barnes, P.C., Middlebury, Vermont (Bonnie Barnes, Sessions Keiner Dumont & Barnes, P.C., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant. Before: LUMBARD, ALTIMARI, and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges. ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge: Defendant-appellant-cross-appellee Bennington College (\"Bennington\" or \"College\") appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Billings, J.), following a jury verdict, awarding plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant Leroy Logan (\"Logan\") damages for breach of contract. We affirm the district court's granting of Bennington's pre-trial motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Logan's due process and negligence claims. We reverse, however, the judgment of the district court denying Bennington's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law on Logan's breach of contract claims, and remand this case with instructions to vacate the verdict and jury award entered against Bennington The present case centers on Bennington, a small college located in Vermont which has always prided itself on progressive and non-traditional pedagogy. Recently, Bennington has been criticized by former faculty members and other educators because its President, Elizabeth Coleman (\"Coleman\"), has undertaken measures to downsize the school. Since 1987, when Coleman took office, nearly one third of the faculty has been dismissed, ostensibly for fiscal reasons. Moreover, Bennington has ended its \"presumptive tenure\" plan, under which, absent certain circumstances professors held a five-year term of employment with the College that was automatically renewed for another five-year term. Logan taught drama for eighteen years at Bennington, until his discharge on July 20, 1990, for alleged sexual harassment. At the time the incidents underlying this case occurred, Logan, like other professors at Bennington, had presumptive tenure. As described in section 9.43 of the Bennington College Faculty Handbook (\"Faculty Handbook\"), a professor with presumptive tenure held a contract for a five-year term of employment with the College. The College was obligated to extend that contract for another five years, unless the professor substantially failed to perform the terms of his or her employment contract with the College, or exigent financial circumstances or changes in educational policy required elimination of the teaching position. On May 16, 1990, a male student of Logan's (\"complainant\") filed a complaint with the College alleging that Logan forced the student to have sexual relations with him on Thanksgiving Day, 1989, in Wales, where Logan was directing a College-sponsored program (the \"London Program\") in which the complainant was a participant. The student's complaint was referred to the College's Sexual Harassment Committee pursuant to an interim policy on sexual harassment instituted by Bennington on September 1, 1989 (\"interim policy\"). The interim policy was designed to replace the College's older policy regarding sexual harassment that had existed since 1982 (\"older policy\"). Bennington's legal counsel had advised the College that the older policy might not comply with state regulations. Moreover, in an unrelated harassment case against Bennington brought before the Vermont Human Rights Commission (\"HRC\") by another student, Bennington had signed a conciliation agreement with the which provided that, among other things, Bennington would revise its sexual harassment policy. Accordingly, in 1989 Coleman appointed a six- member committee to draft an interim policy on harassment, which Coleman approved in August, 1989, and the Board of Trustees authorized to take effect as of September 1, 1989 uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041 While the interim policy retains the definition of sexual harassment under the older policy, it is more comprehensive than the older policy with respect to the informal and formal procedures to be followed in cases of complaints alleging sexual harassment. For example, the older policy, contained in Section 1.47 of the Faculty Handbook and consisting of three single-spaced pages, established a three-member grievance committee comprised of both genders which was authorized to investigate complaints of sexual harassment and, if the dispute could not be resolved informally, to hold a hearing. Two of the three grievance committee members were appointed by the College President. The only procedures outlined by the older policy were that (i) notice of the complaint and hearing be given to the parties, (ii) the complainant be allowed to attend the hearing, (iii) minutes of the hearing be kept, and (iv) the result of the hearing could be appealed to the College President. By contrast, the interim policy is seven single-spaced pages, and establishes more specific procedures at all stages of the grievance process, both informal and formal. Among other things, the new policy creates a five-member Sexual Harassment Committee (\"Committee\") to investigate and hear formal complaints alleging sexual harassment. The Committee members are appointed by the College President, and include the Director of Student Affairs, who chairs the Committee, two faculty members, one staff member, and one student. According to the interim policy, the Committee's primary function is to conduct hearings for all formal sexual harassment complaints at the College. The Committee can also hear appeals from decisions by the College in informal harassment proceedings. The interim policy authorizes the Committee to establish its own procedures, and to contact all persons who are involved in the case, provided that notice of such contact is given to the parties. If, after the formal hearing, the Committee concludes that formal disciplinary action against a faculty member is called for, it may recommend to the College President one of several sanctions, including discharge from employment at the College. Appeals from a decision by the Committee may also be taken to the College President within ten days of the decision. The format for such appeals is left to the discretion of the College President. The College President may implement, modify or suspend the sanctions recommended by the Committee, and his or her decision is final. The interim policy further provides that formal complaints of sexual harassment are to be resolved as promptly as possible, and recommends that a written decision be rendered within thirty days of the filing of a complaint. Logan received notice of the complaint and hearing, as well as a list of seven students who would be interviewed by the Committee as potential witnesses. He acknowledged receipt of the hearing notice, and submitted his own list of twelve witnesses. The Committee notified Logan that only those witnesses with potential direct knowledge of the incidents at issue, namely those in the London Program at the time of the alleged harassment, would be permitted to testify five-hour hearing was held on May 31, 1990, at which the complainant, Logan and seven students who had participated in the College's London Program testified. Logan was assisted by a faculty representative. The parties were permitted to question witnesses and read statements, and were examined by the Committee members. The Committee deliberated for several days, and in a written report and recommendation unanimously recommended termination of Logan. The Committee members found the complainant's testimony detailed and credible, and Logan's testimony vague and uncorroborated by several of the witnesses. The Committee's recommendation was sent to Coleman. Logan appealed the decision to Coleman, who held a hearing on the matter in which Logan was represented by counsel. At the hearing's conclusion, Coleman declined to alter the original decision, and Logan was terminated. On April 25, 1991, Logan commenced the instant action against the College and the individual faculty and staff members who were involved in the decision to terminate him. Seeking reinstatement and damages, Logan's complaint alleged claims for breach of contract, negligence, denial of federal and state due process, and defamation. Prior to trial, Logan stipulated to the dismissal of the defamation claim. Except uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041 To continue reading Request your trial for the breach of contract claims against the College, the remaining claims were dismissed by the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bennington. The breach of contract claims against the College proceeded to trial. At trial, Logan contended that when he was hired, he was told that the terms of his employment contract were set forth in the Faculty Handbook. He proceeded to present four separate breach of contract theories to the jury. First, Logan contended that Bennington adopted the interim policy in violation of his contractual rights contained in the Faculty Handbook. Second, he contended that Bennington failed to afford him the procedural rights guaranteed under his employment contract. Third, Logan claimed that Bennington lacked good cause to terminate him because the charges against him were untrue. Fourth, Logan claimed that by terminating him, Bennington breached an implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. After a four-day trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Logan in the amount of uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041 58 cases Search in 58 citing cases \uf014 Bolmer v. Oliveira ( United States U.S. District Court \u2014 District of Connecticut August 5, 2008 ...a private party as a state actor for purposes of \u00a7 1983 necessarily \"is a fact-specific inquiry,\" Logan v. Bennington College Corp., 72 F.3d 1017, 1027 (2d Cir.1995). Mr. Bolmer urges that the facts at bar are governed by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Jensen v. Lane County, 222 F.3d 570 (...... Drake v. Delta Airlines, Inc. ( United States U.S. District Court \u2014 Eastern District of New York April 26, 1996 ...conduct is attributable to the government for the purpose of applying constitutional limitations. See, e.g., Logan v. Bennington College Corp., 72 F.3d 1017, 1027-28 (2d Cir.1995) (federal and state due process claims) (\"Characterizing a private party as a `state actor' is a fact specific i...... Claudio v. Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free Sch. Dist. ( mattituck-cutchogue-890335806) United States U.S. District Court \u2014 Eastern District of New York July 24, 2013 ...or that fair minded persons could not have arrived at this verdict.\u201d Stratton, 132 F.3d at 879 (quoting Logan v. Bennington Coll. Corp., 72 F.3d 1017, 1022 (2d Cir.1995)).a. Evidence Supporting Finding that Defendant Discriminated Against Plaintiff Because of His Age 11 Plaintiff presented ...... Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Dept. of Social Services, 99-CV-0213. ( law.vlex.com/vid/ruhlmann-v-ulster-county-891551910) United States U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of New York November 26, 2002 ...party acted under state compulsion, and whether the party's conduct was jointly undertaken with the state.\" Logan v. Bennington College Corp., 72 F.3d 1017, 1027 (2d Cir.1995) (citing Lugar, 457 U.S. at 939, 102 S.Ct. 2744).9 Sufficient factual discrepancies prevent a determination that the...... Request a trial to view additional results uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041 1-800-335-6202 Terms of use ( \u00a92025 vLex.com All rights reserved uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy (/terms-of-service \uf042 \uf041", "7230_104.pdf": "By By UPDATED: UPDATED: October 24, 2018 at 12:27 October 24, 2018 at 12:27 RUTLAND, Vt federal jury has awarded $500,000 in back pay to RUTLAND, Vt federal jury has awarded $500,000 in back pay to a former theater professor, Leroy Logan, who sued Bennington a former theater professor, Leroy Logan, who sued Bennington College for dismissing him after he was accused of sexually College for dismissing him after he was accused of sexually assaulting a male student. assaulting a male student. In making the award, the jurors Friday disregarded the In making the award, the jurors Friday disregarded the instructions of Judge Franklin S. Billings of U.S. District Court, who instructions of Judge Franklin S. Billings of U.S. District Court, who told them they must limit the amount of compensatory damages to told them they must limit the amount of compensatory damages to the terms of Mr. Logan\u2019s five-year contract, $272,712. The jury was the terms of Mr. Logan\u2019s five-year contract, $272,712. The jury was not asked to rule on whether the assault occurred. not asked to rule on whether the assault occurred Jury awards fired professor Jury awards fired professor $500,000 $500,000 2/13/25, 10:21 Jury awards fired professor $500,000 \u2013 Baltimore Sun 1/3 Originally Published: Originally Published: July 24, 1994 at 12:00 July 24, 1994 at 12:00 \u201cIt is extraordinary for a jury to ignore the judge\u2019s specific \u201cIt is extraordinary for a jury to ignore the judge\u2019s specific instructions,\u201d said J. Scott Cameron, a Montpelier lawyer who instructions,\u201d said J. Scott Cameron, a Montpelier lawyer who specializes in employment law. \u201cIn my experience, juries are specializes in employment law. \u201cIn my experience, juries are having a lot of trouble doing the correct thing in employment having a lot of trouble doing the correct thing in employment cases. Part of it is that job security is becoming a huge issue for cases. Part of it is that job security is becoming a huge issue for people. Part of it is that people no longer trust authority or people. Part of it is that people no longer trust authority or institutions.\u201d institutions.\u201d Mr. Logan, now a movie script reader in Los Angeles, said after the Mr. Logan, now a movie script reader in Los Angeles, said after the verdict that he did not plan to seek to return to his job at verdict that he did not plan to seek to return to his job at Bennington. Bennington spokeswoman for Bennington College, Andrea Diehl, said college spokeswoman for Bennington College, Andrea Diehl, said college officials \u201cwere stunned\u201d by the verdict. officials \u201cwere stunned\u201d by the verdict. \u201cOn campus, there\u2019s a great concern about the effect this would \u201cOn campus, there\u2019s a great concern about the effect this would have on students,\u201d she said. \u201cThis is a disincentive for students to have on students,\u201d she said. \u201cThis is a disincentive for students to bring sexual harassment charges if they think nothing will come of bring sexual harassment charges if they think nothing will come of it.\u201d it.\u201d Ms. Diehl said that the college was considering whether to appeal Ms. Diehl said that the college was considering whether to appeal the amount of the verdict. the amount of the verdict. Mr. Logan was dismissed in June 1990 after a college committee of Mr. Logan was dismissed in June 1990 after a college committee of faculty, staff and students found that he had sexually assaulted a faculty, staff and students found that he had sexually assaulted a student in November 1989. student in November 1989. Mr. Logan then sued the small liberal arts college for breach of Mr. Logan then sued the small liberal arts college for breach of contract, charging that the committee had violated his contract by contract, charging that the committee had violated his contract by restricting his right to defend himself at the hearing. He said that restricting his right to defend himself at the hearing. He said that he had not been allowed to have a lawyer present or to call he had not been allowed to have a lawyer present or to call witnesses who would have challenged the character and behavior witnesses who would have challenged the character and behavior of his accuser. of his accuser. 2/13/25, 10:21 Jury awards fired professor $500,000 \u2013 Baltimore Sun 2/3 1994 1994 \ue907 \ue907July July \ue907 \ue90724 24 2/13/25, 10:21 Jury awards fired professor $500,000 \u2013 Baltimore Sun 3/3"} |
7,337 | Adam Drisin | Florida International University | [
"7337_101.pdf",
"7337_102.pdf",
"7337_103.pdf",
"7337_104.pdf"
] | {"7337_101.pdf": "At the end of a semester-long study abroad program in Genoa, Italy in December 2014, a group of architecture students from Florida International University went out to a celebratory dinner. After the restaurant, many students and a handful of faculty members grabbed drinks at a local bar. At 2 a.m., three... At the end of a semester-long study-abroad program in Genoa, Italy, in December 2014, a group of architecture students from Florida International University went out for a celebratory dinner. After the meal, many students and a handful of faculty members grabbed drinks at a local bar. At 2 a.m., three of the students were ready to leave. According to one of those students, Adam Drisin, then FIU's senior associate dean of architecture, asked if the students could walk him back to his apartment. Inside, Drisin offered the students some Baileys liqueur, which they all drank. That's when the night out with a professor turned into a sexual assault. At least that's what one student alleges in a new federal lawsuit against Drisin filed in the U.S. Southern District of Florida. Reached by New Times, Drisin \u2014 who left last year \u2014 denies the allegations. \"It's a frivolous lawsuit,\" he tells New Times. \"Everything in it is inaccurate.\" The student's claims are a blow to one of FIU's premier schools and to a fast-rising academic. Drisin earned degrees from Cornell and Harvard, where he also taught before joining in August 2004. He served as chair and director of FIU's School of Architecture before rising to senior associate dean of the College of Architecture and the Arts. In December 2014, he visited Genoa to check on a group of students in the program. The lawsuit lays out a stark narrative of assault against an unnamed female student following that night of drinking. According to the complaint filed by Brickell attorney Omar Malone, after drinking the Baileys, one of the three students who went home with Drisin fell asleep at the foot of his bed. Another was awoken by her two friends the next morning. She was naked in Drisin's bed, her attorney alleges in the lawsuit, with no recollection of what had happened the previous night. The woman was wearing a tampon that night and says when she woke up, it was lodged deep inside of her. It was then she realized she'd been raped, she alleges. In the lawsuit, the student suggests the women may have been incapacitated in Drisin's apartment \"as result of a foreign substance being put in [their] Baileys.\" Back at her apartment that morning, the woman confided in a friend and asked for advice about how to report the incident. Later that day, she spoke via Skype with one of her professors, who Former Architecture Dean Accused of Raping Student on Study-Abroad Trip By Jessica Lipscomb May 5, 2016 New Times Merch Drop Alert! Cool T-Shirt Collab With Local Artist! immediately informed officials declined to provide New Times with any records connected to the case or Drisin's employment, citing an ongoing investigation. It's not clear whether Italian police were involved in the case; the student's attorney says no police reports were filed Police, meanwhile, were unable to locate a report relating to the student's claim. The lawsuit does contain excerpts from emails that Drisin allegedly sent the next day. In one message sent around 4:30 p.m. that next day, the dean tells the student feel terrible right now,\" and asks if he could meet up to speak with her and one of the other students owe you both something important and need to deliver it to you in person before you leave and before leave know this is not easy, but I\u2019m asking that you please indulge me,\" Drisin allegedly writes in the email. Drisin sent a second email later that night, according to Malone, asking another of the students if they could meet up for coffee. \"Today has been a very difficult day for me,\" he writes, according to a screenshot of the email. \"As you might imagine need to talk with you and this is not easy.\" Malone, the student's attorney, says he is still trying to contact the other two women who were in Drisin's apartment the night of the alleged assault. He said he has information suggesting one of them was in a romantic relationship with Drisin and believes she may have been a witness to the alleged crime. Drisin left September 14, 2015. At that time, his annual salary was $110,093. School officials declined to give the reason for his departure or provide information about the university's investigation into the alleged assault, saying it is ongoing and active. Since leaving FIU, Drisin has applied for jobs with at least two other architecture schools. Late last week, he was served with the lawsuit for sexual battery while on campus at University of Nebraska- Lincoln interviewing for dean of the university\u2019s College of Architecture. He is one of four finalists for the job, according to UNL. Drisin also interviewed for a dean position at Texas Tech University\u2019s College of Architecture in January news alert from the university says he was one of two candidates. Representatives from both schools have yet to respond to requests for comment from New Times. We'll update this post with their responses if we hear back. Drisin said he had not yet retained a lawyer and declined to comment further on the allegations. As of Thursday, he has not filed a response in federal court. Update: On June 23, 2016, the student voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit against Drisin. Drisin has a pending lawsuit against Florida International University for wrongful termination Sign up for the This Week's Top Stories newsletter to get the latest stories delivered to your inbox Email \u2022 Enter Email reCAPTCHA I'm not a robot Privacy - Terms Use of this website constitutes acceptance of our terms of use, our cookies policy, and our privacy policy. View our accessibility policy and policy. The Miami New Times may earn a portion of sales from products & services purchased through links on our site from our affiliate partners. \u00a92025 Miami New Times, LLC. All rights reserved. Do Not Sell or Share My Information is the former news editor of Miami New Times message from News Editor Natasha Yee: If you value independent journalism, please consider making a contribution to support our continued coverage of essential stories and to investigate issues that matter.", "7337_102.pdf": "Professor Claims Male Bias in School\u2019s Assault Investigation former college dean who was fired after a student accused him of sexual assault says the student was the perpetrator, not the victim, and that he woke up after a night out in Italy to discover the pupil naked and mounting him against his will / December 8, 2016 former college dean who was fired after a student accused him of sexual assault says the student was the perpetrator, not the victim, and that he woke up after a night out in Italy to discover the pupil naked and mounting him against his will. In his defamation and wrongful termination lawsuit filed in Miami federal court, former Florida International University dean of architecture Adam Drisin says he was \"an esteemed tenured professor\" before the graduate student brought a \"fabricated and frivolous\" sexual assault claim against him that led to his firing. The incident occurred when Drisin joined a group of graduate students in Genoa during their semester abroad program in 2014. After a night out \u2013 Drisin\u2019s first night in Genoa \u2013 three female students returned to Drisin's rented apartment with him to use the bathroom. That's where the narratives diverge. According to a sexual assault lawsuit filed against Drisin by his accuser \u2013 who filed as Jane Doe \u2013 the professor poured Bailey's liqueur for the students. \"Then Jane Doe recalls becoming drowsy. However, before either falling asleep naturally or becoming cataleptic (until approximately 9:00 a.m.) as result of a foreign substance being put in her Bailey\u2019s, Jane Doe witnessed Dean Drisin caressing Student 1, who was on the bed,\" Doe said in her lawsuit. Doe said the next thing she remembered was waking up the next morning in Drisin's bed, \"totally naked.\u201d She claimed she was \"unaware of what had happened to her\" until another student that was present told her saw you fucking Adam Drisin.\" Drisin sent her an email \"seeking forgiveness,\" Doe said. \u201cThis is very difficult for me to write because feel terrible right now,\u201d she claimed Drisin wrote know this is not easy, but I\u2019m asking you to please indulge me.\" Doe voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit against Drisin earlier this year. In his lawsuit, filed Nov. 28, Drisin paints a very different version of that December night in Genoa. He also names his accuser, but Courthouse News has chosen to identify her only as Jane Doe because she is not a party to Drisin's lawsuit. Try Litigation Reports or Log in Thursday, February 13, 2025 | Back issues Log in to CasePortal Thursday, February 13, 2025 Free Litigation Reports Find Judicial Opinions 2/13/25, 10:22 Professor Claims Male Bias in School\u2019s Assault Investigation | Courthouse News Service 1/3 Drisin says Doe had taken off her clothes and hopped on top of him while he was in a deep sleep. \u201cDrisin woke up groggily to find [Doe] naked on top of him, as [Doe] was telling him want to fuck you and want you to fuck me,\u2019\u201d Drisin says in his complaint. \u201cAt the very instant that Drisin became fully cognizant that he was subjected to [Doe's] act of non-consensual sexual aggression, he resolutely pushed [Doe] off him and told her, \u2018You can\u2019t be doing this. We can\u2019t be doing this,\u2019\u201d Drisin continues. Drisin says he did not know Doe before the incident, having met her for the first time in Genoa. He also says he\u2019s not sure whether Doe succeeded in having sex with him because of his sleep-induced haze, and that the other student in the room at the time has said in sworn testimony that she\u2019s not sure either. In her lawsuit, Doe claimed Drisin had a pattern of engaging inappropriately with students and had carried on an affair with the student who was also in the room at the time. But Drisin says in his complaint that Doe bragged frequently to her friends about previous sexual relationships \u2013 including an affair with a different dean of architecture while she was an undergraduate \u2013 and they knew Doe\u2019s actions toward him \u201cwere consistent with an entrenched pattern of sexually predatory behavior.\u201d According to Drisin, Doe dropped her lawsuit against him because of the sworn testimony of her friend. But he adds that by the time she did, his life was already in shambles: Defendant Florida International University had fired him, he can\u2019t get another job in his field, and his wife left him. \"Three universities abruptly discontinued final negotiations with Drisin for senior dean positions when they learned of [Florida International University's] findings against Drisin,\" he says in his lawsuit. His claims include gender discrimination, violations of constitutional rights and defamation against Florida International University and several of top brass, including its president Mark Rosenberg and Shirlyon McWhorter, the director of the college's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs and Diversity. Drisin likened the university\u2019s investigation of Doe\u2019s claims to \u201ca veritable witch hunt\" based on the assumption that because he is a man, he was the sexual aggressor. McWhorter, who handled the investigation for the university, \"maliciously crusaded to eviscerate Drisin\u2019s reputation in order to justify and bolster her predetermined findings of sexual misconduct,\" Drisin says \u2013 adding that McWhorter also told his colleagues details of what should have been a confidential investigation. He also seeks damages over a story in a student newspaper that he says was \u201cdeliberately and maliciously fashioned to create a misimpression that Drisin was charged with a felony, and distorts the allegations of the Doe lawsuit.\u201d Florida International University declined to comment on the case. Attorney Omar Malone, who represented Doe in her dropped lawsuit, has not responded to an interview request. Drisin is represented by Howard Levine of Miami Beach, Florida. 2/13/25, 10:22 Professor Claims Male Bias in School\u2019s Assault Investigation | Courthouse News Service 2/3 Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Connect with us on our social channels: \u00a9 2025, Courthouse News Service About Us / Masthead / Advertise / Terms of Use / Privacy Policy / Support Categories Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world. enter your e-mail address Additional Reads Trump\u2019s pick for education chief sketches a roadmap for dismantling the department February 13, 2025 Washington justices press attorneys on meaning of \u2018job applicant\u2019 in pay transparency fight February 13, 2025 Walmart bags February 13, 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court unwilling to ignore history in nurses\u2019 bargaining beef February 12, 2025 Subscribe to Closing Arguments Submit 2/13/25, 10:22 Professor Claims Male Bias in School\u2019s Assault Investigation | Courthouse News Service 3/3", "7337_103.pdf": "prof charged with sexually assaulting his cleaning woman By David J. Neal [email protected] Updated June 16, 2016 11:52 PM| U.S. marshals found business professor David Ralston Thursday in a Fort Lauderdale Days Inn motel, 20 miles from his Weston home. Ralston\u2019s choice of business professor David Ralston in his picture from the school\u2019s website Business School website Only have a minute? Listen instead 1.0x Powered by Trinity Audio 00:00 03:06 10 10 $1.99 6 Immerse yourself in stories you love with our digital subscription Log In | Subscribe 2/13/25, 10:22 professor David Ralston's cleaning woman accused him of drugging & raping her | Miami Herald 1/4 $60-a-night lodging wasn\u2019t business. It was personal: He was a fugitive wanted for allegedly sexually assaulting a cleaning woman at his Fort Myers home after drugging her. According to U.S. marshals, the Lee County Sheriff\u2019s Office believes it possesses video of the assault via Ralston\u2019s own surveillance camera. Ralston, 69, was booked into Broward County Jail Thursday on a charge of sexual battery when the victim was helpless. He\u2019ll be extradited to Lee County. An spokesperson said the university has sent notice to Ralston, who has been at four years, of their intent to suspend him. According to the sheriff\u2019s report, Ralston hired a cleaning woman for his McGregor Woods area Fort Myers home from Craigslist. The report says she gave the following account of her third cleaning job at Ralston\u2019s home, Apr. 29: Ralston offered her an afternoon drink. About a half hour after she imbibed what she said Ralston called \u201ca really strong vodka and orange juice,\u201d she felt \u201cdrugged.\u201d \u201c[The woman] believes she passed out for some time, but remembers hearing and feeling something vibrating inside her,\u201d the report said. She said she didn\u2019t remember anything else until 10 or 11 p.m. The report says the woman\u2019s husband got a call from her at 2:34 p.m. during which she said somebody had taken her clothes. He called 911, though he didn\u2019t know the address of Ralston\u2019s house. His wife reached a neighbor who called the husband to say the woman was with him. He arrived to find his wife passed out in the driveway. Two days later, sheriff\u2019s deputies executed a search warrant at Ralston\u2019s home. They walked out with what marshals said is the incriminating video. 2/13/25, 10:22 professor David Ralston's cleaning woman accused him of drugging & raping her | Miami Herald 2/4 According to the marshals, the sheriff\u2019s office contacted Ralston and his attorney by phone on May 6 to discuss his surrender. Ralston refused \u201con numerous occasions,\u201d and disappeared. After getting an arrest warrant, the county called in the marshals\u2019 Fugitive Task Force Wednesday stakeout of Ralston\u2019s Weston home determined Ralston wasn\u2019t there, but was at the Days Inn, 1700 W. Broward Blvd. Ralston is the third faculty member to be accused of sexual misconduct recently. Women\u2019s basketball captain Destini Feagin produced text messages and an audio recording to support her claim that coach Marlin Chinn, a newlywed father-to-be, tried to establish a sexual relationship with her throughout the 2015- 16 season. The school fired him. Adam Drisin\u2019s LinkedIn page still says he\u2019s FIU\u2019s senior associate dean in the College of Architecture and Arts. But Drisin left in September 2015 after a former female architecture student filed a $75,000 lawsuit accusing Drisin of sexual battery, stemming from a party in Italy during a semester abroad. This story was originally published June 16, 2016 at 11:03 PM. South Florida Report Card The latest news for parents, students and teachers in the Miami-Dade and Broward school districts, in your inbox every Thursday By submitting agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. 2/13/25, 10:22 professor David Ralston's cleaning woman accused him of drugging & raping her | Miami Herald 3/4 Part of the McClatchy Media Network Take Us With You Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand Start a Subscription Customer Service Edition Vacation Hold Pay Your Bill About Us Contact Us Newsletters Archives Sports Betting Banking Coupons McClatchy Advertising Place an Ad Place a Classified Ad Place an Ad - Celebrations Place an Obituary Staffing Solutions Political | Advocacy Advertising 2/13/25, 10:22 professor David Ralston's cleaning woman accused him of drugging & raping her | Miami Herald 4/4", "7337_104.pdf": "DRISIN, Plaintiff, vs B. ROSENBERG, Individually and in his capacity as President of Florida International University McWHORTER, Individually and in her capacity as Title Coordinator and Director of The Office of Equal Opportunity Programs and Diversity FURTON, Individually and in his capacity as Provost, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer SCHRINER, Individually and in his capacity as Dean, College of Architecture + The Arts HARDRICK, Individually and in his capacity as Vice President for Human Resources JAROSS, Individually and in his capacity as Director of Student Media; and LUNSFORD, Individually and in his capacity as Vice President for Student Affairs, Defendants. ______ Plaintiff DRISIN, by and through undersigned counsel, sues the above-captioned Defendants, and states 1. Plaintiff risin\u201d) was an esteemed tenured professor and a Dean of Architecture at Florida International University. Andrea Rivera (\u201cRivera\u201d), a graduate student Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 1 of 72 2 who had no previous association with Drisin but was known as a sexual predator amongst her peers, sexually assaulted Drisin in his sleep. No sooner than he became conscious of what was happening, Drisin put a resolute stop to Rivera\u2019s conduct and admonished Rivera regarding the impropriety of her conduct. Rivera then maliciously filed a frivolous complaint with Florida International University in which she fabricated (or \u201cconfabulated,\u201d as the case may be)1, allegations of sexual battery against Drisin. At the conclusion of the investigation conducted by Florida International University\u2019s Office of Equal Opportunity Programs & Diversity under the authority of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a71681 et seq., Drisin\u2019s employment was wrongfully terminated upon a finding of sexual misconduct. Drisin\u2019s termination, together with defamatory comments about Drisin, including both oral dissemination and publication of defamatory information by officers, has had a catastrophic and stigmatizing effect on Drisin\u2019s reputation and career, and has caused him to become a pariah amongst his peers. In this lawsuit, Drisin asserts that, in the handling of the Rivera complaint, the corporate Defendant has unlawfully violated Drisin\u2019s statutory civil rights arising under Title of the Education Act Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a71681, and Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a72000e, et seq. (\u201cTitle VII\u201d), as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991; individual defendants have unlawfully deprived Drisin of civil rights arising under 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 for the violation of Drisin\u2019s constitutional rights to procedural due process (deprivation of property and liberty), gender-based equal protection, and his statutory right under Title to protection against sexual harassment. In addition, Drisin asserts a supplemental state law cause of action against individual Defendants for defamation. Drisin seeks monetary damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary 1 Drisin does not purport to allege a psychiatric assessment for Rivera\u2019s inexplicable conduct or to speculate as to whether Rivera reasonably believed in her fabricated version of the Subject Incident. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 2 of 72 3 injury, punitive damages, and attorneys\u2019 fees and costs, as redress for the tortious and discriminatory acts of the corporate and individual Defendants 2. Plaintiff DRISIN, is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. 3. Defendant (\u201cFIU\u201d), is a body corporate organized under Florida law with all the powers to conduct the affairs of Florida International University, an institution of higher learning, including the power to sue and be sued, pursuant to Fla. Stat. \u00a71001.72(1) (2003). FIU\u2019s largest campus, the Modesto A. Maidique campus, is located in University Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida and maintains an office located at 11200 S.W. 8th Street, Miami, Florida 33199. 4 is a recipient of federal funding in various forms, including but not limited to, grants and federal student loans provided to for its students or given to directly by the federal government. 5 has 501 or more employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. 6. Defendant (\u201cRosenberg\u201d), has at all times material served as President of FIU. Rosenberg is otherwise sui juris and subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. 7. Defendant McWHORTER (\u201cMcWhorter\u201d), has at all times material served as FIU\u2019s Title Coordinator and Director of The Office of Equal Opportunity Programs and Diversity. McWhorter is otherwise sui juris and subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 3 of 72 4 8. Defendant (\u201cFurton\u201d), has at all times material served as FIU\u2019s Provost, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer. Furton is otherwise sui juris and subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. 9. Defendant (\u201cSchriner\u201d), has at all times material served as FIU\u2019s Dean of the College of Architecture + The Arts. Schriner is otherwise sui juris and subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. 10. Defendant (\u201cHardrick\u201d), has at all times material served as FIU\u2019s Vice President for Human Resources. Hardrick is otherwise sui juris and subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. 11. Defendant (\u201cJaross\u201d) has at all times material served as FIU\u2019s Director of Student Media. Jaross is otherwise sui juris and subject to personal jurisdiction in this jurisdiction. 12. Defendant (\u201cLunsford\u201d) has at all times material served as FIU\u2019s Vice President for Student Affairs. Lunsford is otherwise sui juris and subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district 13. This Court has original federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a71331, 28 U.S.C. \u00a71343(a)(3), 20 U.S.C. \u00a71681-1683 (Title IX)2; and 42 U.S.C. \u00a72000e-5(f)(3) (Title VII), because Drisin pleads one or more federal questions and alleges violations and deprivation of his equal rights under color of State law. 14. This Court also has jurisdiction over Drisin\u2019s supplemental state law claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. \u00a71367. 2 See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979). Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 4 of 72 5 15. Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a71391(b)(1) and (2) because the Defendants reside in this judicial district and because the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted occurred in this judicial district 16. Drisin has exhausted all available required administrative remedies for violations for claims arising under Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. \u00a72000e et seq. 17. Drisin timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (\u201cEEOC\u201d). The issued Drisin a Notice of Right to Sue which was dated August 22, 2016 and received by Drisin on August 30, 2016, thereby giving Drisin a private right of action in this United States District Court under Title true and correct copy of the Notice of Right to Sue is attached as Exhibit \u201c1.\u201d 18. This lawsuit is timely brought pursuant to the terms of the Notice of Right to Sue and Section 717(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. \u00a72000e-16 19. Drisin was employed by in August 2004 as a tenured Associate Professor and Director of the architecture program. 20. In April 2011, Drisin was promoted to Associate Dean of the College of Architecture + The Arts, and in January 2013, Drisin was promoted to Senior Associate Dean of the College of Architecture + The Arts. 21. At all times material, Drisin performed his work as Associate Professor, Director of the architecture program, Associate Dean of the College of Architecture + The Arts, and Senior Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 5 of 72 6 Dean of the College of Architecture \u2013 The Arts, in an excellent, professional and competent manner. 22. During his tenure at FIU, Drisin was principal investigator, co-principal investigator, or team member on over eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) in grant funding. 23. As a tenured professor at FIU, Drisin could only be terminated for just cause, which is defined as \u201cincompetence or misconduct\u201d by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between The Florida International University Board of Trustees and The United Faculty of Florida (the \u201cCBA\u201d). 24. The provides that \u201c[a]n employee\u2019s activities which fall outside the scope of employment shall constitute misconduct only if such activities adversely affect the legitimate interests of the University or Board.\u201d 25. As a tenured professor who could only be terminated for just cause, Drisin had a constitutionally protectable property interest in his continuing employment which entitled him to procedural due process of law both prior to and subsequent to his termination. 26. Drisin also had a constitutionally protectable liberty interest in his reputation. 27. At all times material, the individual Defendants acted under color of state law and in furtherance and fulfillment of their official duties as employees or agents of FIU, and their conduct constituted official action by FIU. 28. In 2004-2005, during his first year as an associate professor and director of the architecture program at FIU, Drisin inaugurated the Genoa Study Abroad Program, a permanent semester-long study abroad program for architectural graduate students. 29. Typically, between 2005 and 2014, Drisin would travel to Genoa once during the semester to participate as a professor in the academic portion of the program. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 6 of 72 7 30. During the fall semester 2014, Drisin and other senior administrators were inundated with e-mail from the Genoa Study Abroad Program\u2019s student participants expressing concern about strained relations between the graduate students and the Director of the Genoa Study Abroad Program. Specifically, students were concerned that their final projects would be judged overly harshly by the Director because of the ongoing problems between the Director and the students. 31. In response to the e-mails, certain senior administrators, including Drisin, Schriner, Laura Boudon, (Director of the Office of Study Abroad), and Jason Chandler (Chair of the College of Architecture \u2013 The Arts), collaborated and determined that Drisin would make an additional trip to Genoa to serve as a supplemental juror in the evaluation of the students\u2019 final projects. The Events of December 12-13, 2014 (the \u201cSubject Incident) 32. On or about December 11, 2014, Drisin flew to Genoa and arrived the following morning. As planned, Drisin served as a juror for the graduate students\u2019 final projects on Friday, December 12, 2014. 33 faculty-student dinner was arranged for the evening of December 12, 2014 to mark the conclusion of FIU\u2019s semester abroad program in Genoa, Italy. The dinner was attended by Drisin as well as the majority of faculty members and graduate student participants in the Genoa semester abroad program. 34. Following dinner, the majority of students and some of the faculty, including Drisin, went to a local osteria where everyone continued to socialize. 35. Upon leaving the osteria, five female students directed Drisin to his short-term rental apartment. The students agreed to direct Drisin to his apartment because it was on the way Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 7 of 72 8 to the apartment which served as their residence for the semester, a 2-story apartment that was shared by seven students as \u201croommates.\u201d 36. When Drisin arrived at his apartment, two of the students, Rivera and Larisa Sherbakova (\u201cSherbakova\u201d), asked if she could enter the apartment to use the bathroom. Drisin agreed. Accordingly, three of the students, Rivera, Sherbakova and Lorena Behamon (\u201cBehamon\u201d) entered Drisin\u2019s apartment to use the bathroom, and the other two students returned directly to their residence. 37. Once in the apartment, Drisin led the women to one bathroom and he used the other. When he came out of the bathroom, he sat on the right side of the bed. The three women took turns using the bathroom. After using the bathroom, Sherbakova sat on the left side of the bed. Rivera sat on the floor to the right side of the bed. Behamon sat at the foot of the bed. 38. The students decided to wait and chat in Drisin\u2019s apartment because the weather had turned inclement, and it began to rain heavily. 39 professionally-oriented conversation ensued in which Rivera was the cynosure. Rivera was loquacious and spoke about how photography was her first love and how she was contemplating the comparative merits of a career in architecture versus a career in photography. Drisin was polite and professional in his responses, although it was Rivera who did most of the talking. 40. Sherbakova and Behamon participated in the beginning of the conversation, but eventually lost interest. Behamon first fell asleep; then, Sherbakova fell asleep. 41. Finally, Drisin, too, exhausted from his overseas travel earlier that same day, fell asleep. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 8 of 72 9 42. Shortly thereafter, Sherbakova was awakened by Rivera\u2019s knee jabbing into Sherbakova\u2019s side, and from that moment became a percipient eyewitness to this incident. 43. Sherbakova observed that Drisin was clothed and fast asleep, and Rivera was naked on top of Drisin, with her hand fiddling in the area of Drisin\u2019s pants fly. Sherbakova heard Rivera saying to Drisin, repetitively want to fuck you, and want you to fuck me.\u201d 44. Sherbakova jumped off the bed and stood up on the floor, and asked Rivera, \u201cWhat are you doing? Are you enjoying yourself\u201d? Rivera answered, \u201cyes.\u201d 45. Drisin woke up groggily to find Rivera naked on top of him, as Rivera was telling him want to fuck you and want you to fuck me\u201d and Sherbakova was standing on the floor asking Rivera if she was enjoying herself.\u201d 46. At the very instant that Drisin became fully cognizant that he was subjected to Rivera\u2019s act of non-consensual sexual aggression, he resolutely pushed Rivera off him and told her, \u201cyou can\u2019t be doing this. We can\u2019t be doing this.\u201d 47. Prior to this incident, Drisin had no previous relationship with Rivera. Drisin first met Rivera on December 12, 2014 on the way home from the osteria. 48. Inasmuch as this incident was so unanticipated and passed so quickly, wresting Drisin out of a deep-fatigued slumber, Drisin has no personal knowledge as to whether Rivera succeeded in having sexual intercourse with him. Likewise, Sherbakova has provided in sworn testimony that the whole incident passed so quickly and that she was so startled by Rivera\u2019s conduct that she never actually observed whether Rivera succeeded in either exposing Drisin\u2019s penis or in consummating sexual intercourse. 49. Later during the morning of December 13, 2014, when Rivera returned to her apartment, Sherbakova engaged Rivera in a conversation about what had occurred at Drisin\u2019s Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 9 of 72 10 apartment. At first, Rivera said that she did not remember anything. Sherbakova, assuming that Rivera remembered everything because Rivera responded to her when she asked if she was enjoying herself, asked incredulously, \u201cYou don\u2019t remember anything saw you fucking Drisin.\u201d Sherbakova used the term \u201cfucking Drisin\u201d despite the fact that she was not in fact certain whether Rivera had succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Drisin. Once Sherbakova said this, Rivera then acknowledged her behavior, became remorseful, and began to cry, reflecting openly that she feared she was \u201cbecoming her father,\u201d whom she described as having sexually compulsive behavior, including illicit affairs with friends of her mother. 50. Rivera also told Sherbakova that she \u201cruins everything with sex\u201d and that she will never have sex again until she loves somebody because what happened was so embarrassing. Rivera said to Sherbakova can\u2019t keep doing this,\u201d and can\u2019t look at myself in the mirror.\u201d 51. The conversation was joined by Behamon and Jennifer Sandoval, one of the other \u201croommates\u201d in the apartment. Rivera said to Behamon that Rivera \u201chad never done anything like this before\u201d and that she was ashamed. Behamon told Rivera that was not true, because Rivera bragged frequently about previous sexual relationships with graduate assistants and an illicit affair with the Dean of Architecture at the University of Puerto Rico, which Rivera attended as an undergraduate. 52. Sherbakova likewise had personal knowledge that Rivera\u2019s actions were consistent with an entrenched pattern of sexually predatory behavior, which Rivera confided to her classmates throughout the semester abroad, and which Sherbakova had the opportunity to personally observe. For example, Sherbakova observed Rivera looking at herself in the mirror before going out at night and saying to her roommates, \u201cI\u2019m such a slut just love going out and fucking men and tossing them out in the morning. No, I\u2019m not a slut, I\u2019m just a liberated woman.\u201d Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 10 of 72 11 Accordingly, Sherbakova attempted to downplay the incident by also reminding Rivera, without being judgmental, that there was no reason for her to be so upset, because she has also identified herself as a woman who loves to have sex with many men. 53. As it became more and more apparent to Rivera that her sexual aggression towards Drisin had been witnessed by Sherbakova, Rivera began to backtrack and suggest that she was not sure what had actually happened, because she was certain that she \u201cwould not ever have done it\u201d in front of others.\u201d At that moment, Rivera seemed to be speaking only her embarrassment at having been witnessed. Her implication was that she would not have done what she did if she had known that Sherbakova would witness it, and not that because having sex in front of others is something that she \u201cwould not have done,\u201d the fact that she did do it demonstrated that she had no recollection of what happened. Yet, Rivera continued to act puzzled as if she were torn between wanting to admit responsibility, embarrassment and shame on the one hand, and wanting to claim \u201cno awareness\u201d of what happened on the other hand. 54. On the day after Rivera\u2019s sexually predatory assault on Drisin (December 14, 2014), Rivera called via Skype and, inexplicably, reported that Drisin had non-consensual sexual intercourse with her has characterized the December 14, 2014 report from Rivera as an \u201cinformal complaint.\u201d 55. Notwithstanding Rivera\u2019s allegation charging Drisin with having non-consensual sexual intercourse, Rivera has maintained at all times material, including all times throughout FIU\u2019s investigation of Rivera\u2019s complaint, that she has no memory whatsoever of the occurrence, and Rivera has never affirmatively articulated any actus rea committed by Drisin. 56. In contrast, two percipient witnesses (Drisin and Sherbakova) do have personal knowledge and memory of the occurrence; thus, in light of Rivera\u2019s purported lack of memory, it Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 11 of 72 12 is uncontroverted that Rivera was a sexual aggressor and Drisin was a victim of an unwanted sexual assault. Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 57. On June 23, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon signed Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a71981 et seq. into law comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity, the principal objective of Title is to avoid the use of federal money to support sex discrimination in education programs and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. 58. The statute provides, in relevant part, that: \u201c[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.\u201d 59. Title applies, with a few specific exceptions, to all aspects of federally funded education programs or activities, including educational institutions such as colleges, universities, and elementary and secondary schools, as well as any education or training program operated by a recipient of federal financial assistance. 60. The Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance dated January 19, 2001 (the \u201c2001 Guidance\u201d issued by the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education (\u201cOCR\u201d) required schools to \u201cadopt and publish a policy against sex discrimination and grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex.\u201d (Emphasis added).3 3 See generally U.S. Dep\u2019t of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties \u2013 Title (2001) at 19-21. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 12 of 72 13 61. The 2001 Guidance further instructed that the procedures adopted by a school covered by Title must not only \u201censure the Title rights of the complainant,\u201d but must also \u201c[accord] due process to both parties involved\u2026\u201d4 62. To ensure the requisite level of due process, the 2001 Guidance identified the minimum level of procedures that must be in place, including: \u25cf \u201cNotice . . . of the procedure, including where complaints may be filed\u201d; \u25cf \u201cApplication of the procedure to complaints alleging [sexual harassment]...\u201d; \u25cf \u201cAdequate, reliable and impartial investigation of complaints, including the opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence\u201d; \u25cf \u201cDesignated and reasonably prompt timeframes for the major stages of the complaint process\u201d; and \u25cf \u201cNotice to the parties of the outcome of the complaint\u2026.\u201d5 63. Further, the 2001 Guidance instructed that a school has an obligation under Title to make sure that all employees involved in the conduct of the procedures have \u201cadequate training as to what conduct constitutes sexual harassment, which includes \u201calleged sexual assaults.\u201d6 64. The 2001 Guidelines provided universities with wide latitude in adopting policies and procedures that best fit the particular institution, noting, \u201c[p]rocedures adopted by schools will vary considerably in detail, specificity, and components, reflecting differences in audiences, school sizes and administrative structures, State or local legal requirements, and past experience.\u201d 4 Id. at 22. 5 Id. at 20. 6 Id. at 21. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 13 of 72 14 65. On April 4, 2011, the issued a letter known as the \u201cDear Colleague Letter\u201d (\u201cDCL\u201d) to parties affected by Title which was designated by the to constitute a \u201cguidance\u201d document that interpreted the requirements of Title IX. 66. The threatened to impose severe penalties, including rescission of federal funding, upon education institutions who were non-compliant in their enforcement of Title pursuant to the guidelines expressed in the DCL. 67. The aggressively dictated how universities handle sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus, by setting forth specific requirements that universities must adopt and utilize, all of which encouraged universities to vitiate due process rights of students and employees accused of sexual assault or harassment. Specifically, for example, the called for an exceedingly low \u201cpreponderance of the evidence\u201d burden of proof and allowed accusers to appeal non-guilty findings (thus permitting a form of double jeopardy). 68. During his tenure, Drisin was FIU\u2019s College of Architecture + The Arts\u2019 administrator assigned to work with McWhorter, Title IX\u2019s Coordinator, to promote policies and procedures that were compliant with the guidance established by the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (\u201cOCR\u201d) for the enforcement of Title by recipients of federal education funding. 69. As faculty point person for the promotion of Title IX\u2019s goals and objectives, Drisin acquired personal knowledge that after the issuance of the DCL, there was political pressure on to enforce Title claims of sexual harassment aggressively. At this translated into a biased focus on the female gender as the expected victim and the male gender as expected perpetrator. This pressure was amplified in the wake of national media attention to sexual harassment claims against university male athletes and male athletic programs. In a desire to Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 14 of 72 15 disassociate itself from such adverse publicity, for example \u201cparted ways\u201d with its renowned basketball coach Isaiah Thomas when he was charged with sexual harassment during his prior role as an executive for the New York Knicks. 70. Through his involvement with FIU\u2019s implementation of Title IX\u2019s goals and objectives, Drisin acquired personal knowledge that McWhorter regarded her role as Title Coordinator specifically as a strong advocate for women on campus and in the community and as an enforcer of sexual harassment complaints against the male gender, and as an advocate of female victims. Specifically, Drisin participated in presentations to students by McWhorter in which McWhorter highlighted the female gender as the expected victim of harassment on campus, notwithstanding that all promulgated Title guidelines emphasize that all persons are protected by Title IX, irrespective of gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. 71 has, in its practices related to sexual harassment, consistently and improperly, defined it as an issue that befalls women. Despite ample evidence to suggest that both men and women are victims of sexual harassment, FIU's initiatives and events promoting Title awareness focused exclusively on harassment of women by men. At the direction of McWhorter and through The Office on Equal Opportunity Programs and Diversity presented numerous public initiatives and events which one-sidedly depicted males as perpetrators of sexual assault and women as victims. Examples of this include FIU's Slut Walk, FIU's Take Back the Night, and FIU's Clothesline Project. And, FIU's sponsored a sexual harassment educational event titled \u201cIt\u2019s on Us,\u201d in which activist Tony Porter asserted that breaking out of the \u201cman box,\u201d or the masculine, sex-driven gender roles assigned to men in American society, is required in order to end sexual harassment. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 15 of 72 16 72. McWhorter has, in her own public Twitter account, demonstrated gender bias by falsely and hyperbolically characterizing the incidents of harassment and rape perpetrated against females. Specifically, McWhorter has \u201ctweeted\u201d that \u201cthe average girl is raped 7-20 times a day five days a week. It is not voluntary.\" This disturbing, incorrect and misleading metric depicts the \u201caverage\u201d female as a victim and the average male as a victimizer. 73. The distortion inherent in McWhorter\u2019s promulgated belief, which she has promulgated through social media, is contradicted by a review of any actual survey. For example (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network), a national anti-sexual violence organization, reports that among graduate students, 8.8% of females and 2.2% of males experience rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence or incapacitation.7 74. The wide disparity between a statistical survey which reports that fewer than 1 in 11 females experience rape as a graduate student and the averment that \u201cthe average girl is raped 7-20 times a day five days a week\u201d is remarkable and constitutes circumstantial evidence that McWhorter is challenged in her ability to maintain gender impartiality. That is, it is difficult to imagine how someone who presents such a falsely hostile environment in which women are typically victimized, could be able to suspend such egregious preconceptions and serve as Title Coordinator with impartiality. 75. Upon information and belief has no reported incidents of male complainants against female students for sexual misconduct which have resulted in any female (employee or student) being disciplined. 7 Source: David Cantor, Bonnie Fisher, Susan Chibnall, Reanna Townsend, et. al., Association of American Universities (AAU), Report on the Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct (September 21, 2015). Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 16 of 72 17 76. Upon information and belief is knowledgeable of the fact that complaints of sexual misconduct are disproportionately lodged by females against males. 77. Upon information and belief, once a male student or employee is accused of sexual misconduct at FIU, the investigative reports are slanted and deliberately drafted against the accused male. 78 vests the Title Coordinator with unwarranted authority. Not only is the Title Coordinator given sole discretion to determine how to conduct the investigation into a sexual harassment complaint, to decide what information is necessary and relevant to include in the investigative report, and to selectively present the facts that she deems relevant, she is also permitted to offer a subjective assessment as to the evidence and credibility of the parties, and to provide a conclusion of findings which form the sole basis upon which disciplinary action is determined. Given that no meaningful independent investigation or interviews are conducted by the Vice President for Human Resources, to whom appeal rights are afforded to the accused, the Vice President for Human Resources relies entirely on the Report prepared by the Title Coordinator, and is unlikely to question or disturb the findings of a colleague. As such, FIU\u2019s policies lacked the requisite level of checks and balances to ensure the administration of an objective investigation and adjudication. The Putative Investigation 79. In furtherance of the goals and objectives of Title has implemented an internal Human Resource Policy on Sexual Harassment/Educational Equity Grievance Procedure which provides, inter alia, in pertinent part: Informal Complaints Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 17 of 72 18 a. Any person who believes that he or she has been the subject of sexual harassment may elect to file an informal complaint with the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. . . . c. In the case of a student complaint against a faculty member, within ten (10) University business days of the beginning of class of the following semester. d. Thirty (30) days shall be allowed to resolve an informal complaint. Formal Complaints c. In the case of a student complaint against a faculty member, the complaint must be made within then (10) University business days of the beginning of class of the following semester. d. Where an informal complaint has already been filed, a formal complaint shall be filed within one hundred (100) days of the alleged act(s). e. Thirty (30) days shall be allowed to resolve the complaint. 80. In addition has adopted regulations in compliance with its Title obligations which are contained in Regulation No. 105 (April 2015), entitled STALKING.\u201d (\u201cFIU-105\u201d). 81. In its \u201cPolicy Statement,\u201d FIU-105 expressly \u201caffirms its commitment to ensure that each member of the University community shall be permitted to work or study in an environment free from any form of illegal discrimination based on race, color, religion, age, disability, sex (including sexual misconduct), sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, marital status, veteran status, and/or any other legally protected status.\u201d (Emphasis added). Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 18 of 72 19 82. FIU-105 expressly governs the conduct of \u201cUniversity students and employees, including faculty and staff.\u201d 83. FIU-105 also applies to \u201call Prohibited Conduct that occurs on campus [as well as] Prohibited Conduct that occurs off campus, including . . . if: the conduct occurred in the context of an employment or education program or activity of the University, had continuing adverse effects on campus, or had continuing adverse effects in an off-campus employment or education program or activity. Examples of covered off-campus conduct include . . . University-sponsored study abroad\u2026\u201d (FIU-105, at section II, Scope and Applicability). 84. FIU-105 defines \u201cProhibited Conduct\u201d to include sexual or gender-based harassment, sexual assault, sexual violence and sexual exploitation. Its proscriptions against Prohibited Conduct apply to any individual and are thus gender neutral in their application. 85. Rivera and Drisin are covered in identical fashion by FIU-105s Scope and Applicability and are similarly subject to its enforcement provisions. 86. At Section VII, \u201cInvestigation of a Report of a Potential Violation of this Regulation and Resolution of an Investigation,\u201d FIU-105 provides, in pertinent part: If, after an initial assessment of a report of a Prohibited Conduct, the Title Coordinator determines that an investigation is necessary, the Title Coordinator will oversee the investigation. If Reporting Party and the Responding Party are students, the Director of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution/Deputy Title Coordinator will work with the Title Coordinator regarding the investigation. All investigations will be conducted in a prompt fashion to determine what occurred and whether steps must be taken to resolve the situation. The investigation phase will be completed within 60 calendar days from the filing of a report or when the University becomes aware of behavior that may be a violation of this Regulation. The parties will be advised of any extension of time as needed to complete the investigation phase. (Emphasis added). Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 19 of 72 20 There may be instances in which a Reporting Party is unable or unwilling to pursue a report of Discrimination, but where the University administration is aware of the behavior. In such instances, the Title Coordinator may choose to pursue an investigation of the alleged offense. The decision of whether or not to take further action on a report will be based on an assessment of safety and the maintenance of a non-discriminatory environment. 87. Although Rivera \u201cinformally\u201d reported a complaint against Drisin on or about December 13, 2014, Rivera did not provide a \u201cformal\u201d complaint until April 1, 2015 (Case No. 14-15-1009), more than 100 days after the alleged act of non-consensual sex. 88. Pursuant to Policy 105, McWhorter had a duty to complete the investigation phase of Rivera\u2019s \u201cinformal\u201d complaint within 60 calendar days of December 13, 2014, when became aware of behavior that may have been a violation of its sexual misconduct policy. 89. Pursuant to FIU\u2019s Human Resource Policy on Sexual Harassment, McWhorter had a duty to require Rivera to file a formal complaint within one hundred (100) days of December 13, 2014, the date that Rivera made an informal complaint. 90. Rivera made a formal complaint against Drisin on April 1, 2015. Upon information and belief, Rivera was reluctant to make a formal complaint prior to April 1, 2015 because she was uncomfortable being identified as the complainant. 91. During the time period between December 13, 2014 and April 1, 2015, McWhorter had a duty under Title to resolve Rivera\u2019s complaint promptly and equitably. Nevertheless, during this period did not even notify Drisin that a complaint had been filed by Rivera. 92. The failure of McWhorter to take action on Rivera\u2019s December 13, 2014 informal complaint gives rise to a presumption under regulation 105 that the alleged conduct against Drisin did not adversely affect \u201csafety and the maintenance of a non-discriminatory environment.\u201d Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 20 of 72 21 93. During the interim period between December 13, 2014 and April 1, 2015, McWhorter had \u201cnumerous conversations\u201d with Rivera, Rivera\u2019s attorney Anne Lyons, and Rivera\u2019s aunt, of unknown name. Neither Anne Lyons nor Rivera\u2019s aunt had any personal knowledge of the events of December 12-13, 2014. 94. Upon information and belief, during the period between December 13, 2014 and April 1, 2015, Rivera, attorney Anne Lyons, and Rivera\u2019s aunt spread false and defamatory statements to McWhorter and amongst students asserting that Drisin and Sherbakova were having a sexual affair. 95. Because Rivera was aware that Sherbakova was a percipient witness to Rivera\u2019s sexual misconduct with Drisin and Rivera\u2019s fabrication of the allegation against Drisin, Rivera\u2019s decision to promulgate rumors of an affair between Drisin and Sherbakova was maliciously fashioned in order to vitiate the impact of Sherbakova\u2019s anticipated truthful testimony against Rivera in the investigation into Drisin\u2019s conduct on December 13, 2014, by impeaching Sherbakova\u2019s credibility as a witness. 96. In furtherance of her duty to bring Rivera\u2019s complaint to a prompt and equitable resolution, McWhorter reasonably should have promptly interviewed Sherbakova who was a known percipient witness to the events of December 12-13, 2014. 97. Had McWhorter acted reasonably and impartially and interviewed Sherbakova promptly, McWhorter would have adduced incontrovertible and unimpeachable testimony that Rivera\u2019s complaint against Drisin was fabricated and frivolous, and that Rivera\u2019s conduct, not Drisin\u2019s, violated FIU\u2019s sexual misconduct policies, necessitating a timely finding that Drisin was not guilty of any misconduct. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 21 of 72 22 98. Instead, during the period between December 12-13, 2014 and April 1, 2015, McWhorter, motivated by gender bias and a predetermined disposition to find Drisin culpable of the sexual misconduct alleged by Rivera, failed to interview either Drisin or Sherbakova, but spoke \u201cnumerous times\u201d to Rivera, Anne Lyons, and Rivera\u2019s aunt. 99. McWhorter\u2019s \u201cnumerous conversations\u201d with Rivera, Anne Lyons and Rivera\u2019s aunt (coupled with her failure to interview Drisin and Sherbakova) constitute a violation of McWhorter\u2019s duty of impartiality as Title Coordinator. Having listened only to one side\u2019s view of the Subject Incident (Rivera\u2019s), McWhorter allowed herself to be unduly influenced by Rivera\u2019s frivolous and fabricated allegations concerning both Drisin\u2019s conduct and Drisin\u2019s relationship with Sherbokova, from which McWhorter formulated conclusory opinions prior to conducting any investigation, despite the facts that Rivera herself had no knowledge or memory of any sexual harassment by Drisin, Anne Lyons and Rivera\u2019s aunt had no personal knowledge whatsoever, and Rivera\u2019s allegations thus entirely lacked evidentiary support. 100. On or about April 10, 2015, McWhorter left voicemail for Drisin asking him to meet with her meeting between Drisin and McWhorter was conducted on April 13, 2015. Prior to the meeting, Drisin had no personal knowledge that Rivera had reported the Genoa incident to FIU. At the April 13, 2015 meeting, McWhorter asked Drisin \u201cwhether [he knew] what the meeting was all about.\u201d Drisin responded that he assumed that McWhorter was talking about what had happened in Genoa. McWhorter told Drisin there were allegation against him and asked Drisin if he knew what they were. Drisin responded that he was shocked that Rivera would make any charges against him, because there was a witness, and that Drisin was the one who was \u201cattacked\u201d by Rivera and that Rivera engaged in sexually predatory behavior without Drisin\u2019s consent, and Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 22 of 72 23 that any attempt on Rivera\u2019s part to cast herself as anything other than the aggressor would be a falsification. 101. At the April 13, 2015 meeting, McWhorter told Drisin that she did not want to get into any more detail at that time, but that an investigative process would ensue and that Drisin would be the last person interviewed in that process. At the April 13, 2015, McWhorter failed to provide Drisin with oral or written notice of the allegations against him. 102. McWhorter did, however, make it clear during her April 13, 2015 meeting with Drisin that she did not doubt the veracity of Rivera\u2019s claim and that her role would be to \"find out who was lying, and if witnesses were covering up, and why.\" In short, McWhorter was implicitly disclosing that she had already made a determination that Rivera was telling the truth, and that Rivera\u2019s total absence of memory of the events in question did not hamper her ability as investigator to determine what actually happened. 103. McWhorter\u2019s investigation was procedurally flawed because, inter alia, by huddling for three months with Rivera, Rivera\u2019s aunt, and Anne Lyons, McWhorter had already given Rivera an opportunity to eviscerate the reputations of Drisin and Sherbakova, the only independent witness to Rivera\u2019s conduct on December 13, 2014, which paved the road for McWhorter\u2019s formulation of improper preliminary opinions and factual findings against Drisin without the benefit of any investigation. 104. McWhorter\u2019s unreasonable delay in conducting the investigation spawned an environment which foreclosed Drisin\u2019s ability to adequately defend himself, because McWhorter was unlawfully conducting herself as both a prosecutor and as an advocate for Rivera\u2019s \u201cteam\u201d rather than as an impartial investigator. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 23 of 72 24 105. On April 21, 2015, Drisin sent an e-mail to McWhorter to remind McWhorter that he still had not received notice of the precise allegations against him. The April 21, 2015 e-mail also asked McWhorter, (1) if Drisin would be shown a written statement made by Rivera, (2) what would happen procedurally at the conclusion of the interviewing process, (3) whether a written statement will be required from Drisin at his interview, (4) whether his interview will be recorded, and (5) the date on which River\u2019s complaint was filed with McWhorter\u2019s office. 106. McWhorter never responded, either orally or in writing, to Drisin\u2019s April 21, 2015 e-mail. 107. McWhorter interviewed Sherbakova on May 3, 2015. 108. At the May 3, 2015 interview, Sherbakova told McWhorter unequivocally that she witnessed the Subject Incident and observed Rivera committing an act of sexual aggression upon Drisin, while Drisin was clothed and unconscious. 109. Sherbakova also told McWhorter that while Rivera was naked and on top of Drisin, she heard Rivera say to Drisin want you to fuck me.\u201d While this statement is reflected in McWhorter\u2019s interview notes, it is not cited in McWhorter\u2019s final investigative report and, significantly, it is not stated amongst the \u201cundisputed facts proper consideration of this Sherbakova testimony, alone, would have necessitated a dismissal of the charge against Drisin, because Rivera\u2019s statement incontrovertibly establishes that Rivera expressly consented to having sex with Drisin, for which singular reason Drisin could not have violated Title or FIU\u2019s policies on sexual misconduct. 110. Sherbakova also told McWhorter that Sherbakova asked Rivera if she was enjoying herself, and Rivera responded \u201cyes,\u201d evincing complete awareness of her conduct. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 24 of 72 25 111. Sherbakova also told McWhorter that there was not a doubt in her mind that Rivera was fully conscious of her actions, and that Rivera later decided to recount an apocryphal story that she lacked consciousness of her behavior with Drisin only because Rivera felt rejected by Drisin when Drisin pushed Rivera off him immediately when he became conscious of Rivera\u2019s assault, and because Rivera was mortified that she had been caught in flagrante delicto by Sherbakova. 112. Sherbakova also told McWhorter that she was Rivera\u2019s closest friend in the Genoa program. McWhorter\u2019s investigative notes reflect that Rivera also testified likewise about her friendship with Sherbakova. 113. Sherbakova also provided McWhorter with extensive testimony, based on her personal knowledge derived directly from Rivera\u2019s intimate personal confessionals which she shared in confidence with Sherbakova, relating to Rivera\u2019s compulsive sexual promiscuity, including Rivera\u2019s prior affairs with a Dean of Architecture at the University of Puerto Rico, which Rivera attended as an undergraduate, and with two graduate teaching assistants. 114. McWhorter plainly told Sherbakova that she \u201cwas not interested in that information,\u201d and that her only job was to determine \u201cwho is covering up for whom,\u201d thus insinuating that McWhorter was discrediting Sherbakova\u2019s testimony because she had falsely concluded that Sherbakova and Drisin were having an affair. 115. In furtherance of her preconceived design to impeach the credibility of Sherbakova\u2019s testimony by attempting to establish that Sherbakova was \u201ccovering up for Drisin,\u201d McWhorter conducted a prosecutorial-minded interrogation of Sherbakova which focused on Sherbakova\u2019s relationship with Drisin. For example, McWhorter told Sherbakova repeatedly, in an inappropriately accusatory manner, \u201cyou have a stake in this.\u201d McWhorter disregarded all of Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 25 of 72 26 Sherbakova\u2019s testimony which established that the speculation of an alleged affair between her and Drisin were frivolous and based on mistaken assumptions and malicious rumors started by students. For example, there was an allegation that Drisin accompanied Sherbakova on a mid- semester weekend trip to Cannes, France, and McWhorter disregarded evidence which conclusively demonstrated that Drisin was in the United States during the time that Sherbakova was in Cannes. 116. During McWhorter\u2019s interview with Sherbakova regarding Rivera\u2019s complaint, McWhorter also interrogated Sherbakova regarding Drisin\u2019s sexual behavior with former graduate students and Drisin\u2019s previous Graduate Assistants, in an attempt to adduce \u201cpropensity\u201d evidence that would support her unfounded preconceived opinions about Drisin\u2019s conduct. 117. McWhorter also interviewed Behamon, who lacked personal knowledge of the Subject Incident because she had fallen asleep and did not awaken until after Drisin pushed Rivera off him and retired to the next room, while Rivera got under the covers of the bed and ostensibly went to sleep. 118. Behamon, like Sherbakova, reported to McWhorter that as Rivera\u2019s roommate, she had personal knowledge of Rivera\u2019s promiscuous, aggressive and predatory sexual behavior throughout the semester in Genoa and of Rivera\u2019s self-defining sexual braggadocio. 119. Records of the investigation reveal that McWhorter conducted a fishing expedition in a prosecutorial-minded attempt to elicit testimony confirming her unfounded and prejudicial belief that Drisin was predisposed to sexual misconduct. Casting her net far and wide, McWhorter interviewed several other students, past and present, despite the fact that these other witnesses completely lacked personal knowledge relating to the Subject Incident. McWhorter\u2019s investigatory interviews of other witnesses were conducted with the hope that she Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 26 of 72 27 could adduce \u201cpropensity\u201d evidence that Drisin had a prior history of sexual misconduct, or with the hope to corroborate rumors of an affair between Drisin and Sherbakova. Rather than conducting an impartial investigation of Rivera\u2019s complaint regarding the Subject Incident, McWhorter\u2019s investigation consisted of a veritable witch-hunt, and she maliciously crusaded to eviscerate Drisin\u2019s reputation, generally, in order to justify and bolster her predetermined findings of sexual misconduct against Drisin. 120. McWhorter interviewed Drisin on May 6, 2015. 121. Prior to his May 6, 2015 interview, at which time Drisin\u2019s participation in the investigative process was required, McWhorter failed to identify specific allegations against Drisin, which substantially hindered Drisin\u2019s ability to prepare for the interview or to formulate his response to the charges. For example, had he known that Rivera was spreading rumors that he and Sherbakova were having an affair and that they had gone to France together, Drisin would have been able to adduce evidence to prove that such rumors were entirely false. 122. At all times material, Drisin was denied an opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses. Further, at all times material, McWhorter failed to disclose to Drisin (and refused to disclose upon Drisin\u2019s request) the identities of adverse witnesses, hindering Drisin\u2019s ability to challenge their credibility. 123. The May 6 interview was attended by David Duncan, Esq. (\u201cDuncan\u201d), a Boston- based attorney specializing in Title defense, who was retained by Drisin to provide counsel relating to the investigation into Rivera\u2019s complaint. 124. During the May 6, 2015 interview, Drisin told McWhorter unequivocally, as Sherbakova had done previously, that Rivera was a sexual aggressor who imposed herself sexually upon Drisin without his consent. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 27 of 72 28 125. Drisin also told McWhorter that Rivera was unable to offer any evidence because she fabricated the allegation that Drisin committed sexual misconduct while maintaining that she had no knowledge or recollection of the events. 126. In response, McWhorter told Drisin, \u201cit doesn\u2019t matter, if Rivera believes that she may have be a victim of sexual misconduct, that\u2019s good enough for me to accept her claim.\u201d In view of Rivera\u2019s having committed herself to a version of the story which requires that she concedes no personal knowledge of the Subject Incident, McWhorter\u2019s faith in her own ability to refashion the truth according to her own unfounded assumptions, which lack evidentiary support, over the uncontroverted eye witness accounts of Drisin and Sherbakova is evidence of a gross substantive flaw in her investigative process, and constitutes a clear betrayal of McWhorter\u2019s unlawful gender bias. 127. On July 8, 2015, McWhorter authored a final investigative report (\u201cROI\u201d) which substantiates the charge of sexual misconduct against Drisin. 128. The \u201cAnalysis\u201d portion of the belies the evidence which McWhorter actually adduced. For example, the report states that \u201c[t]here was no evidence provided to show motive for the Complainant to subject a false claim of sexual misconduct against Associate Dean Drisin.\u201d This conclusion improperly disregards Sherbakova\u2019s testimony that Rivera\u2019s decision to concoct a bogus story in which she depicted herself as unconscious throughout the Subject Incident was motivated by Drisin\u2019s demonstrable rejection of Rivera and by Rivera\u2019s shame and embarrassment at having the rejection witnessed by Sherbakova. The \u201canalysis\u201d also improperly disregards probative evidence (which is cited in the ROI) that Behamon testified that when Rivera returned to her apartment immediately after the Subject Incident, Rivera cried tears of remorse, and said Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 28 of 72 29 (about herself) that she \u201cwas horrible\u201d and ashamed, and that Rivera\u2019s \u201ccrying turned to rage\u201d when it was suggested that Rivera could \u201cget [money] from this.\u201d 129. It is uncontroverted in the that both Rivera and Sherbakova testified that they asked Drisin if they could come up to his apartment to use the bathroom. Notwithstanding this uncontroverted evidence, McWhorter fails to include this fact amongst the ROI\u2019s enumerated \u201cundisputed facts.\u201d To the contrary, the ROI\u2019s \u201canalysis\u201d states that \u201c[Drisin] invited the students to come to his apartment, a behavior not condoned by the University,\u201d and relies on this statement in support of its finding that Drisin was guilty of sexual misconduct. McWhorter\u2019s conclusion reflects an intentional and reckless regard for the truth, by falsely accusing Drisin of \u201cinviting\u201d the students into his apartment. Further, McWhorter\u2019s assertion that Drisin\u2019s behavior (i.e., inviting the students to his apartment) is \u201ca behavior not condoned by the University,\u201d is a bald, judgmental and conclusory opinion which is neither supported in the nor supportable as a matter of any actual ascertainable policy. 130. Moreover, the states that \u201c[Drisin] ultimately did not take steps to stop the sexual relationship,\u201d which conclusion improperly disregards the adduced uncontroverted evidence, contained in the report, that Drisin pushed Rivera off him and said \u201cyou can\u2019t do this\u201d. 131. Moreover, the \u201canalysis\u201d portion of the relies heavily on innuendo relating to the rumored affair between Sherbakova and Drisin as the basis for its adverse findings against Drisin, despite the fact that the rumored affair could not in the mind of a reasonable investigator bear any material relevance to the issue under investigation, to wit, whether Drisin committed sexual misconduct with Rivera. 132. Moreover, the is predicated on McWhorter\u2019s absurdly biased presumption that, if Sherbakova and Drisin were conducting a sexual affair, Sherbakova would have a motive to Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 29 of 72 30 \u201ccover up\u201d for Drisin\u2019s sexual misconduct, given that the record reflects that Sherbakova and Rivera were very good friends and roommates. McWhorter fails to consider that the proposition that a woman (Sherbakova) would naturally lie to exculpate her alleged lover for raping her friend in her presence is plainly, if not preposterously, illogical. Nevertheless, the implicitly promotes such an inference while failing to consider the more logical proposition that Sherbakova proffered testimony that was unfavorable to her friend Rivera for the sole reason that she sought to promote the truth in the face of the gross injustice which Rivera was perpetrating upon Drisin. 133. The is replete with indications that McWhorter lacked proper training and was incompetent in her ability to independently interpret her evidentiary findings. To illustrate, the states, \u201c[Sherbakova and Behamon] went to great lengths to make the point that Complainant was promiscuous and had a previous relationship with a dean during her undergraduate studies. While witnesses indicated their belief that [Sherbakova] was having an affair with [Drisin], there is no evidence that Complainant had affairs with professors or administrators.\u201d This \u201canalysis\u201d is flawed because, (1) it implicitly regards the hearsay statements of unidentified students as \u201cevidence\u201d against Drisin while disregarding Sherbakova\u2019s and Behamon\u2019s statements, which are based on personal knowledge and derived from Rivera\u2019s admissions (exception to hearsay) as not constituting \u201cevidence\u201d at all; (2) it makes an improper credibility determination by disregarding Sherbakova\u2019s and Drisin\u2019s testimony that they were \u201cnot\u201d having an affair, while evincing her utter failure to have asked Rivera to comment on the allegations that she had a history of sexual conduct that was consistent with Drisin\u2019s and Sherbakova\u2019s testimony that Rivera was a sexual aggressor with Drisin; (3) it affords more weight to the \u201cirrelevant\u201d issue of Drisin\u2019s relationship with Sherbakova than to the issue under investigation, whether Drisin committed sexual misconduct with Rivera, by ignoring probative evidence that Rivera\u2019s history as a sexual aggressor Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 30 of 72 31 was consistent with both Drisin and Sherbakova testimony regarding Rivera\u2019s sexual behavior with Drisin; and (4) it raises the question of why McWhorter did not seek out the names of the two graduate teaching assistants with whom Rivera boasted of having had initiated sexual affairs for the purpose of obtaining their witness statements. 134. Further, without any evidence, McWhorter makes an improper and incongruous leap and falsely claims in the that: [t]his case involved alcohol. [Rivera] and [Behamon] admitted that they were intoxicated. [Drisin] and [Sherbakova] stated that they were not intoxicated. It is known that one may not engage in sexual activity with another person who one knows, or one reasonably should have known, is incapacitated as a result of alcohol or other drugs. The use of alcohol or other drugs can have unintended consequences. Being intoxicated or high does not diminish one\u2019s responsibility to obtain consent and is never an excuse for sexual misconduct. The behavior of [Rivera] as described by witnesses and the complainant could lead one to believe that the [Rivera] was intoxicated. [Drisin] also knew that she had been drinking at various places throughout the evening. It appears that [Rivera] was in an alcoholic blackout state. She may have appeared to act normally but she had no memory of the events. [Rivera] was in an alcoholic blackout state and thus whether she may have stated any words or engaged in actions that could have portrayed a willingness to engage in sexual activity, she was not in a state of mind where she could have given known [sic] consent.\u201d (Emphases added). McWhorter\u2019s analytical conclusion is a non sequitur which belies the evidence. There is no evidentiary basis that \u201ccould lead McWhorter to believe\u201d that Rivera was intoxicated, let alone in an \u201calcoholic blackout state.\u201d Rivera herself testified to McWhorter that she engaged in a \u201clong professional conversation\u201d before she says she fell asleep. This significant fact is cited in the ROI, but McWhorter improperly omits this in the ROI\u2019s statement of \u201cundisputed facts.\u201d Further, Rivera herself did not testify that she was intoxicated. Instead, her statement, as quoted in the ROI, is that \u201c[w]e all had a drink.\u201d Thus, Rivera\u2019s own depiction of her state that evening does Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 31 of 72 32 not support that she was intoxicated or incapacitated and certainly not to a level that would result in a blackout. By all witness accounts, Rivera was coherent, alert, engaged in a professional conversation and showing no sign of intoxication. McWhorter\u2019s statement, then, that Rivera \u201cadmitted that she was intoxicated\u201d reflects an improper conclusion of McWhorter\u2019s own making which distorts the evidence of record. Likewise, McWhorter\u2019s statement that Behamon admitted that she was intoxicated also distorts the evidence. Behamon\u2019s actual statement was that she sleeps \u201creally hard, especially when she has been drinking.\u201d (Emphasis supplied). Behamon did not report drinking an inordinate amount or being intoxicated. She stated only that drinking can enhance her normal \u201chard\u201d sleeping. Behamon said nothing about how much alcohol she consumed, let alone how much alcohol Rivera consumed. 135. From Rivera\u2019s statement that she fell asleep and remembers nothing of any sexual acts, McWhorter leaps from a first improper supposition, that Rivera was intoxicated, to another supposition, also belied by the evidence, that it \u201cappears that Rivera was in an alcoholic blackout state.\u201d Then, riding on the momentum of her own speculation rather than the factual record, McWhorter makes a third leap from the factual record, to the conclusory determination that Rivera indeed \u201cwas\u201d in an alcoholic blackout state. There is absolutely no bridge between the antecedent speculative assumption to the consequential conclusory assertion, other than McWhorter\u2019s own gender bias. To arrive at her conclusion, McWhorter discounted to zero the testimony of Drisin, Sherbakova and Behamon and relied solely upon Rivera\u2019s self-serving statement that she has no recollection of the incident. 136. Likewise, there is not one iota of evidence in the that would support McWhorter\u2019s conclusion Drisin knew, or should have known, that Rivera was not in a state of mind where \u201cshe could have given knowing consent.\u201d Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 32 of 72 33 137. McWhorter violated the by failing to base her findings on a preponderance of the evidence. Instead, McWhorter demonstrated a clear gender bias which did not afford Drisin the required presumption of innocence, and improperly placed the burden on Drisin to establish that Rivera consented to the sexual activity, instead of correctly placing the burden of proof on Rivera to establish that she did not consent, which would have been an impossible burden for Rivera to meet. 138. McWhorter\u2019s actions were based on actual knowledge and deliberate indifference to the fact that Drisin was improperly charged with sexual misconduct. 139 reasonable Title Coordinator would have believed that clear and convincing evidence established no sexual misconduct by Drisin. By substantiating a finding of sexual misconduct against Drisin by knowingly and intentionally drawing conclusions that were not derived from an impartial interpretation of the evidentiary facts, McWhorter reasonably should have believed that she was violating Drisin\u2019s clearly-established rights under Title IX, the Fourteenth Amendment (procedural due process), and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. 140. Because the evidence so substantially favored Drisin\u2019s version of the disputed issues relating to the Subject Incident, the fact that McWhorter formed a conclusion in favor of Rivera\u2019s version gives rise to a plausible inference that McWhorter was influenced by gender bias. Doe v. Columbia, Case No. 15-1536, 2016 4056034, at *8 (2d Cir. July 29, 2016). 141 employs the \u201csingle-investigator\u201d model for its investigation of Title complaints of sexual misconduct. This model, which is permitted under express guidance, allows a solitary \u201ctrained\u201d investigator (together with, possibly, an assistant) to handle the entire investigative and adjudicative processes. This process poses a serious threat to the due process Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 33 of 72 34 rights of an accused under Title because one person -- presumably paid by the university, whose federal funding may be at stake if the government finds that the institution violates the enforcement mandates of the -- will effectively decide innocence or guilt. 142. McWhorter conducted a one-sided investigation in favor of Rivera\u2019s allegations when she excluded relevant and exculpatory evidence, disregarded dispositive eyewitness testimony, afforded significant weight to witnesses lacking any independent knowledge of the material events, and denied Drisin his procedural rights, all in an effort to fit within the narrative that Drisin was guilty of the misconduct alleged. 143. McWhorter violated FIU-105 by failing to complete the investigation phase of Rivera\u2019s complaint within sixty (60) days from the filing of the report (April 1, 2015) or from the date when the University became aware of behavior that may be a violation of FIU-105 (December 13, 2015). 144. McWhorter violated FIU\u2019s Human Resources Policy by failing to resolve Rivera\u2019s formal complaint within thirty (30) days. 145. McWhorter further violated FIU\u2019s Human Resources Policy, which establish 100 days from the alleged act as the time limitation within which a student complaint against a faculty member can be brought where the student has already brought an informal complaint, by failing to dismiss the complaint against Drisin when Rivera failed to file a formal complaint within 100 days of December 13, 2014. 146. McWhorter violated Title and FIU\u2019s procedures by failing to dismiss Rivera\u2019s Complaint in view of the fact that two percipient witnesses (Drisin and Sherbakova) heard Rivera state to Drisin want to fuck you and want you to fuck me,\u201d because Rivera\u2019s statement summarily evinces \u201cwelcomeness\u201d of any implied actus rea which was alleged against Drisin. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 34 of 72 35 Inasmuch as a lack of consent is the cornerstone of any valid charge of sexual harassment under Title IX, Rivera\u2019s statement obviates her ability to establish a prima facie case, and necessitated a summary finding in favor of Drisin. Drisin\u2019s Appeal 147. On July 16, 2015, Drisin served a letter appeal of the decision of the Title Coordinator Shirlyon McWhorter upon appealed to Meredith Newman, Vice Provost for Faculty and Global Affairs (the \u201cDrisin Appeal\u201d). 148. The Drisin Appeal cogently set forth numerous grounds to establish that arrived at a plainly erroneous outcome because the factual evidence was insufficient to nudge the allegation from the speculative to the plausible, let alone to support the findings, even at the relaxed standard of a \u201cpreponderance of the evidence.\u201d The particulars of the argument contained in the Drisin Appeal have been in substantial part incorporated into the allegations of this Complaint. 149. In a letter to Drisin from Jaffus Hardrick, Vice President, Human Resources, dated July 30, 2015, Hardrick ratified the findings of the and summarily denied the Appeal (the \u201cDrisin Appeal Denial\u201d). 150. The Drisin Appeal Denial states, in pertinent part, that \u201c[b]ased on my review of the record find that EOPD\u2019s findings are supported by the evidence. The additional information contained in your appeal, even if true, does not negate the findings made by EOPD. Accordingly, no change in the EOPD\u2019s findings and conclusions are warranted.\u201d 151. No reasonable impartial reviewer could conclude, as Hardrick did, either that (1) \u201cthe [ROI\u2019s] findings are supported by the evidence,\u201d or that (2) \u201cthe additional information contained in [the Drisin Appeal], even if true, does not negate the findings made by EOPD.\u201d The unreasonable nature of Hardrick\u2019s conclusion is betrayed by the fact, as alleged more particularly Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 35 of 72 36 above, that the only percipient independent witness (Sherbakova) testified unequivocally that Rivera, not Drisin, consciously and affirmatively told Drisin want to fuck you,\u201d and want you to fuck me.\u201d As such was required to dismiss Rivera\u2019s complaint because Rivera\u2019s conduct obviated any possibility that Drisin could have acted without Rivera\u2019s express consent. 152. Because the evidence so substantially favored Drisin\u2019s version of the disputed issues relating to the Subject Incident, the fact that Hardrick ratified the EOPD\u2019s findings against Drisin gives rise to a plausible inference that Hardrick was influenced by gender bias. Doe v. Columbia, Case No. 15-1536, 2016 4056034, at *8 (2d Cir. July 29, 2016). 153. From Hardrick\u2019s failure to undertake any factual analysis of the issues raised in Drisin\u2019s appeal, coupled with his rubber-stamping of McWhorter\u2019s gender-biased and incompetent analysis which leads to a finding of guilt against Drisin without one iota of evidence to support such a finding, an inference of gender-bias can be imputed to Hardrick. 154. Further, FIU\u2019s appeal process for challenging the findings of the violated Drisin\u2019s procedural due process rights, by depriving him of his right to be heard by a tribunal with academic expertise and an apparent impartiality. Because the ultimate decision is based exclusively upon the reported results of the investigation, which the Vice President for Humarn Resources accepts at face value, and McWhorter\u2019s biased findings deprived Drisin of his presumption of innocence, the appeal afforded to Drisin provided little meaningful opportunity to challenge McWhorter\u2019s conclusions or her rendition of what witnesses purportedly said. 155. Hardrick\u2019s summary denial of Drisin\u2019s appeal is intentional and discriminatory, as he willingly participated in an adjudicative process suggestive of a kangaroo court. Upon an appropriate and measured consideration of the underlying factual record, Hardrick reasonably would have believed that his summary denial of the Drisin Appeal constituted an unlawful denial Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 36 of 72 37 of Drisin\u2019s clearly-established rights under Title IX, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Drisin\u2019s Complaint of Sexual Misconduct Against Rivera 156. On or about July 10, 2015, Drisin filed a complaint (Case No. 15-16-1018) of sexual misconduct against Rivera with the EOPD, pursuant to Regulation No. 105. 157. In his complaint, Drisin asserted that that he was a victim of a non-consensual sexual assault committed by Rivera, which resulted in his feeling panicked and violated. 158. Shortly after Drisin filed the complaint, McWhorter called Duncan to say that unless Drisin withdrew his complaint, she would likely considered it to constitute unlawful retaliation against Rivera. 159. McWhorter\u2019s statement constituted an intentional and unlawful violation of Drisin\u2019s civil rights, because the requires that, \u201c[i]n all cases, a school\u2019s Title investigation must be adequate, reliable, impartial, and prompt and include the opportunity for both parties to present witnesses and other evidence.\u201d (Emphasis added). 160. Confident that his complaint against Rivera was meritorious and that he was within his rights to advance his claim under Title IX, Drisin persevered, and on August 18, 2015, he met with McWhorter and provided an oral statement of his complaint. 161. In his August 18, 2015 \u201cstatement\u201d (as reported by McWhorter), Drisin explained that he was victimized by Rivera\u2019s unwelcomed sexual advances, and that Rivera \u201chad a history of engaging in predatory sexual relationships where she seeks people out in an aggressive manner,\u201d and a \u201creputation for engaging in the same type of behavior that [Drisin] is suggesting that [Rivera] engaged in with [Drisin].\u201d Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 37 of 72 38 162. In response, McWhorter told Drisin that he had not introduced any additional witnesses or information that would warrant an extension of her initial investigation. Drisin then provided McWhorter with the specific names of two additional witnesses, both former graduate instructors, with whom Rivera had boasted of having seduced into sexual affairs. Drisin also informed McWhorter that Rivera had boasted of starting a sexual affair with a Dean of Architecture at the University of Puerto Rico when she was an undergraduate there, and that Rivera had boasted of an incident in which the wife of the Dean of Architecture of the University of Puerto Rico threw Rivera out of a party due to Rivera\u2019s blatantly sexually aggressive behavior. 163. With deliberate indifference to this information, McWhorter told Drisin that he would have to do his own investigation of those witnesses, and stated, \u201cI\u2019m not going to get involved in investigating the sexual history of a woman who is the victim of a sexual battery.\u201d 164. McWhorter, in short, was at all times material incapable of comprehending that a female could be a perpetrator of sexual misconduct, even when all evidence and eyewitness testimony pointed to that conclusion. 165. Drisin also asserted in his August 18, 2015 \u201cstatement\u201d that he was being discriminated against because of his gender and that \u201c[i]f a female faculty member made the same mistake of allowing three students in her room and found herself in the situation that [Drisin] did, the results would be different.\u201d 166. Although Drisin spent almost an hour giving a statement to McWhorter on August 18, 2015, McWhorter drafted what purports to be Drisin\u2019s \u201cstatement\u201d \u2013 in the first person \u2013 when in actuality it is a redacted one-page rendition of McWhorter\u2019s biased and distortive interpretation of Drisin\u2019s testimony. For example, the \u201cstatement\u201d attributes to Drisin accept lots of blame,\u201d when Drisin\u2019s actual words were, \u201cAllowing [Rivera] into my apartment was a mistake but did Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 38 of 72 39 it because she was the roommate of a mutual friend whom trusted and who was with us that evening.\u201d Drisin elaborated by stating that was culpable in extending my trust to [Rivera] when, in fact did not know her, know her history or what her behavior might be.\u201d McWhorter\u2019s editorializing improperly and intentionally mischaracterizes Drisin\u2019s testimony to bolster her own unfounded and erroneous findings which are adverse to Drisin, and as such, constitutes further evidence of McWhorter\u2019s gender bias, which violates Drisin\u2019s rights under Title and his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. 167. On September 10, 2015, McWhorter issued a written investigative report finding that is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, a violation of FIU\u2019s sexual misconduct regulation.\u201d 168. The September 10, 2015 investigative letter concludes that Drisin\u2019s allegation that Rivera was guilty of sexual misconduct was \u201cthoroughly investigated by [EOPD] in the previous complaint [against Drisin].\u201d 169. The findings contained in the September 10, 2015 investigative report are based on nothing other than McWhorter\u2019s previous review of the contents of the Rivera complaint, including the old witness statements, documents, evidence and the statement that Drisin had provided in the presence of his attorney on May 7, 2015 as a respondent, as well as the statement which Drisin provided on August 18, 2015. The September 10, 2015 report also states that Rivera was given an opportunity to respond but chose to rely on the statement which she provided during the investigation into her complaint against Drisin. 170. The September 10, 2015 letter also asserts that Drisin advised McWhorter that \u201cthere were no new witnesses, information or evidence,\u201d which statement is false and disingenuous because Drisin expressly suggested that McWhorter interview the two former graduate Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 39 of 72 40 instructors and seek out the Dean from University of Puerto Rico whom Rivera had boasted of having seduced into a sexual affair. 171. By incorporating the findings of the Rivera complaint as the sole basis for adjudication of Drisin\u2019s independent complaint against Rivera, McWhorter acted with actual knowledge of, and deliberate indifference to, the fact that Drisin\u2019s Title rights to an adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation, and constitutional right to gender-based equal protection, were being violated. 172. By failing to attempt to interview identified witnesses with whom Rivera had boasted of having sexual affairs, McWhorter evidenced gender bias and disparate treatment towards Drisin, because in her prior investigation into Rivera\u2019s complaint against Drisin, McWhorter actively solicited information relating to Drisin\u2019s rumored relationship with Sherbakova and conducted a fishing expedition with the hope of uncovering prior sexual relationships that Drisin allegedly had with other students, in a grossly ill-conceived attempt to establish Drisin\u2019s propensity for sexual harassment. 173. Because McWhorter\u2019s prior investigation into Rivera\u2019s complaint against Drisin actively solicited information relating to Drisin\u2019s rumored relationship with Sherbakova and conducted a fishing expedition with the hope of uncovering prior sexual relationships that Drisin had with other students, McWhorter\u2019s deliberate indifference to the exploration of Rivera\u2019s sexual history violated the guidance of the OCR, which provides that \u201c[a] balanced and fair process that provides the same opportunities to both parties will lead to sound and supportable decisions.\u201d 174. Furthermore, while neither Title nor the specifies who should conduct an investigation into sexual misconduct, the clarifies that an investigation can be conducted by the Title coordinator, provided that there are no conflicts of interest. Given that McWhorter Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 40 of 72 41 served under the single investigator model as both investigator and adjudicator of Rivera\u2019s claim, it goes without saying that she had a conflict of interest in investigating Drisin\u2019s claim against Rivera because of her obvious incentive not to disturb her own prior judgment. Accordingly, McWhorter was under a duty to recuse herself as the investigator and adjudicator of Drisin\u2019s complaint, and her willful failure to do so constitutes a further violation of Drisin\u2019s Title and procedural due process rights. 175. In spite of McWhorter\u2019s actual knowledge that Rivera had committed sexual misconduct with Drisin during the Subject Incident, McWhorter acted with deliberate indifference to Drisin\u2019s independent claim of sexual misconduct. McWhorter\u2019s failure to recuse herself from her role as single-investigator of Drisin\u2019s complaint and her failure to conduct an independent de novo investigation is evidentiary that McWhorter has unlawfully structured the and her role as Title Coordinator to selectively enforce Title complaints against males only, and turn a blind eye to acts of sexual harassment committed by females upon males. 176. By failing to conduct an independent de novo investigation into Drisin\u2019s complaint and for the reasons more particularly alleged above, McWhorter intentionally discriminated against Drisin, and reasonably would have had knowledge that her conduct unlawfully violated Drisin\u2019s rights to protection against selective enforcement of Title IX, to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, to protection against discriminatory gender-based disparate treatement under Title VII, and to gender-based equal protection under the United States Constitution. 177. Drisin retained local counsel Mark Richard, Esq. to appeal the EOPD\u2019s adverse decision on Drisin\u2019s complaint (the \u201cRichard Appeal\u201d). By letter dated September 30, 2015 to Hardrick, Richard requested a de novo review of the complaint, based on (1) McWhorter\u2019s failure Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 41 of 72 42 to recuse herself, (2) McWhorter\u2019s failure to review and/or consider evidence which would have supported the statements provided by Drisin, and (3) the clearly erroneous outcome. 178. Richard\u2019s September 30, 2015 letter also emphasized that Drisin was deprived of due process rights based on the fact that McWhorter\u2019s decision indicates that she conducted no investigation of Drisin\u2019s charge, but rather relied on documentation she obtained during the investigation of Rivera\u2019s complaint, as to which she already had reached a decision. 179. On October 20, 2015, Hardrick wrote Drisin a letter in which he ratified the findings and conclusions of the September 10, 2015 investigative report. 180. In the October 20, 2015 denial of the Richard Appeal, Hardrick wrote that (1) there was \u201cno due process violation based on who conducted the investigation, how it was conducted or the extent of the investigation,\u201d and (2) the decision was supported by substantial competent evidence. 181. No reasonable impartial reviewer could conclude, as Hardrick did, either that (1) McWhorter did not have a conflict of interest in adjudicating Drisin\u2019s claim against Rivera, or (2) the findings of the September 10, 2015 investigative report were supported by substantial competent evidence. 182. Because the evidence so substantially favored Drisin\u2019s allegations that Rivera committed sexual misconduct with Drisin, the fact that Hardrick ratified the EOPD\u2019s findings against Drisin gives rise to a plausible inference that Hardrick was influenced by gender bias. Doe v. Columbia, Case No. 15-1536, 2016 4056034, at *8 (2d Cir. July 29, 2016). 183. Hardrick\u2019s summary denial of the Richard Appeal is intentional and discriminatory, as he willingly participated in an adjudicative process suggestive of a kangaroo court. Upon an appropriate and measured consideration of the underlying factual record, Hardrick reasonably Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 42 of 72 43 would have believed that his summary denial of the Richard Appeal constituted an unlawful denial of Drisin\u2019s clearly-established rights under Title IX, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Unlawful Termination of Drisin\u2019s Employment 184. The contract between the Board of Trustees and the United Faculty of Florida (\u201cBOT-UFF\u201d) provides, at Policy \u2013 Disciplinary Action and Job Abandonment, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) Just Cause (a) The purpose of this Policy is to provide a prompt and equitable procedure for disciplinary action taken with just cause. Just cause shall be defined as: (i) incompetence, or (ii) misconduct. (b) An employee\u2019s activities which fall outside the cope of employment shall constitute misconduct only if such activities adversely affect the legitimate interests of the University or Board. (2) Progressive Discipline. Both parties endorse the principle of progressive discipline as applied to professionals. * * * (5) Termination tenured appointment or any appointment of definite duration may be terminated during its term for just cause. An employee shall be given written notice of termination, at least six (6) months in advance of the effective date of such termination, except that in cases where the President or designee determines that an employee\u2019s actions adversely affect the functioning of the University or jeopardize the safety or welfare of the employee, colleagues, or students, the President or designee may give less than six (6) months notice. 185. In addition, at Section VII.A., FIU-105 provides, in pertinent part: Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 43 of 72 44 Resolution of the Investigation When Both Parties are Employees or if the Responding Party is an Employee and the Reporting Party is a Student . . . Upon final acceptance by the Vice President for Human Resources or designee of a written finding that there was a Preponderance of Evidence that an employee violated this Regulation, the Director of Employee Labor and Relations Department, the immediate supervisor of the Responding Party, and the Title Coordinator will determine the disciplinary action to be taken against the Responding Party. The resolution of the complaint will be communicated to the Reporting Party and the Responding Party at the same time. Disciplinary action shall be taken in accordance with the Regulations and policies affecting the class of employee and the terms of any applicable collective bargaining agreement. (Emphasis added). 186. In or about late July and early August, 2015, after the issuance of McWhorter\u2019s ROI, Drisin had several telephone conversations with Brian Schriner, FIU\u2019s Dean of the College of Architecture + The Arts. During these conversations, Drisin fully informed Schriner of the true facts concerning the Subject Incident and the reasons that the findings constituted a clearly erroneous outcome to the investigation. Drisin reiterated to Schriner that he committed no misconduct and was rather the victim of a non-consensual sexual assault by Rivera. 187. Schriner in turn offered to attempt to negotiate a resolution with the Office of the President which would allow Drisin to maintain his employment. 188. Shortly thereafter, Schriner told Drisin that he had spoken with the Provost Kenneth Furton who made clear to Schriner that President Mark B. Rosenberg wanted to \u201cget rid of Drisin.\u201d Schriner informed Drisin, \u201c[Rosenberg] wants you out, and out quickly.\u201d 189. Schriner told Drisin that in view of Rosenberg\u2019s decision, Drisin would be receiving a letter constituting a notice of intent to terminate Drisin\u2019s employment, and that letter would be authored by FIU\u2019s general counsel, for Schriner\u2019s signature, at the direction and behest of Rosenberg. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 44 of 72 45 190. On August 17, 2015, Drisin received the notice of FIU\u2019s intent to terminate Drisin\u2019s employment with FIU, on grounds of \u201cmisconduct.\u201d 191. FIU\u2019s determination that Drisin committed misconduct, as reflected in Schriner\u2019s August 17, 2015 letter, was wholly-based on the ROI\u2019s findings. 192. The August 17, 2015 letter reflects that conducted no independent review of the ROI, and states summarily, \u201c[t]he findings made by reveal that your behavior was in violation of University policy on sexual harassment and adversely affected the legitimate interests of the University. Your conduct constitutes behavior unbecoming of a faculty member and of a Senior Associate Dean, the position you held at the time of the events at issue. Based on the findings contained in the report have concluded that there is just cause to terminate your employment.\u201d 193. At the time that Schriner authored the August 17, 2015 letter, Schriner had personal knowledge or reasonably should have had personal knowledge that the facts upon which the relied were false. For example, on April 30, 2015, Sherbakova wrote an e-mail to Schriner which affirmatively declared that the rumor that she was having an affair with Drisin was false. 194. By rubber-stamping the findings of the without further independent investigation, Schriner acted with deliberate indifference to Drisin\u2019s civil rights and with actual knowledge that the findings of the were unsupported by the factual record. 195. Drisin was not provided any opportunity to have a hearing pursuant the notice of intent to terminate his employment, in violation of his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to be heard by a tribunal with academic expertise and an apparent impartiality. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 45 of 72 46 196. On or about August 26, 2015, Drisin responded to Schriner\u2019s letter of intent to terminate Drisin\u2019s employment. In his August 26, 2015 letter, Drisin asserted that the decision to terminate him was arbitrary and capricious, and based on clearly erroneous findings. Drisin reiterated that the ROI\u2019s findings were prejudicially based on \u201cunfounded leaps of logic\u201d which lacked any evidentiary support, and ignored all probative exculpatory evidence. 197. Pursuant to Policy on Disciplinary Action, paragraph 5 (Termination), Drisin was entitled to six (6) months\u2019 notice of termination unless \u201cthe President or designee determines that an employee\u2019s actions adversely affect the functioning of the University or jeopardize the safety or welfare of the employee, colleagues, or students.\u201d 198. Drisin\u2019s August 26, 2015 letter also noted, \u201cIf seeks to not abide by this policy, a written explanation should be included in my letter of termination as to why the continuation of my earned, and scheduled Fall professional leave in which am not on campus or interacting in any manner with students, faculty or staff for my assigned duties over the next six months, would adversely affect the functioning of the university or jeopardize the welfare of the employee, colleagues, or students Policy 320.025).\u201d (Emphasis in original). 199. On September 11, 2015, Schriner wrote a letter to Drisin which officially terminated Drisin\u2019s employment effective September 14, 2015, for \u201cjust cause due to misconduct.\u201d Schriner\u2019s September 11, 2015 termination letter ratified the findings of the and summarily dismissed the contentions of Drisin\u2019s August 26, 2015 letter by summarily stating, that \u201c[t]he final determination is that competent, substantial evidence supports the finding that you engaged in sexual misconduct in violation of the University policy on sexual harassment. . . . Your misconduct warrants the immediate termination of your employment.\u201d Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 46 of 72 47 200. The September 11, 2015 termination letter violates Drisin\u2019s right to six (6) months\u2019 notice for his termination as set forth in the Policy because it contains no finding that Drisin\u2019s conduct \u201cadversely affected the functioning of the University or jeopardized the safety or welfare of the employee, colleagues, or students.\u201d 201. The September 11, 2015 letter violates FIU-105 because it contains no finding that the ultimate disciplinary action taken against Drisin \u2013 termination of his employment \u2013 was determined by Schriner (Drisin\u2019s immediate supervisor), together with the Director of Employee Labor and Relations Department and McWhorter (the Title Coordinator). Instead, as Schriner had admitted to Drisin, the disciplinary decision to terminate Drisin\u2019s employment was made at the sole direction of Rosenberg. 202. Schriner\u2019s official participation in the arbitrary and capricious decision to terminate Drisin constitutes a reckless and deliberate indifference to Drisin\u2019s statutory and constitutional rights, in view of Schriner\u2019s actual knowledge that the evidentiary record could not have possibly supported the findings of the and adverse employment action against Drisin. 203 reasonable person acting in Schriner\u2019s capacity would have had actual knowledge that the decision to terminate Drisin unlawfully violated Title IX, deprived Drisin of his property interest in continued employment without due process of law, stigmatized Drisin so that he would become a pariah amongst his peers and be unable to procure lucrative future employment in his chosen career, and unlawfully violated Drisin\u2019s right to gender-based equal protection under the United States Constitution. 204. Rosenberg\u2019s arbitrary and capricious decision to terminate Drisin, based upon his rubber-stamping of a clearly biased and erroneous decision which was prejudicially motivated by gender bias and conducted in violation of Drisin\u2019s procedural due process rights, as more fully Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 47 of 72 48 alleged above, together with his oppressive and malicious decision to terminate Drisin \u201cimmediately\u201d in violation of Drisin\u2019s contractual right to six (6) months\u2019 notice prior to termination, demonstrates a custom or policy of to be deliberately indifferent to the sexual harassment claim of a male, and constitutes an intentional violation of Drisin\u2019s rights under Title IX, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. 205 reasonable person acting in Rosenberg\u2019s capacity would have had actual knowledge that the decision to terminate Drisin unlawfully violated Title IX, deprived Drisin of his property interest in continued employment without due process of law, stigmatized Drisin so that he would become a pariah amongst his peers and be unable to procure lucrative future employment in his chosen career, and unlawfully violated Drisin\u2019s right to gender-based equal protection (gender) under the United States Constitution. Defamation, Stigmatization, and Damages 206. Drisin is an individual who is neither an involuntary public figure nor a limited purpose public figure. 207. On or about June 10, 2015, while the investigation into Rivera\u2019s complaint against Drisin was pending, Drisin attended a meeting of the Honors College Facility Program Committee. 208. Immediately prior to the meeting, Drisin encountered Lesley Northup, Dean of the Honors College (\u201cNorthup\u201d), who was also attending the meeting, with whom Drisin maintained a friendly and cordial relationship. 209. As Drisin and Northup walked together down the hallway towards the conference room in which the meeting was to be held, Northup told Drisin hear you couldn\u2019t keep your [penis] in your pants and that you fucked a graduate student.\u201d Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 48 of 72 49 210. Drisin was shocked to hear this statement coming from a peer who had no reason to have knowledge relating to Rivera\u2019s claim against Drisin or the investigation into that claim. 211. Drisin asked Northup how she heard this information and Northup informed Drisin that she was told what Drisin had done by Furton Provost). 212. Drisin responded by telling Northup that the claim was absolutely false, and that he was extremely disappointed that false information was being circulated from the highest academic officer at FIU. 213. On or about June 11, 2015, Drisin went to see McWhorter in the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs and Diversity to report what he had been told by Northup. 214. Drisin told McWhorter that he considered the circulation of this comment to be false and defamatory, and that it constituted a serious procedural failure of his right to an unbiased review of the by the Provost\u2019s Office/Office of Academic Affairs, which Drisin was anticipating would be conducted after the completion of the if the was unfavorable to him. 215. McWhorter told Drisin that while she is required to inform the Provost and other officials about the claim and the investigation, she does ask all parties who are informed about the claim to maintain confidentiality and not to discuss the case or draw conclusions, but that she is not capable of controlling what others do once they leave her office. 216. McWhorter expressed her disappointment that a senior university dean would have been careless and offered to speak immediately with Furton in an effort to stop the dissemination of defamatory information. Drisin asked McWhorter not to speak to Furton until after the investigation was completely resolved, because Drisin assumed that if, ultimately, there were to be adverse findings, that those findings would be reviewed by Furton. Drisin told McWhorter that Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 49 of 72 50 the last thing he needed was for the Provost to be antagonized by a complaint from Drisin. Drisin told McWhorter that because it appeared that Furton was the originating source of defamatory comments impugning Drisin with guilt of a sexual battery in the absence of any such finding, Drisin would only be throwing gas on the fire in the Provost\u2019s office, which could presumably soon be reviewing allegations against him. Accordingly, McWhorter agreed not to raise Drisin\u2019s concerns about inappropriate gossip and defamatory comments until after the investigation was fully resolved. 217. Furton\u2019s oral dissemination of false comments that Drisin had committed a sexual battery upon Rivera subjected Drisin to distrust, hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy and caused Drisin to be avoided by his peers, thus causing injury to Drisin\u2019s reputation, and to his personal social, official and business relations of life. 218. McWhorter had a duty to safeguard the confidentiality of the Title investigation into Rivera\u2019s charge of sexual misconduct against Drisin and failed to do so. 219. On information and belief, McWhorter intentionally and with actual malice made false statements to officials and other third parties which imputed that Drisin was guilty of the charge of sexual misconduct which was filed by Rivera. 220. On or about April 28, 2016, Rivera filed a civil lawsuit against Drisin in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:16-cv-60939-BB, styled pseudonymously as Doe v. Drisin (the \u201cDoe\u201d Lawsuit). Rivera\u2019s lawsuit alleged sexual battery and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 221. Upon the presentation of sworn testimony from Sherbakova which set forth her personal knowledge of the Subject Incident, Rivera\u2019s attorney voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on June 23, 2016, in accordance with his duty under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 not to advance a pleading Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 50 of 72 51 when, to the best of the attorney\u2019s knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, the factual contentions lack evidentiary support. 222. The Doe Lawsuit was terminated on June 24, 2016, prior to any substantive judicial action or comment relating to the merits of the complaint. 223. FIU\u2019s The Beacon newspaper and the Student Media are two of the publicly accessible media arms of FIU. 224. The Beacon is the student-run newspaper of and has, upon information and belief, a circulation of approximately 7,500. It is available free campus-wide and typically contains a mix of campus and local news coverage. The Beacon\u2019s content is also published online at FIUSM.com. FIUSM.com is run separately from The Beacon and is part of Student Media. 225. The Student Media is the student media department of FIU. It combines the newspaper, The Beacon, and WRGP, the student radio station. Organizationally, both The Beacon and the Student Media are situated within the Office of Student Affairs under the direct supervision of Robert Jaross, Director of Student Media, and Larry Lunsford, Vice President of Student Affairs. Lunsford reports directly to Furton, FIU\u2019s Provost and Executive Vice-President, who in turn reports directly to Rosenberg, FIU\u2019s President. 226. FIUSM.com is published on the world-wide web and is thus accessible to a world- wide audience, including any and all persons throughout the world who do an Internet search for Adam Drisin. 227. On or about May 6, 2016, FIUSM.com published a feature story about Drisin, entitled \u201cRape allegations brought against former associate dean\u201d (the \u201cSubject Article\u201d). The Subject Article, which refers to Drisin as \u201ca former senior associate dean of architecture at the Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 51 of 72 52 [FIU] College of Architecture\u201d creates a false impression that Drisin left his faculty post because he committed a sexual battery upon Rivera. 228. In principal part, the Subject Article strives to parrot the allegations of the Doe Lawsuit. 229. The Subject Article concludes with the comment: \u201cRequests for contact from Drisin and [Florida International University Police Department] have not yet been returned.\u201d 230. The averment that FIUSM.com requested that Drisin contact the Student Media regarding the article is false. Drisin was never contacted or informed that FIUSM.com would or did publish the Subject Article. 231. Further, the averment that a \u201crequest[] for contact from ha[s] not yet been returned\u201d intentionally creates an impression that a criminal police report was filed against Drisin, which is false. 232 postscript to the Subject Article states that \u201cStudent Media will update this story as more details become available.\u201d Upon information and belief, FIUSM.com has failed to publish the relevant \u201cupdate\u201d that the Doe Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. 233. The Restatement of Torts (Second) \u00a7611 provides for a \u201cjudicial action\u201d exception to the \u201cfair report\u201d privilege. This exception vitiates the important journalistic privilege with respect to the publication of the contents of a preliminary pleading, such as the complaint in the Doe Lawsuit, before any judicial action has been taken. The public policy underlying the \u201cjudicial action\u201d exception to the \u201cfair report\u201d privilege is to prevent implementation of a scheme to file a complaint for the purpose of establishing a privilege to publicize its content and then dropping the action,\u201d which is exactly what happened with the Doe Lawsuit. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 52 of 72 53 234. Under the direction of responsible parties Jaross, Lunsford, Furton and Rosenberg, FIUSM.com failed to exercise reasonable care to determine whether the published allegations against Drisin were meritorious and worthy of publication. Upon a reasonable journalistic investigation would have discovered that the defamatory allegations were abjectly false and would have decided not to publish the May 6, 2016 article about Drisin. 235. In particular, the headline of the Subject Article, which states, \u201cRape allegations brought against former associate dean,\u201d is deliberately and maliciously fashioned to create a misimpression that Drisin was charged with a felony, and distorts the allegations of the Doe Lawsuit (which was carefully drafted so as specifically not to use the term \u201crape,\u201d which clearly suggests a criminal act, in view of the fact that the Doe Lawsuit failed to articulate any cognizable actus rea against Drisin). 236 reasonable person acting in the capacity of Jaross, Lunsford, Furton and Rosenberg would have interceded to prevent the defamatory and stigmatizing publication of the Subject Article, and would have known that the publication would have unlawfully stigmatized Drisin and caused irreparable injury to his reputation, thus depriving Drisin of his Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. 237. Alternatively, a reasonable person acting in the capacity of Jaross, Lunsford, Furton and Rosenberg would have recognized, after the defamatory and stigmatizing publication of the Subject Article, that the Subject Article unlawfully deprived Drisin of his Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty, and would have interceded to remove the article from the world-wide web in an effort to mitigate against the continuing unlawful stigmatizing effect of the Subject Article on Drisin\u2019s reputation. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 53 of 72 54 238. By falsely implicating Drisin in the commission of a felonious sexual crime, FIUSM.com, at the direction of Jaross, Lunsford, Furton and Rosenberg, has intentionally and unlawfully stigmatized Drisin and subjected him to distrust, hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy and caused Drisin to be avoided by his peers, thus causing severe and irreparable injury to Drisin\u2019s reputation, and to his personal social, official and business relations of life. 239. As the direct and foreseeable result of the violation of Drisin\u2019s statutory and civil rights, as more fully alleged above, coupled with the alleged tortious defamatory and stigmatizing publications and conduct, Drisin has become a pariah amongst his peers and been permanently deprived of his ability to secure lucrative employment in his chosen profession, in which he has built a superb and stand-out reputation over the last twenty-five (25) years. Specifically, (1) three universities abruptly discontinued final negotiations with Drisin for senior dean positions when they learned of the findings against Drisin, (2) Drisin has since applied for more than 250 academic positions and has received no response despite his highly-esteemed and impeccably-credentialed work history; and (3) Drisin was ousted from his role as Founding Director of the National Young Arts Foundation\u2019s Design Arts Program when they were informed of the claims against him from an administrator/faculty member. 240. As the direct and foreseeable result of the violation of Drisin\u2019s statutory and civil rights, as more fully alleged above, coupled with the alleged tortious defamatory and stigmatizing publications and conduct, Drisin has suffered catastrophic personal damage and loss, including (1) panic and depression arising first out of having been a victim of sexual assault, and later having to come to terms with his being accused of the misconduct that was in fact perpetrated upon him; (2) the dissolution of an eleven-year marriage, in which his petitioner spouse expressly alleged the findings of sexual misconduct in the workplace as the grounds for divorce; (3) mental anguish, (4) Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 54 of 72 55 emotional pain and suffering, (5) loss of the enjoyment of life, and (6) the expense of attorneys\u2019 fees in seeking mitigation and redress for his injuries; and (7) the expense of psychological counseling as required for the adaptation to the extreme pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses Violation of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a71681 et seq. (Against and All Individual Defendants in their Official Capacities) 241. Drisin realleges paragraphs 1 through 240 as paragraph 241. 242. Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides, in relevant part, that \u201cNo person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.\u201d 243. Title is enforceable through an implied private right of action for damages arising from employment discrimination claims against schools, such as FIU, which receive federal funding. 244. Both the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have promulgated regulations under Title that require a school to \u201cadopt and publish grievance procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any action which would be prohibited by\u201d Title or regulations thereunder. 34 C.F.R. \u00a7106.8(b) (Dep\u2019t of Education); 28 C.F.R. \u00a754.135(b) (Dep\u2019t of Justice). Such prohibited actions include all forms of sexual harassment, including sexual intercourse, sexual assault, and rape. 245 FIU, through its gender-biased and improper administration of FIU\u2019s Title policies and procedures, including those pertaining to the application of its sexual harassment policy, its handling of the sexual misconduct complaint by Rivera against Drisin, and its handling Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 55 of 72 56 of the sexual misconduct complaint by Drisin against Rivera, has discriminated against Drisin on the basis of his gender and deprived Drisin of the benefits of employment at and his rights to due process and equal protection under federal law 246. The facts, as more specifically alleged above, which cast some articulable doubt on the accuracy of the outcome of the investigation into Rivera\u2019s claim against Drisin and the disciplinary proceeding against Drisin, include: a. Failure to conduct a timely investigation displayed preferential favoritism to Rivera and her \u201cteam\u201d by allowing the delay of the investigation for three months, during which time McWhorter improperly functioned as a de facto \u201cwomen\u2019s rights\u201d advocate for Rivera rather than as an impartial investigator. During this three-month delay, which was non- compliant with FIU\u2019s internal Title guidelines, Rivera had an opportunity to propagate false statements about Drisin (and Drisin\u2019s relationship with Sherbakova) and exercised under influence over McWhorter who failed to make any effort to adduce evidence from other witnesses during this expanded investigatory period who, unlike Rivera who at all times material conceded no recollection or knowledge relating to the Subject Incident, did have actual knowledge of what transpired between Rivera and Drisin; b. The irrational transmogrification from Rivera\u2019s willful sexual attack on Drisin, as he slept, into a finding that Drisin engaged in non-consensual sex with Rivera as a purported \u201cunconscious\u201d victim. In order to effectuate this irrational transmogrification, McWhorter improperly underweighted or disregarded eyewitness accounts and relied instead on a fabricated statement from Rivera, despite Rivera\u2019s conceded lack of recollection. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 56 of 72 57 c slanted investigative report. McWhorter conducted a biased, prosecutorial-minded investigation, as more fully alleged above, that failed to keep the roles of prosecutor, witness and judge separate as required by due process. McWhorter\u2019s findings were reasonably derived from the independent adduction of evidence, but were biased and partial and predetermined so as to treat as plausible only allegations against Drisin, and not allegations against Rivera, irrespective of the manifest weight of the evidence that the allegations against Drisin were either wholly fabricated or confabulated by Rivera; d badly flawed interviewing process. As more fully alleged above, McWhorter disregarded critical facts and exculpatory information which would have necessitated the dismissal of the Rivera\u2019s claim against Drisin. During the investigation of the Rivera complaint, no credible or reliable evidence was presented in support of Rivera\u2019s claim that she lacked the ability to consent; to the contrary, all of the eyewitnesses to her behavior concurred that Rivera was in control and was not in an alcoholic blackout state. e. Manipulation of the preponderance of the evidence standard. McWhorter\u2019s ultimate substantiation of Rivera\u2019s claim against Drisin is predicated on her belief that \u201c[Rivera\u2019s behavior] could lead one to believe that [Rivera] was intoxicated,\u201d which in turn, inexplicably, leads McWhorter to leap to the conclusions that Rivera was in an alcoholic blackout state and that Drisin had knowledge of that state. McWhorter\u2019s conclusion does not have one iota of evidentiary support to nudge it from the speculative to the plausible, let alone to support a 51% preponderance standard, and, as such, reflects her failure to properly apply the burden of proof as would be required by due process. f. The singular investigator model denied Drisin due process of law. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 57 of 72 58 247. The foregoing circumstances, when viewed in connection with all facts alleged above and regarded in their totality, establish a plausible causal nexus between Drisin\u2019s termination and FIU\u2019s gender bias. 248. Drisin did not engage in conduct that any reasonable person could conclude meets the definition of sexual harassment, yet he was terminated because of FIU\u2019s desire to improve its record with respect to the handling of complaints of sexual harassment brought by female students against males, and due to the investigator\u2019s personal biases that prejudged an accused male as guilty, as well as a perceived imposition of pressure placed upon by by the to feverishly enforce Title sexual harassment claims against male respondents, as manifested through the which contained a threat of curtailment of federal funding to educational institutions who are non-complaint with the enforcement of sexual harassment prohibitions. 249. Drisin\u2019s employment was terminated because he was a male, as no reasonable person could have determined that the record before the investigator justified a finding that Drisin and engaged in sexual harassment in violation of policy. 250. Through her interview with Sherbakova, a percipient witness to the events resulting in sexual harassment charge against Drisin, McWhorter acquired actual knowledge that the allegation of sexual misconduct against Drisin was entirely false and confabulated, if not outright fabricated; nevertheless, McWhorter acted with deliberate and reckless indifference to that fact. 251. FIU\u2019s decision-makers ratified the findings of the investigator with no independent investigation, and acted with deliberate indifference when presented with evidence from which FIU\u2019s decision-makers acquired actual knowledge that the findings of the investigator were spurious and based on bias and card-stacking of the evidence against Drisin. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 58 of 72 59 252. FUI\u2019s decision-making with respect to Drisin was based on the gender discriminatory principle that if a female student subjectively purports to believe that male conduct is offensive and/or has an adverse emotional impact on her, it constitutes sexual harassment, notwithstanding the fact that the female accuser has in actuality conducted herself predatorily against her male accused, and the male has committed no misconduct ENFORCEMENT. 253. When subjected Drisin to disciplinary action, it did so in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and selectively enforced Title against him on the basis of his male sex failed to adhere to its own guidelines and regulations, and the guidelines and regulations themselves are insufficient to protect the rights of male students and employees. 254. All relevant statistical surveys demonstrate that the incidents of male victimization in sexual misconduct cases on campuses throughout the United States is not nil. For example, upon information and belief, the \u201cIt\u2019s On Us\u201d Student Affairs website has reported that \u201c1 in 5 women and 1 in 16 men are sexually assaulted in college.\u201d And, the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence has reported that in Florida, 20.4% of men, or 1,437,000 men, have been victimized by sexual violence other than rape. 255. Upon information and belief, FIU\u2019s has not even one reported finding of sexual misconduct of a female committed against a male and involving disciplinary action taken against the female as a person guilty of sexual misconduct under Title IX. 256. According to a 2010 paper from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 40 percent of homosexual men, 47 percent of bisexual men, and 21 percent of Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 59 of 72 60 heterosexual men in the United States \u201chave experienced sexual violence other than rape at some point in their lives.\u201d8 257. The perpetuation of norms that see men as sexual aggressors and females as disempowered victims reinforces societal misconception that women are \u201cnoble, pure, passive, and ignorant.\u201d9 258. Likewise, treating male sexual victimization as a rare occurrence can impose regressive expectations about masculinity on males, by promoting a counterproductive construct of what it means to \u201cbe a man\u201d which reinforces notions of naturalistic masculinity long criticized by feminist theory.10 259. Decision-making based on the conventional norms is discriminatory against males. 260 has conducted itself in a manner which betrays an entrenchment in longstanding patterns and practices which are discriminatory against males, as evidenced by the selective enforcement of Rivera\u2019s complaint against Drisin, and the dismissal of Drisin\u2019s complaint against Rivera arising out of the identical events, as more fully alleged above. 261. As a result of FIU\u2019s gender-biased discrimination against Drisin under Title IX, Drisin has suffered damages and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and damages in the future, including but not limited to: a. Loss of back pay, bonus incentives, and front pay; 8 The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation 9 Lara Stemple, J.D., and Ilan H. Meyer, Ph.D., The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions, Am Public Health. 2014 June; 104(6): e19\u2013e26. 10 Id. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 60 of 72 61 b. Damage to national professional reputation, which has had a palpable and irremediable deleterious impact on Drisin\u2019s opportunities to procure gainful and prestigious academic appointments; c. Damage to confidence and self-esteem, humiliation, indignity, personal embarrassment, and stigmatization; d. Stress, anxiety, and emotional distress resulting from Drisin\u2019s having been cast as a pariah amongst his colleagues; e. Depression and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; and f. Significant past and future pain and suffering. WHEREFORE, Drisin respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in his favor and against FIU, awarding him damages for back pay, front pay, loss of benefits, consequential damages, compensatory damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a71988(b) (2000), and punitive damages, as will effectuate the purpose of Title IX, together with all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 Claim for Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Right to Procedural Due Process (Deprivation of Property) (Against McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner, and Rosenberg) 262. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 240 as paragraph 262. 263. 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 provides that \u201c[e]very person who, under color of [state law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.\u201d Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 61 of 72 62 264. Defendants McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner, and Rosenberg have exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because they are clothed with the authority of state law, to violate Drisin\u2019s Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. 265. Defendants McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg have violated Drisin\u2019s procedural due process rights by depriving Drisin of his property interest in his continued tenured employment at without due process of law, by failing to provide Drisin with (1) adequate notice of the reasons for his termination, (2) the names of adverse witnesses and the nature of their testimony; (3) a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and (4) the right to be heard by a tribunal that possesses some academic expertise and apparent impartiality towards the charges leveled against him, all as more particularly alleged above. 266. Defendants McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg had actual or constructive knowledge that the EOPD\u2019s Title investigation was conducted in a manner that posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to Drisin, and they each acted with malicious, intentional, reckless, or callous indifference to the violation of Drisin\u2019s constitutional rights, or their response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show tacit authorization of the unlawful practices. 267. There was an affirmative causal link between the conduct of McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg which deprived Drisin of his procedural due process rights to his property interest in continued employment and the wrongful termination of Drisin\u2019s employment. 268. As a direct result of the deprivation of Drisin\u2019s constitutional property interest without due process of law, Drisin has suffered injury. WHEREFORE, Drisin respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in his favor and against FIU, awarding him pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, including mental anguish Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 62 of 72 63 and emotional distress, for which he is entitled to a recovery, together with punitive damages to deter or punish the malicious deprivations of Drisin\u2019s constitutional rights, and attorneys\u2019 fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988(b) (2000 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 Claim for Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Right to Procedural Due Process (Deprivation of Liberty) (Against Jaross, Lunsford, Furton and Rosenberg) 269. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 240 as paragraph 269. 270. 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 provides that \u201c[e]very person who, under color of [state law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.\u201d 271. Defendants Jaross, Lunsford, Furton and Rosenberg, have exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because they are clothed with the authority of state law, to violate Drisin\u2019s Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. 272. Defendants Jaross, Lunsford, Furton and Rosenberg, have violated Drisin\u2019s procedural due process rights by depriving Drisin of his liberty interest in his reputation without due process of law, by failing to exercise administrative control to prevent publication, or to remove subsequent to publication, an FIU-subsidized Student Media group\u2019s May 6, 2016 publication on the world-wide web of a featured story about Drisin, entitled, \u201cRape allegations brought against former associate dean.\u201d 273. As more particularly alleged above, the Subject Article was replete with false statements of a stigmatizing nature and was published to a world-wide audience to whom the information that Drisin was no longer employed by was juxtaposed to blatant false Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 63 of 72 64 insinuations that Drisin was being accused with a felonious sexual crime, in such a manner as to create an intentional and malicious defamatory and stigmatizing impression. 274. The Subject Article was published without Drisin having been first provided a meaningful opportunity for a name-clearing hearing. 275. Defendants Jaross, Lunsford, Furton and Rosenberg, as administrators with actual control and/or supervisory responsibility over the Student Media, had a duty to ensure the protection of Drisin\u2019s procedural due process rights to his reputation, and had actual or constructive knowledge that the publication of the Subject Article would have posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to Drisin. Each of the aforementioned individual Defendants acted with malicious, intentional, reckless, or callous indifference to the violation of Drisin\u2019s constitutional rights, or their response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show tacit authorization of the unlawful practices. 276. Drisin\u2019s employment was terminated based on the identical false and defamatory allegations which were published by in the Subject Article. 277. As the direct and foreseeable result of the foregoing acts of stigma-plus deprivation of Drisin\u2019s Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty, employment was terminated. 278. There was an affirmative causal link between the conduct of McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg and the deprivation of Drisin\u2019s procedural due process rights to his liberty interest in good reputation. 279. As a direct result of the deprivation of Drisin\u2019s constitutional liberty interest without due process of law, Drisin has suffered injury. WHEREFORE, Drisin respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in his favor and against FIU, awarding him pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, including mental anguish Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 64 of 72 65 and emotional distress, for which he is entitled to a recovery, together with punitive damages to deter or punish the malicious deprivations of Drisin\u2019s constitutional rights, and attorneys\u2019 fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988(b) (2000 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 Claim for Violation of Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Against McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg) 280. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 237 as paragraph 276. 281. 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 provides that \u201c[e]very person who, under color of [state law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.\u201d 282. Defendants McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner, and Rosenberg have exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because they are clothed with the authority of state law, to violate Drisin\u2019s Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from sex discrimination in a state-operated educational institution. 283. Defendants McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg have violated Drisin\u2019s Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from gender-based discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Defendants McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg have administered FIU\u2019s policies and protocols regarding complaints of sexual misconduct, which are required to facially neutral in their implementation, investigation, and enforcement, in an intentionally discriminatory manner. These individual Defendants have been grossly negligent by administering FIU\u2019s sexual misconduct policies so as to afford favoritism to Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 65 of 72 66 female complainants and have condoned and applied such unlawfully preferential practices to Drisin with the force of law. 284. Defendants McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg were grossly negligent, and acted with malicious, intentional, reckless or callous indifference to Drisin\u2019s Equal Protection Rights, as demonstrated by McWhorter\u2019s egregiously gender-biased investigation and conclusions relating to Rivera\u2019s complaint against Drisin which imputed guilt to Drisin with not one iota of evidentiary support, and the deliberate indifference to that gender bias in the review and ratification of the by Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg which sanctioned and condoned the gender- biased in a manner which reflected a broader unlawful pattern and practice of gender discrimination, and from the failure of the McWhorter and Hardrick to conduct a bona fide independent investigation into Drisin\u2019s complaint against Rivera which arose out of the same facts and circumstances, as more particularly alleged above. 285. There was an affirmative causal link between the conduct of McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg and the deprivation of Drisin\u2019s right to freedom from gender bias in his employment under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and wrongful termination of Drisin\u2019s employment. 286. As a direct result of the deprivation of Drisin\u2019s constitutional right to gender-based equal protection, Drisin has suffered injury. WHEREFORE, Drisin respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in his favor and against FIU, awarding him pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, including mental anguish and emotional distress, for which he is entitled to a recovery, together with punitive damages to deter or punish the malicious deprivations of Drisin\u2019s constitutional rights, and attorneys\u2019 fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988(b) (2000). Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 66 of 72 67 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 Claim for Violation of Title (Against McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner, and Rosenberg) 287. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 240 as paragraph 287. 288. 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 provides that \u201c[e]very person who, under color of [state law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.\u201d 289. Defendants McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner, and Rosenberg have exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because they are clothed with the authority of state law, to violate Drisin\u2019s right to the statutory protection afforded by Title IX. 290. Defendants McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg have violated Drisin\u2019s Title rights by denying him the benefits of his employment and subjecting him to discrimination, on the basis of sex, under FIU\u2019s educational program which is the recipient of federal financial assistance. 291. Defendant\u2019s McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg were grossly negligent, and acted with malicious, intentional, reckless or callous indifference to Drisin\u2019s Title rights by orchestrating and ratifying an erroneous outcome to the investigation of Rivera\u2019s complaint, with actual knowledge and deliberate indifference to the fact that a reasonable review of the factual record required the dismissal of Rivera\u2019s complaint with no adverse findings against Drisin, and that the decision to substantiate Rivera\u2019s complaint was motivated by gender bias, as more particularly alleged above. 292. In addition, Defendants McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg were grossly negligent, and acted with malicious, intentional, reckless or callous indifference to Drisin\u2019s Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 67 of 72 68 Title rights by selectively enforcing Title rights in the wrongful dismissal of Drisin\u2019s meritorious complaint against Rivera which arose out of the identical facts and circumstances which gave rise to Rivera\u2019s frivolous complaint, which were substantiated by Defendant McWhorter and Hardrick substantiated and ratified by Defendants Schriner and Rosenberg, as more particularly alleged above. 293. There was an affirmative causal link between the conduct of McWhorter, Hardrick, Schriner and Rosenberg and the deprivation of Drisin\u2019s Title rights which constituted the FIU\u2019s articulated \u201cjust cause\u201d for the wrongful termination of Drisin\u2019s employment. 294. As a direct result of the deprivation of Drisin\u2019s Title rights, Drisin has suffered injury. WHEREFORE, Drisin respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in his favor and against FIU, awarding him pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, including mental anguish and emotional distress, for which he is entitled to a recovery, together with punitive damages to deter or punish the malicious deprivations of Drisin\u2019s federal statutory rights, and attorneys\u2019 fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988(b) (2000 Violations of Title (42 U.S.C. \u00a72000e2) (Employment Discrimination Based on Gender \u2013 Disparate Treatment) (Against FIU) 295. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 237 as paragraph 291. 296. Title prohibits an employer from discriminating \u201cagainst any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual\u2019s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 297. At all times material was an employer within the meaning of Title VII. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 68 of 72 69 298. At all times material, Drisin was an employee within the meaning of Title who as a male was a member of a protected class. 299. Drisin was at all times material highly qualified for the position of Associate Professor, Director of the Architecture Program, Associate Dean of the College of Architecture + The Arts, and Senior Associate Dean of the College of Architecture + The Arts at FIU. 300. Drisin suffered an adverse employment action when his employment was abruptly terminated. 301. The termination of Drisin\u2019s employment occurred under circumstances that support an inference of unlawful termination. 302. Rivera, a female, was governed by the identical code of conduct (FIU-105), as Drisin with respect to FIU\u2019s policy on sexual harassment, and Rivera and Drisin were both subject to identical standards of investigation and review of their conduct under FIU\u2019s policies for the implementation of guidelines for the enforcement of Title IX. 303. Although Rivera was engaged in the same or similar sexual misconduct to that in which Drisin was alleged to have been engaged, Rivera was not disciplined for any misconduct whatsoever, despite the fact that the manifest weight of the evidence demonstrated that Rivera was guilty of sexual misconduct and Drisin was not guilty of sexual misconduct, and no reasonable person who reviewed the evidence could find otherwise, as more particularly alleged above. 304 further subjected Drisin to disparate treatment by failing to conduct an independent de novo investigation of Drisin\u2019s claim of sexual misconduct against Rivera, as more particularly alleged above. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 69 of 72 70 305. On the basis of gender, FIU, together with its employees and/or agents, has discriminated against Drisin, and has subjected Drisin to disparate treatment which resulted in his wrongful termination. 306. FIU, together with its employees and/or agents, has failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent disparate gender treatment, but rather has supported and ratified such conduct through a willful and malicious pattern of twisting and fabricating facts for the purpose of finding Drisin guilty of sexual harassment, when he was the victim of a sexual attack by a female who was undisciplined, despite FIU\u2019s actual knowledge that Drisin was innocent and the female was guilty. 307. As the direct and proximate result of FIU\u2019s gender-based discrimination, Drisin has suffered damages and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and damages in the future, including but not limited to: a. Loss of back pay, bonus incentives, and front pay; b. Damage to national professional reputation, which has had a palpable and irremediable deleterious impact on Drisin\u2019s opportunities to procure gainful and prestigious academic appointments; c. Damage to confidence and self-esteem, humiliation, indignity, personal embarrassment, and stigmatization; d. Stress, anxiety, and emotional distress resulting from Drisin\u2019s having been cast as a pariah amongst his colleagues; e. Depression and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; and f. Significant past and future pain and suffering. WHEREFORE, Drisin respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in his favor and against FIU, awarding him damages for back pay, front pay, loss of benefits, consequential Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 70 of 72 71 damages, compensatory damages to the extent permitted by law, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a72000e(5)(k) of Title VII, and punitive damages, as will effectuate the purpose of Title VII, together with all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper Defamation (Against McWhorter and Furton) 308. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 240 as paragraph 308. 309. Upon information and belief, while the investigation into Rivera\u2019s complaint against Drisin was pending, McWhorter made statements which imputed sexual misconduct to Drisin, 310. Without privilege, McWhorter communicated the statements which imputed sexual misconduct to Drisin to third parties, including Furton, and upon information and belief and subject to discovery, to additional parties. 311. The statements made by McWhorter about Drisin which imputed to Drisin guilt of sexual misconduct are defamatory per se. 312. The falsity of the statements published by McWhorter and Furton were the proximate cause of injury to Drisin. 313. Upon information and belief, while the investigation into Rivera\u2019s complaint against Drisin was pending, Furton made statements which imputed sexual misconduct to Drisin, 314. Without privilege, Furton communicated the statements which imputed sexual misconduct to Drisin to third parties, including Northup, and upon information and belief and subject to discovery, to additional parties. Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 71 of 72 72 315. The statements by Furton about Drisin imputing guilt of sexual misconduct are defamatory per se. 316. McWhorter and Furton published defamatory statements about Drisin without reasonable care as to the truth or falsity of the statements, and with actual malice with the intent to cause injury to Drisin. 317. Drisin suffered irreparable injury as a result of the publication of the false and defamatory statements which were published by McWhorter and Furton. WHEREFORE, Drisin respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in his favor and against McWhorter and Furton, awarding him general damages for past and future harm to his reputation, stigmatization, and ensuing mental and emotional anguish and humiliation; special damages as compensation for Drisin\u2019s pecuniary loss as a result of the defamation, and punitive damages to deter McWhorter and Furton from such willful and malicious conduct in the future Drisin demands a trial by jury of all issues triable as of right by jury this 28th day of November, 2016, in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respectfully submitted, __s/ Howard Levine___________________ J. LEVINE, ESQ. Fla. Bar No. 0075670 Law Offices of Howard Levine 1560 Lenox Avenue Suite 307 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tel: (305) 534-0403 Fax: (305) 672-5305 [email protected] Case 1:16-cv-24939 Document 1 Entered on Docket 11/28/2016 Page 72 of 72"} |
7,288 | William F. Slocum | Colorado College | [
"7288_101.pdf",
"7288_102.pdf",
"7288_103.pdf"
] | {"7288_101.pdf": "William F. Slocum was president of Colorado College from 1888- 1917. During his presidency, the college grew from 50 students to 500 and from a single building to sixteen. His wife, Mary Slocum, founded the Woman's Educational Society at CC. After an investigation into his behavior with women at the college (students, staff, faculty, and faculty wives), the Board of Trustees asked for and received Slocum's resignation. He spent the 1916-1917 school year abroad and officially left after the 1917 commencement celebration. Source: James Hutchison Kerr Papers, Ms 0081.7, Colorado College Special Collections. Kerr was a member of the Geology, Chemistry, and Metallurgy faculty at from 1876-1880 and kept extensive records on Colorado Springs. Front cover label reads: \u201cThis volume contains material on the Pres. Slocum Affair. If it is necessary to allow anyone to use it, it be used under the closest supervision, and any notes taken from it should be examined when the user has finished with it.\u201d Finding aid to the collection. Scans of the pages containing the women's statements (Ms 0081, Box 7, Vol on spine, pages 275-311). Scans of typed transcriptions of the women's statements (Julia Lipsey, transcriber, 1962, Kenneth Englert Papers 0110, Box 4, Folder 15, Special Collections, Pikes Peak Library District; photocopies of Lipsey's transcriptions are at in Ms 0081, Box 1, Folder 10). Note from James Hutchison Kerr: 2/13/25, 10:23 Colorado College Tutt Library: Slocum Controversy excerpts from Kerr Papers 1/9 22 affidavits made. Hundreds of women of the highest social and church standing who do not wish their names on the written page, hesitate not to give their experiences orally but not in writing. According to Kerr, 9 of the 22 women who gave affidavits allowed him to copy their statements (by hand, for his own record); of these, 4 requested anonymity. The people who made copyable written statements were: Maude S. Bard [secretary to the president 1912-1916, later wife of professor Edward R. Warren] Jean Auld class of 1908; instructor in Greek and Latin 1909-1911] Harriet Sater staff] Irma K. Persons [wife of Warren Persons, Dean of Business Administration 1912-1918] Florence Leidigh class of 1902; assistant to Dean of Women Ruth Loomis, 1902] Anonymous former secretary to the president Anonymous former instructor Anonymous graduate Anonymous student selected and with occasional paraphrases (in brackets) by archivist Jessy Randall, 2017. Maude S. Bard class of 1912, secretary to the president 1912-1916, later wife of professor Edward R. Warren]: When came to the College in the spring of 1908, was warned by Miss Stevenson, as to what should expect from the President. When returned in September, 1912, Mrs. Bushee also warned me, as she, too, had had to protect herself against Mr. Slocum. At first felt the protestations of love for me were genuine, and that it was incumbent upon me, to try to save him from himself, and to save his self- respect. It gradually dawned upon me, that was dealing with a man of strong and evil passions and that my only effort must be to protect myself. As two evidences of the struggle which ensued cite the following: One afternoon in the Spring of 1913, in the President\u2019s office, at Palmer Hall, Mr. Slocum took me by the shoulders, forced me to stand against the 2/13/25, 10:23 Colorado College Tutt Library: Slocum Controversy excerpts from Kerr Papers 2/9 east wall of his office, and pressed his whole body against mine, especially emphasizing the pressure at the portion of his body and mine most calculated to arouse and satisfy physical passion struggled to free myself, and fled from the office. This particular form of bestiality he never attempted again. On commencement day of this year, June 9, 1915 was in the library of the President\u2019s home, when fainted doctor was summoned, who directed should lie on the couch, until my own doctor could come to me woman friend was left to watch me, while Mr. & Mrs. Slocum went to the Alumni Banquet at Cossitt Memorial. Between courses the President came to his house to see me. Bending over the couch, with back to the other persons in the room, he inserted his hand under the clothing covering my chest, and stating that the doctor had told him to watch my heart action, passed his hand again and again over me, as far down as he could reach tried to protect myself by pushing him away as much as my condition would permit. The next day he reminded me of this effort on my part, and told me had been a prude. This happened at my home on the next morning after had fainted. Mr. Slocum called to see me and was left alone with me was in bed being too weak to get up. He repeated the insult of the day before, still under the cover of the necessity of watching the heart action. Then suddenly he stooped over me, laid his hand on my chest, and exclaimed, \u201cOh love you so!\u201d These are two or three instances of the President\u2019s persecution of a woman who works for him can give others, but none more flagrant also know, from my personal observation, that the women students in the college are not safe alone with the President in his office. Supplement of Miss Bard\u2019s statement by Jean Auld class of 1908; instructor in Greek and Latin 1909-1911]: Yes remember the incident you speak of, though of course couldn\u2019t see it all remember was astonished and shocked at his manner. He sat down on the couch beside you, as recall it, and bent down over you very close while he felt your pulse. Then he remarked that he was a physician, too, and added something in an undertone which couldn\u2019t catch then saw him thrust his hand under your clothes to feel your heart. That of course was all could see, except your expression of repugnance. Harriet Sater cashier, 1910-1918]: 2/13/25, 10:23 Colorado College Tutt Library: Slocum Controversy excerpts from Kerr Papers 3/9 To feel that have not only been insulted once, but many times, has been a thing which have had to live with mentally have had to put up with \u201chandling,\u201d insinuating looks and insidious familiarities, in many of the private interviews which have had with him, in obeying his wanting \u201cto see me for a few minutes am unable to express the looks which have left me boiling with a sense of shame and disgrace. The constant need of having his hand on your body, feeling it, are things a woman cannot mistake constant desire to always bring the physical side in is always present. [...] Another illustration [...] at the end of a normal conversation, when he asked me if was engaged answered \u201cNo,\u201d and like a flash the lights were turned off, and before was aware of what was happening was seized in his arms, and he said, \u201cYou have got to kiss me.\u201d The lights were turned off another time, but the second time was prepared have been talked to on \u201ccold- heartedness,\u201d which was purely in a physical way. Anonymous former secretary to the president: Twice, much against my will was obliged to telephone (in Mrs. Slocum\u2019s absence) for Miss [name not given in transcription] to come down from [place not given] on \u201cimportant business.\u201d Mrs. [name not given] told me that Miss [name not given] spent the night at the Slocum house. When Miss [name not given] was in evidence was moved into another office [...] to get me out of the way. Anonymous former instructor: Of course have known for a long time that Pres. Slocum has a most disgusting attitude toward women who are unsuspicious, young, and thrown into contact with him [...] Dr. Slocum made himself extremely disagreeable to me for the first few weeks, cropping into my room in [name not given], late in the evening, and saying many sentimental and silly things was young then and felt very guilty, as though had brought such familiarity on myself, and finally asked [name not given] about it. She told me that the experience was fairly common [...] By never staying in my room alone in the evening the difficulty finally relieved itself could not repeat anything he said. The impression of him, however, is a very horrid one, and the trapping feeling when he took advantage of his age and position and his friendship for my family can assure you have never forgotten. 2/13/25, 10:23 Colorado College Tutt Library: Slocum Controversy excerpts from Kerr Papers 4/9 Anonymous graduate sat quite close to his desk in the chair he placed for me. In the midst of the conversation he suddenly stopped, and leaning down, began to look at me in a way which cannot describe in any words save bestial left the room at once. He simply sat at his desk and watched me go was never alone with him after that [...] such a man has no right to occupy a position of power over the lives of young men and young women, who are bound to hold him in honor and respect. Anonymous student: The first act of President Slocum which attracted my attention was a too minute and familiar examination of a brooch was wearing. Soon after that he had me blot checks for him on several occasions [...] he said he would find out when was scheduled for office work and sign checks at those times. One these occasions he seemed to wish the door to his office closed, wanted me to sit very near him, and would look at my wrist watch now and then, each time laying his hand on my hand or wrist [...] the expression of the man\u2019s eyes, when he looked at me, offended and horrified me. These instances appear trivial to my reason, but have lain awake nights with the thing on my mind. Irma K. Persons [wife of Warren Persons, Dean of Business Administration 1912-1918]: [After a college dinner at the Acacia Hotel, Mrs. Persons accompanied an injured Mrs. Slocum home. When Mrs. Slocum was settled, she entered a dark room with Dr. Slocum to get her coat.] He put his arm around me and then the first thing knew he kissed me, on the mouth, and in the act our eyeglasses became entangled. He turned on the lights to find our glasses and got out of the room. He was all this time calling me endearing terms [...] He wanted to take me home, but insisted on being taken back to the hotel, where Mr. Persons was. 2/13/25, 10:23 Colorado College Tutt Library: Slocum Controversy excerpts from Kerr Papers 5/9 From his house to the hotel he drove just as slowly as was possible, all the while calling me endearing names, trying to hold my hand [...] and several times he put his arms around me. Florence Leidigh class of 1902, assistant to Dean of Women Ruth Loomis 1902]: During the early days of my freshman year was horrified at the discovery that the College's President was a man who made shocking advances to students and other women. One of my intimate friends [...] told me of her fear at being left alone with Dr. Slocum, even for a moment. If so left in a room of his own home, she was invariably made to submit to the most startling caresses. My greatest shock, however, came with the knowledge, that the President, almost every evening, was in the closed rooms of one of the officials of the girls' hall -- often remaining until after midnight could continue indefinitely with tales of young girls who had horrifying experience with their president: one in a public train, another in a closed carriage Statement made by Dean Edward S. Parsons at the joint meeting of the Trustees and Faculty August 28, 1916: The first time the rumors began to come to me about Mr. Slocum was about ten years ago. At that time there were relations with a lady, who was a member of the faculty, which seemed to be foolishness, but were entirely out of accord with the doctrines of the right relations of the sexes preached from the chapel desk and in social committee meetings. Then perhaps five or six years ago began to hear more definite things concerning the relations of Mr. Slocum to women members of the faculty, secretaries, and students [...] [Parsons consults with Professor Schneider, who has some medical training. Schneider] felt that the dangers were very great and could not be overlooked, that there was a pathological condition [...] [Parsons speaks with Trustee Philip B. Stewart, who said] many men do the things which Mr. Slocum had done and are not caught, but Mr. Slocum had been caught, and he simply could not be retained in his present position [...] 2/13/25, 10:23 Colorado College Tutt Library: Slocum Controversy excerpts from Kerr Papers 6/9 Letter from Colorado Springs lawyer Charles W. Haines to Kerr, August 17, 1917: Our \"esteemed contemporary\" is suffering from acute Erotomania. Medical men, one at least, here recognize it. How far 'tis a misfortune (weakness, physical) and how far \"sin cannot be called upon to decide, but am clear in my mind that 'tis venial compared with chronic lying, hypocrisy, and hideous selfishness -- itself conceit. Other primary sources on the Slocum Controversy: Guy Harry Albright Papers, Ms 0389, Colorado College Special Collections, Box 1, Folder 3: letter from Albright to Paul Peck, October 23, 1917. Scan of typed transcription Information File Faculty-Bio-Parsons, Edward S., appendix to Fauvel article): The fact was that Slocum was an erotic. No woman was safe from insult when left alone with him. Stories by the hundreds and affidavits by the dozen poured in proving that college girls, women secretaries, wives of professors, married women in town, pretty or homely, old or young, all were liable to shocking caresses and suggestive language from Slocum. Someway, while rumors had been abroad for many years, nobody dared expose the old libertine. His position and his power as well as women's modesty protected him through twenty-seven years in Colorado Springs. He was hated by students and distrusted by faculty folk because of his faithlessness, his lying, and his double-dealing. But until these young women were goaded to speak, no one had the courage to attack him. Julia Hassell Lipsey interview, 1977, Colorado College Oral History Collection R15. Lipsey was a member of the class of 1917 at CC. Short excerpt in MP3 format. [The faculty] said to the trustees, \"Look how this man is -- he's a perfect hypocrite, and look at these actions with these secretaries,\" and so forth, \"get rid of him.\" And the secretaries, or some of the trustees would say, \"Well, look at what he's done for the college. He's built 2/13/25, 10:23 Colorado College Tutt Library: Slocum Controversy excerpts from Kerr Papers 7/9 up the college; he has a vast number of wealthy friends, and provides for the college. That sort of thing happens in offices, business offices all the time, now just don't talk about it.\" Additional sources on the Slocum Affair and the subsequent Parsons Controversy: Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure, \"Report of the Sub-Committee of Inquiry for Colorado College,\" Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, vol. 5, no. 7/8, Nov. - Dec. 1918. Related papers are held at George Washington University President Clyde Duniway, correspondence 1917-1919, including letters of resignation, protest letters, and support letters, Colorado College Archives Box 390. Joe P. Dunn, \"Scandal on the Plains: William F. Slocum, Edward S. Parsons, and the Colorado College Controversies,\" Great Plains Quarterly, Spring 2010, pp. 117-34. John Fauvel, \"Monicagate on Cache La Poudre: The End of the Golden Age of Colorado College,\" [ca. 1998]. David D. Finley, \"The Parsons Case,\" paper prepared for the Colorado Springs Round Table, 18 March 2005 Faculty-Bio-Parsons, Edward S., Colorado College Special Collections. Charlie Brown Hershey, Colorado College 1874-1949 (Colorado College, 1952), pp. 87-94. Debbie Kelley, \"The Harvey Weinstein of Colorado College: sexual misconduct tales for dorm's namesake lead to call for change,\" Colorado Springs Gazette, December 2, 2017. Emily Kressley Shameful Namesake: College Complicit in President Slocum's Sexual Misconduct,\" Catalyst, vol. 48, no. 9, October 10, 2017, pp. 1, 6. Faculty Petition Creates Momentum: The Push to Rename Slocum Hall,\" Catalyst, January 12, 2017. Robert Loevy, Colorado College Place of Learning 1874-1999 (Colorado College, 1999), pp. 94-106. Julia Martinez, \"The Harvey Weinstein of Colorado College,\" Chronicle of Higher Education, November 14, 2017. J. Juan Reid, Colorado College: The First Century, 1874-1974 (Colorado College, 1979), pp. 82-84. Scans of Reid's unpublished notes on his 1972 interviews with Maude Bard Warren and Eleanor Davis Ehrman (J. Juan Reid Papers, Ms 0176, Colorado College Special Collections, Box 1, Folder 11). 2/13/25, 10:23 Colorado College Tutt Library: Slocum Controversy excerpts from Kerr Papers 8/9 \"That Sort of Thing. All the Time.\" Exhibition in Worner Hall at Colorado College, August 2019 - February 2020. Curator: Jessy Randall. Designer: Briget Heidmous. Title from a statement by Julia Hassell Lipsey class of 1917, audio clip above. Alta Viscomi, \"Slocum the Lecher: The Troubling History of Our Dorm's Namesake,\" Cipher, vol. XVII, issue VI, March 2014, pp. 6-8. Note: the Colorado College dormitory at 130 E. Cache La Poudre was named Slocum Hall when it was built in 1953. When the Slocum Affair received new attention in 2017-2018, the building was temporarily renamed South Hall. Students, faculty, and staff shared ideas for a new name with Special Collections over the next few years. Special Collections Home maintained by Special Collections; last revised October 18, 2022, jr 2/13/25, 10:23 Colorado College Tutt Library: Slocum Controversy excerpts from Kerr Papers 9/9", "7288_102.pdf": "William Frederick Slocum, Jr. Born July 29, 1851 Grafton, Massachusetts Died 1934 (aged 82\u201383) Education Amherst College, 1874 Andover Theological Seminary, 1878 Known for President of Colorado College, sexual assault Spouse(s) Mary Goodale Montgomery, m. 1880 William F. Slocum William Frederick Slocum, Jr. (born Grafton, Massachusetts, 29 July 1851; died 1934) was an American educator. In 1917 he was forced to retire as President of Colorado College after an investigation confirmed the accusations of multiple women that he had sexually harassed and sexually assaulted them. He was the son of William F. Slocum, a Boston lawyer, and Margaret Tinker. He graduated from Amherst College in 1874. In 1874 and 1875, he was a newspaper correspondent in England and Germany. By 1876, he was at Andover Theological Seminary, where he graduated in 1878. He held Congregational pastorates at Amesbury, Massachusetts (1878\u201383), where in 1880 he married Mary Goodale Montgomery, and in Baltimore, Maryland (1883\u201388). He then became president of Colorado College. In 1917 he was forced to retire after an investigation confirmed the accusations of multiple women that he had sexually harassed and sexually assaulted them.[1][2] After these events, Slocum moved to Newton Center, Massachusetts. He lectured and wrote on educational and sociological subjects. William Frederick Slocum grew up in Grafton, Massachusetts, where his family went to the Congregational Church. He attended Amherst College in Amherst, Massachusetts. His years at Amherst were important, because he spent much of his professional life striving to make Colorado College a liberal arts college in the mode of Amherst College. He prepared for the ministry at Andover Theological Seminary in Andover, Massachusetts, and became the pastor of the Congregational Church in Amesbury, Massachusetts, a classic New England mill town. Along with his new wife, Mary Goodale Montgomery, Slocum ministered to the social and economic needs as well as the religious needs of his Amesbury parishioners. Biography Early life 2/13/25, 10:23 William F. Slocum - Wikipedia 1/7 In 1883 William F. Slocum became pastor of the First Congregational Church in Baltimore, Maryland. He became acquainted with Daniel Coit Gilman, the famous president of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Slocum joined with Gilman and other civic leaders in organizing the Associated Charities of Baltimore. While in Baltimore, Slocum received a visit from Professor George N. Marden of Colorado College, who was on a fund-raising trip on the East Coast. Marden told Slocum of Colorado College in far-off Colorado Springs, Colorado, and of its desperate need for a new president. William Slocum accepted the job, and he and Mary Slocum went west to see if they could save the foundering institution.[3] \"At the age of 37 he cast his lot with [Colorado] College, and from that time forth, for almost a third of a century, the story of William Frederick Slocum and the story of Colorado College are one story.\"[4] When he arrived in the fall of 1888, William Slocum found Colorado College in dire straits. There was only one building - Cutler Hall - and fewer than 50 students. There were only four faculty members, three men and one woman. Slocum began his presidential tenure by reforming the calendar. Three unequal terms were replaced with the standard two-semester calendar found at most colleges and universities. Slocum strongly emphasized the religious side of education, giving Friday morning chapel sermons called \"Ethicals.\" He built a central heating plant to keep students warm in the residence halls. He hired Colorado College's first administrator, Ruth Loomis, to be the Dean of Women graduate of Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, New York, Dean Loomis was said to \"bring to a small western college the sophistication, gentility, and sense of proper behavior typified by an eastern college for women.\"[5] As the student body grew in size under Slocum's leadership, he began hiring additional faculty. \"The faculty that President Slocum did succeed in bringing to Colorado College gave to the institution a name among the best colleges and universities in the land.\"[6] President Slocum also participated actively in community life in Colorado Springs. When gold miners in the nearby community of Cripple Creek went on strike for an eight-hour day, Slocum courageously walked through the picket lines in an effort to get the striking miners to peacefully settle their differences with the mine owners. The strike was settled, and the miners got both their goals - an eight-hour day and a $3 daily wage.[7] Later, when a major fire roared through Cripple Creek, Slocum mobilized the students of Colorado College to canvas nearby residential areas for clothing, food, and firewood to help the burned out gold miners and their families.[8] In 1893 President Slocum and Colorado College hosted the Colorado Summer School of Science, Philosophy, and Languages. One of the teachers in the summer school was Katherine Lee Bates, a professor of English at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. While teaching at Colorado College, she took a two-day wagon trip to the top of Pike's Peak, a high Rocky Mountain to the west of Colorado Springs. Bates was so inspired by the view of the mountains and the plains from atop Pike's Peak that she wrote a poem entitled \"America The Beautiful.\" Her words were set to an existing musical piece. The patriotic song that was created became a national favorite.[9] At Colorado College 2/13/25, 10:23 William F. Slocum - Wikipedia 2/7 Slocum was a prodigious fundraiser on behalf of Colorado College. In 1896 he successfully raised $150,000, a considerable sum for that time. In the ensuing celebration, the men students pulled Slocum around the campus and downtown Colorado Springs in a buggy. An amused onlooker noted: \"The center of interest was President Slocum, trying not to look too unhappy, seated in a high run-a- bout, drawn by students who were in cap and gown, and clasping to him a large money bag (made...of one of Mrs. Slocum's soft pillows) with $150,000 on it in large figures.\" One of the contributors said he gave money to Colorado College because \"he liked that young man who was doing things out there in Colorado.\"[10] Slocum gained a national reputation as the successful leader of a western small liberal arts college. He turned down the presidencies of Oberlin College and the University of Illinois in order to complete his work at Colorado College. He received honorary degrees from Amherst College (his alma mater), Harvard University, and five other institutions of higher learning. He continued his charitable activities in the larger community by helping to organize the Colorado State Board of Charities and serving on the Colorado State Board of Pardons. In 1913, upon Slocum's 25th year as Colorado College president, there was a five-day celebration in his honor painting of him in his academic robes was commissioned and hung in the grand staircase of Palmer Hall.[11] In 1916, a number of women in the college community charged that Slocum had sexually assaulted them.[12] An investigation confirmed the accusations of multiple women that he had sexually harassed and sexually assaulted them. \"Hundreds of women\" including students, staff, faculty and faculty wives accused him orally, and 22 gave written affidavits. 9 women allowed a local historian, James Hutchison Kerr, to copy their statements for his records.[1][2] The college Board of Trustees asked Slocum to resign, and he did so as of graduation in June 1917. \"In reviewing these more personal criticisms of the president, the trustees...felt that their general discussion in the community...could not be ignored.\"[13] Soon afterward, the Board of Trustees asked for the resignation of Edward Parsons, the dean who had brought forward the accusations. He refused, and was dismissed. In protest, 23 faculty and staff left the college. After the intervention of the American Association of University Professors, Parsons was invited to return, but did not. Dunn, Joe P. (2010), \" 'Scandal on the Plains: William F. Slocum, Edward S. Parsons, and the Colorado College Controversies' \" ( greatplainsquarterly), Great Plains Quarterly; Fauvel, John, 'Monicagate on Cache La Poudre Street: The end of the golden age at Colorado College' ( athcs/timeline/Topics/Mgate.html) William and Mary Slocum moved to the Boston-area town of Newton, Massachusetts. William Slocum returned briefly to Colorado Springs in 1929 to give the principal address at the dedication of General William F. Palmer's statue (on horseback) in downtown Colorado Springs. Mary Slocum died in 1933, and William Slocum died in 1934. Controversy and resignation 2/13/25, 10:23 William F. Slocum - Wikipedia 3/7 In 2018, in light of renewed attention to Slocum's sexual misconduct on the centennial of his departure, Colorado College removed his name from two buildings, took down his portrait, and rescinded an honorary doctorate that it had given him at his resignation.[14] One of Slocum's greatest contributions to Colorado College was the construction of ten major academic and residential buildings. Slocum took the lead in raising the money to build the new buildings as well as seeing to the construction details. The ten buildings were: Hagerman Hall (1889 men's dormitory. Named for James J. Hagerman, a builder/owner of the local Colorado Midland railroad. Romanesque architecture built of peach pink blow sandstone. Torn down in the 1950s. Montgomery Hall (1891 women's dormitory modeled after the \"cottage\" system at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. Included a living room, small infirmary, and a kitchen and pantry. Built of Castle Rock Lava, a grey stone. Coburn Library (1892) - Named for Nathan Parker Coburn, a childhood friend of Slocum, who gave the money. Romanesque architecture built of peach pink blow sandstone, with large arched windows. Torn down in the 1960s. Wolcott (Astronomical) Observatory (1894) - Named for Henry R. Wolcott, of Denver, who gave the money and provided the telescope. Included a lecture hall, photographic laboratory, and a faculty office. Torn down in the late 1960s. Ticknor Hall (1898 second women's dormitory. Named for Anna Ticknor, of Boston, Massachusetts, a friend of the anonymous donor. Built of Ute Pass Green Stone, which had a brownish color. Included a club-recreation room and a room for the women students to store their bicycles, a popular mode of personal transportation at the time. Perkins Hall (1898 music and fine arts building. President Slocum had recently added Music and Fine Arts to the curriculum. Named for Willard B. Perkins, an architect who moved to Colorado Springs for his health and became well known in the region. Romanesque architecture build of pink peach blow sandstone. Included a 600-seat assembly hall with a pipe organ. Torn down in the 1960s. Palmer Hall (1903 science building with laboratories, lecture halls, and a large science museum. Named for William J. Palmer, who founded Colorado Springs and gave the land for the college campus. Romanesque architecture built of pink peach blow sandstone. On instructions from President Slocum, the building was located in such a way it prevented the construction of a streetcar line through the center of the campus. McGregor Hall (1904 third dormitory for women. Named in honor of the family of Marion McGregor Noyes, who taught Latin and Philosophy at Colorado College. Built of Greenlee sandstone, which was red in color.[15] Bemis Hall (1908 fourth dormitory for women. Its completion created an approximate \"Women's Quadrangle\" of four dorms - Montgomery, Ticknor, McGregor, and Bemis halls. Named for Judson M. Bemis, a leading manufacturer of paper and cloth bags. Constructed of grey stone in an Old English architectural style. Included a large lounge area used for major campus social events.[16] Cossitt Hall (1913) - An athletic and social center for male students. Named for Frederick H. Cossitt, the father of the donor, Mrs. A. D. Juilliard, who was a relative of President Slocum. Built of grey stone matching Bemis Hall. Included a gymnasium with a full-size basketball court, a men's dining room, and a large lounge area.[17] Buildings 2/13/25, 10:23 William F. Slocum - Wikipedia 4/7 For the next four decades, these buildings were the physical presence of Colorado College. Only one new major building, Shove Chapel, was constructed between the completion of Cossitt Hall in 1913 and the construction of Slocum Hall (a new men's dormitory) in 1954.[18] Four of Slocum's ten major buildings had been dismantled by the early 21st century (Hagerman Hall, Coburn Library, Perkins Hall, and Wollcott Observatory). The present status and probable future of the college in the West by William Frederick Slocum Addresses at the annual meeting of the New West Education Commission by Frank Gunsaulus The nation's guarantee of personal rights by William Frederick Slocum Addresses at the commencement exercises of Colorado College, June 1913 Mormonism and Jesuitism : addresses at the annual meeting of the New West Education Commission, held October 14, 1890, in the First Congregational Church, Chicago Constitutional basis of citizenship in the United States; commencement address, May 26, 1911 by William Frederick Slocum Annual address before the twenty-eighth continental congress of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution by William Frederick Slocum Best use of a large bequest in the erection of a sanatorium for the benefit of consumptives by W. F. Slocum Present Status and Probable Future of the College in the West by Colorado College Nation's Guarantee of Personal Rights by Colorado College 1. Martinez, Julia (November 14, 2017), \"The Harvey Weinstein of Colorado College\" ( onicle.com/article/The-Harvey-Weinstein-of/241774), The Chronicle of Higher Education 2. \"The \"Slocum Affair\" at Colorado College\" ( llections/Manuscript/Slocum.html), Special collections, Colorado College Tutt Library, retrieved 2017-11-14 See also the primary and secondary sources listed here. 3. The accomplishments of Slocum at Colorado College can be found in three College histories: Charlie Brown Hershey, Colorado College: 1874-1949; Colorado College, 1952; J. Juan Reid, Colorado College: The First Century, 1874-1974, Colorado College, 1952; Robert D. Loevy, Colorado College Place of Learning, 1874-1999, Colorado College, 1999. 4. Charles Hershey, Colorado College, 1874-1949, Colorado College, 1949, p. 64. 5. Robert D. Loevy, Colorado College Place of Learning, 18744-1999, Colorado College, 1999, p. 70. 6. Louise Buckley, \"The History of Colorado College, 1874-1904,\" Masters Thesis, Special Collections, Tutt Library, Colorado College, p. 103. 7. B. M. Rastall, The Cripple Creek Strike of 1893, Colorado College, 1905. Also see Marshall Sprague, Newport in the Rockies, pp. 168-170, 276. 8. Marshall Sprague, Newport in the Rockies, pp. 173-174. 9. Robert D. Loevy, Colorado College Place of Learning, 1874-1999, Colorado College, 1999, p. 62. Publications Notes 2/13/25, 10:23 William F. Slocum - Wikipedia 5/7 10. Letter, Ruth Loomis to Mr. Ormes, February 25, 1928, Special Collections, Tutt Library, Colorado College. Also see Robert D. Loevy, Colorado College Place of Learning, 1874-1999, Colorado College, 1999, p.p. 61-62. 11. Robert D. Loevy, Colorado College Place of Learning, 1874-1999, Colorado College, 1999, pp. 92-93, 98. 12. Joe P. Dunn, \"Scandal on the Plains: William F. Slocum, Edward S. Parsons, and the Colorado College Controversies,\" Great Plains Quarterly, 2010, p. 2526. Also see John Fauvel, \"Monicagate on Cache La Poudre Street: The end of the golden age at Colorado College,\" Special Collections, Tutt Library, Colorado College. 13. Charlie Brown Hershey, Colorado College: 1874-1949, Colorado College, 1952, p. 92. 14. Jaschik, Scott (March 15, 2008), \" 'Colorado College's Own Harvey Weinstein': Investigation documents how an early president of the college harassed and assaulted numerous women. Board strips his name from two buildings and revokes his honorary degree\" ( hered.com/news/2018/03/15/colorado-college-removes-honors-early-president-found-have-sexual ly-harassed-and), Inside Higher Ed 15 good source of information on early buildings at Colorado College is Louise Buckley, \"The History of Colorado College, 1874-1904,\" Masters Thesis, Colorado College, 1904. 16. Robert D. Loevy, Colorado College Place of Learning, 1874-1999, Colorado College, 1999, pp. 86-87 17. Robert D. Loevy, Colorado College Place of Learning, 1874-1999, Colorado College, 1999, pp. 91-92 18. Robert D. Loevy, Colorado College Place of Learning, 1874-1999, Colorado College, 1999, pp. 97-98. \"Colorado College Tutt Library: Presidents of Colorado College\" ( brary/specialcollections/Presidents.html). coloradocollege.edu. Retrieved 5 July 2011. Addison, Henry Robert; Oakes, Charles Henry; Lawson, William John; Sladen, Douglas Brooke Wheelton (1905). \"Slocum, William F.\" ( PA1484) Who's Who. 57: 1484. Edwin Emerson, Jr., ed. (1897). The College year-book and athletic record for the academic year 1896-97 ( New York: Stone & Kimball. Retrieved 2012-02-29. \"Slocum, William Frederick 1851-1934\" ( WorldCat Identities. Retrieved 2012-02-29. Attribution This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Rines, George Edwin, ed. (1920). \"Slocum, William F.\" ( 20)/Slocum,_William_F.). Encyclopedia Americana. Loevy, Robert, Colorado College Place of Learning, 1874-1999, Colorado College, 1999, Chapter 3, \"William Frederick Slocum: The Builder President.\" Loevy, Robert Colorado College Reader, Colorado College, 2012, Chapter 7, \"The Amherst Illustrious, William Frederick Slocum.\" References 2/13/25, 10:23 William F. Slocum - Wikipedia 6/7 In memoriam William Frederick Slocum, 1851-1934. Colorado College. 1934. Joe P. Dunn (Spring 2010). \"Scandal on the Plains: William F. Slocum, Edward S. Parsons, and the Colorado College Controversies\". Great Plains Quarterly. 30: 117\u201334. Works by or about William F. Slocum ( A%22Slocum%2C%20William%20F.%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Slocum%2C%20William%2 0F%2E%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22Slocum%2C%20W%2E%20F%2E%22%20OR%20subje ct%3A%22William%20F.%20Slocum%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22William%20F%2E%20Sloc um%22%20OR%20subject%3A%22W%2E%20F%2E%20Slocum%22%20OR%20creator%3A% 22William%20F.%20Slocum%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22William%20F%2E%20Slocum%22% 20OR%20creator%3A%22W%2E%20F%2E%20Slocum%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22W%2 E%20F.%20Slocum%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Slocum%2C%20William%20F.%22%20OR% 20creator%3A%22Slocum%2C%20William%20F%2E%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Slocum%2 C%20W%2E%20F%2E%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Slocum%2C%20W%2E%20F.%22%20O R%20title%3A%22William%20F.%20Slocum%22%20OR%20title%3A%22William%20F%2E%20 Slocum%22%20OR%20title%3A%22W%2E%20F%2E%20Slocum%22%20OR%20description%3 A%22William%20F.%20Slocum%22%20OR%20description%3A%22William%20F%2E%20Slocu m%22%20OR%20description%3A%22W%2E%20F%2E%20Slocum%22%20OR%20descriptio n%3A%22Slocum%2C%20William%20F.%22%20OR%20description%3A%22Slocum%2C%20Wi lliam%20F%2E%22%29%20OR%20%28%221851-1934%22%20AND%20Slocum%29%29%20A ND%20%28-mediatype:software%29) at the Internet Archive Retrieved from \" Further reading External links 2/13/25, 10:23 William F. Slocum - Wikipedia 7/7", "7288_103.pdf": "Welcome to Home / Welcome to / Leadership / Board of Trustees / Board of Trustees Statement on President William F. Slocum Board of Trustees Statement on President William F. Slocum Board of Trustees Statement on President William F. Slocum In the fall of 2017, members of the Colorado College community raised allegations that William F. Slocum engaged in sexual misconduct while he was president of the college. President Jill Tiefenthaler fully investigated this matter and then brought it to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. Based upon its review of the matter, the board finds that there is overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence that Slocum engaged in instances of sexual misconduct and egregious sexual assault while he was president of the college. Such behavior was reprehensible and is in direct conflict with the mission and values of Colorado College. Accordingly, the board decided unanimously to rescind the honorary degree bestowed on him in 1917 and has ordered the immediate removal of his name from the residence hall and commons building on the corner of Nevada and Cache la Poudre. Those facilities will be known temporarily as South Hall and South Commons. After a period of one or two years has elapsed, the board will initiate a naming process and solicit input from the community for a new name for the building. Because Slocum also accomplished important and necessary achievements for the college during his tenure, for which he had been recognized as one of our greatest presidents, the board has asked President Tiefenthaler to form a committee of students, faculty, staff, and trustees to recommend ways to represent his full legacy on campus. This should include considering the appropriate placement of his portrait that currently hangs in Palmer Hall. Consistent with our mission and values, the college should neither ignore his accomplishments nor his disturbing flaws. The board has taken these actions because sexual assault and sexual harassment are unacceptable today, and were unacceptable in Slocum's time. Such behavior is in direct conflict with our mission and values, and must neither be tolerated nor overlooked. We are grateful to Professor Joe Dunn of Converse College, Professor Robert Loevy, Jessy Randall, and the late Professor John Fauvel, for providing important information on this matter, and members of the community for the care they have taken in bringing this issue forward. Report an issue - Last updated: 12/17/2020 2/13/25, 10:23 Board of Trustees Statement on President William F. Slocum - Colorado College 1/1"} |
9,087 | Steven Harper | University of Connecticut | [
"9087_101.pdf",
"9087_102.pdf"
] | {"9087_101.pdf": "Trending: Tweed flights paused | Weekend storm | Egg limits | Movie-times bill | Azzi Fudd's By Lisa Backus, Staff Writer Updated Oct 8, 2024 9:51 a.m. UConn professor resigns amid investigation into sexual misconduct with student, official says Former University of Connecticut Assistant Professor Steven Harper resigned on Oct. 3 amid a sexual misconduct investigation. University of Connecticut / Contributed photo Subscribe Sign in 2/13/25, 10:24 UConn professor resigns amid sexual misconduct probe, official says 1/6 UConn professor resigns amid investigation into sexua\u2026 0:00 3:16 1x Everlit An assistant professor at the University of Connecticut's Stamford campus resigned last week amid an investigation into sexual misconduct involving a female student, a school official and documents said. Steven Harper, an assistant professor of Digital Media and Design, came under scrutiny after a student filed a complaint that was received by the school's Office of Institutional Equity on Sept. 18, according to a university \"notice of investigation\" document obtained by Insider. The document sent to the 22-year-old woman and Harper detailed allegations that he engaged in a romantic relationship with her while she was his student and the two wound up renting an apartment together. The notice of investigation was sent on Oct. 1, two days before Harper resigned. UConn spokesperson Stephanie Reitz said Harper resigned Thursday, but she provided no other information about the resignation. When contacted in September, Reitz said Harper was on leave from his position as a UConn faculty member and declined further comment. She said at the time the university doesn\u2019t comment on personnel-related matters. More For You 2/13/25, 10:24 UConn professor resigns amid sexual misconduct probe, official says 2/6 Elon Musk and are acting outside the law official claims in lawsuit Vote on chairwoman's confirmation put on hold amid text messages Valentine's Day will be one of the best days to see the planets aligned Sandy Hook families accuse Alex Jones of Supreme Court \u2018ambush\u2019 Will shift back towards plastic straws after recent Trump order? Harper could not immediately be reached for comment on Monday. The woman, who is no longer enrolled at UConn and spoke with Insider under the condition of anonymity, said she first filed a report with Stamford police who turned the complaint over to university police. UConn police then notified the school's Office of Institutional Equity, which opened an investigation after speaking with her, the 22-year-old said. The woman told Insider that she originally filed a report with Stamford police in early September, but her complaint didn't reach UConn's Office of Institutional Equity until Sept. 18. 2/13/25, 10:24 UConn professor resigns amid sexual misconduct probe, official says 3/6 Oct 7, 2024 | Updated Oct 8, 2024 9:51 a.m. Lisa Backus Lisa Backus is a local, state and national award-winning crime reporter who covers breaking news and criminal justice policy for Hearst Connecticut Media Group. When she's not working she can be found hanging out with her animal companions Spot and Morgan and her six grandchildren. The woman told the investigator that Harper \"engaged in an amorous relationship\" with her from April 2023 to June 2024, the notice of investigation document said. The woman also said in the complaint that she and Harper lived together for about two months during the relationship and she was unable to attend school this fall because of the financial hardship related to the breakdown of the relationship, the document said. According to the document, the investigator informed the woman that she was looking at whether Harper violated the provisions of the university's policy against discrimination, harassment and related interpersonal violence by engaging in an \"inappropriate amorous\" relationship with a student, which is prohibited. It is unclear how Harper's resignation will impact the investigation. In an interview with Insider, the woman said the relationship started when she was about 21 years old. The woman said she paid for furniture in the apartment she shared with Harper and for hotels. Due to the expenses, the woman said she wasn't able to afford the last class she was required to earn her degree. The woman said she is working on re-enrolling and hopes to take the class so she can graduate needed one more class to graduate, but wasn't able to afford it,\" she said. 2/13/25, 10:24 UConn professor resigns amid sexual misconduct probe, official says 4/6 Don't Miss native Chris McKenna starts new role on 'General Hospital' \"I'm not going to try to be somebody else's version of this character can make it my own. That's what we all have to do,\" Chris McKenna said Vote on chairwoman's confirmation put on hold amid text messages Dry, cracked, winter skin doctors offer advice as snow, cold persist 2/13/25, 10:24 UConn professor resigns amid sexual misconduct probe, official says 5/6 Championship coach returning to lead Xavier football Sandy Hook families accuse Alex Jones of Supreme Court \u2018ambush\u2019 Let's Play Typeshift Really Bad Chess Flipart Cross|word About Contact Services Account \u00a9 2025 Hearst Media Services Connecticut Terms of Use Privacy Notice Industry Opt Out Your Privacy Choices (Opt Out of Sale/Targeted Ads) Top 2/13/25, 10:24 UConn professor resigns amid sexual misconduct probe, official says 6/6", "9087_102.pdf": "UConn professor resigns over relationship with student by Alex Appel October 11, 2024 University of Connecticut (UConn) Prof. Steve Harper resigned earlier this month after the school started investigating his relationship with a student. Harper, who was an assistant professor of Digital Media and Design, was in a romantic relationship with an undergraduate student at the university. They met when she took his class. At the time, he was in his fifties and she was in her early twenties. UConn policy explicitly prohibits romantic relationships between faculty or staff members and undergraduate students. 2/13/25, 10:24 UConn professor resigns over relationship with student 1/3 Harper was married while he was in a relationship with the student. The student said she did not know Harper had a wife. She claims that throughout their relationship, she paid for dates, hotels, and, eventually, rent for an apartment, which she also furnished out of pocket. Allegedly, he did not pay rent either for their shared apartment, even though his name was on the lease. She accrued over ten thousand dollars of debt during this time. Harper kept promising that he would pay her back for all of these expenses but only started to do so after they broke up. Harper did not respond for request for comment. Stressed and in debt, the student\u2019s grades slipped. She was one class shy of graduating but did not make the minimum required grade. Because of both her and her financial situation, she was scared she wouldn\u2019t be allowed to return to school. However, she was reinstated this term. University Spokesperson Stephanie Reitz did not respond to questions about policies for reinstating students. She also did not respond to questions about if Harper will have financial compensation after his resignation, if there will be any other repercussions for his actions, or if the investigation is continuing. The standards for investigating sexual harassment and code of conduct violations at colleges and universities can vary dramatically institution to institution. Cases within the same school may also be handled very differently. Two years ago, UConn was accused of covering up a 2003 report filed against former Prof. Frank Noelker student accused Noelker of inviting her to his house and sexually assaulting her there. UConn allowed the professor to remain at the school as a full-time employee, and, over the next 19 years, more students made similar allegations. Both individual states and the federal government issue guidance on how to deal with allegations of misconduct, and the recommendations and rules change overtime. The Obama, Trump and Biden Administrations have all issued different, and contradictory, Title regulations. In Jan. 2023, Donna Veach (R-Berlin) proposed a bill, An Act Concerning Investigations of Intimate Partner Violence by Institutions of Higher Education, which would grant victims of 2/13/25, 10:24 UConn professor resigns over relationship with student 2/3 \u00a9 2025 Connecticut Inside Investigator Powered by Newspack intimate partner violence access to university investigations, even if they weren\u2019t students. That bill did not pass. Veach\u2019s efforts were in response to an incident where former Central Connecticut University (CCSU) student-athlete Peyton Stephens was accused of attacking his ex-girlfriend. He was arrested and on charges of 3 -degree Domestic Violence and 2 -Degree Breach of Peace. Even though he violated CCSU\u2019s Student Handbook, Stephens was still allowed to attend school and play on the baseball team until his graduation. Throughout this process, his ex-girlfriend, who attended the University of Hartford, was not allowed to view information about Stephens\u2019 hearing. This isn\u2019t the only controversy surrounding CCSU. Inside Investigator reported the school withheld information about misconduct allegations and investigations from Freedom of Information requests. In January, Veach wrote a letter to the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee asking it re-evaluate House Bill 6099 and allow her proposed changes, Inside Investigator reported. Topics on this page rd nd 2/13/25, 10:24 UConn professor resigns over relationship with student 3/3"} |
7,513 | Leroy Young | Plymouth State College | [
"7513_101.pdf",
"7513_102.pdf",
"7513_103.pdf"
] | {"7513_101.pdf": "v (1999) Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Tracy v and another. No. 97-585. Decided: December 16, 1999 Douglas, Robinson, Leonard & Garvey, P.C., of Concord (Charles G. Douglas and Susanna G. Robinson, on the brief, and Mr. Douglas orally), for the plaintiff. Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., of Manchester (Joseph M. McDonough and Dyana J. Crahan, on the brief, and Mr. McDonough orally), for the defendants. After a jury trial in Superior Court (Smukler, J.), the defendants, Plymouth State College (PSC) and the University System of New Hampshire, appeal from a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Tracy Schneider, for injuries she suffered while she was a student as a result of sexual harassment by a former professor. We affirm in part and remand in part. The plaintiff enrolled at in the fall of 1987 as an eighteen-year-old freshman. During her sophomore year, she enrolled in a graphic design course taught by Professor Leroy Young. The plaintiff enjoyed the course and found Professor Young motivating and encouraging. After having a second positive experience in another course with Professor Young the following year, the plaintiff decided to major in graphic design. Professor Young was PSC's only graphic design professor, and he became the plaintiff's academic advisor. The defendants do not dispute that in the summer of 1990, Professor Young began a pattern of sexual harassment and intimidation of the plaintiff. Young's behavior included pressuring the plaintiff to accompany him on trips to various locations off campus, kissing her, sending her flowers, taking off her \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 1/13 shirt, and placing her hand on his genitalia. Young's conduct escalated to the point that in January 1991, he completely disrobed in his office while the plaintiff was working on his computer. When the plaintiff attempted to rebuff Professor Young's advances, he would become angry, yell at her, and threaten to make her life very difficult. Young withheld academic support for her academic work and ridiculed her in front of faculty. He also gave the plaintiff a grade of \u201cC-\u201d for her work as an intern at a graphic design company without ever consulting with her supervisor at the company. In two papers submitted in courses at PSC, the plaintiff revealed to faculty members that she was being sexually harassed. The plaintiff submitted to Professor Josephine Hayslip a journal entry describing the sexual harassment to which a professor had subjected her. Hayslip reported to Sally Boland, the acting dean of the college, that a student was being sexually harassed by someone in the art department. Hayslip testified that Boland told her that she could not do anything unless the plaintiff came to her. The plaintiff also related the sexual harassment in a paper submitted to Professor Wendy Palmquist in the spring of 1993. The plaintiff testified that Professor Palmquist took no action in response. The plaintiff told several friends and fellow students about Professor Young's conduct. In the spring of 1991, one of these students reported Young's conduct to Professor Susan Tucker, although she did not identify the plaintiff. Professor Tucker asked the student to encourage the plaintiff to speak with her directly, and said that she would help the plaintiff report Young's conduct to the administration. Because the plaintiff did not come forward, Tucker did not report the allegations to administrators. In the fall of 1992, the plaintiff personally described Professor Young's harassment in detail to Professor Annette Mitchell. The plaintiff insisted that she remain anonymous because she feared Professor Young. She did agree, however, to consider coming forward if Mitchell organized other students who were also being harassed to report their experiences as a group. In the spring of 1993, Professor Mitchell told Robert Morton, the chair of the art department, that a student who wished to remain anonymous had \u201ca problem\u201d with a professor and did not want to come forward. The plaintiff refused to report Young's conduct to Morton because in 1992 he told her that she \u201clook[ed] old enough to have affairs with married men.\u201d Also in 1993, after more students had told Professor Tucker that Professor Young was sexually harassing a student, who still refused to be named, Tucker, Mitchell, and another professor reported the allegations to PSC's Interim President, Dean Thea Kalikow. Kalikow stated that she could do nothing without a firsthand account of the harassment. The plaintiff graduated from in the spring of 1993. After learning that two other students had asserted sexual harassment complaints against Professor Young, the plaintiff wrote to Dean Kalikow on 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 2/13 October 7, 1993, complaining that Professor Young had sexually harassed her while she was a student at PSC. On March 25, 1994 dismissed Professor Young on the grounds of moral delinquency due to his sexual harassment of the plaintiff. On May 28, 1995, the plaintiff filed a seven-count writ against the defendants asserting liability under Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a) (1994) (Title IX), and various State law theories, including breach of fiduciary duty and negligent training and supervision. At the conclusion of her case, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all State law claims except the fiduciary duty and negligent training and supervision claims. The remaining State law and Title claims were submitted to the jury. The defendants moved for a directed verdict on the fiduciary duty claim. The trial court denied the defendants' motion. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the Title claims and the fiduciary duty claim, and in favor of the defendants on the negligent training and supervision claim. The jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in enhanced compensatory damages. The trial court awarded the plaintiff prejudgment interest based on her State law claim of breach of fiduciary duty, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988(b) (1994 & Supp.1997) for her Title claims. This appeal followed. On appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court erred in: (1) denying their motion for a directed verdict on the fiduciary duty claim; (2) failing to give a verdict form as proposed by the defendants which would have allowed the jury to make specific findings regarding the plaintiff's claims and the damages to be awarded; (3) applying incorrect legal standards to the Title claims; (4) allowing the jury to award enhanced compensatory damages; and (5) awarding the plaintiff prejudgment interest. We consider each issue in turn. I. State Law Claim of Breach of Fiduciary Duty The defendants argue that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying their motion for a directed verdict on the plaintiff's claim of breach of fiduciary duty because no fiduciary relationship exists between post-secondary educational institutions and their students under New Hampshire law, and because the plaintiff failed to introduce any expert testimony regarding the nature and scope of a fiduciary duty. The first ground for appeal presents an issue of first impression. Whether a duty can be imposed upon an entity for the care and protection of a person is a question of law. See Walls v. Oxford Management Co., 137 N.H. 653, 656, 633 A.2d 103, 104 (1993). We review questions of law de novo. Crown Paper Co. v. City of Berlin, 142 N.H. 563, 566, 703 A.2d 1387, 1389 (1997 fiduciary relationship has been defined as a comprehensive term and exists wherever influence has been acquired and abused or confidence has been reposed and betrayed.\u201d Lash v. Cheshire County Savings Bank, 124 N.H. 435, 438, 474 A.2d 980, 981 (1984) (quotation and brackets omitted). 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 3/13 fiduciary relation does not depend upon some technical relation created by, or defined in, law. It may exist under a variety of circumstances, and does exist in cases where there has been a special confidence reposed in one who, in equity and good conscience, is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one reposing the confidence. Id. at 439, 474 A.2d at 982 (quotation omitted). The party reposing confidence becomes dependent on the fiduciary because he or she must rely on the fiduciary for a particular service. See Frankel, Fiduciary Law, 71 Cal. L.Rev. 795, 800 (1983). In the context of sexual harassment by faculty members, the relationship between a post-secondary institution and its students is a fiduciary one. Cf. Schneider, Sexual Harassment and Higher Education, 65 Tex. L.Rev. 525, 552 (1987). Students are in a vulnerable situation because \u201cthe power differential between faculty and students \u2024 makes it difficult for [students] to refuse unwelcome advances and also provides the basis for negative sanctions against those who do refuse.\u201d Bogart & Stein, Breaking the Silence: Sexual Harassment in Education, 64 Peabody J. Educ. 146, 157 (1987); cf. M. Paludi, Sexual Harassment on College Campuses: Abusing the Ivory Power 85-87 (1990) (discussing student-professor power differential and role in sexual harassment). When the plaintiff enrolled at PSC, she became dependent on the defendants for her education, thereby requiring them \u201cto act in good faith and with due regard\u201d for her interests. Lash, 124 N.H. at 439, 474 A.2d at 982. The relationship between students and those that teach them is built on a professional relationship of trust and deference, rarely seen outside the academic community. As a result, we conclude that this relationship gives rise to a fiduciary duty on behalf of the defendants to create an environment in which the plaintiff could pursue her education free from sexual harassment by faculty members. It would be prudent for educational institutions \u201cto adopt and enforce practices that will minimize the danger that vulnerable students will be exposed to [sexual harassment].\u201d Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 300, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998) (Stevens, J., dissenting well-designed and implemented grievance procedure will deal effectively with faculty misconduct, provide an accessible and fair forum for student complaints, and promote the creation of an environment in which sexual harassment is not tolerated.\u201d Schneider, supra at 574. Finally, our conclusion that a fiduciary relationship existed between the defendants and the plaintiff does not rest on the in loco parentis doctrine. In Marquay v. Eno, 139 N.H. 708, 717-18, 662 A.2d 272, 279 (1995), we held that a special relationship exists between primary and secondary schools and their students, and that that relationship imposes a duty of care upon schools to protect students who they know or should know are being sexually abused by school employees. We based our conclusion in part on the role of schools as parental proxies over minor students. See id. at 717, 662 A.2d at 279. In contrast, the fiduciary relationship in this case rests on the unique relationship described above. 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 4/13 We also reject the defendants' argument that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict because she failed to introduce expert testimony regarding the nature and scope of a fiduciary duty. \u201cOur standard of review of a trial court's denial of motions for directed verdict \u2024 is extremely narrow.\u201d Weldy v. Town of Kingston, 128 N.H. 325, 330, 514 A.2d 1257, 1260 (1986). We will uphold the trial court's decision \u201cwhere sufficient evidence in the record supports the trial court's ruling party is entitled to a directed verdict only when the movant's case is the sole reasonable inference from undisputed facts, and the non-movant's claim is completely without merit.\u201d Id. (citation and quotation omitted). The party bearing the burden of proof must introduce expert testimony \u201cif the subject matter in dispute is beyond the general understanding of a jury.\u201d State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 120, 697 A.2d 916, 921 (1997). Further, expert testimony is required when the issues in a case are particularly esoteric or when the matter to be determined by the trier of fact is so distinctly related to a particular science, occupation, business, or profession that it is beyond the ability of the average layperson to understand. Id. at 120, 697 A.2d at 921-22. We conclude that the plaintiff did not need to introduce expert testimony to meet her burden of proof. In its jury charge, the trial court explained that \u201c[a] fiduciary relationship exists whenever special confidence has been placed in another,\u201d and that \u201c[a] breach of a fiduciary relationship results whenever influence has been acquired and abused or confidence has been reposed and betrayed.\u201d These concepts are not beyond the ability of the average layperson to understand. See id. at 120, 697 A.2d at 921. Therefore, the trial court properly denied the defendants' motion for a directed verdict. II. Verdict Form The defendants next argue that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to use their proposed verdict form. They state that the verdict form used by the trial court makes it impossible to determine what percentages of the $100,000 compensatory damage award are attributable to the Title and fiduciary duty claims, respectively. This argument was not preserved because the defendants did not request a special verdict on damages. See Snow v. American Morgan Horse Assoc., 141 N.H. 467, 472, 686 A.2d 1168, 1172 (1996) (issue not preserved at trial waived on appeal). In fact, the verdict form used by the trial court mirrors the defendants' proposed verdict form in asking the jury for a general verdict on the amount of compensatory damages that the plaintiff should receive. Accordingly, we reject this argument. 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 5/13 III. Title Claims The defendants argue that the trial court made several errors with respect to the plaintiff's Title claims, including that the trial court erred in applying a standard of strict liability to the plaintiff's claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment and a standard of constructive notice/negligence to her claim of \u201chostile environment\u201d sexual harassment. The plaintiff concedes that the trial court applied incorrect legal standards. She argues, however, that the defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that the Title claims should be remanded. We need not reach these issues, however, because the defendants did not request a special verdict on damages and because we affirm the jury's verdict on the fiduciary duty claim. 5 Am.Jur.2d Appellate Review \u00a7 830 (1995). In view of statements made by plaintiff's counsel at oral argument and the result reached on appeal, we do not address issues related to the Title claims and remand for such future proceedings as may be deemed appropriate. IV. Award of Enhanced Compensatory Damages The defendants argue that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to award enhanced compensatory damages for the plaintiff's claim of breach of fiduciary duty. \u201cThe test for determining whether an erroneous civil jury charge is reversible error is whether the jury could have been misled.\u201d Broderick v. Watts, 136 N.H. 153, 164, 614 A.2d 600, 607 (1992) (quotation omitted). The trial court correctly instructed the jury that it could award enhanced compensatory damages only if it found that the defendants' conduct was wanton, malicious, or oppressive. See Panas v. Harakis & K-Mart Corp., 129 N.H. 591, 608, 529 A.2d 976, 986 (1987). Further, the trial court stated that the jury could award enhanced compensatory damages only on the plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and not on the Title claims. These instructions were clear. They could not have misled the jury and, therefore, were not erroneous. See Broderick, 136 N.H. at 164, 614 A.2d at 607. The defendants also argue that there was insufficient evidence to support an award of enhanced compensatory damages. \u201cIn reviewing damages awards, we will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and we will not disturb the decision of the factfinder unless it is clearly erroneous.\u201d Great Lakes Aircraft Co. v. City of Claremont, 135 N.H. 270, 295, 608 A.2d 840, 856 (1992). The jury's determination that the defendants' conduct was wanton or oppressive was supported by the defendants' failure to investigate promptly and vigorously the allegations of Professor Young's conduct that were reported to professors and administrators. See Panas, 129 N.H. at 608, 529 A.2d at 986. Therefore, the award of enhanced compensatory damages was not clearly erroneous. See Great Lakes Aircraft Co., 135 N.H. at 295, 608 A.2d at 856. 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 6/13 V. Award of Prejudgment Interest The defendants' final argument is that the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff prejudgment interest based on her recovery on the fiduciary duty claim. The defendants argue that because the plaintiff received a general verdict on damages and then sought to recover her costs and attorney's fees with respect to her Title claims, she waived her right to recover prejudgment interest under State law. This argument is without merit. New Hampshire law provides for prejudgment interest to be awarded in \u201ccivil proceedings at law \u2024 in which a verdict is rendered or a finding is made for pecuniary damages to any party 524:1-b (1997 524:1-b does not limit the award to situations in which the verdict is based only on a State law claim. Therefore, there is no reason why a plaintiff who obtains verdicts on both State and federal claims and seeks to recover attorney's fees pursuant to a federal statute may not seek prejudgment interest on the award of damages for the State law claim. Doing so would not result in a double recovery. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly awarded the plaintiff prejudgment interest on the award of damages for her fiduciary duty claim. In sum, we affirm the trial court's decisions to deny the defendants' motion for a directed verdict on the plaintiff's fiduciary duty claim, to permit the jury to award enhanced compensatory damages, and to award the plaintiff prejudgment interest. We remand issues relating to the Title claims. Affirmed in part; remanded in part. BROCK, C.J. BRODERICK, J., did not sit; THAYER, J., sat but did not participate in the decision; the others concurred. Was this helpful? Yes No 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 7/13 Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law v (1999) Docket No: No. 97-585. Decided: December 16, 1999 Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Need to find an attorney? 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 8/13 Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 For Legal Professionals 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 9/13 Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * \uf105 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 10/13 Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 11/13 Find a lawyer Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 12/13 Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles By Name Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/13/25, 10:25 v (1999) | FindLaw 13/13", "7513_102.pdf": "Features Book Excerpts About Submissions Follow Us: Blogs > Liberty and Power > Wolf III: To Grieve or Not to Grieve? History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now. Sign up for the Newsletter Subscribe Learn More First Name Last Name Email Address * Weekly Feature Weekly Roundup With support from the University of Richmond 2/13/25, 10:25 Wolf III: To Grieve or Not to Grieve? \u2014 History News Network 1/7 Mar 24, 2004 Wolf III: To Grieve or Not to Grieve? by Liberty and Power (Continued from Parts and II.) Harold Bloom doesn\u2019t get off the hook, just because Naomi Wolf has the bad faith to bring out the old victimological ploys while denying that what she is up to. Assuming that things went roughly as she recounted them, Harold Bloom did do something wrong. He didn\u2019t just get drunk and put a crude move on a student whose work he was grading, he blew off his basic responsibilities as an instructor professor who takes on a student for an independent study course is expected to give the student assignments, to track progress on them, and to meet with the student weekly. It isn\u2019t clear from Wolf\u2019s account whether he met with her in his office once or twice, or never bothered to at all. But soon enough, if she is telling the truth, he was dodging meetings with her. There was only the fateful dinner, and afterward, no further contact\u2014she says her poems went into his box in the department mailroom, and his final grade report was mailed to her. Simply for failing to hold up his end of an independent study course, Bloom deserved to get chewed out by his department chair. (Unless, of course, Bloom had been extended the privilege of enrolling students in independent study courses without having to meet with them. In that case, his department and the upper administration needed to review the wisdom of keeping such a prima donna on the payroll.) Wolf had multiple opportunities to seek justice, or at least some acknowledgment of wrongdoing. She says she was too scared to try any of them. She was convinced that her academic adviser would rate Bloom\u2019s interests over hers. She doesn\u2019t mention either Bloom\u2019s department chair or the dean of the college (though at one point she insists that a trip to the dean\u2019s office is \u201cintimidating\u201d to students per se). She says she wanted to file a grievance\u2026 and was talked out of it. In 2/13/25, 10:25 Wolf III: To Grieve or Not to Grieve? \u2014 History News Network 2/7 fact, \u201csome women friends\u201d talked her out of speaking to \u201canyone official.\u201d \u201cIn the absence of transparent procedures, decoding the right rumors was how you survived.\u201d You would think Wolf and her friends were helpless inmates of some total institution, not students at an elite university. Undergraduates are not known for their deep knowledge of the way a university works. If any of Wolf\u2019s friends had ever filed a grievance against a faculty member, she doesn\u2019t mention it. One supposedly told her about a woman whose complaint against a male graduate student was not upheld by the Grievance Board\u2014with the alleged result that the woman had a breakdown and dropped out of Yale. (Other portions of Wolf\u2019s account suggest that some of her friends were Bloomian acolytes themselves. Could any of them have been more interested in protecting the guru than in supporting her should note that Jennifer Weiner, an Ivy League contemporary of Wolf\u2019s, has little patience with this kind of story: As someone who attended a similar institution in roughly the same era that Wolf did can assure you that Ivy League undergrads are practically marinated in entitlement. If you had a beef with anything, be it person or policy, you felt perfectly entitled, justified, and encouraged to tell someone. Even if you were on financial aid. Even if you were female. By the time got to Princeton, in the heyday of P.C., especially the women. In any event, Naomi Wolf never talked to a faculty member or an administrator about her run-in with Bloom. Her parents asked a professor they knew to intervene\u2014she says he declined to get involved\u2014 and that was the end of it. The New York Observer article indicates that she would never have had to be alone in a room with Harold Bloom during grievance hearings, undermining at least one of her stated reasons for avoiding the process will add that faculty members often make the opposite complaint from Wolf\u2019s: they think that grievance procedures of the kind that Yale was using are tilted against the professor, not the student, when sexual misconduct is being alleged. That said have a little sympathy with Wolf concerning institutional grievance proceedings. Flagrantly political decisions can happen in the best of them. Where witnesses cannot be cross-examined (a lot of grievance procedures do not allow it), some may lie with impunity to the grievance panel. 2/13/25, 10:25 Wolf III: To Grieve or Not to Grieve? \u2014 History News Network 3/7 However we might evaluate it, the extreme confidentiality that Wolf complains about is commonplace have seen how grievance proceedings work, both in a three-initial corporation where was once employed, and in academia where am now, so think have some basis for generalizing fair and reliable procedure will be able to find for an employee against a manager, or for a student against a professor, when the manager or the professor is in the wrong. But the penalty assessed against the offender is frequently not revealed to the person who filed the successful grievance (it never was in the three-initial corporation\u2019s process, just as Wolf says it never is at Yale). Naturally, if the offender is pushed into quitting, or is removed from a management position, the outcome will be visible\u2014but how and why it occurred will be known to very few. Lesser sanctions will be kept officially quiet, and may not even become the subject of rumor. Wolf, then, is at best na\u00efve when she complains about lack of transparency as though it is unique to Yale University (\u201cas secretive as a Masonic lodge,\u201d she laments). Suppose an irate alumna of Clemson University called the president\u2019s office, or a dean\u2019s office, and demanded to know the outcome of a particular grievance not involving herself. Or suppose she demanded to know what penalties had been imposed against administrators or professors who had been on the losing side in grievance procedures over the past so many years. She would be told that these were personnel matters, grievance proceedings are highly confidential--now please go away. If a former employee were to call the offices of a high-level manager in a three-initial corporation, asking questions of this kind, the response would be identical in content, and probably brusquer in manner. We can certainly debate the rationale for such policies have heard it said that corporate managers would never consent to be subject to grievance proceedings, unless they could be spared public humiliation when the rulings went against them. Maybe so, but that\u2019s a strictly pragmatic appeal to existing \u201cpower relations.\u201d Wolf correctly recognizes that \u201cthe reputation of the university\u201d and \u201cdamage control\u201d are highly motivating to university administrators. Naturally, fear of lawsuits stimulates wagon-circling, and some of those suits are filed under Federal sexual harassment law (as Wolf is aware, both the 2/13/25, 10:25 Wolf III: To Grieve or Not to Grieve? \u2014 History News Network 4/7 Federal law and Yale policies and procedures mandated by a Federal judge were in place by the time of her run-in with Bloom). But it isn\u2019t just sexual improprieties that prompt such fears. She\u2019d have gotten no further, in her conversations with Yale administrators, had she demanded to know how administrators had been penalized when they were found to have misused university funds, or how professors were disciplined, when they were caught issuing fraudulent grades or driving drunk with students on board. Wolf doesn\u2019t let such details complicate the picture. What\u2019s clearly false is Wolf\u2019s assertion that university grievance boards (or administrative rulings made without a grievance procedure) never go in favor of female students who have brought complaints against male professors. On the contrary, sometimes they have found for female students whose charges against male professors were overblown, or fabricated outright. Daphne Patai\u2019s book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism presents a number of documented cases. For instance, Leroy Young was fired summarily from a tenured faculty position by the president of Plymouth State College-- without an investigation, immediately after Young had prevailed on appeal against a student who claimed that he had sexually harassed her. But you\u2019d never know that from Wolf\u2019s sample of unidentified size, drawn from an unknown number of unnamed universities: \u201cNot one of the women have heard from had an outcome that was not worse for her than silence\u2026 No one was met by a coherent process that was not weighted against them.\u201d Really? Another female student sued Leroy Young\u2014who had passed a polygraph test denying her charges\u2014and ended up collecting $115,000 from his former university. What\u2019s more, any decently conducted grievance proceeding would not have permitted Wolf to make unsupported assertions, as she does in her article, that Harold Bloom was propositioning other female students, or subjecting them to unwanted touching, or having affairs with them. Her entire evidence to those effects consists of rumors that she heard in 1983 plus rumors that a couple of her sources heard at other times. If Bloom was laying his racket all over town, why couldn\u2019t Wolf, with her extensive connections, turn up one other Yale alumna who wanted to describe her bad experience with him? Maybe Wolf was just being lazy, 2/13/25, 10:25 Wolf III: To Grieve or Not to Grieve? \u2014 History News Network 5/7 as somewhat better quality sources have suggested that Bloom had affairs. For instance, a published interview in from 1990 described how the door to Bloom\u2019s home was opened by a younger woman, obviously not his wife, who stuck around the entire time that the interviewer was on the premises. But you\u2019d think Wolf would have regarded corroboration as vitally important\u2026 Indeed, a grievance proceeding might have led to challenges to her story. Until the other two diners depart, and Wolf puts her poems in front of Bloom, we have no idea from her published accounts what sort of interaction was going on between them, for she retells not one word of their conversation. Or is asking \u201cWhat did you say to him?\u201d as off- limits as asking \u201cWhat were you wearing\u201d? Continued in Part IV. Comments for this thread are now closed Share Best Newest Oldest \u00d7 0 Comments \ue603 1 Login This discussion has been closed. Subscribe Privacy Do Not Sell My Data \uf109 More Comments: Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006 was a contemporary of Jennifer Weiner's at Princeton, and can attest to the accuracy of her claims. If anything, she understates things. And Weiner was not exactly on the Right can assure you. The outstanding event at Princeton in the spring of 1991 was an undergraduate's false and public accusation--at a \"Take Back the Night\" rally--that she had been raped by some prep school ogre in one of the laundry rooms on campus was physically present when she made 2/13/25, 10:25 Wolf III: To Grieve or Not to Grieve? \u2014 History News Network 6/7 the accusation.) Two months later it emerged that she had fabricated the whole thing and picked out the accused's name at random from the campus directory. What happened to the accuser? Very little, if anything few weeks ago saw an entry in the alumni magazine about how she's recently been doing. Just fine, thank you don't mind trashing Harold Bloom's reputation for his decades-old malfeasances. But if those are the rules of the game, let's apply them equally and trash everyone in a fair way 2025 RESERVED. Subscribe to the Newsletter Brought to you by 2/13/25, 10:25 Wolf III: To Grieve or Not to Grieve? \u2014 History News Network 7/7", "7513_103.pdf": "Young v. Plymouth State College CV-96-075 09/21/99 Leroy S. Young and Tatum Young v. Civil No. 96-75 Plymouth State College, University System of New Hampshire, and Donald P. Wharton The plaintiffs, Leroy and Tatum Young, bring a civil rights action and related state law claims against Leroy Young's former employer, Plymouth State College, the University System of New Hampshire, and the college president, Donald P. Wharton. The Youngs allege that the defendants terminated Young's employment, based on students' charges of sexual harassment, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and in breach of the reguirements of the Faculty Handbook.1 They also contend that defendant Donald Wharton's press conference about the charges constituted defamation and an invasion of privacy. The defendants move for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' claims. 1Although the plaintiffs state, in the jurisdictional statement of their complaint, that their claims arise under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, they do not allege a claim under the First Amendment. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate when \"the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The party seeking summary judgment must first demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact in the record. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). \" [A]n issue is 'genuine' if the evidence presented is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the issue in favor of the nonmoving party and a 'material' fact is one that might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.\" Faiardo Shopping Ctr. v. Sun Alliance Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1999) . When considering a motion for summary judgment, the record evidence is taken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Zambrana-Marrero v. Suarez-Cruz, 172 F.3d 122, 125 (1st Cir. 1999). To avoid summary disposition, a party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment must present record facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). 2 Background2 The plaintiffs, Leroy and Tatum Young, are husband and wife. Leroy Young was a tenured full-time associate professor in the Art Department at Plymouth State College in August of 1993 when a student, Jennifer Often, complained about Young's language and conduct toward her. The Dean of Faculty, Theodora Kalikow, and the Dean of Student Affairs, Richard Hage, reported Often's complaint to the college president, Donald Wharton. Kalikow and the College's Director of Personnel, Suz-Ann Ring, met with Young to discuss Often's complaint. Young felt that Kalikow and Ring demonstrated an anti-male hostility. An attorney representing Young wrote to Kalikow on September 16, 1993, about the complaint and the College's procedures in handling the complaint. On September 17, 1993, Kalikow reported to Wharton that she had received a complaint about Young from another student. Rose Marie Bente, who said that Young had sexually harassed her and 2The background facts are taken from the parties' factual statements. The court notes that the plaintiff improperly included argument and legal characterizations in his factual statement. See 7.2(b)(2). To the extent the plaintiff does not dispute the defendants' properly supported facts, they are deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment. Id. Since neither party challenges the affidavits submitted by the other, any objections are deemed waived. See Casas Office Machs. v. Mita Copystar America, 42 F.3d 668, 682 (1st Cir. 1994) (\"Unless a party moves to strike an affidavit under Rule 56(e), any objections are deemed waived and a court may consider the affidavit.\"). 3 made threatening statements toward Otten. Wharton asked Kalikow to notify Young to have no further contact with Otten or Bente until the complaints were resolved. Kalikow sent a letter to that effect on October 1. In early October, a former Plymouth State College student, Tracy Schneider, sent Kalikow a letter alleging that she had been sexually harassed by Young while she was a student from November of 1990 until June of 1992. Schneider decided not to provide more information about her allegations after Kalikow told her that the period for filing a formal complaint had expired. In mid-October, Otten and Bente made formal complaints of sexual harassment against Young. Otten and Bente received help from Kalikow and from the College's general counsel in drafting their complaints. On October 22, 1993, Wharton met with Young and asked him to take an administrative leave of absence with pay until the complaints by Otten and Bente were resolved. Young accepted, under protest, Wharton's offer of a temporary leave with pay. Young was barred from the campus, and his classes were reassigned to other professors. The College's Sexual Harassment Hearings Panel convened on November 5, 1993, to consider Otten's complaint against Young. On November 6, the Panel delivered its report in which the Panel 4 concluded \"that sexual harassment did occur in that unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome touching and other verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature occurred which had the effect of unreasonably interfering with Ms. Otten's academic environment.\" Defs. Ex. 12. The Panel recommended that a letter of warning be placed in Young's file, that provisions should be made for Otten to work with other faculty, that Young receive training including classroom observation, and that Young should not return to teaching \"until the administration is satisfied that it is appropriate.\" Id. In response, on November 15, Wharton notified Young by letter that a letter of reprimand would be placed in his file and that he would be suspended for sixty days without pay. Young appealed the Panel's decision. The University System's General Counsel, Ronald Rodgers, told Wharton that he had been contacted by Attorney Ken Brown representing Otten and Bente and that they intended to file suit against the College. Brown later notified Rodgers that Bente did not intend to pursue her complaint filed with the College, and that he had talked with Schneider about her allegations of sexual harassment against Young. Rodgers and Dean of Students Hage met with Schneider at Brown's office on December 1, 1993. Schneider related a series of events of a sexual nature with Young between the fall of 1990 and the summer of 1992. Schneider also said 5 that she had told several other students about Young's actions when they happened, and that those students discussed her allegations against Young with two other professors. Hage reported Schneider's allegations to Wharton. At about the same time, Otten, Bente, and Schneider, represented by Brown, served a state writ of summons to initiate actions against Young, the College, and the University System of New Hampshire. Each of the plaintiffs filed affidavits in connection with the suit detailing their allegations. Wharton and Rodgers met with Leroy and Tatum Young and their attorney, Michael Garner, on December 29, 1993. Wharton described Schneider's allegations against Young, and Young denied them. Young also told Wharton that he had taken a polygraph test with respect to Schneider's allegations and gave him a copy that showed Young's denials of three major incidents alleged by Schneider were truthful. Young told Wharton that Schneider had given him gifts including a book of love poetry, a bottle of Scotch, and an inscribed copy of the book. The Thorn Birds. Wharton said that he would investigate the matter further. At Wharton's reguest, Rodgers interviewed the two professors who Schneider identified as having known about her allegations of Young's harassment soon after it happened. The two professors confirmed that students had reported the harassment to them, and 6 one said she had offered assistance to Schneider who refused to speak without a promise of absolute confidentiality. Wharton interviewed Schneider who repeated her allegations and also told Wharton that Young had given her gifts during the period. Wharton also interviewed the two professors, and called two former students, whom Schneider said she told about the incidents. The professors and the former students confirmed Schneider's story. In January of 1994, Wharton called Young to tell him that he would not be teaching at the beginning of the spring semester. Wharton and Young planned to meet on February 2, 1994, but when Young's wife accompanied him, Wharton canceled the meeting. On February 6, the Sexual Harassment Appeals Panel overturned all but one of the findings of the Sexual Harassment Panel that the incidents alleged by Otten constituted sexual harassment, and also found that the investigation of the complaint had been inadeguate. The Appeals Panel reversed the sanctions previously imposed but also imposed new restrictions on Young's activities. In response, Wharton wrote to Young that his administrative leave would continue with pay pending resolution of the investigation of Schneider's allegations. Wharton wrote to William Farrell, Chancellor of the University System of New Hampshire, on February 17, 1994, 7 providing him with a chronology and detail about the complaints and allegations against Young. At the end of the letter, Wharton wrote that he intended to charge Young with \"deliberate and flagrant neglect of duty and moral delinguency,\" to meet with him, and unless an agreement could be reached, to dismiss Young. Pi. Ex. 20. Wharton met with Leroy and Tatum Young and the College's general counsel, Rodgers, on March 3, 1994. The Youngs' attorney was notified of the meeting but could not attend. Wharton discussed Schneider's allegations including the gifts and told Young he found Schneider's story to be credible. When asked, Wharton refused to identify the students and faculty who had confirmed Schneider's allegations. Young denied all of Schneider's allegations. Young says he understood the meeting was related to the lawsuit, and did not realize that he might face dismissal from his job. Wharton wrote to Young in a letter dated March 15, 1994, \"[a]s you well know, a former student of yours, Tracy Schneider, recently complained to Plymouth State College about your treatment of her while she was a student.\" Pi. Ex. 25. Wharton said he had concluded that he had \"no choice but to initiate a dismissal action\" against Young and under the faculty personnel policies he charged Young \"with deliberate and flagrant neglect of duty and moral delinguency of a grave order tending to injure the reputation of the College.\" Id. Wharton also noted the personnel policy requirement that he meet with Young to try to resolve the problem and set a meeting for March 21 at Wharton's office. At the meeting on March 21, Wharton gave Young copies of pages of the Faculty Handbook pertinent to dismissal proceedings and asked if he had any proposal to resolve the problem without dismissal. Young denied the charges and said he would oppose dismissal. Wharton said that his only choice was dismissal. Wharton wrote to Young on March 25, 1994, notifying him that he was dismissed from the faculty. On March 28, Wharton announced Young's dismissal in a press release in which Wharton discussed Schneider's charges against Young and attached Schneider's affidavit. On the same day. Chancellor Farrell sent a confidential memorandum to the members of the board of trustees of the University System of New Hampshire notifying them of Wharton's decision to dismiss Young. Under the provisions of the Faculty Handbook, Young sought an appeal to the Faculty Review Committee of Wharton's decision to dismiss him. On April 19, 1994, the Faculty Review Committee sent a letter to Wharton stating that it would submit findings without making any recommendation. Pi. Ex. 30. The Committee found that Young was exonerated by the Sexual Harassment Appeals Panel of the charges brought against him, that the Appeals Panel's recommendation to reinstate Young was not followed, that the Review Committee lacked jurisdiction over Schneider who was no longer a student and was not \"privy to all of the information which might have formed the basis of the president's decision.\" Id. The Review Committee found that Young presented a \"prima facie case in his defense\" and said that it \"was unable to determine the basis of the extraordinary form and content of the President's press release on Professor Young.\" Id. Finding the case \"extraordinary,\" the Review Committee found a need for new policies and procedures to involve faculty representatives in a decision to dismiss tenured faculty. Id. Young sought to appeal the Review Committee's report. After some initial confusion due to the nature of the Review Committee's decision, an Appeal Committee was established to \"review the case to determine whether Professor Young was properly dismissed for cause by President Wharton in accordance with the Faculty Handbook.\" PI. Ex. 39. The appeal hearing was held on May 5, 1995. Both Young and the College were represented by counsel at the hearing. The Appeals Committee heard testimony from Schneider, Leroy Young, Tatum Young, Wharton, one of the students in whom Schneider had confided, and the two professors who had heard about Schneider's allegations while she was a student. 10 On November 27, 1995, the Appeal Committee issued its report and recommendation with a dissent by two members. The Appeal Committee found that Wharton \"did not properly interpret and apply the Faculty Handbook procedures regarding dismissal for cause when he made Professor Young's dismissal effective immediately,\" that the press release was \"inappropriate and potentially damaging for all parties concerned,\" that Wharton \"did not have a sufficient basis for effecting Professor Young's dismissal,\" and \"that a 3-2 majority of the Committee finds the evidence now before it sufficient to recommend dismissal for cause.\" Defs. Ex. 23 at 22. Based on its findings, the Appeal Committee recommended that Young's dismissal be rescinded, that \"the College negotiate a monetary sum due Professor Young in lost pay and benefits for the period from the commencement of his suspension without pay to the conclusion of all proceedings,\" and, unless further appeals were available, that Young be dismissed for cause at the conclusion of all proceedings. Id. Young's attorney notified the College's counsel that Young had decided not to seek any further hearing of the matter. Wharton sent Young a letter on January 12, 1996, notifying him that his official records would be modified to change his status on March 25, 1994, from \"dismissed\" to \"suspension with pay\" and that the College would pay him for lost salary and benefits as 11 recommended by the Appeal Committee. Wharton also notified Young that subject to further appeal, he was dismissed for cause as of the date of the letter. PI. Ex. 41. Young says that the writ of summons alleging claims by Otten, Bente, and Schneider which was served on his counsel on January 3, 1994, was not entered in Grafton County Superior Court by the return date causing their suit to lapse. He also says that Otten and Bente voluntarily dismissed their claims after they were pending in Grafton County Superior Court. On May 28, 1995, Schneider sued the College and the University System of New Hampshire alleging claims based on sexual harassment by Young. The outcome of Schneider's suit is unknown. Young brought this suit against the College, the University System, and Wharton in February of 1996. Discussion Leroy Young brings claims under 42 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his procedural and substantive due process rights in terminating his employment.3 He also alleges that the defendants breached the provisions of the Faculty 3Although Young mentions violations of his First Amendment rights in his objection to summary judgment, his does not appear to have alleged a claim based on violation of his First Amendment rights. 12 Handbook and their duty of good faith and fair dealing, and that the news release was defamatory and put Young in a false light. Tatum Young brings a claim for loss of consortium. The defendants move for summary judgment on several grounds. The College and the University System argue that they are not liable under 42 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1983 based on a respondeat superior theory, and they contend that the plaintiffs have not pled and cannot show that a policy or practice existed which caused a violation of Young's due process rights. The defendants also contend that Young cannot prove either his procedural or substantive due process claims. The defendants move for judgment in their favor on the claims based on the Faculty Handbook on grounds that the Handbook disclaimed any contractual obligation, that all of the proceedings complied with the Handbook, and that Young waived claims of breach by not pursuing grievance procedures provided in the Handbook. As to the defamation and invasion of privacy claims, the defendants assert that Wharton was privileged to make the news release, that Young was a public figure and would not be able to prove malice, and that the information in the release was not false. 13 A. Section 1983 Claims Against the College and the University System4 The defendants do not contest that the College and the University System are \"persons\" within the meaning of section 1983.5 Government entities, such as the College and the University System, are not liable under section 1983 based on a theory of vicarious liability. See Monell v. New York City Dept, of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689 (1978). Therefore, a governmental entity \"may not be sued under \u00a7 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.\" Id. at 694. \"Instead, a plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a [government entity] under \u00a7 1983 must identify a [governmental] 4Young's \u00a7 1983 claims against Wharton in his official capacity are construed as claims against the College and University System. See Negron Gaztambide v. Hernandez Torres, 145 .3d 410, 416 (1st Cir. 1998). 5Section 1983 provides in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in action at law, suit in eguity, or other proper proceedings for redress. 14 ''policy' or 'custom' that caused the plaintiff's injury.\" Silva v. Worden, 130 F.3d 26, 30-31 (1st Cir. 1997); see also Harris v. District Board of Trustees of Polk Community College, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1330 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (considering Monell criteria in context of college's liability); Harel v. Rutgers, 5 F. Supp. 2d 246, 267 (D.N.J. 1998) (same policy, custom, or practice is attributable to the governmental entity only if established by the entity's \"duly constituted legislative body or by those officials whose acts may fairly be said to be those of the [governmental entity].\" Board of County Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403-04 (1997); accord Silva v. Worden, 130 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1997). To constitute governmental policy for purposes of \u00a7 1983 liability, the official must have \"final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered.\" Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481 (1986). In addition, there must be a direct link between a policy attributable to the governmental entity and a deprivation of the plaintiff's federal rights. See Brown, 520 U.S. at 404 single decision or act by a policy maker may constitute policy attributable to a governmental entity if that conduct directly resulted in a deprivation of federal rights. See id. at 405-06; see also Rossi v. Town of Pelham, 35 F. Supp. 2d 58, 77 (D.N.H. 1997). Once an official policy is 15 established, the plaintiff must also show that the decision was made with the requisite level of culpability. See Brown, 520 U.S. at 411. Leroy Young argues that President Wharton and Chancellor Farrell were policy makers for the College and the University System. He contends that Wharton's decision to dismiss him, allegedly without due process, constituted policy for the College and that Farrell's alleged approval of the decision constituted policy for the University System. Young provides no specific evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment that either Wharton or Farrell was the final decision maker with respect to decisions to dismiss tenured faculty, which is the policy at issue in this case. Cf. McHenry v. Pennsylvania State Svs. of Higher Educ., 50 F. Supp. 2d 401, 416 n.21 (E.D. Pa. 1999). The record itself, however, offers some proof that Wharton was the final decision maker as to whether or not to dismiss Young since Wharton's decision directly resulted in Young's dismissal. In any case, the defendants do not appear to contest Wharton's authority to make final decisions on dismissal of tenured faculty. Neither party has discussed the effect of the appeals process on the finality of Wharton's decision. In contrast, the record shows that Chancellor Farrell merely 16 passed Wharton's decision along to the Board of Trustees of the University System and does not indicate that he had any decision\u00ad making authority as to the dismissal. Young does not argue that Wharton operated as the final decision maker for the University System. Since Young has not shown a triable issue that his dismissal was caused by the University System's policy, summary judgment is appropriate in favor of the University System as to Young's \u00a7 1983 claims. Wharton's decision to dismiss Young, allegedly made without affording Young due process, is a decision with a direct causal nexus to the harm alleged that could constitute policy based on a single decision. See Brown, 520 U.S. 504-506. Since factual issues remain as to whether Wharton's decisions are attributable to the College as policy, summary judgment is not appropriate for the College.6 . Due Process The defendants do not contest that Leroy Young had a constitutionally protected property interest in his tenured position. They contend, however, that Young received all of the process due under the constitution in the course of the dismissal 6The defendants have not challenged Young's evidence as to the level of culpability of the decision. 17 proceedings. The defendants also contend that because a postdeprivation remedy, in the form of a state law breach of contract claim, is available, he is not entitled to recover for any procedural due process deficiencies. In addition, the defendants argue that Young cannot show that their actions constituted a violation of his substantive due process rights. 1. Procedural Due Process The First Circuit has interpreted the reguirements of procedural due process under circumstances involving the dismissal of a tenured university professor in Cotnoir v. University of Maine Svs., 35 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1994) . \"Procedural due process guarantees an affected individual the right to some form of hearing, with notice and an opportunity to be heard, before he is divested of his protected interest.\" Id. at 10. Included in the right to notice is a reguirement that notice be provided of the proposed action. Id. at 11. Young contends that he was neither properly notified of the charges against him nor notified of the proposed action at a meaningful time. Although his dismissal was ostensibly based on the sexual harassment charges made by Tracy Schneider, Young contends, citing Wharton's deposition testimony, that Wharton also improperly and without notice to him considered Otten's and 18 Bente's charges, after both complaints had been resolved. In addition, he says, supported by his affidavit, that he was not notified that Wharton planned to dismiss him until after the decision had been made and when he was offered little opportunity to present his case. Based on the stringent notice reguirements set forth in Cotnoir, Young has raised a material factual issue as to whether he received constitutionally adeguate notice of the charges and proposed action against him. Postdeprivation relief provides an exception to the reguirement of predeprivation process only when predeprivation process was impossible, such as when the challenged actions were random and unauthorized, but not when the actions were pursuant to governmental policy. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 136-39 (1990); Loaan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-36 (1982); Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Prods. Inc, 68 F.3d 525, 536 (1st Cir. 1995). Actions by a final decision maker authorized to make particular policy in the challenged area generally are not random and unauthorized. See Easter House v. Felder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1402 (7th Cir. 1990); Dwyer v. Regan, 111 F.2d 825, 831-33 (2d Cir. 1985); Verri v. Nanna, 972 F. Supp. 773, 793-94 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); cf. Cronin v. Amesburv, 81 F.3d 257, 260 n.2 (1st Cir. 1996) (postdeprivation remedies relevant where plaintiff alleged his termination resulted from defendants' 19 random and unauthorized actions). Since Young has raised material factual questions as to whether Wharton was a final policy maker for the College, the defendants cannot show that Wharton's actions were indisputably random or unauthorized. Therefore, summary judgment is not appropriate based on the availability of postdeprivation relief. 2. Substantive Due Process Substantive due process prohibits impermissibly arbitrary governmental actions despite the fairness of the implementing procedures. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 840 (1998); accord Licari v. Ferruzi, 22 F.3d 344, 347 (1st Cir. 1994) (\"Procedural due process guarantees that a state proceeding which results in a deprivation of property is fair, while substantive due process ensures that such state action is not arbitrary and capricious.\"); Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 753 (1st Cir. 1990) (\"a substantive due process claim implicates the essence of state action rather than its modalities\"). Recently, the Supreme Court has explained that the substantive due process analysis depends on whether legislation or the conduct of a governmental officer is at issue. See Lewis, 523 U.S. at 846. When an executive decision is challenged as a violation of substantive due process, the standard to be applied is whether or 20 not the conduct is conscience shocking; \"[T]he threshold question is whether the behavior of the governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.\" Lewis, 523 U.S. at 847 and n.8. Prior to Lewis, the First Circuit established that an arbitrary and capricious decision to dismiss a tenured teacher violates substantive due process. See Newman v. Massachusetts, 884 F.2d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 1989). In that context, a decision based on a trivial reason or a reason unrelated to the educational process was deemed to be arbitrary.7 Id. at 24. Young argues that Wharton's decision to dismiss him based on Schneider's charges, and influenced by Otten's and Rente's charges, was lacking in factual support and was therefore arbitrary. He contends that his polygraph results so undermined Schneider's credibility that Wharton had no basis to believe her. Wharton also characterizes Schneider's charges as trivial: \"a tepid, almost bumbling affair.\" Pi. Memo, at 11. Nothing in Wharton's decision making is sufficiently outrageous or egregious that a reasonable jury could find it 7Since Wharton's decision was not a \"genuine academic decision,\" it is not entitled to the deference decisions based on an evaluation of academic criteria or credentials would be accorded. See Newman v. Burain, 930 F.2d 955, 962 (1st Cir. 1991) (citing Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 223 (1985)). 21 conscience shocking. The decision to dismiss Young based on Schneider's charges of sexual harassment, perhaps influenced by the other charges of sexual harassment, even if wrong, was not outrageous. If the Newman arbitrariness standard survives Lewis, the record does not show a sufficient lack of factual support for Wharton's decision to constitute arbitrary decision making. See Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 754 n.5 (1st Cir. 1990) (\"the reguisite arbitrariness and caprice must be stunning\"). Schneider's charges, if believed, describe sexual harassment, and dismissal of a teacher for sexual harassment of a student is not arbitrary or capricious. See, e.g., Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (discussing school's liability under Title for teacher's harassment of student). In fact, even Young's characterization of Schneider's allegations, as an attempt by a professor to instigate a \"tepid\" or \"bumbling\" affair with a student, could reasonably be found to amount to sexual harassment. Therefore, under either standard. Young has not demonstrated a trialworthy issue on his claim of a violation of his right to substantive due process. See, e.g., Tonkovich v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 529 (10th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Young's substantive due process claim. 22 3. Qualified Immunity In a section 1983 case, \"government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a gualified immunity and are 'shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'\" Wilson v. Layne, 119 S. Ct. 1692, 1698-99 (1999) (guoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)); accord Sheehv v. Plymouth, 1999 685670 at *2 (1st Cir. Sept. 8, 1999). The gualified immunity analysis, therefore, reguires two steps to determine: (1) whether the constitutional right in guestion, at the appropriate level of generality, was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct; and (2) \"whether a reasonable, similarly situated official would understand that the challenged conduct violated the established right.\" Napier v. Windham, 1999 566567 at *4 (1st Cir. Aug. 6, 1999); see also Bradv v. Dill, 1999 508812 at *10 (1st Cir. July 22, 1999) . Leroy Young alleges that Wharton violated his right to procedural due process in the manner in which he decided to dismiss Young from his employment. More specifically. Young charges that Wharton failed to give him notice that he might be dismissed at a meaningful time before he made the decision and 23 improperly relied in part on charges by Otten and Bente, which he had not told Young were included in the charges being considered against him. Young also argues, less convincingly, that Wharton failed to provide him an adeguate explanation of the evidence against him. Procedural due process rights to be accorded a tenured professor before dismissing him from employment were clearly established in 1993 and 1994 when the events in guestion in this case occurred. See Cotnoir, 35 F.3d at 10-11. As discussed above, the facts pertaining to Wharton's decision-making process are disputed.8 In addition, the defendants argument in favor of gualified immunity that Wharton \"carefully adhered to the provisions in the Faculty Handbook\" is called into guestion by the Appeals Committee's conclusion that Wharton did not properly interpret or apply the pertinent provisions of the Handbook. Summary judgment on gualified immunity grounds is appropriate only when there is no dispute as to material facts. See Swain v. Spinney, 117 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1997). Wharton has not demonstrated that he is entitled to gualified immunity based on the record presented for summary judgment. 81he College, which is a government entity like a municipality, is not entitled to gualified immunity. See Leatherman v. Tarrant Countv Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). 24 . Breach of Contract The defendants move for summary judgment on Young's breach of contract and related breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing claims. The defendants contend that Wharton complied with all of the Handbook provisions, that the Handbook disclaimer precludes the claims, and that Young waived his claims by not challenging the procedures during the administrative process material factual dispute exists as to whether Wharton complied with the Handbook provisions, which precludes summary judgment based on the defense that no breach of the provisions occurred. The guestion of whether an employer's handbook, manual, or policy statement creates an enforceable contract ordinarily arises in the context of an at-will employee whose employment is not otherwise subject to express contractual obligations. See Butler v. Walker Power, Inc., 137 N.H. 432, 435-36 (1993). Here, since Young was tenured, not an at-will employee, he was presumably subject to dismissal only for cause, and it is likely that he and the College had some contractual arrangement for his employment. The defendants contend, based on the disclaimer, that the Handbook did not provide contractual provisions for handling the charges made against Young or his dismissal. An employer's handbook or policy statement may form an enforceable unilateral contract. See Panto v. Moore Business 25 Forms, Inc., 130 N.H. 730, 735 (1988). An employer may avoid contractual obligations by including a sufficiently explicit disclaimer in the handbook. See Butler, 137 N.H. at 436-37; see also Riesgo v. Heidelberg Harris, Inc., 36 F. Supp. 2d 53, 60 (D.N.H. 1997). The meaning of a disclaimer, as part of a contract, is construed as a matter of law. Id. at 435. The disclaimer is reviewed in the context of the entire agreement to determine the intent of the parties. Id. The disclaimer in the \"Handbook of the Plymouth State College Faculty\" provides as follows: The University System and Plymouth State College reserve the right to change any of the policies, rules, or regulations at any time, including those relating to salary, benefits, promotion and tenure, termination, or any other term or condition of employment. All changes are effective at such times as the proper authorities determine whether or not those changes are reflected in this Handbook. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of statements made in this Handbook, however, the actual terms and conditions of employment may differ from those described herein. Accordingly, this Handbook and its provisions do not, and should not be construed to create a contract of employment or establish any legally binding conditions of employment. If you have any guestions concerning the current status or applicability of any provision described in this Handbook you should consult with the Dean of the College or the Director of Personnel. Def. Ex. 2 disclaimer that a handbook does not create a contract of employment refers only to the durational aspect of employment, not to other benefits or contractual relationships 26 described in the handbook. See Butler, 137 N.H. at 437. The question is whether the disclaimer language, \"this Handbook and its provisions do not, and should not be construed to . . . establish any legally binding conditions of employment,\" effectively disclaims any agreement to abide by the complaint and termination procedures in the Handbook. Since complaint and termination procedures may be reasonably construed to be included within the meaning of \"conditions of employment,\" the Handbook, with sufficient specificity, disclaims any contractual right to implementation of those procedures. See, e.g., Riesgo, 36 F. Supp. 2d at 60. In addition, the disclaimer provides for changes in the College's policies, rules, and regulations, if changes are implemented by those with authority, whether or not such changes are included in the Handbook. Young argues that Wharton is a final policy maker for the College who, therefore, has authority to implement changes in policy. To the extent that Young argues Wharton's decisions and actions established the College's policies, those new policies, not the published Handbook provisions, would constitute enforceable College policy. The resulting changed policy would negate Young's claims for breach of contract based on the provisions published in the Handbook. Therefore, the Handbook disclaimer effectively prevented the 27 formation of any enforceable contract provisions with respect to the College's complaint and termination procedures. Young's claim alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based on the alleged contractual obligations in the Handbook. Absent contractual obligations, the claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing also fails. Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on the plaintiff's claim of breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing . Defamation and Invasion of Privacy Young brings claims for defamation and invasion of privacy alleging that the defendants defamed him and presented him in a false light in Wharton's press release about his decision to dismiss Young. The defendants, raising several defenses, assert that Young cannot prove either claim. Under New Hampshire law, \"[t]o establish defamation, there must be evidence that a defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in publishing, without a valid privilege, a false and defamatory statement of fact about the plaintiff to a third party.\" Independent Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Gordon T. Burke & Sons, Inc., 138 N.H. 110, 118 (1993 statement is defamatory if 'it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him 28 in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.'\" Faigin v. Kelly, 1999 498565 at *3 (1st Cir. July 19, 1999) (guoting Restatement, Second, of Torts \u00a7 559 (1977) and applying New Hampshire law); see also Rossi v. Pelham, 35 F. Supp. 2d 58, 74 (D.N.H. 1997). The defendants argue that they were privileged to issue the press release. New Hampshire has recognized a conditional privilege \"'if the facts, although untrue, were published on a lawful occasion, in good faith, for a justifiable purpose, and with a belief, founded on reasonable grounds of its truth, ' provided that the statements are not made with actual malice.\" Simpkins v. Snow, 139 N.H. 735, 740 (1995) (guoting Chaanon v. Union-Leader Co., 103 N.H. 426, 437 ((1961)). But see Duchesnave v. Munro Enterprises, Inc., 125 N.H. 244, 253 (1984) (holding that the Chaanon privilege was inconsistent with the negligence standard for proving defamation). To the extent such a privilege still exists under New Hampshire law, the defendant bears the burden of proving its application in a particular case. See id. In support of their assertion of a conditional privilege, the defendants say only: It is a long-standing principle of New Hampshire law that a party cannot be held liable for a statement or publication tending to disparage private character if such a statement is called for by social duty or is necessary and proper to enable him to protect his own 29 interests or those of another, provided the statement is made in good faith without the intent to defame. Defs. memo at 16. The defendants cite cases that predate Chaanon and Duchesnave. They offer no factual basis to justify applying the conditional privilege in this case. Based on the record, the defendants have not carried their burden to show that they were privileged to issue the press release. The defendants also argue that Young was a public figure subject to a different and higher standard than a private plaintiff. In defamation actions, the plaintiff's status vis a vis the public determines the level of First Amendment protection accorded the defendant's speech. See Pendleton v. Haverhill, 156 F.3d 57, 66 (1st Cir. 1998 purely private plaintiff, with no public status, \"can succeed in defamation actions on a state-set standard of proof (typically negligence), whereas the Constitution imposes a higher hurdle for public figures and reguires them to prove actual malice.\" Id. (explaining evolution of First Amendment standard in defamation public figure plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the defamatory statements with actual malice. See Faigin, 1999 498565 at *4. Plaintiffs hold \"public figure\" status if they assume roles with particular prominence in society such as \"by occupying positions of 'persuasive power and influence,'\" or by \" 'thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of 30 particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.'\" Pendleton, 156 F.3d at 67 (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974)). It is the defendant's burden to prove that the plaintiff is a public figure. See Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. , 633 F.2d 583, 592 (1st Cir. 1980); see also Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d 1541, 1553 (4th Cir. 1994). The defendants contend that the controversy surrounding Young was a public controversy and that Young voluntarily thrust himself into the controversy by giving interviews to reporters, publishing a letter on campus, and holding a support rally. Young points out that there were different controversies, saying that the complaints filed with the College by Otten and Bente in the fall of 1993 were distinct from the later charges made by Schneider. The publicity attributable to Young that the defendants cite pertains to the Otten and Bente charges and the College's complaint procedures, not to the charges made by Schneider. In fact, the newspaper articles also refer to the College's press releases for much of their information. To find public figure status requires \"a detailed fact- sensitive determination\" both as to whether a public controversy existed and \"the nature and extent of the person's participation 31 in the controversy.\" Penobscot Indian Nation v. Key Bank of Maine, 112 F.3d 538, 562 (1st Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). The record presented by the defendants is not sufficient to prove that a public controversy existed as to Schneider's charges and the College's actions or that Young voluntarily thrust himself into the controversy by seeking publicity on the issues to such an extent as to abandon his private status. The defendants, therefore, have not carried their burden to prove that Young was a public figure. The defendants' argument in a footnote, based on New York law, that the malice standard should apply simply because the issue was one of public concern is insufficient for consideration on summary judgment. The defendants argue that Young cannot prove his claim of \"false light\" invasion of privacy because, they contend, he cannot show the publicity in the press release was false. While the New Hampshire Supreme Court said in dicta that it would recognize the tort of invasion of privacy based on a false light theory, the court provided little explanation of the elements of the claim other than publicity and falsity. See Hamberqer v. Eastman, 106 N.H. 107, 110 (1964). The court has not had occasion since 1964 to consider false light invasion of privacy.9 9Other jurisdictions that recognize false light invasion of privacy follow the elements provided in the Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 652 (1977): 32 The defendants argue that the press release was not false because Wharton properly determined that Schneider's charges were credible and he was authorized to dismiss Young. The propriety of Wharton's processes and the truth of his conclusions and statements, however, are hotly contested in this case. The defendants' asserted defenses of privilege and voluntary publicity fail for the same reasons as in the context of the defamation claims. The defendants have not demonstrated by undisputed facts that they are entitled to summary judgment on One who falsely gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. See, e.g., Ostrzenski v. Seiqel, 177 F.3d 245, 252 (4th Cir. 1999 (applying Maryland law); Frobose v. American Savings and Loan Ass'n , 152 F.3d 602, 617-18 (7th Cir. 1998) (applying Illinois law); Moldea v. New York Times Co., 15 F.3d 1137, 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1994); McGhee v. Sanilac County, 934 F.2d 89, 94 (6th Cir. 1991) (applying Michigan law); Zeran v. Diamond Broadcasting Inc., 19 F. Supp. 2d 1249, 1253 (W.D. Okla. 1997); McCammon & Assoc., Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Co., 716 P.2ds 490, 492 (Colo. Ct. App. 198 6). 33 Young's invasion of privacy claim. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion for summary judgment (document no. 59) is granted as to the plaintiff's \u00a7 1983 claims against the University System, the substantive due process claim, and the claims of breach of contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, motion is otherwise denied ORDERED. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. District Judge September 21, 1999 cc: Thomas F. Kehr, Esguire Michael D. Urban, Esguire Joseph M. McDonough III, Esguire The 34"} |
8,605 | John L. Comaroff | Harvard University | [
"8605_101.pdf",
"8605_102.pdf",
"8605_103.pdf",
"8605_104.pdf",
"8605_105.pdf",
"8605_106.pdf",
"8605_107.pdf",
"8605_108.pdf",
"8605_109.pdf"
] | {"8605_101.pdf": "The Crimson is a student-run nonprofit. Please support us by disabling AdBlock for our site. Harvard Anthropology Prof. John Comaroff Placed on Leave Following Sexual Harassment, Professional Misconduct Inquiries Harvard Quietly Resolves Anti- Palestinian Discrimination Complaint With Ed. Department Following Dining Hall Crowd Harvard College Won\u2019t Say It Tracked Wintersession Mo Sections 2/13/25, 10:25 Harvard Anthropology Prof. John Comaroff Placed on Leave Following Sexual Harassment, Professional Misconduct Inquiries | N\u2026 1/5 By Ariel H. Kim and Meimei Xu, Crimson Staff Writers January 21, 2022 Harvard Anthropology and African and African-American Studies professor John L. Comaroff was placed on unpaid administrative leave Thursday after University investigations found that he violated the school\u2019s sexual harassment and professional conduct policies. Comaroff, who has taught at Harvard since 2012, will be barred from teaching required courses and taking on any additional graduate student advisees through the next academic year, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Claudine Gay announced in an email to Anthropology and affiliates Thursday morning. Comaroff was placed on paid administrative leave in August 2020 after an investigation by The Crimson found that at least three female students were in contact with the University\u2019s Title Office regarding allegations of unwanted touching, verbal sexual harassment, and professional retaliation by Comaroff. Reviews conducted by Harvard\u2019s Office of Dispute Resolution and the found that Comaroff \u201cengaged in verbal conduct that violated the Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy and the Professional Conduct Policy,\u201d Gay wrote Thursday. \u201cThe findings of these reviews support the conclusion that Professor Comaroff\u2019s conduct has violated the fundamental norms of our community,\u201d Gay wrote. \u201cIn my role as Dean have determined that sanctions are warranted and proportionate to the severity of the behavior.\u201d In a statement Thursday, Comaroff denied the allegations of misconduct categorically deny all the accusations against me and object strongly to the University\u2019s failure to accord me a fair process and to respect my academic judgment,\u201d he wrote press release issued by Comaroff\u2019s legal team said that in a separate inquiry stemming from Title complaints, investigators found Comaroff responsible for one incident of verbal sexual harassment \u201carising from a brief conversation Professor John L. Comaroff has taught at Harvard since 2012. By Ryan N. Gajarawala Sections 2/13/25, 10:25 Harvard Anthropology Prof. John Comaroff Placed on Leave Following Sexual Harassment, Professional Misconduct Inquiries | N\u2026 2/5 Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter during an office hour advising session.\u201d But the release said that investigators found \u201cno sexual or romantic intention.\u201d \u201cUpon receipt of these results, Harvard opened a second, kangaroo court process \u2013 lacking the most elemental aspects of due process and artificially limited to a defective record \u2013 to reexamine conduct already thoroughly investigated in the Title process,\u201d the release said of the inquiry. \u201cThis process resulted in an illegitimate finding that Professor Comaroff was responsible for alleged unprofessional (but entirely non-sexual) conduct in another office hours advising session,\u201d it added. \u201cEven in the latter proceedings, the factfinder concluded that the alleged harm \u2018may not have been intended.\u2019\u201d Comaroff will not be allowed to chair any dissertation committees, according to Gay. Comaroff\u2019s current graduate student advisees must have at least one other co-advisor or may also choose to switch advisors with support provided by Harvard, Gay wrote. Gay added that after the next academic year, she will decide \u201cwhether to restore some or all of these privileges.\u201d \u2014Staff writer Ariel H. Kim can be reached at [email protected]. \u2014Staff writer Meimei Xu can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @MeimeiXu7 1. Harvard University Dining Services Ends New \u2018Pub Night\u2019 Menu After Student Complaints 2. Harvard Researchers Discover Origin of Indo-European Language Family 3. Mass General Brigham Announces Mass Layoffs for Administrative Employees 4. Harvard Prohibits Use of Assistants in Virtual Meetings Sections 2/13/25, 10:25 Harvard Anthropology Prof. John Comaroff Placed on Leave Following Sexual Harassment, Professional Misconduct Inquiries | N\u2026 3/5 5. Judge Dismisses Hate Crime Charges Against Harvard Graduate Students The Harvard Crimson's Guide To Your Summer Opportunities | 2025 Over 300+ courses at prestigious colleges and universities in the and are at your disposal Three Ways Collegiate Can Reduce Your Financial Stress With innovative financial tools combined with financial education, Collegiate empowers students to take control of their finances and build confidence in their money management skills Build Community at Harvard: Summer 2025 Proctor Opportunities Serve as a proctor for Harvard Summer School (HSS) students, either in the Secondary School Program (SSP), General Program (GP), or Pre-College Program Successful Law School Essays | 2024 With an increasingly competitive Law School admissions process, it's important to understand what makes an applicant stand out Huckberry Holiday Guide Welcome to your one-stop gifting destination for men and women\u2014it's like your neighborhood holiday shop, but way cooler Siddharth's Essay Admit Expert is a premium admissions consulting company, helping candidates secure admission to top B-schools across the globe with significant scholarships. Sections 2/13/25, 10:25 Harvard Anthropology Prof. John Comaroff Placed on Leave Following Sexual Harassment, Professional Misconduct Inquiries | N\u2026 4/5 The Harvard Crimson The University Daily, Est. 1873 News Opinion Arts Blog Magazine Videos Sports General Diversity & Inclusion Privacy Policy Rights & Permissions Sitemap Advertising Newsletters Journalism Programs Corrections Copyright \u00a9 2025 The Harvard Crimson, Inc. Sections 2/13/25, 10:25 Harvard Anthropology Prof. John Comaroff Placed on Leave Following Sexual Harassment, Professional Misconduct Inquiries | N\u2026 5/5", "8605_102.pdf": "Learn more about person walks through Harvard yard at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., December 7, 2023. REUTERS/Faith Ninivaggi/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights BOSTON, Aug 15 (Reuters) - Harvard University has settled a lawsuit accusing the Ivy League school of ignoring sexual harassment by a professor who three graduate students said had threatened their academic careers if they reported him. In a filing on Wednesday in federal court in Boston, the three women - Margaret Czerwienski, Lilia Kilburn and Amulya Mandava - voluntarily dismissed their 2022 lawsuit following months of mediation with Harvard. Their lawsuit gained national attention with its claims that John Comaroff, then an anthropology professor, for years kissed and groped students and threatened to sabotage students' careers if they complained. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The law firm that represented the women, Sanford Heisler Sharp, said it was \"glad that our clients will now be able to move on with their lives and careers.\" \"We're proud of our clients' courage in coming forward, speaking up about their experiences, and shedding light on important issues,\" the law firm said in a statement. Harvard and Comaroff's lawyer did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday. Comaroff, who retired earlier this year, issued a statement on his website in July calling the allegations false. Harvard settles lawsuit alleging it ignored sexual harassment By Nate Raymond August 15, 2024 12:18 \u00b7 Updated 6 months ago My News 2/13/25, 10:26 Harvard settles lawsuit alleging it ignored sexual harassment | Reuters %23MeToo-era lawsuit followed,\u2026 1/5 Read Next / Editor's Picks Technology Musk will pull OpenAI bid if ChatGPT maker remains non-profit, lawyers say 8:07 government workplace officials turn to courts after Trump fires them 11:02 Mexico could file suit against Google for 'Gulf of Mexico' name change 3:51 Litigation China's Tencent wins video copyright infringement case in district court 5:47 When the suit was filed, his lawyers said he categorically denied ever harassing or retaliating against any student. The #MeToo-era lawsuit followed an internal Harvard investigation that found Comaroff had engaged in verbal conduct that violated professional conduct and sexual harassment policies. The three women said they were among the students who reported Comaroff to Harvard officials. Despite their warnings, Harvard watched as he retaliated by ensuring the students would have \"trouble getting jobs,\" the lawsuit said. They said Harvard's inaction allowed Comaroff to repeatedly and forcibly kiss Kilburn and grope her in public, and claimed he graphically described ways she would be supposedly raped or killed in South Africa for being in a same-sex relationship. The lawsuit alleged Harvard violated Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, which protects students from discrimination based on sex, and various Massachusetts laws judge largely rejected Harvard's bid to dismiss the case in March 2023. Comaroff was not a defendant. On his website, he said that as a result of the \"fact-free allegations\" he had before his retirement become the subject of an \"ugly, ferocious campaign\" by activists on campus who had occupied his classrooms and pressured students not to take courses with him. Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here. Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Howard Goller Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. Nate Raymond Thomson Reuters Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at [email protected]. Suggested Topics: Criminal Litigation Employment Purchase Licensing Rights 2/13/25, 10:26 Harvard settles lawsuit alleging it ignored sexual harassment | Reuters %23MeToo-era lawsuit followed,\u2026 2/5 Latest Home Authors Topic Sitemap Archive Article Sitemap Media Videos Pictures Graphics Podcasts Browse World Business Markets Sustainability Legal Breakingviews Technology Investigations Sports Science Lifestyle About Reuters About Reuters Advertise with Us Careers Reuters News Agency Brand Attribution Guidelines Reuters and Industry Insight\u200b Legal Prominent California lawyer abused pandemic loan program, prosecutors say David Thomas August 16, 2024 Legal Trump hush money sentencing delayed to September, weeks before election Luc Cohen, Susan Heavey July 2, 2024 Legal Lawyer fired from law firm Husch Blackwell admits to tax crimes David Thomas May 22, 2024 Legal Harvard hires law firm King & Spalding amid House probe Mike Scarcella, David Thomas January 24, 2024 2/13/25, 10:26 Harvard settles lawsuit alleging it ignored sexual harassment | Reuters %23MeToo-era lawsuit followed,\u2026 3/5 Reuters Leadership Reuters Fact Check Reuters Diversity Report Stay Informed Download the App (iOS) Download the App (Android) Newsletters Information you can trust Reuters, the news and media division of Thomson Reuters, is the world\u2019s largest multimedia news provider, reaching billions of people worldwide every day. Reuters provides business, financial, national and international news to professionals via desktop terminals, the world's media organizations, industry events and directly to consumers. Follow Us Advertise With Us Advertising Guidelines Purchase Licensing Rights All quotes delayed a minimum of 15 minutes. See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays. Cookies Terms of Use Privacy Digital Accessibility Corrections Site Feedback \u00a9 2025 Reuters. All rights reserved Westlaw Build the strongest argument relying on authoritative content, attorney-editor expertise, and industry defining technology The most comprehensive solution to manage all your complex and ever-expanding tax and compliance needs. Checkpoint The industry leader for online information for tax, accounting and finance professionals. Workspace Access unmatched financial data, news and content in a highly-customised workflow experience on desktop, web and mobile. DataCatalogue Browse an unrivalled portfolio of real-time and historical market data and insights from worldwide sources and experts. World-Check Screen for heightened risk individual and entities globally to help uncover hidden risks in business relationships and human networks. Thomson Reuters Products Products 2/13/25, 10:26 Harvard settles lawsuit alleging it ignored sexual harassment | Reuters %23MeToo-era lawsuit followed,\u2026 4/5 2/13/25, 10:26 Harvard settles lawsuit alleging it ignored sexual harassment | Reuters %23MeToo-era lawsuit followed,\u2026 5/5", "8605_103.pdf": "comaroff.html Three students sued the university in 2022 over its response to reports of sexual harassment by John Comaroff, a renowned anthropology professor. Listen to this article \u00b7 3:34 min Learn more By Jesus Jim\u00e9nez Aug. 15, 2024 Three graduate students who sued Harvard University in 2022 over its response to sexual harassment allegations against a prominent professor reached a settlement with the university this week, court records show. The students \u2014 Margaret Czerwienski, Lilia Kilburn and Amulya Mandava \u2014 filed a federal lawsuit against Harvard in February 2022, claiming that the professor, John Comaroff, used his power to \u201cexploit aspiring scholars,\u201d and that the university failed to \u201cprotect students from sexual abuse.\u201d Mr. Comaroff, 79, \u201ckissed and groped students without their consent,\u201d and when the students complained, he \u201cthreatened to sabotage\u201d their careers, the lawsuit states. The professor denied the allegations. Court records show that the case moved to mediation late last year. The terms of the settlement this week have not been publicly disclosed. Harvard Settles Lawsuit Over Claims of Sexual Harassment by a Professor 2/13/25, 10:26 Harvard Settles Lawsuit Over Claims of Sexual Harassment by a Professor - The New York Times 1/3 court filing on Wednesday showed that the students and the university agreed to dismiss the case without costs, bringing an end to a matter that spurred student protests and prompted the university to investigate the claims against Mr. Comaroff. \u201cWe\u2019re proud of our clients\u2019 courage in coming forward, speaking up about their experiences and shedding light on important issues,\u201d Sanford Heisler Sharp, the law firm representing the three students, said in a statement on Thursday. \u201cWe are glad that our clients will now be able to move on with their lives and careers.\u201d From left, Margaret Czerwienski, Lilia Kilburn and Amulya Mandava on Harvard\u2019s campus in 2022. Vanessa Leroy for The New York Times Harvard and lawyers representing the university in the case did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday. Lawyers who represent Mr. Comaroff but were not involved in defending him in the lawsuit declined to comment on the case. 2/13/25, 10:26 Harvard Settles Lawsuit Over Claims of Sexual Harassment by a Professor - The New York Times 2/3 The Harvard Crimson, the university\u2019s student newspaper, reported on the settlement this week and on the sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Comaroff in 2020. Mr. Comaroff, who joined Harvard in 2012, was a prominent professor of African American studies and anthropology before he retired in June. In a statement announcing his retirement, Mr. Comaroff described the lawsuit against him as \u201cmeritless was falsely accused of harassment by one Harvard student, and of threatening retaliation against two others,\u201d he said. \u201cAfter a 14-month investigation was found not responsible for any of those accusations, save for one instance of verbal impropriety.\u201d According to the lawsuit, Mr. Comaroff sexually harassed Ms. Kilburn repeatedly, including on one occasion in 2017, when Mr. Comaroff kissed Ms. Kilburn without her permission while she was a prospective student. The lawsuit also claims that Mr. Comaroff threatened to sabotage the careers of Ms. Czerwienski and Ms. Mandava after he learned that they had told university faculty members about reports that Mr. Comaroff had sexually harassed another student besides Ms. Kilburn. Despite the students\u2019 complaints about Mr. Comaroff to the university, Harvard did not begin an investigation until The Crimson published reports of his misconduct, the lawsuit states. Mr. Comaroff was placed on administrative leave after the reports of sexual harassment surfaced. The lawsuit, Mr. Comaroff said in his statement, did not influence his decision to retire, but he said that the allegations and suit had been \u201cextremely hurtful given my decades of dedication to my teaching and my students.\u201d Jesus Jim\u00e9nez covers breaking news, online trends and other subjects. He is based in New York City. More about Jesus Jim\u00e9nez 2/13/25, 10:26 Harvard Settles Lawsuit Over Claims of Sexual Harassment by a Professor - The New York Times 3/3", "8605_104.pdf": "Students Sue Harvard Over Harassment by Lydialyle Gibson 2022 2/13/25, 10:26 Students Sue Harvard Over Harassment | Harvard Magazine 1/6 Demonstrators gathered outside the Science Center on February 14 before marching through the Yard JANUARY, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) announced sanctions against John Comaroff, professor of anthropology and of African and African Americans studies, following two separate investigations into allegations of sexual harassment. Comaroff is the latest in a series of Harvard faculty members to be sanctioned for sexual misconduct in recent years, and a few weeks after the announcement, three graduate students filed suit against Harvard, claiming that it had for years downplayed or ignored their harassment complaints against him. The Comaroff case roiled campus, prompting dueling open letters from faculty members, campus protests, and front-page news stories in national outlets. 2/13/25, 10:26 Students Sue Harvard Over Harassment | Harvard Magazine 2/6 The public drama surrounding Comaroff began in 2020, when Harvard placed him on paid administrative leave pending an investigation, after allegations surfaced in the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Crimson that he had harassed three graduate students: Lilia Kilburn, Margaret Czerwienski, and Amulya Mandava. Those allegations (both as reported in 2020 and subsequently included in the lawsuit the three women filed this year) included unwelcome kissing and touching, verbal sexual harassment, and threats of professional retaliation if they complained. Soon after the Chronicle and Crimson stories were published, the University initiated an investigation. Complaints of sexual and gender-based harassment and misconduct against Harvard students, staff, and faculty are investigated through the Title process by the Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR), which is part of the Office of the Provost. Formal complaints are filed in writing with a Title Coordinator at ODR. Official reports from those investigations are confidential, distributed only to the parties involved, and Harvard has not publicly released details. But the lawsuit\u2019s complaint offers information from the investigation reports. According to the suit, the Title investigation conducted by concluded in 2021 with no finding on Mandava\u2019s and Czerwienski\u2019s allegations that Comaroff threatened them with retaliation, meaning it could not substantiate their claims. Also according to the lawsuit did find that Comaroff had sexually harassed Kilburn during an advisee meeting. Comaroff, through his attorneys, has denied all the allegations. After submitted its final report, which did not recommend sanctions, the lawsuit says commissioned an external fact-finder to review the case and determine whether Comaroff had violated its professional-conduct policy. The fact-finder concluded that the professor had threatened Mandava to prevent her from discussing allegations of sexual misconduct, in violation of policy. On January 20, Dean Claudine Gay announced that Comaroff would be put on unpaid leave for the spring semester and prohibited from teaching required courses, taking on additional advisees, or chairing dissertation committees through the 2022-23 academic year. 2/13/25, 10:26 Students Sue Harvard Over Harassment | Harvard Magazine 3/6 After Gay\u2019s announcement of the sanctions against Comaroff, the University\u2019s investigatory process itself increasingly became the center of attention for all parties to the dispute statement by his attorneys denounced the review as a \u201csecond, kangaroo-court process.\u201d On February 4, an open letter signed by 38 faculty members also questioned Harvard\u2019s process, while praising Comaroff as \u201can excellent colleague, adviser, and committed university citizen.\u201d Days later, when the women\u2019s lawsuit was filed, detailing alleged behavior by Comaroff and the University, 35 of the letter\u2019s 38 signatories, who included many prominent scholars, retracted their names. In the meantime, a second open letter, signed by 73 faculty members, had been published in the Crimson in opposition to the first one. It, too, took issue with the University\u2019s process \u2014but argued that the rights of students, not powerful faculty members, are the ones most likely to be undermined. The lawsuit names Harvard as its only defendant, arguing that the University ignored complaints against Comaroff until they became public and prioritized his protection over that of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit also alleges a pattern of sexual misconduct against students dating back to 1979, when he was on the faculty at the University of Chicago; he joined Harvard in 2012. The Comaroff case is one of multiple sexual-misconduct inquiries that Harvard has faced in recent years. The most serious involved government professor Jorge Dom\u00ednguez, who retired in 2018 under sexual misconduct accusations from more than 20 women, was stripped of his emeritus status, and banned from campus following an investigation that found a pattern of abuse\u2014and an institutional failure to stop it\u2014stretching back 40 years (see \u201cNeither Comfort nor Cover,\u201d May-June 2021, page 22). In a statement, Harvard disputed the claims made in the lawsuit, which it said, \u201care in no way a fair or accurate representation of the thoughtful steps taken by the University in response to concerns that were brought forward, the thorough reviews conducted, and the results of those reviews.\u201d Students and other faculty members, too, questioned the University\u2019s investigatory process after the lawsuit\u2019s claims were reported campus demonstration on February 14 drew hundreds of protesters, who marched into the Yard, where two of the plaintiffs, Kilburn and Czerwienski, spoke, along with Ajantha Subramanian, Mehra Family professor of South Asian 2/13/25, 10:26 Students Sue Harvard Over Harassment | Harvard Magazine 4/6 studies and chair of the anthropology department. \u201cThis case is not about the three of us,\u201d Kilburn told the crowd. \u201cThis case is about all of us. This case is about Harvard\u2019s failure to provide a prompt and equitable process for dealing with claims of harassment and discrimination that\u2019s required by law.\u201d Later, Subramanian added, \u201cThe events of the past few weeks have shown just how broken the system is.\u201d The speakers cited what they called past \u201cfailures,\u201d as well as the current lawsuit\u2019s allegations, in calling for changes in the way Harvard handles complaints of sexual harassment\u2014most notably that it implement a third- party process of investigation and arbitration. \u201cWe don\u2019t want to see another student go through the same process we did,\u201d said Czerwienski. That change has been a longstanding (and unmet) demand of the Harvard Graduate Students Union (HGSU-UAW), which in negotiations with the University has sought what it calls a \u201cneutral grievance process\u201d guaranteed through a union contract. Kilburn and Czerwienski are both union members. Looking ahead, Czerwienski said, \u201cWe need to keep insisting as loudly as we can, as often as we can, in as many places and to as many people in power as we can, that this system must change.\u2026The University wants us to throw our little rally and go away. But it\u2019s our job to make sure they\u2019ve got another think coming.\u201d Read more at harvardmag.com/mishandled-comaroff-22. Published in the print edition of the May-June 2022 issue (Volume 124, Number 6), under the headline \"How Harvard Handles Harrassment.\" Click here for the May-June 2022 issue table of contents Read more articles by Lydialyle Gibson 2/13/25, 10:26 Students Sue Harvard Over Harassment | Harvard Magazine 5/6 2/13/25, 10:26 Students Sue Harvard Over Harassment | Harvard Magazine 6/6", "8605_105.pdf": "Dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of case against Harvard vindicates Professor John Comaroff 18TH, 2024 a 2/13/25, 10:27 Dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of case against Harvard vindicates Professor John Comaroff - John Comaroff 1/9 The years-long campaign to smear and destroy the career and reputation of distinguished Harvard Professor of Anthropology and African and African American Studies John L. Comaroff collapsed on Wednesday with the dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of the civil suit brought by three graduate students against Harvard University. While the settlement does not compel the plaintiff to cover court and related legal costs, the outcome discredits their campaign and effectively vindicates Professor Comaroff. When a case is settled \u201cwith prejudice,\u201d it means that the case is closed permanently, and the plaintiffs are barred from bringing another lawsuit on the same claim. This finality implies that the lawsuit filed by graduate students Margaret G. Czerwienski, Lilia M. Kilburn and Amulya Mandava\u2014 who claimed without any facts or evidence that Professor Comaroff had engaged in sexual harassment and sued the university for not acting to remove him\u2014was fundamentally flawed, without merit and cannot be brought up again. The \u201cwithout costs\u201d aspect simply mitigates the financial burden but does not lessen the negative legal implications of the dismissal with prejudice. The ignominious end of the lawsuit, which should never have been brought in the first place, deals another major blow to the #MeToo campaign of recent years. Since 2017, this campaign, hostile to essential provisions of legal due process, has destroyed the careers of individuals based on unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. Responding to the failure of the slander campaign against Comaroff, the law firm representing the three graduate students, Sanford Heisler Sharp, flippantly declared in a statement on Wednesday, \u201cWe are glad that our clients will now be able to move on with their lives and careers.\u201d In other a 2/13/25, 10:27 Dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of case against Harvard vindicates Professor John Comaroff - John Comaroff 2/9 words, having created havoc with their vindictive and self-promoting witch hunt, they are free to embark on their next adventure. But for Professor Comaroff, a consequence of the smear campaign is that the professor retired from Harvard on June 30 without achieving emeritus status, an honor most tenured Faculty of Arts and Sciences professors receive upon retirement. John Comaroff was born in South Africa and attended University of Cape Town, where he began his studies in anthropology. He spent 34 years teaching, along with his wife Jean Comaroff, at the University of Chicago. The husband and wife joined Harvard in 2012. In May 2020, following a scandalous article published by the Harvard Crimson, the university administration placed Professor Comaroff on paid administrative leave while an investigation into allegations of \u201cunwanted touching, verbal sexual harassment, and professional retaliation\u201d was being conducted. Responding to the accusations, which were submitted by the students to Harvard\u2019s Title office, Comaroff wrote in an email that he \u201cdenies all allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation,\u201d and said that the Harvard administration actions against him were \u201cprejudicial to the fair determination of any claims\u201d and \u201ca violation of the Harvard University Sexual Harassment Policy and Proc[e]dure\u2019s confidentiality rules.\u201d He was also asked by the Anthropology Department not to teach a course. At the conclusion of the investigation, the university found Comaroff \u201cresponsible solely for verbal sexual harassment arising from a brief conversation during an office hour advising session. The advice he gave concerned the student\u2019s physical security in field research.\u201d a 2/13/25, 10:27 Dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of case against Harvard vindicates Professor John Comaroff - John Comaroff 3/9 According to the details of the investigation, Comaroff had attempted to explain to a gay female student that traveling with her partner in Cameroon, where homosexuality is illegal, could lead to sexual violence. His lawyers explained that the professor insisted \u201cthat it was not only his right, but his moral duty, to so advise her, because her proposed plans were objectively physically dangerous to her. The investigators found that he had no sexual or romantic intention.\u201d The investigation found that the evidence did not support the accusation of \u201cunwanted sexual contact\u201d and found him \u201cnot responsible for any of the other two complainants\u2019 allegations.\u201d Responding to the witch-hunting atmosphere, the university administration launched a second kangaroo court-style investigation that found the professor \u201cwas responsible for alleged unprofessional (but entirely non- sexual) conduct in another office hours advising session.\u201d On January 20, 2022, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Claudine Gay placed Comaroff on unpaid administrative leave. The sanctions against the professor were so outrageous that 38 professors signed a protest defending Comaroff on February 4, 2022, including Shakespeare scholar and cultural historian Stephen Greenblatt, literary critic and historian Henry Louis Gates Jr., historian Jill Lepore and law Professor Randall Kennedy. It was at this point that the civil lawsuit that was dismissed this week was filed against Harvard witch-hunting campaign was mounted, and almost all of the professors who had supported Comaroff shamefully retracted their statements. a 2/13/25, 10:27 Dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of case against Harvard vindicates Professor John Comaroff - John Comaroff 4/9 The wrote at the time (in \u201cThe concerted, cowardly #MeToo attack on Harvard Professor John Comaroff\u201d): Under the wretched heading, \u201cWe Retract,\u201d the 34 present no evidence of wrongdoing by Comaroff, but simply apologize for their original concerns, which \u201cwere transparency, process and university procedures, which go beyond the merits of any individual case.\u201d Why are they recanting their previous views? \u201cWe failed to appreciate the impact that this would have on our students\u201d\u2014in other words, they underestimated the ire their protest would provoke among the identity politics hysterics \u2014\u201cand we were lacking full information about the case.\u201d Which \u201cfull information\u201d? The professors don\u2019t care to say. The was alone in defending Comaroff, who has consistently denied all the allegations, and basic democratic rights. In a lengthy and detailed analysis of the suit published on March 15, 2022, \u201cThe politically driven campaign against Harvard anthropologist John Comaroff,\u201d the wrote case has been constructed against Comaroff that has no merit and no substance. There is nothing that remotely approaches proof of any wrongdoing. Rather, there are a series of allegations, many of them wild and preposterous, unsupported by any evidence. The acceptance of denunciations without verifiable evidence is the hallmark of a witch- hunt. The took apart the alleged \u201cfacts\u201d brought forward in the suit and exposed the underlying motivations. We wrote: a 2/13/25, 10:27 Dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of case against Harvard vindicates Professor John Comaroff - John Comaroff 5/9 The Comaroff controversy could only occur in a degraded intellectual climate where irrationality is elevated above reason, emotional appeals above factual analysis. Decades of postmodern sophistry, subjectivism and linguistic \u201cdeconstruction,\u201d which dominate the humanities, have played their part, weakening the attention paid to objectively existing, law-governed processes and shifting the focus to various forms of racialist, feminist and \u201cleft\u201d myth-making, to self and identity and to one\u2019s own \u201cnarrative\u201d (and, inevitably, bruised feelings), regardless of its truth or non-truth. The Nietzschean spirit holds considerable sway: \u201cThe falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it climate of fear has been created on college campuses, in some ways worse than that prevailing during the McCarthy period, in which vast pressure is brought to bear on anyone audacious enough to come to the defense of those under attack. This has created an environment of humiliating recantations and escalating attacks on academic freedom and democratic rights. While the lawsuit was underway, various groups on campus, including the local for graduate students, staged provocations aimed at preventing Comaroff from being able to teach. In September 2022, the Socialist Equality Party and the International Youth and Students for Social Equality published a statement, \u201cDefend Harvard Professor John Comaroff against the right-wing witch-hunt!\u201d Responding to the direct intervention of the White House and the Biden administration on the side of the plaintiffs in the suit, the statement explained: a 2/13/25, 10:27 Dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of case against Harvard vindicates Professor John Comaroff - John Comaroff 6/9 The administration\u2019s intrusion into the Comaroff case helps clarify the political and class dynamics at work. The White House and the Democrats have a significant stake in the campaign. It is being used to refocus political attention on gender and identity politics, to be wielded against a growing movement of the working class. The statement added: The deceitful, underhanded modus operandi of the anti-Comaroff forces needs to be exposed as widely and thoroughly as possible. Faculty and students have the responsibility to examine the facts objectively. Such an examination will inevitably lead to strong, vocal opposition to the ongoing witch-hunt. In March 2023, Comaroff\u2019s accusers mounted a right-wing provocation on the university campus under the title \u201cOur Harvard Can Do Better,\u201d which included demands that the administration declare a state of emergency \u201cto address the sexual violence crisis on campus.\u201d In a statement, \u201cThe slanderous campaign of \u2018Our Harvard Can Do Better\u2019 against Professor John Comaroff,\u201d the wrote: Comaroff is guilty of nothing. There is no substance whatsoever to the claims against him, as exhaustive inquiries have demonstrated. The wild slanders of Our Harvard Can Do Better, aided and abetted by the Harvard Crimson and the unprincipled leadership of the Harvard Graduate Students Union Local 5118, are just that: slanders. a 2/13/25, 10:27 Dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of case against Harvard vindicates Professor John Comaroff - John Comaroff 7/9 An indication that the court was finding that there was in fact no evidence behind the allegations in the lawsuit emerged in November 2023, when District Court Judge Judith G. Dein referred the lawsuit to Magistrate Judge M. Paige Kelly for an alternative dispute resolution. The final settlement dismissing the suit \u201cwith prejudice\u201d is a vindication of Comaroff and an exposure of all those who participated in the right-wing, anti-democratic campaign against him. Interview with John Comaroff and Jean Comaroff Interrogating the Global Dis/Order Jean Com and John Comaroff a 2/13/25, 10:27 Dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of case against Harvard vindicates Professor John Comaroff - John Comaroff 8/9 About Me Curriculum Vitae Testimonials Get In Touch Newsworthy Books Essays Reviews Wikipedia Copyright \u00a9 2025 John Comaroff - All Rights Reserved a 2/13/25, 10:27 Dismissal \u201cwith prejudice\u201d of case against Harvard vindicates Professor John Comaroff - John Comaroff 9/9", "8605_106.pdf": "The case of Harvard anthropologist and sexual abuser John Comaroff: Views from afar, and from nearby. In a searing opinion piece, Sean Jacobs, editor of Africa is a Country and a New School faculty member, comments on a second letter of support for Comaroff, signed by South African colleagues 18, 2022 3 Share Sean Jacobs/ The New School One of the functions of this newsletter is to try to bring things to the attention of its readers that they might not yet have seen think (or hope) that most here have been following recents events at Harvard University, where 38 illustrious academics signed a letter in support of anthropologist John Comaroff, only for 34 of them to quickly retract it when three Harvard graduate students filed suit against the university for ignoring (read: enabling) years of reported abuse lot has been written about this \u201crush to judgment\u201d by the 38, who included some pretty big names, including Paul Farmer, Jill Lepore, Caroline Elkins, Jay and Maya Jasanoff, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Jamaica Kincaid, and Randall Kennedy. (The fact that the last three are Black has fostered some embarrassed murmurings, especially on social media, to the effect of \u201chow could they?\u201d Please see below.*) Whether it really was a \u201crush to judgment,\u201d given previous reporting on Comaroff\u2019s misconduct in the Harvard Crimson back in 2020 (the Crimson also reported allegations against Harvard anthropologists Gary Urton and Theodore Bestor more than a year 2 2/13/25, 10:27 The case of Harvard anthropologist and sexual abuser John Comaroff: Views from afar, and from nearby. 1/7 ago), or rather a rush to protect and enable a colleague, has been the subject of much discussion. In my view, it is enabling, which is routine in academia and other walks of life, as have recently discussed here, here, here, and here. Today, from one of my Google alerts came across an opinion piece about the Comaroff affair by Sean Jacobs, Editor of Africa is a Country and a faculty member at the New School in New York. The piece, which was originally published on the Africa is a Country Web site, was republished by news24.com, a publication based in South Africa. This was appropriate, for two reasons: First, Comaroff is a South African born anthropologist, and has many colleagues in the country. Second, as Jacobs reported, the day before the Harvard letter in support of Comaroff was published, many international colleagues published a letter of support in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Jacobs describes this letter as follows: This one was signed by 50 academic luminaries. Similar to the Harvard letter, most of them were well known in anthropology and all work in African Studies number of them work on questions of power and gender few were at American universities, such as Adam Ashforth, Nancy Hunt, Louise White, and Kenda Mutongi. (Interestingly, Mutongi is the only black woman who signed the Chronicle letter.) Also, a signatory is Ann Stoler from The New School, a scholar of Dutch and French colonialism. Another group was from European universities; among them were Peter Geschiere of the University of Amsterdam and Birgit Meyer at Utrecht University. But the most significant group of signatories to the Chronicle letter are or were based at South African universities. Among these are Max Price, Dennis Davis, Deborah Posel, Hylton White, Jane Taylor, Robert Morrell, Mike Morris, Neil Roos, Mugsy Spiegel, Imraan Coovadia, and Steven Robins. Jacobs comments that for various reasons, including the Chronicle\u2019s relatively strict paywall policies, this letter got much less attention suspect a major reason is that it was signed by non-U.S. academics, many from South Africa, and hate to say it\u2014 Americans just pay too little attention to what goes on outside the United States, a provincialism that does not serve our country nor our culture well. But that is a discussion for another time. As Jacobs writes, this is all the more surprising since this second letter (actually it was the first) was much more aggressive than the one signed by Comaroff\u2019s Harvard colleagues. Discover more from Words For the Politics, science, academia, #MeToo, investigations Type your email... By subscribing agree to Substack's Terms of Use, and acknowledge its Information Collection Notice and Privacy Policy. Continue reading Sign in Subscribe 2/13/25, 10:27 The case of Harvard anthropologist and sexual abuser John Comaroff: Views from afar, and from nearby. 2/7 Jacobs comments: The Chronicle letter was more strident than the Harvard letter. It minimized the accusations against Comaroff, referring to the process at Harvard\u2014which is hardly favorable to victims of sexual abuse\u2014as \"a Kangaroo court\" and \"a show trial will leave it to readers to check out the rest of Jacobs\u2019s piece, which consider mandatory reading for anyone who wants to understand how academia handles (or refuses to handle) sexual harassment that can destroy the careers of younger, especially female, students\u2014and which has caused untold misery to women who are simply seeking an academic career also want to stay within the boundaries of fair use quoting.) But do wish to flag one very key passage: John and Jean Comaroff trained generations of professors who went on to populate various disciplines all over the globe. They sat on countless dissertation defenses, had a say in what work was good and important, what topics are worthy of study (as someone asked in exasperation, \"Why was witchcraft such a thing for so long in anthropological studies of Africa?\"), and through it, bred all sorts of loyalties with former students. Former students who were \"in their favour\" were given all sorts of awards and positions. Those who spoke out or made noises were not. As the lawsuit implies, the discipline of anthropology is now populated by Comaroff loyalists. Many who opposed them or who spoke up against them, ended up with their careers stalled or quit altogether in a field where there was a shrinking number of academic positions already. Harvard students speak out. 2/13/25, 10:27 The case of Harvard anthropologist and sexual abuser John Comaroff: Views from afar, and from nearby. 3/7 Margaret Czerwienski, Lilia Kilburn and Amulya Mandava / New York Times Some of the most eloquent commentary on the Comaroff case and what it means for Harvard and academia has been published in the Crimson itself, Harvard\u2019s student newspaper. These opinion pieces demonstrate that, at least when it comes to #MeToo issues and the university\u2019s responsibilities to investigate them, Harvard students are often much smarter than their professors. In one Editorial, entitled \u201cOn the Unnecessary Comaroff Letter,\u201d the Editorial Board pointed out that the 38 faculty singers had \u201cendorsed an account rooted almost exclusively on a press release authored by Comaroff\u2019s lawyers,\u201d who had greatly distorted the allegations against the anthropologist and portrayed his actions as just some kind of wise advice to a graduate student who has planning to travel in Africa. The student journalists added: \u201cSuffice to say, our esteemed Harvard academics, professional thinkers, failed to critically engage with the source of this description \u2014 the accused\u2019s lawyer! \u2014 and its inherent bias.\u201d Another op-ed piece, by Crimson opinion writer Annabelle J.L. Finlayson, tracked the long history of Harvard\u2019s tolerance of sexual harassers, naming several\u2014including Jorge Dominguez, Roland Fryer, Jr., and Lawrence Summers of women-aren\u2019t-smart- enough-to-do-science fame\u2014who only got their just desserts after long campaigns by anti-abuse activists key point: Harvard knew about Comaroff\u2019s long history of harassment at the University of Chicago, long before it hired him, but after all, a star is a star. 2/13/25, 10:27 The case of Harvard anthropologist and sexual abuser John Comaroff: Views from afar, and from nearby. 4/7 As a reporter was particularly happy to see yet another Editorial by the Editorial Board, \u201cWe Are Not a Title Substitute.\u201d As a journalist who has been reporting on #MeToo cases in academia for more than six years now can really relate. Here are some key passages: Yet among all the disturbing allegations, amid the descriptions of harassment- themed brunches and retaliatory blacklisting, one detail stands out. High-level Harvard affiliates \u2014 including a Title Coordinator, a department chair, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences\u2019 Dean for Faculty Affairs and Planning \u2014 allegedly encouraged the complainants to talk to the press, not University investigators, if they wanted to see results. In the words of the lawsuit, faculty and administration members alike consistently relayed the same twisted message: \u201cOnly a public article\u201d would give Harvard \u201ccover to take action\u201d against Comaroff. That paradigm is beyond shameful. For one, it forces complainants going through scarring events to publicly reopen their wounds for the press, exposing them to public scrutiny. More egregiously, it subcontracts a crucial university duty to nearby newsrooms \u2014 including The Crimson, as noted in the lawsuit. We closely follow, and certainly respect, the invaluable work done by our peers on the news side of the aisle. They have proved, over the years, their personal tenacity and professional commitment to collegiate journalism. But they are still \u2014 we are still \u2014 collegiate journalists: full-time, sleep-deprived undergraduates with overdue assignments and limited experience. Our reporters are not professional sexual harassment investigators or mediators. We are not, and we cannot be, a replacement for Title or other institutional complaint processes. And yet, according to one of Harvard\u2019s own Title Coordinators, that\u2019s exactly what we\u2019ve become. How true. Journalists should not be investigating #MeToo cases on college campuses. That\u2019s the job of any administration that is concerned about the welfare of its students. Journalists should, rather, be reporting on what universities are doing to stop abusers and change their cultures. But, as Sean Jacobs concludes in his excellent piece\u2014which really must insist everyone read from top to bottom\u2014there are signs of hope that students are finally getting fed up with the status quo (he suggests that the terrible job market in academia might have led many to think they have little to lose by speaking out.) The lawsuit by Czerwienski, Kilburn and Mandava and the open support of their comrades may present an opportunity for this generation to begin to forge a new 2/13/25, 10:27 The case of Harvard anthropologist and sexual abuser John Comaroff: Views from afar, and from nearby. 5/7 model for academia, in which solidarity isn\u2019t just about protecting one\u2019s powerful friends. *Parenthetically, re Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Jamaica Kincaid, and Randall Kennedy will write more about this in a later post. For now will say, knowing it will cause me some trouble, that one of the features of liberal racism is a superstition that Black people are magical beings whose wisdom is mystically superior, rather than fellow citizens with whom whites can and should engage in normal discussions and whose experiences\u2014while they often do make many Blacks more clued in, more \u201cwoke\u201d if you will, than many whites\u2014do not make them any more immune than anyone else from being clueless in certain situations. In the Comaroff matter, the three named above acted like typical academics. Discussion about this post 1 more comment... Write a comment... Feb 18, 2022 Liked by Michael Balter Helga Vierich Searing is right. Wow (1 May 15, 2022 Ana Alonso The job of investigating such complaints should be the courts\u2019. What troubles me about the narrative of the Comaroff\u2019s \u201cevil\u201d deeds is that it is almost identical to the recent anti-fairy tale about Jeffrey Epstein & his alleged enabler The stories as told are both sexist As a one time university student and professor am surprised the accusers waited so long visiting professor at my college tried to rape me and told him would tell everyone and ruin his reputation as a radical. He stopped and the next day when defended my thesis he was very professional. No adverse career consequences So part of the problem with these sordid campus tales is that the women didn\u2019t defend themselves The power of an alpha male is in great part the power we give them and now we need to take it away Comments Restacks 2/13/25, 10:27 The case of Harvard anthropologist and sexual abuser John Comaroff: Views from afar, and from nearby. 6/7 \u00a9 2025 Michael Balter \u2219 Privacy \u2219 Terms \u2219 Collection notice Substack is the home for great culture 2/13/25, 10:27 The case of Harvard anthropologist and sexual abuser John Comaroff: Views from afar, and from nearby. 7/7", "8605_107.pdf": "John Comaroff Born 1 January 1945 Cape Town, South Africa Alma mater University of Cape Town London School of Economics Scientific career Fields Anthropology Institutions Harvard University Doctoral advisor Isaac Schapera John Comaroff John L. Comaroff (born 1 January 1945)[1] is a retired professor of African and African American Studies and of anthropology. He is recognized for his study of African and African-American society. Comaroff and his wife, anthropologist Jean Comaroff, have collaborated on publications examining post- colonialism and the Tswana people of South Africa. He has written several texts describing his research and has presented peer-reviewed anthropological theories of African cultures that have relevance to understanding global society. In 2020, Comaroff was placed on paid administrative leave from his position at Harvard University after allegations of sexual harassment. In January 2022 he was placed on unpaid leave before resuming teaching in September.[2] In 2023, a student lawsuit against Harvard for inadequately responding to the allegations moved to mediation before being settled in 2024. The same year, Comaroff retired from Harvard without emeritus status.[3][4] Comaroff was born in Cape Town, South Africa, the only child of Jane Miller Comaroff and Louis (sometimes known as Lionel) Comaroff. His father's family was from Russian Empire, Ukraine: his grandfather migrated in the early 1890s from Ukraine to England, and his father, Louis, was born in Rhodesia.[5] Comaroff's mother's family migrated to South Africa from Russian Empire, Lithuania in the early 1900s.[5] Comaroff was the first person in his family to attend University. He attended the University of Cape Town, where he developed his interest in anthropology. In his second year at the university, he met his classmate and future wife, Jean. They completed their bachelor's degrees and part of their Honors year at the University of Cape Town. The second part of their Honors year was completed at the London School of Economics. Early life and education 2/13/25, 10:27 John Comaroff - Wikipedia 1/6 Comaroff has conducted most of his field research in South Africa. From 1969 to 1970 he spent 19 months studying society, culture, politics, and law among the Barolong boo Ratshidi, part of the Tswana chiefdoms along the South Africa-Botswana Borderland. From 1972 to 1973, he went back to the Mafeking District, of the Barolong boo Ratshidi, for supplementary research on society and culture for filming Heal the Whole Man, which looks at healing and other religious practices of the Barolong boo Ratshidi. He then focused his research on the social and cultural aspects of economic development of the Barolong in Botswana for 15 months in 1974 and 1975. From 1977 to 1978 for three months, he focused on this group again but looked at the rise of agrarian capitalism. During the summers of 1990\u20131998, Comaroff returned to South Africa to conduct research in various places such as Bophuthatswana, better known as the North West Province. From 1999 to 2001, he again studied in the North West Province, looking at occult-related violence. He researched this topic for 15 months. Then from 2002 to 2001, he studied crime and policing in this area. During 2005\u20132010 he researched the Tswana and San people and how ethnic identity and cultural property are becoming commoditised. Comaroff joined the American Bar Foundation in 1991 as a research fellow until 2012. He is no longer an affiliated scholar ( d_Professors.html) at the American Bar Foundation. Since 2009, Comaroff has worked on the project Ethnicity Inc., follow-up research being conducted in connection with the Comaroffs' book Ethnicity Inc. The project focuses on why ethnic groups have become increasingly like corporations, why culture has become more like intellectual property, and what about the contemporary world has made it that way.[5] The Comaroffs published a book, Theory from the South, based on research conducted in South Africa. John and Jean Comaroff spent 34 years teaching at the University of Chicago. In 2012, he and Jean Comaroff took teaching positions at Harvard University. Witchcraft has been a topic of interest for the Comaroffs since 1969. The Comaroffs became particularly interested in this phenomenon after they returned to South Africa in the 1990s, shortly after apartheid had ended in South Africa. Global capitalism also serves as a topic of interest for both Comaroffs. They published Ethnicity Inc. (2009), which focuses specifically on the topic of global capitalism. They have also expressed an interest in the concept of lawfare, specifically how the law has been used to inflict violence indirectly by using the law to benefit oneself at the expense of others. This concept is used in their book Law and Disorder in the Postcolony (2006) in an analytical sense. Career Research interests 2/13/25, 10:27 John Comaroff - Wikipedia 2/6 In their book, Of Revelation and Revolution, the Comaroffs look closely at hegemony. Their definition states, \"We take hegemony to refer to that order of signs and practices, relations and distinctions, images and epistemologies \u2013 drawn from a historically situated cultural field \u2013 that come to be taken for granted for as the natural and received shape of the world\"(Comaroff, 1991). Comaroff has also been a lecturer in social anthropology at the University of Wales (1971\u20131972), University College of Swansea (1971\u20131972), and the University of Manchester (1972\u20131978). He was also a visiting professor at the University of California Riverside (1981\u20131982), Duke University (1989), Tel Aviv University (2000), University of Basel (2005), and the University of Vienna (2007). Additionally, Comaroff was an Honorary Senior Fellow at the University of Manchester in the International Centre for Contemporary Cultural Research (1994\u20131995) and in the Department of Social Anthropology (1996\u20131998). In 1988 and 1995 he was an Associate Director of Studies in Paris. Furthermore, Comaroff was a visiting scholar at the Center for Modern Oriental Studies in Berlin (1998) and a visiting fellow at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advance Study in South Africa (2010 and 2011). Since 2004, John Comaroff has been an Honorary Professor at the University of Cape Town May 2020 investigation by The Harvard Crimson determined that several students had raised concerns with the university's Title office, making allegations of \"unwanted touching, verbal sexual harassment, and professional retaliation\" against Comaroff.[6][7] University administrators initially placed Comaroff on \"paid administrative leave\" in August 2020 amid a review of the allegations. The investigation concluded in January 2022, and based on the findings, Harvard placed Comaroff on unpaid leave.[8] The investigation did not substantiate the allegations of \"unwanted sexual contact\", but found Comaroff responsible for \"verbal sexual harassment\". Comaroff's lawyers denied the allegation that \"he told the student she 'would be raped' when traveling. They wrote in a statement to the Chronicle that he 'did raise the risks of fieldwork, but not out of prurient interest.'\"[9] His legal team argued that this was a mere ethical warning that was misconstrued as sexual harassment and characterized Harvard's investigation as a \"kangaroo court process\".[9] In support of Comaroff, 38 Harvard scholars signed an open letter condemning the sanctions and review process. 73 other Harvard faculty reacted to the letter with another open letter, criticizing their colleagues for defending Comaroff too quickly without knowing the details of the internal investigation.[10] On February 8, 2022, three students initiated a lawsuit against Harvard University, challenging the results of the Title investigation and claiming that Harvard had failed to respond to years of sexual harassment allegations against Comaroff.[11] They also claimed that Comaroff had \"threatened retaliation against them\".[12] One student detailed in the lawsuit the alleged nature of the verbal sexual harassment, claiming that Comaroff had, with a \"tone of enjoyment\", described how she might be forced into \"corrective rape\".[11][13] The student alleged that this was only part of a broader pattern of physical sexual harassment, of which Harvard's investigation failed to find sufficient evidence.[11] As the details of the lawsuit came out, many Harvard scholars who had signed the original letter in support of Comaroff retracted their signatures. As of February 9, 35 of the original 38 professors had retracted their signatures, and released a statement admitting they \"were lacking full information Sexual harassment allegations 2/13/25, 10:27 John Comaroff - Wikipedia 3/6 about the case\" and that they agreed with the counter-letter.[11][14][15] After Comaroff returned from administrative leave, on September 6, 2022, students walked out of his classroom before the first lecture of the semester was to begin. The Harvard Graduate Students Union then staged a protest outside the building, criticizing Harvard's decision to not fire Comaroff. They also circulated a petition demanding that Harvard be more transparent about how it conducted sexual harassment investigations and decided upon sanctions.[16] Comaroff faced a similar walkout and protest at his first class of January 2023.[17] In 2023, the lawsuit was moved to closed mediation. In 2024, the students and university settled the case. John and Jean Comaroff both retired from Harvard that year, but said their retirement was unrelated to the case.[3][4] Oppenheimer Research Scholar at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA.[18] Comaroff, J. & Comaroff J. (1991). Of Revelation and Revolution Volume 1: Christianity, Colonialism, and Consciousness in South Africa. Illinois, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. (2006). Law and Disorder in the Postcolony. Illinois, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. (2009). Ethnicity Inc. Illinois, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. (2011). Theory from the South: Or, How Euro-America is Evolving Toward Africa. Colorado, Boulder: Paradigm. Comaroff, John L., & Roberts, S. (1986). Rules and Processes: The Cultural Logic of Dispute in an African Context. Illinois, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Comaroff, J., Comaroff, J., & James, D. (2007). Picturing a Colonial Past: The African Photographs of Isaac Schapera. Illinois, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1. Europa Publications, International Who's Who of Authors and Writers 2004 (Routledge, 2003 1-85743-179-0), p. 111. 2. Kim, Ariel H.; Xu, Meimei (21 January 2022). \"Harvard Anthropology Prof. John Comaroff Placed on Leave Following Sexual Harassment, Professional Misconduct Inquiries\" ( on.com/article/2022/1/21/comaroff-unpaid-leave/). The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 2 February 2022. 3. Robinson, Tilly R. (2 August 2024). \"Embattled Harvard Professor John Comaroff Retires Without Emeritus Status\" ( tus-status/). The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 11 October 2024. 4. Jim\u00e9nez, Jesus (15 August 2024). \"Harvard Settles Lawsuit Over Claims of Sexual Harassment by a Professor\" ( f.html). The New York Times. Retrieved 11 October 2024. 5. Comaroff, Jean (2009). Ethnicity, Inc. University of Chicago Press 978-0-226-11472-9. Awards Bibliography Notes 2/13/25, 10:27 John Comaroff - Wikipedia 4/6 6. Bikales, James (29 May 2020). \"Protected by Decades-Old Power Structures, Three Renowned Harvard Anthropologists Face Allegations of Sexual Harassment\" ( icle/2020/5/29/harvard-anthropology-gender-issues/). The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 18 December 2020. 7. Gluckman, Nell (25 August 2020). \"The Patron\" ( The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 8 February 2022. 8. Gluckman, Nell (20 January 2022). \"Harvard Professor Is Put on Unpaid Leave After University Finds He Violated Sex-Harassment Rules\" ( put-on-unpaid-leave-after-university-finds-he-violated-sex-harassment-rules). The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 18 December 2020. 9. Cho, Isabelle B.; Kim, Ariel H. (4 February 2022). \"38 Harvard Faculty Sign Open Letter Questioning Results of Misconduct Investigations into Prof. John Comaroff\" ( on.com/article/2022/2/4/comaroff-sanctions-open-letter/). The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 9 February 2022. 10. Brown, Vincent A.; Johnson, Alison F.; Weld, Kirsten A. (8 February 2022 Response Letter from 73 Faculty Members\" ( e/). The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 9 February 2022. 11. Hartocollis, Anemona (8 February 2022 Lawsuit Accuses Harvard of Ignoring Sexual Harassment by a Professor\" ( -lawsuit.html). The New York Times. Archived ( s:// from the original on 8 February 2022. Retrieved 9 February 2022. 12. Gluckman, Nell (8 February 2022). \"3 Women Accused a Harvard Anthropologist of Harassment and Retaliation. Now They're Suing\" ( rd-anthropologist-of-harassment-and-retaliation-now-theyre-suing). The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 9 February 2022. 13. Folmar, Chloe (8 February 2022). \"Harvard accused of ignoring sexual harassment in new suit\" (ht tps://thehill.com/legal/593342-harvard-accused-of-ignoring-sexual-harassment-in-new-suit). The Hill. Retrieved 8 February 2022. 14. Kim, Ariel H.; Xu, Meimei (10 February 2022). \"35 Harvard Professors Retract Support for Letter Questioning Results of Comaroff Investigations\" ( maroff-faculty-letter-retraction/). The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 10 February 2022. 15. Krantz, Laura (8 February 2022). \"Three graduate students file sexual harassment suit against prominent Harvard anthropology professor\" ( aduate-students-file-sexual-harassment-suit-against-prominent-harvard-anthropology-professor/). The Boston Globe. Retrieved 9 February 2022. 16. Cho, Isabella B.; Kim, Ariel H.; Xu, Meimei (7 September 2022). \"Harvard Grad Student Union Protests Comaroff's Return to Teaching After Sexual Harassment Findings\" ( on.com/article/2022/9/7/union-protest-comaroff-return/). The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 8 September 2022. 17. Boit, Darley A.C.; Hamid, Rahem D.; Schisgall, Elias J. (25 January 2023). \"More than 100 Students Walk Out of Embattled Harvard Professor Comaroff's First Class of Semester\" ( ww.thecrimson.com/article/2023/1/25/comaroff-walkout-spring-23/). The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved 27 January 2023. 18. \"John Comaroff\" ( Harvard Department of Anthropology. Harvard University. Retrieved 30 May 2020. 2/13/25, 10:27 John Comaroff - Wikipedia 5/6 Harvard bio ( John L. Comaroff author site ( Retrieved from \" External links 2/13/25, 10:27 John Comaroff - Wikipedia 6/6", "8605_108.pdf": "Support Our Work HEADQUARTERS: 1620 630 20036 | PH: 20 OFFICE: 475 14TH 610 94612 Czerwienski v. President and Fellows of Czerwienski v. President and Fellows of Public Justice Public Justice / / Czerwienski v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Czerwienski v. President and Fellows of Harvard College \uf002 2/13/25, 10:27 Czerwienski v. President and Fellows of Harvard College | Public Justice 1/4 Support Our Work HEADQUARTERS: 1620 630 20036 | PH: 20 OFFICE: 475 14TH 610 94612 Czerwienski v. President and Fellows of Harvard College This case challenges Harvard University\u2019s decade-long failure to protect students from sexual harassment and career-ending retaliation by Professor John Comaroff, one of the most world\u2019s most renowned and powerful scholars in the field of anthropology. The complaint alleges that Harvard hired Professor Comaroff despite warnings that he sexually harassed students at the University of Chicago, where graduate students and faculty knew him as a \u201cpredator\u201d and a \u201cgroomer.\u201d Soon after Comaroff joined the Harvard faculty, it alleges, Harvard received repeated complaints of sexual harassment, including reports of forced kissing, groping, and unwanted sexual comments by Comaroff, but Harvard chose not to investigate. Comaroff targeted students who reported his harassment, including the plaintiffs. In spring 2017 they allege, graduate students Margaret Czerwienski and Amulya Mandava learned that Comar was making ongoing sexual advances toward a graduate student advisee. They began to warn other students and faculty about his behavior. When Comaroff found out, they allege he called Amulya to his office and threatened that she and Margaret would have \u201ctrouble getting jobs\u201d if they continued to talk. Margaret reported the threat to Harvard, which again took no apparent action. Comaroff continued to sexually harass Harvard students, the plaintiffs claim. In fall of 2017, they allege that Comaroff began harassing his first-year advisee Lilia Kilburn, subjecting her to forced kissing, groping, and persistent invitations to socialize alone off-campus. When Lilia tried to avoi Comaroff, she alleges, he forbade her from working with her other advisor. Lilia complained to Harvard\u2019s Title office in May 2019. Again, Harvard took no meaningful action, though it admitte that it had known about Comaroff\u2019s misconduct for years. In 2020, the Harvard Crimson and The Chronicle of Higher Education published expos\u00e9s about misconduct by Comaroff and two other anthropology professors. Only then did Harvard launch a investigation. But the investigation compounded the problem. First, Harvard obtained Lilia\u2019s priv therapy records and disclosed them to Comaroff without her consent. Then, ignoring the overwhelming evidence, Harvard denied that Comaroff had engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment or retaliation. It found him responsible for only two instances of verbal misconduct and allowed him to continue teaching after a slap on the wrist. At the same time, Harvard faculty closed ranks, issuing statements that supported Comaroff and sought to undermine the plaintiffs\u2019 allegations. One such public letter was signed by 38 faculty members, including faculty supervising the plaintiffs\u2019 studies. Margaret, Amulya, and Lilia sued Harvard in February 2022. They assert Title claims for Harvar deliberate indifference to Comaroff\u2019s harassment and retaliation, along with claims under Massachusetts law. Lilia claims that Harvard violated her right to privacy when it obtained and disclosed her therapy records. Harvard filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion for summary judgment on the privacy claim. In March 2023, Judge Judith Dein denied Harvard\u2019s motions. As to the privacy claim, she found \uf002 2/13/25, 10:27 Czerwienski v. President and Fellows of Harvard College | Public Justice 2/4 Support Our Work HEADQUARTERS: 1620 630 20036 | PH: 20 OFFICE: 475 14TH 610 94612 Harvard failed to show that Lilia consented to the release of her private therapy records. As to th rest of the claims, she found the plaintiffs alleged enough facts to show that \u201cHarvard maintains policy of deliberate indifference to sexual misconduct,\u201d negligently hired and supervised Comar and breached its contracts with the plaintiffs. Judge Dein rejected Harvard\u2019s arguments that the plaintiffs sued too late, holding that the facts in the complaint showed the plaintiffs could not ha known enough to sue until \u201cthe Crimson revealed Harvard\u2019s pattern of deliberate indifference to reports against faculty in their department \uf002 2/13/25, 10:27 Czerwienski v. President and Fellows of Harvard College | Public Justice 3/4 Support Our Work HEADQUARTERS: 1620 630 20036 | PH: 20 OFFICE: 475 14TH 610 94612 \uf002 2/13/25, 10:27 Czerwienski v. President and Fellows of Harvard College | Public Justice 4/4", "8605_109.pdf": "1 KILBURN, and Plaintiffs, v Defendants NO. ________________________ 1. This is a case about Harvard\u2019s decade-long failure to protect students from sexual abuse and career-ending retaliation. Harvard Anthropology Professor John Comaroff1 is a renowned scholar and a gatekeeper in his field. For years, he has used that power and his perch at Harvard to exploit aspiring scholars: he kissed and groped students without their consent, made unwelcome sexual advances, and threatened to sabotage students\u2019 careers if they complained. When students reported him to Harvard and sought to warn their peers about him, Harvard watched as he retaliated by foreclosing career paths and ensuring that those students would have \u201ctrouble getting jobs.\u201d Harvard even allowed its investigatory process to be used in service of Professor Comaroff\u2019s campaign of professional blacklisting. The results have been devastating: Professor Comaroff and his enablers have destroyed the educational opportunities and careers of countless students. Among them are the plaintiffs in this case: Margaret Czerwienski, Lilia Kilburn, and 1 Any reference to \u201cProfessor Comaroff\u201d or \u201cProfessor John Comaroff\u201d refers to Professor John Comaroff. Any reference to \u201cProfessor Jean Comaroff\u201d refers to his wife, Professor Jean Comaroff. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 65 2 Amulya Mandava, three graduate students in Harvard\u2019s Anthropology Department (the \u201cDepartment\u201d). 2. Harvard\u2019s deliberate indifference allowed Professor Comaroff to repeatedly and forcibly kiss Ms. Kilburn, grope her in public, imagine aloud her rape and murder, cut her off from other professors, and derail her academic trajectory. It also allowed Professor Comaroff to threaten Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski, poison their reputations in their fields of study, and upend their careers. All three Plaintiffs repeatedly complained to Harvard administrators. But the University brushed them aside and opted to protect its star professor over vulnerable students. 3. Plaintiffs are far from alone Harvard committee tasked with examining the climate within Harvard\u2019s Anthropology Department recently concluded that the Department is plagued by a \u201clongstanding pattern of sexism, misogyny, and sexual and gender-based misconduct\u201d that \u201chas gone largely unchecked by a predominantly white, male faculty.\u201d2 In a survey, about a third of the graduate students in the Department reported harassment.3 Students rarely speak out about harassment or sexual misconduct, because when they do, they risk their education and their careers. In short, the report concluded, Harvard has condoned a \u201cculture in which the abuse of power is normalized and accommodated.\u201d4 4. This lawsuit targets that abuse of power. Plaintiffs Margaret Czerwienski, Lilia Kilburn, and Amulya Mandava (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), by and through their undersigned counsel, Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, bring this action against Defendant Harvard University and the President and 2 Harvard University Anthropology Department, Standing Committee for a Supportive Departmental Community Final Report 10 (2021). 3 Id. at 18. 4 Id. at 10. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 65 3 Fellows of Harvard College (\u201cHarvard\u201d or the \u201cUniversity\u201d) under Title IX5 and Massachusetts law to remedy the gender discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile environment, and retaliation that has defined their time at Harvard.6 5. Harvard is one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world. It has maintained that reputation by recruiting the world\u2019s foremost scholars. 6. John Comaroff, Harvard Professor of Anthropology and of African and African American Studies, is one such scholar. He is one of the world\u2019s leading experts on Africa and the Global South, legal and political anthropology, crime and policing, the anthropology of colonialism and postcolonialism, and historical anthropology. He wields extraordinary power through a sprawling professional network, having mentored generations of tenured professors placed at nearly every major anthropology department and having held visiting professorships all over the world. To Harvard, Professor Comaroff\u2019s worldwide reputation and influence make him a valuable asset. 7. Harvard has protected that asset despite a decades-long pattern of harassment and retaliation by Professor Comaroff\u2014a pattern that was known to Harvard when it hired him in 2012. From 1979 to 2012, Professor Comaroff worked at the University of Chicago (\u201cUChicago\u201d). Graduate students and faculty there considered Professor Comaroff a \u201cpredator\u201d and a \u201cgroomer.\u201d At least one of them warned Harvard about Professor Comaroff while the University was considering Professor Comaroff\u2019s candidacy. But Harvard welcomed him anyway. 5 Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681 et seq. (\u201cTitle IX\u201d). 6 Plaintiffs allege upon knowledge concerning their own acts and upon information and belief as to all other matters. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 3 of 65 4 8. The result was predictable. Shortly after he arrived at Harvard, the University7 received repeated complaints of sexual harassment, including forced kissing, groping, and offensive\u2014even violent\u2014sexual comments by Professor Comaroff. 9. Plaintiffs were among those complainants. In spring 2017, Plaintiffs Margaret Czerwienski and Amulya Mandava learned that Professor Comaroff was making ongoing sexual advances on his advisee, a second-year graduate student: he forcibly kissed her, groped her buttocks, and, upon information and belief, sent her early-morning texts demanding to know with whom she had slept. Ms. Czerwienski and Ms. Mandava reported this sexual harassment to faculty, including the soon-to-be Chair of the Anthropology Department. The advisee herself also reported the harassment to the University\u2019s Title Office.8 Yet, on information and belief, Harvard chose not to investigate these reports. The University instead stood by while the abuse continued unchecked. 10. Harvard\u2019s deliberate indifference to these complaints enabled retaliation by Professor Comaroff. In October 2017, Professor Comaroff summoned Ms. Mandava to his office and told her that he knew she and Ms. Czerwienski were warning others of his sexual misconduct. He threatened that if they continued to do so, they would have \u201ctrouble getting jobs,\u201d as his detractors had in the past. Ms. Czerwienski reported this retaliation to Harvard\u2019s Title Office. But, still, Harvard took no apparent steps to stop Professor Comaroff from following through on his threats or targeting others. 11. Because of Harvard\u2019s inaction, Professor Comaroff abused Lilia Kilburn. In 2017, before Ms. Kilburn even enrolled at Harvard, Professor Comaroff kissed her on the mouth without 7 \u201cHarvard\u201d or \u201cthe University\u201d herein means Harvard and University officials with supervisory authority and the power to institute corrective measures on Harvard\u2019s behalf. 8 Upon information and belief, Harvard\u2019s Title Office is located within its Office for Gender Equity. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 4 of 65 5 her consent during a campus visit. That fall, after she matriculated, he graphically described varying ways in which she \u201cwould\u201d be raped, murdered, or \u201cleft for dead\u201d in South Africa\u2014a country thousands of miles away from the country she studied. Harvard allowed Professor Comaroff\u2019s behavior to continue for two years\u2014subjecting Ms. Kilburn to a continuing nightmare that included more forced kissing, groping, persistent invitations to socialize alone off-campus, and coercive control. When Ms. Kilburn tried to avoid Professor Comaroff, he forbade her to work with her other advisor. 12. Ms. Kilburn complained to Harvard\u2019s Title Office in May 2019. Again, however, the Title Office took no meaningful action\u2014except to admit that Harvard had known about Professor Comaroff\u2019s behavior for years. In fact, a Harvard Title Resource Coordinator referred Ms. Kilburn to one of Professor Comaroff\u2019s other victims: the graduate student who reported similar abuse two years earlier. Professor Comaroff, meanwhile, continued teaching and mentoring students. 13. In 2020, The Harvard Crimson (the \u201cCrimson\u201d) and The Chronicle of Higher Education (the \u201cChronicle\u201d) publicly exposed Professor Comaroff\u2019s misconduct. Only then, with its reputation to protect, did Harvard launch an investigation. 14. But Harvard\u2019s investigation only exacerbated Plaintiffs\u2019 nightmare. Harvard dragged the process out for over a year, foisted inordinate burdens on Plaintiffs, then willfully ignored the overwhelming evidence they marshalled. During the process, Harvard obtained Ms. Kilburn\u2019s private therapy records without her consent and disclosed them to Professor Comaroff. The investigatory process that unfolded was neither \u201cprompt\u201d nor \u201cequitable\u201d; nor was it designed to \u201cstop discrimination, remedy any harm,\u201d or \u201cprevent its recurrence,\u201d as Harvard\u2019s written Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 5 of 65 6 policies promise.9 In the end, Harvard denied that Professor Comaroff engaged in repeated sexual harassment or retaliation and allowed him to continue teaching after a slap on the wrist. 15. Harvard faculty moved swiftly to forestall further complaints. Hours after Harvard announced the investigation\u2019s results, Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley issued a statement calling Professor Comaroff\u2019s description of Ms. Kilburn\u2019s rape and his threats against Plaintiffs \u201cperfectly legitimate office-hours advice.\u201d She further blasted Plaintiffs\u2019 complaints as an \u201cattack on academic freedom.\u201d Professor Comaroff\u2019s wife, Professor Jean Comaroff, promptly disseminated the statement to Harvard faculty and others in her professional network few days later, 38 Harvard faculty members\u2014including faculty currently supervising Plaintiffs\u2019 studies\u2014 wrote a letter publicly supporting Professor Comaroff and minimizing his abuse. 16. Harvard\u2019s deliberate indifference to this pattern of retaliation has upended Plaintiffs\u2019 careers in anthropology. And Plaintiffs\u2019 ordeal is just one example of Harvard\u2019s broader pattern of deliberate indifference: sexual misconduct, abuse, and retaliation are endemic to the Anthropology Department. As the Crimson and Chronicle reports revealed, for over a decade, Harvard willfully ignored sexual harassment complaints against not just Professor Comaroff, but also against two Department Chairs, Gary Urton and Theodore Bestor. As a result, from 2007 to 2018\u201411 of the past 14 years\u2014the Department was chaired by men who, according to these reports, leveraged their power to prey on women students and junior faculty. 17. Harvard\u2019s continued failure to act on repeated reports of harassment against Professor Comaroff\u2014until spurred to do so by the media\u2014demonstrates an institutional policy of indifference: a system designed to protect the University, its reputation, and the faculty who sustain 9 Harvard University Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy at 1, available at Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 6 of 65 7 that reputation at the expense of its students. The University ignores the misconduct of star faculty for as long as possible, acting only when compelled by public outrage. When Harvard does investigate, it employs a process stacked against survivors, in which even University officials lack confidence. Instead of stopping abuse, Harvard perpetrates it, subjecting students to a second trauma that exacerbates the original abuse and leaves the students vulnerable to retaliation at the hands of faculty. 18. Harvard\u2019s cycle of institutional betrayal violates Title and Massachusetts law 19 is a natural person, and, at all relevant times, has been domiciled in Massachusetts. She is a doctoral student in Harvard\u2019s Anthropology Department. She holds a B.A. in Women\u2019s Studies and a Master\u2019s of Public Health with a graduate certificate in Afroamerican and African Studies from the University of Michigan, and conducted research at the University of Michigan medical school throughout her Master\u2019s program. She joined Harvard for her graduate studies in 2014, where she has worked as a Ph.D. student and teaching fellow. She is a highly credentialed member of the Department, and is the recipient of the National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant. 20 is a natural person, and, at all relevant times, has been domiciled in Massachusetts. She is a doctoral student at Harvard. Ms. Kilburn holds a Master\u2019s degree in Comparative Media Practice from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a B.A. in Anthropology from Amherst College. Her research has been supported by multiple prestigious grants in her field. Ms. Kilburn came to Harvard in 2017. She specifically applied to Harvard\u2019s Anthropology Department to work with the Comaroffs, and eventually accepted Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 7 of 65 8 Harvard\u2019s offer\u2014turning down opportunities from other universities\u2014because Professor John Comaroff urged her to and promised her mentorship and pedagogic support. 21 is a natural person, and, at all relevant times, has been domiciled in Massachusetts and/or Maine. She is a doctoral student in Harvard\u2019s Anthropology Department. She holds a B.A. with Honors in Anthropology from the University of Chicago and a Master\u2019s degree from Harvard Divinity School. She enrolled in graduate studies at Harvard in 2012 and has worked as a Ph.D. student and teaching fellow. While at Harvard, Ms. Mandava has won multiple prestigious grants in her field, including the Wenner-Gren Dissertation Fieldwork Grant and the American Institute of Indian Studies Junior Fellowship. 22 is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of Massachusetts that maintains its principal place of business at Massachusetts Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 23. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1331 and 1343, because Plaintiffs\u2019 statutory claims under Title present a federal question over which this Court has jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also assert state-law claims over which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367. 24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A) because Defendant is domiciled in and conducts business within this Judicial District. 25. This Court is the proper venue under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e- 5(f) because Harvard is headquartered in this District and many of the unlawful practices Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 8 of 65 9 complained of herein occurred in this District, and the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs\u2019 claims occurred in this District A. Professor Comaroff Harassed Students for Years Before Coming to Harvard 26. Harvard had good reason to be wary of Professor Comaroff. Before Harvard hired him, Professor Comaroff taught at UChicago, where he was surrounded by \u201cpervasive allegations of sexual misconduct.\u201d Indeed, multiple UChicago students and faculty complained to UChicago about his behavior. 27. In or around 1979, immediately after Professor Comaroff began teaching at UChicago, he lured an undergraduate student (\u201cUChicago Student 1\u201d) to his home promising advice on her thesis. Alone with her, he forcibly hugged her, ran his hand down her back, and groped her buttocks without her consent. UChicago Student 1 contemporaneously recounted the incident to a graduate student, who replied that Professor Comaroff was well-known for his sexual behavior toward students, and that he was engaged in an affair with another student. UChicago Student 1\u2014once a promising anthropology student\u2014was so disturbed by her experience with Professor Comaroff that she abandoned her plans to pursue a Ph.D. in anthropology. 28. This behavior continued for decades at UChicago. Between 2006 and 2007, Professor Comaroff sent a female UChicago graduate student (\u201cUChicago Student 2\u201d) violent pornography without her consent, commented on her choice of underwear, and assaulted her in his office. During the assault, he kissed her forcibly on the lips, groped her buttocks, and repeatedly grabbed her thigh without her consent. UChicago Student 2 contemporaneously reported the assault to another graduate student, who in turn reported the incident to UChicago faculty. But when Professor Comaroff learned of the complaint, he ensured that the student had \u201ctrouble\u201d Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 9 of 65 10 finding a job. Professor Comaroff then pressured UChicago Student 2 to delete the explicit emails he had sent her. 29. In 2007, on information and belief, Professor Comaroff initiated a sexual relationship with another female UChicago graduate student (\u201cUChicago Student 3\u201d). But, on information and belief, once Professor Comaroff lost sexual interest in her, he used his influence to damage her career. 30. And in winter 2009, Professor Comaroff targeted Plaintiff Mandava, who was then an undergraduate at UChicago. Professor Comaroff took a focused interest in Ms. Mandava during a study-abroad trip in South Africa. He repeatedly invited her to sit next to him on long drives and commented on the neckline of her clothing, all of which made Ms. Mandava uncomfortable. Ms. Mandava told Professor David Bunn, who was also on the trip, about Professor Comaroff\u2019s bizarre actions in hopes that he would intervene. But Professor Bunn responded that Professor Comaroff\u2019s behavior was part of a pattern; he regularly crossed boundaries on study-abroad trips. During each trip, he developed a \u201ccrush\u201d on a female student and \u201cobsessively\u201d focused on her throughout the program. B. Harvard Knew That Professor Comaroff Had Harassed Students and Brought Him to Harvard Anyway 31. Harvard knew of this pattern by the time it offered Professor Comaroff a position to start in 2012. It hired him anyway.10 32. Upon information and belief, around the time Harvard hired Professor Comaroff, UChicago faculty warned the Chair of Harvard\u2019s Department of African and African American Studies (\u201cAAAS\u201d)\u2014who could have influenced the hiring decision, supervised Professor 10 In 2020, in a meeting with Ms. Czerwienski about Plaintiffs\u2019 Title complaints, the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs admitted that Harvard\u2019s administration had known about Professor Comaroff\u2019s behavior for years. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 10 of 65 11 Comaroff, or at least managed his interactions with students\u2014about Professor Comaroff\u2019s misconduct at UChicago. Harvard could have heeded this warning and passed on Professor Comaroff or implemented safeguards\u2014and protected Harvard\u2019s students. Instead, Harvard empowered Professor Comaroff. 33. Professor George Meiu, who joined Harvard\u2019s faculty in or around 2014, was also aware of Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual misconduct at UChicago, where Professor Meiu studied under the Comaroffs. After the Crimson exposed Professor Comaroff\u2019s misconduct in 2020, Professor Meiu apologized to more than 100 assembled members of the Department, including Plaintiffs, \u201cfor what knew and what didn\u2019t say anything about.\u201d 34. Professor Nicholas Harkness, who joined Harvard\u2019s faculty in or around 2011, was likewise aware of complaints against Professor Comaroff. He, too, had learned of Professor Comaroff\u2019s history of sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual relationships with students at UChicago, where he had been a graduate student until 2010. Indeed, after Plaintiffs filed their Title complaints, he described Professor Comaroff to Ms. Kilburn as a \u201cgroomer\u201d and \u201cpredator.\u201d But Harvard overlooked this history even when warned about it. 35. Harvard instead welcomed Professor Comaroff to the faculty. In or around 2011, Harvard extended an offer to Professor Comaroff and his wife, Professor Jean Comaroff, to join the Department of Anthropology and the Department of AAAS. It implemented no safeguards on his contact with students. C. Professor Comaroff Sexually Harasses Students at Harvard 36. The results of Harvard\u2019s inaction were predictable. 37. In 2015, Professor Comaroff made persistent unwanted sexual advances toward at least two Harvard graduate students. To the first (\u201cHarvard Student 1\u201d), he made repeated Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 11 of 65 12 comments on her physical appearance\u2014telling her \u201cyou\u2019re a very beautiful woman\u201d during meetings\u2014and kissed her on the cheek. 38. To another (\u201cHarvard Student 2\u201d), his advisee, he commented on her appearance; shared his attraction to other students (describing one student as \u201cbeautiful\u201d and another as \u201cout of [his] league\u201d); recounted his sexual history and sexual preferences to her in detail; and frequently shared sexual jokes that made her uncomfortable. He also winked at her in class, drank out of her water bottle in the middle of a course he was teaching, called her \u201cmy date,\u201d and kissed her on the forehead without her consent\u2014all in view of other students. He told her that three students at UChicago would say he had sex with them, but he branded them as \u201cliars.\u201d 39. Professor Comaroff eventually escalated his harassment against Harvard Student 2 to physical assault. He cornered her in his office, brushed up against her, sat unnecessarily close to her in meetings, and touched her inappropriately. In fall 2016, during an annual brunch at his house, Professor Comaroff cornered her in his laundry room and forcibly kissed her on the mouth without her consent. His abuse continued throughout the semester: he kissed her, grabbed her buttocks, and, on information and belief, sent her messages late at night asking about her sexual partners. 40. Finally, at a meeting in his office, Harvard Student 2 confronted Professor Comaroff about his behavior. He responded with more: he knelt in front of her, laid his head on her breasts, and told her he was impotent. D. Professor Comaroff Threatens Retaliation to Silence Warnings 41. Harvard Student 2 reported Professor Comaroff\u2019s harassment to a Harvard postdoctoral research fellow and former advisee of Professor Comaroff at UChicago (\u201cHarvard Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 12 of 65 13 Post-Doc 1\u201d). Harvard Post-Doc 1 advised Harvard Student 2 to report the conduct to Harvard\u2019s Title Office. 42. Professor Comaroff learned of this advice and swiftly retaliated: in fall 2017, Professor Comaroff called Harvard Post-Doc 1 to his office and threatened that if Harvard Post- Doc 1 continued \u201cspreading gossip,\u201d he would \u201cfind it impossible\u201d to get a permanent academic position. 43. At the time, Harvard Post-Doc 1 was relying on letters of recommendation from Professors John and Jean Comaroff to find a teaching position. Professor John Comaroff\u2019s threat was thus clear and effective: if Harvard Post-Doc 1 did not stop engaging in oppositional activity, the Comaroffs would thwart his prospects of finding a permanent teaching position. E. Professor Comaroff Retaliates Against Plaintiffs Czerwienski and Mandava a. Plaintiff Margaret Czerwienski Engages in Protected Activity 44. Harvard Student 2 also reported Professor Comaroff\u2019s harassment to her classmate, Plaintiff Margaret Czerwienski. Around the same time, yet another student (\u201cHarvard Student 3\u201d) told Ms. Czerwienski that Professor Comaroff was acting as though he had a \u201ccrush\u201d on her. 45. In spring 2017, Ms. Czerwienski complained to her advisor, Professor Susan Greenhalgh, about Professor Comaroff\u2019s harassment of Harvard Student 2 and shared her concern that he was pursuing Harvard Student 3. 46. Professor Greenhalgh was a mandatory reporter under Harvard\u2019s Title policies, and should therefore have reported Professor Comaroff. Professor Greenhalgh expressed concern, but, because Harvard had not properly trained her on her reporting obligations, she took no steps to intercede and neither did Harvard. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 13 of 65 14 47. Ms. Czerwienski also began warning other students of the dangers Professor Comaroff posed. 48. Finally, Ms. Czerwienski urged Harvard Student 2 to report Professor Comaroff\u2019s harassment and assaults to Harvard\u2019s Title Office. b. Harvard Receives and Ignores Harvard Student 2\u2019s Complaint 49. In spring 2017, following Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s advice, Harvard Student 2 reported Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment to Seth Avakian, a University Program Officer for Title and Professional Conduct who served as a Title Resource Coordinator for Harvard\u2019s Faculty of Arts and Sciences (\u201cFAS\u201d) graduate students and faculty, among others. 50. Under Harvard\u2019s Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy and the Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy and Procedures for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Mr. Avakian was responsible for \u201cidentifying and responding to sexual harassment and its harm to equal educational opportunity\u201d and \u201cstopping or preventing sexual or gender-based harassment.\u201d He also had authority to \u201cput in place any appropriate supportive measures to protect the educational and work environment,\u201d and to initiate a formal investigation. But he did none of these things. 51. Mr. Avakian also had the responsibility, under University policy, to convey complaints about Professor Comaroff to the University Title Coordinator. University policy required as much if he received more than one complaint about Professor Comaroff. And he should have received many. Upon information and belief, Harvard Student 2 reported Professor Comaroff\u2019s harassment to multiple other faculty members. But these faculty and Mr. Avakian apparently did nothing. 52. Nor did anyone else\u2014except Professor Comaroff. Professor Comaroff obtained a Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 14 of 65 15 copy of Harvard Student 2\u2019s complaint and read portions of her complaint back to her verbatim. This intimidation tactic worked. It pressured Harvard Student 2 to withdraw her complaint and would, apparently, dissuade her from participating in any further investigations, including of Plaintiffs\u2019 complaints. c. Plaintiff Amulya Mandava Engages in Protected Activity 53. By spring 2017, Ms. Mandava had also learned that Professor Comaroff had sexually harassed Harvard Student 2 and was pursuing Harvard Student 3. Ms. Mandava, like Ms. Czerwienski, warned other students about Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment. 54. Also like Ms. Czerwienski, Ms. Mandava reported Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment to Harvard. Ms. Mandava informed Professor Ajantha Subramanian\u2014who, in 2018, would become the Chair of the Anthropology Department\u2014that Professor Comaroff had sexually harassed two graduate students at Harvard; that he had given Ms. Mandava herself unwanted sexual attention when she was an undergraduate at UChicago; and that he had had several sexual relationships with graduate students at UChicago. 55. Professor Subramanian expressed distress, but took no action. She informed Ms. Mandava that, under her understanding of Harvard policy, she could not elevate or act on Ms. Mandava\u2019s report unless the affected students (Harvard Students 2 and 3) made the reports directly. c. Professor Comaroff Threatens Plaintiffs Mandava and Czerwienski 56. Harvard\u2019s indifference had a predictable result. By October 2017, Professor Comaroff had learned that Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski were warning others about his behavior. He swiftly sought to silence them. 57. On or about October 13, 2017, Ms. Mandava met Professor Comaroff in his office to discuss a grant application. During the meeting, Professor Comaroff told Ms. Mandava that Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 15 of 65 16 graduate students, including Ms. Czerwienski, were spreading \u201cnasty rumors\u201d about his sexual misconduct with students, and that he knew Ms. Mandava had participated in those conversations. Ms. Mandava responded by confirming that she had warned others in the Department about his sexual encounters with students. In reply, Professor Comaroff first sought to dispel the \u201cnasty rumors\u201d by claiming that he had \u201cbeen sexually inactive for seven years\u201d because he was impotent\u2014an admission that caused Ms. Mandava great discomfort because she was alone in his office with him. 58. Next, Professor Comaroff threatened Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski. He told Ms. Mandava that there had been \u201crumors\u201d about him at UChicago, too. He referenced three specific UChicago graduate students\u2014including Harvard Post-Doc 1\u2014who perpetuated these \u201crumors\u201d about him, and he told her that those other students had subsequently experienced \u201ctrouble getting jobs.\u201d He warned that he would not want the same to happen to Ms. Mandava. 59. Professor Comaroff further threatened that if Ms. Mandava continued to speak out, she would lose her relationship with her recommender, Professor Jean Comaroff. He reminded Ms. Mandava that he and his wife were responsible for her admission to Harvard and reiterated multiple times how much \u201csupport\u201d they had given her over the years. He cautioned that Professor Jean Comaroff would be \u201cfurious\u201d at anyone who told her about his conduct. 60. Finally, Professor Comaroff warned that if Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski continued their \u201cgossip,\u201d he and his wife would find out, because \u201cour students will always tell us.\u201d 61. Professor Comaroff\u2019s threats were serious and credible. As Dean for Faculty Affairs and Planning Nina Zipser acknowledges, academics \u201crely on narrow networks of Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 16 of 65 17 individuals.\u201d 11 Harvard Professor Stephen Blyth affirms that \u201c[t]he influence a senior professor holds over a PhD student\u2019s career . . . is immense: a poor letter of recommendation torpedoes job prospects.\u201d12 Anthropology is a small and tight-knit field. There are seldom more than a handful of tenure-track positions available to graduating doctoral students. Each position receives hundreds of applications. And Professor Comaroff\u2019s influence permeates the field. His former students and acolytes sit on hiring committees in almost every major anthropology department across the globe down-vote from Professor Comaroff is thus the death knell of an anthropologist\u2019s career. 62. Ms. Mandava shared Professor Comaroff\u2019s threats with Ms. Czerwienski. Both began fearing for their academic futures at Harvard and their career plans. F. Ms. Czerwienski Reports Professor Comaroff\u2019s Threats, but Harvard Again Fails to Act, Derailing Plaintiffs\u2019 Academic Careers 63. Ms. Czerwienski reported Professor Comaroff\u2019s threats to Harvard Title Resource Coordinator Seth Avakian three days later, on or about October 16, 2017. She also told Mr. Avakian (as others had before) that Professor Comaroff had been sexually harassing students. 64. On information and belief, Harvard ignored Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s complaints. In fact, Mr. Avakian explicitly discouraged Ms. Czerwienski from filing a formal report with Harvard\u2019s Office for Dispute Resolution (\u201cODR\u201d) because, he said, doing so would be futile. 65. With no response from Harvard, Professor Comaroff\u2019s threats had their intended chilling effect on Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski. Ms. Czerwienski did not file a formal complaint, and, after the October 13, 2017 meeting, Ms. Czerwienski and Ms. Mandava both 11 Letter from Stephen Blyth, Professor, Harvard Univ., to Drew G. Faust, President, Harvard Univ. (May 7, 2018), letter/h2qAM6WfEOWiRHQVmu0N2M/story.html?camp=bg%3Abrief%3Arss%3Afeedly&rss_id=feedl y_rss_brief&s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter. 12 Id. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 17 of 65 18 stopped warning other students about Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual misconduct. Indeed, later in the fall of 2017, when Plaintiff Kilburn approached Ms. Mandava seeking guidance regarding Professor Comaroff\u2019s harassment, Ms. Mandava, fearful of retaliation, refused to assist Ms. Kilburn. 66. Professor Comaroff, meanwhile, continued to harass students with impunity. He even boasted about it publicly. At an October 2017 dinner with faculty and graduate students, Professor Comaroff compared himself to Harvey Weinstein, and remarked, \u201cThey\u2019re coming for me next!\u201d Professor Jean Comaroff, also in attendance, disparaged women who confront or report sexual violence, commenting, \u201cWhatever happened to rolling with the punches?\u201d 67. These remarks rattled Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski. To mitigate the risk of retaliation from the Comaroffs, Ms. Czerwienski ended her advising relationship with Professor Jean Comaroff; dropped a required course then taught only by the Comaroffs (thereby delaying her completion of that requirement); and shifted her academic focus away from Africa, a region studied in Harvard\u2019s Social Anthropology program exclusively by the Comaroffs and a former student of theirs. Ms. Czerwienski also actively sought to avoid Professor Comaroff. Professor John Comaroff\u2019s tentacular influence in the field, however, made it impossible to avoid him, and Ms. Czerwienski continued to encounter him on campus. 68. Ms. Mandava, too, ultimately ended her mentoring relationship with both Professor Jean Comaroff and Professor John Comaroff, changed the focus of her dissertation, and did not apply for a grant in their area of expertise to avoid them. Ms. Mandava had previously relied on the Comaroffs for letters of recommendation for nearly every major application since college. Ms. Mandava also felt persistent anxiety resulting from Professor Comaroff\u2019s threat. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 18 of 65 19 69. Harvard\u2019s inaction thus upended the academic careers of Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski. It would soon do the same to Ms. Kilburn. G. Professor Comaroff Subjects Plaintiff Kilburn to Repeated Sexual Harassment 70. From the day Ms. Kilburn first visited Harvard as a prospective student in 2017 through April of 2019, Professor Comaroff subjected her to pervasive sexual harassment, including unwanted kissing and touching and a graphic description of her own imagined rape and murder. a. Professor Comaroff Kisses Ms. Kilburn When She Was an Admitted Student 71. Professor Comaroff began making unwanted sexual advances on Ms. Kilburn before she even matriculated at Harvard. On or about February 27, 2017, Ms. Kilburn met with Professors John and Jean Comaroff to discuss her acceptance to the program. Professor John Comaroff offered to walk Ms. Kilburn back to Harvard\u2019s campus. As they approached the building in which his office is located, Professor Comaroff stepped in front of Ms. Kilburn, hugged her tightly\u2014pressing the length of his body against hers\u2014and kissed her on the lips without her consent. Continuing to hug her tightly, he whispered in her ear that she should \u201cgo visit Columbia [University], but then come back here.\u201d 72. Ms. Kilburn was distressed by Professor Comaroff\u2019s assault. She feared for her future at Harvard, in a program she had dreamed of attending. But, not knowing of Professor Comaroff\u2019s history, she sought to forget the incident and move on. b. Ms. Kilburn\u2019s First Day of Grad School: \u201cYou Would Be Raped and Killed\u201d 73. Ms. Kilburn\u2019s fears, however, proved well founded. On the first day of Ms. Kilburn\u2019s doctoral program, on or about August 27, 2017, she met with Professor Comaroff, now her advisor, in his office to discuss her planned study of a country in Central Africa. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 19 of 65 20 74. During the meeting, Professor Comaroff repeatedly described various ways in which Ms. Kilburn would be raped and killed in South Africa\u2014approximately 3,000 miles away from Central Africa\u2014because she is in a same-sex relationship. He told her, \u201cthere are many places where you would go where you would be raped,\u201d \u201cyou would certainly be raped,\u201d and \u201cyou would be raped and killed.\u201d He then identified specific places where \u201ccorrective rapes\u201d had been carried out, and stated over and over that Ms. Kilburn, too, \u201cwould be raped,\u201d \u201cwould be killed,\u201d would be \u201cleft for dead,\u201d and that \u201cthey would finish you off.\u201d Ms. Kilburn sat frozen in shock, while Professor Comaroff continued for approximately five minutes. 75. As he had with Ms. Mandava, Professor Comaroff ended the meeting by reminding Ms. Kilburn of the power he now wielded over her career. He told her that he had \u201cfought very hard for [her]\u201d in the admissions process and that Ms. Kilburn needed to trust him because he had been advising students for fifty years. c. Professor Comaroff Kisses Ms. Kilburn Again at His Home Without Consent 76. Professor Comaroff\u2019s harassment again turned physical. 77. On or about September 24, 2017, Ms. Kilburn attended an annual brunch held at the Comaroffs\u2019 house. Professor John Comaroff greeted Ms. Kilburn with a hug and a kiss on the cheek and began singling her out for unwanted attention; he placed his hand uncomfortably low on her back to guide her through the room, expressed disappointment that she was not drinking alcohol, and touched her lower back again when he returned with coffee. 78. When Ms. Kilburn went to leave the brunch, Professor Comaroff followed her. Ms. Kilburn bent to retrieve her bag, and when she stood, Professor Comaroff had moved close to her. He again hugged her forcibly and kissed her on the mouth without her consent. Ms. Kilburn pushed him away and wiped her mouth, only to find Professor Comaroff smiling at her. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 20 of 65 21 79. Ms. Kilburn was disturbed. Over the remainder of the fall semester of 2017, she avoided Professor Comaroff. She did not attend the weekly meetings with Professor Comaroff that were customary for first-year graduate students, and she began dressing more conservatively. She also stopped attending the weekly African Studies Workshop led by Professors John and Jean Comaroff, even though the workshop was crucial to expanding her network in her field and one of the reasons she had decided to matriculate at Harvard over other institutions. d. Harvard\u2019s Program Administrator Rebuffs Ms. Kilburn\u2019s Attempted Disclosure: \u201cThose Are Just Nasty Rumors\u201d 80. Throughout the fall of 2017, Ms. Kilburn sought assistance from classmates and staff. None offered aid because of Professor Comaroff\u2019s threats and Harvard\u2019s indifference. 81. First, in or around October 2017, Ms. Kilburn approached the Graduate Program Administrator in the Anthropology Department. She asked whether the Graduate Program Administrator was aware of Professor Comaroff ever having made students uncomfortable. But before she could finish, the Graduate Program Administrator cut her off and responded, \u201cThose are just nasty rumors!\u201d\u2014mimicking the language used by Professor Comaroff. 82. Then, in late fall 2017, Ms. Kilburn sought out Ms. Mandava to share her experience with Professor Comaroff. Chilled by Professor Comaroff\u2019s threat to damage her career if she spoke about his conduct, however, Ms. Mandava demurred. 83. Professor Comaroff\u2019s threatened retaliation and Harvard\u2019s inaction thus had their predictable effect: Ms. Kilburn continued to believe that she needed to remain quiet about Professor Comaroff\u2019s abuse, and that she was alone in her experience. e. Professor Comaroff Harasses Ms. Kilburn and Squeezes Her Thigh in Public 84. Professor Comaroff took advantage of the University\u2019s indifference to continue harassing Ms. Kilburn. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 21 of 65 22 85. In late 2017, Professor Comaroff saw Ms. Kilburn in the atrium of the Anthropology Department\u2019s building. Despite Ms. Kilburn\u2019s noticeable attempts to avoid him that semester, he approached her, touched her back again, and insisted that she meet with him. 86. During a required meeting on or about January 23, 2018, Professor Comaroff criticized Ms. Kilburn for avoiding meetings with him. He then told her that if she ever needed to \u201ctalk to a woman,\u201d she could approach his wife, Professor Jean Comaroff. 87. In or around February 2018, Ms. Kilburn was attending a departmental colloquium. As Professor Comaroff was leaving the colloquium, he passed by Ms. Kilburn\u2019s seat in the back row and forcibly squeezed her thigh several inches above her knee in view of faculty and students. 88. And throughout the fall 2018 semester, Professor Comaroff repeatedly asked Ms. Kilburn to meet him alone off-campus for reasons unrelated to her work. These unwelcome proposals made Ms. Kilburn fearful and uncomfortable. f. Professor Comaroff Continues His Harassment Through April 2019 89. By the spring 2019 semester, Professor Comaroff apparently recognized Ms. Kilburn\u2019s efforts to avoid him. He responded by becoming increasingly possessive over her. 90. In April 2019, Professor Comaroff repeatedly pressured Ms. Kilburn to direct her forthcoming project to a topic in which he (rather than her other advisor, Professor Harkness) specialized\u2014a topic that had never been Ms. Kilburn\u2019s area of focus, would be dangerous to undertake, and was not tenable given the political situation in her country of study. Ms. Kilburn expressed these concerns to Professor Comaroff during a meeting on the topic, but Professor Comaroff exploded in response, with no apparent explanation. Shortly thereafter, he forbade Ms. Kilburn from working with Professor Harkness at all, making her entirely beholden to him and more vulnerable to his sexual advances. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 22 of 65 23 g. Ms. Kilburn Reports Professor Comaroff\u2019s Harassment to Harvard and Discovers Harvard\u2019s Past Indifference to Harvard Student 2\u2019s Complaint 91. The situation soon got worse. On or about April 26, 2019, Ms. Kilburn was in the glassed-in waiting area of the Graduate Program Administrator\u2019s office. Professor Comaroff saw her and tried to open the door and enter the waiting area. Ms. Kilburn, seeking to avoid contact with him, and perceiving his approach as another potential sexual advance, told him that she had a meeting and held the door shut. Against Ms. Kilburn\u2019s physical resistance, Professor Comaroff continued to try to force his way inside. 92. This moment was a breaking point for Ms. Kilburn. Before the events in April 2019, she had believed she could manage Professor Comaroff\u2019s behavior by avoiding him and seeking joint meetings with Professor Jean Comaroff. But her avoidance had made him more possessive. She feared that she would have to leave the program if Professor Comaroff did not stop harassing her. 93. This fear drove Ms. Kilburn to report Professor Comaroff\u2019s conduct, his threats notwithstanding. On or about April 26, 2019, the same day as the door incident, Ms. Kilburn complained to Professors Joana Pimenta and Lucien Castaing-Taylor that Professor Comaroff had twice kissed her without her consent, told her on her first day of school that she would be raped and killed, and repeatedly harassed her throughout her graduate career. 94. On or about May 2, May 6, and May 29, 2019, Ms. Kilburn met with Title Officer Seth Avakian, Anthropology Department Chair Ajantha Subramanian, and Professor Nicholas Harkness, respectively, to report Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment of her. 95. Ms. Kilburn\u2019s May 2, 2019 complaint to Mr. Avakian was met with predictable indifference. Ms. Kilburn began describing her complaint, but before she even named her harasser, Mr. Avakian guessed that her complaint concerned Professor Comaroff. Mr. Avakian\u2019s notes Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 23 of 65 24 record, \u201cSeth [said] to [Ms. Kilburn should let you know that you don\u2019t have to mention the faculty member\u2019s name, but know who you are talking about\u201d\u2014a tacit admission that Harvard\u2019s administration was well aware of Professor Comaroff\u2019s history of harassment. Then, in an explicit admission (also recorded in his notes), Mr. Avakian acknowledged to Ms. Kilburn that \u201cthere was another student w[ith] a similar issue w[ith] the same person\u201d who had previously filed a complaint. 96. Again, however\u2014just like he had done in 2017 with Harvard Student 2\u2014Mr. Avakian did not stop or remedy Professor Comaroff\u2019s harassment. Mr. Avakian instead put Ms. Kilburn in contact with Harvard Student 2. 97. Ms. Kilburn met with Harvard Student 2, who shared with Ms. Kilburn that (as alleged above) Professor Comaroff had engaged in a similar pattern of harassment against her: kissing her, groping her, and isolating her from others. 98. The meeting confirmed for Ms. Kilburn that Harvard would not protect students who complained about Professor Comaroff, and that his misconduct would therefore continue to go unchecked. Before she learned of Harvard Student 2, Ms. Kilburn had not known that Professor Comaroff had sexually harassed other students, nor that other students had reported his behavior to Harvard. Nor had she suspected that Harvard would ignore repeated complaints that a professor subjected students to serial sexual harassment. These revelations shocked Ms. Kilburn. 99. Ms. Kilburn shared her experience of harassment with Ms. Mandava in June 2019. Ms. Mandava, in turn, sought out Professor Subramanian to complain of Professor Comaroff\u2019s 2017 retaliation and also made a complaint to Professor Harkness about the same. 100. On information and belief, both Professor Subramanian and Professor Harkness reported those complaints to the Title Office, but Mr. Avakian and Harvard did not act on them. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 24 of 65 25 101. Because the Title Office failed to act, Professor Comaroff remained unrestricted in his teaching and supervising of students throughout the spring and fall 2019 semesters. Harvard even allowed him to take undergraduate students on a study-abroad trip in the summer of 2019. Harvard waited even though it had received at least seven separate complaints to faculty and one direct complaint to Harvard\u2019s Title office in 2019 alone. In the interim, it left Plaintiffs vulnerable to further harassment and retaliation by Professor Comaroff. H. Harvard Fails to Act Until the Media Exposes Professor Comaroff\u2019s Misconduct 102. Harvard apparently did not investigate Professor Comaroff\u2019s misconduct until a year later, in May 2020\u2014when The Harvard Crimson contacted the Title Office seeking comment on an article it was set to publish in the coming days. The article concerned sexual harassment by multiple professors in the Anthropology Department, including Professor Comaroff. 103. Now, on or about May 19, 2020, Mr. Avakian informed Plaintiffs that he had filed a formal complaint against Professor Comaroff with Harvard\u2019s ODR. This investigation came more than two and a half years after Ms. Czerwienski had first reported Professor Comaroff\u2019s threat, more than one year after Ms. Kilburn had reported her own harassment to Harvard\u2019s Title Office, and eleven months after Ms. Mandava had reported Professor Comaroff\u2019s threat to the Department Chair. 104. Still, Harvard officials openly disparaged the process. Mr. Avakian expressly told Ms. Kilburn that reporting to the press would be more impactful than participating in the process. He cited Professor Jorge Dominguez, a Harvard professor who, on information and belief, had serially abused women students for over 40 years, telling Ms. Kilburn that Professor Dominguez\u2019s victims found speaking to the press more effective than Harvard\u2019s process and Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 25 of 65 26 encouraged Ms. Kilburn to do the same. Department Chair Subramanian, too, urged all three Plaintiffs to speak to the Crimson and subsequently with The Chronicle of Higher Education, because, she said, that would give Harvard a reason to act. And Dean Zipser pressed Plaintiffs to speak to the Chronicle, because, she said, only a public article would give her cover to take action against Professor Comaroff. 105. Ms. Kilburn, Ms. Czerwienski, and Ms. Mandava had been reluctant to go public with their stories. But, because Harvard\u2019s faculty, Title Resource Coordinator, and top-level decision-making officials now disparaged the process and urged them to go to the press, they did so. I. The Crimson and Chronicle Reports Bring Other Victims Forward and Reveal Harvard\u2019s Deliberate Indifference to Rampant Harassment in the Department 106. On May 29, 2020, the Crimson published an article revealing a decades-long pattern of sexual abuse perpetrated by senior male professors in Harvard\u2019s Anthropology Department. The Chronicle followed suit on August 25, 2020, publishing an article detailing Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment and retaliation against Plaintiffs, sexual misconduct by two other professors, and Harvard\u2019s longstanding indifference thereto. Those reports spurred other victims to come forward. 107. Before those articles were published, Ms. Czerwienski, Ms. Mandava, and Ms. Kilburn were aware only of the harm Professor Comaroff had caused them and two other students\u2014Harvard Students 2 and 3. Plaintiffs did not suspect that Harvard had failed to respond to prior reports of sexual harassment. Only through the articles and the resulting fallout did Plaintiffs learn of Harvard\u2019s longstanding complicity in his abuse. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 26 of 65 27 a. More Students Speak Up About Professor Comaroff\u2019s Longstanding Abuse 108. After the Crimson article\u2019s publication, multiple students contacted Plaintiffs to share their experiences of sexual harassment by Professor Comaroff and other professors in the Department. These included UChicago Student 2, Harvard Student 1, and a faculty member at another institution who shared that Professor Comaroff harassed her at a 2018 conference. In addition, another current female Harvard Anthropology graduate student (\u201cHarvard Student 4\u201d) reported that, in 2018, Professor Comaroff had made an inappropriate sexualized remark to her. And yet another graduate student shared that she had been harassed by Professor Comaroff at a conference. 109. Following the publication of the Chronicle article, Plaintiffs also learned that Professor Comaroff had retaliated against Harvard Post-Doc 1 in 2017 when he encouraged Harvard Student 2 to file her complaint of sexual harassment against Professor Comaroff. 110. UChicago Student 2, Harvard Post-Doc 1, Harvard Student 1, and Harvard Student 4 all complained to Harvard about Professor Comaroff\u2019s misconduct towards them, but Harvard did not meaningfully act on their complaints. Instead, as it had done to Plaintiffs, Harvard sent the students elsewhere: Dean Zipser advised UChicago Student 2 to make her allegations public through the press, and Mr. Avakian informed Harvard Post-Doc 1 that no investigation would be conducted unless Harvard Post-Doc 1 filed a formal complaint. b. The Crimson Reveals Harassment by Other Professors in the Department 111. The Crimson article also revealed that since at least 2013, Harvard had been willfully ignoring complaints not just against Professor Comaroff, but also against two other professors who served as chairs of the Department. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 27 of 65 28 i. Professor Theodore Bestor 112. Through the Crimson article, Plaintiffs learned that Harvard administrators and the Title Office knew about multiple complaints of sexual harassment against Professor Theodore Bestor13 since at least 2013. 113. Harvard enabled Professor Bestor\u2019s longstanding pattern of harassment through its deliberate inaction, according to the Crimson. The Crimson revealed that, in 2013, a student complained to then-Department Chair Gary Urton that Professor Bestor had subjected her to a pattern of sexual harassment over the course of seven years. Professor Bestor\u2019s harassment, according to the article, included unwanted kissing and touching and inappropriate late-night emails. Although Professor Urton told the student that he had relayed the complaint to Harvard\u2019s ombudsman, no action was taken at the time, the Crimson said. 114. The Crimson further revealed that Harvard\u2019s Title Office had received reports that Professor Bestor had sexually harassed multiple women, and that, because of his power and influence in the tight-knit field of anthropology, the women feared reprisal should they file formal complaints. Harvard had, however, declined to pursue a formal complaint against Professor Bestor, the Crimson said, because Harvard believed that it could not prevent Professor Bestor from retaliating against the women.14 115. The Crimson reported that Harvard had finally pursued an complaint against Professor Bestor in 2017 based on a professor\u2019s complaint that Professor Bestor had attempted to hug her and kiss her and had made inappropriate comments to her\u2014and only then 13 Professor Bestor was Chair of the Anthropology Department from 2007 to 2012. 14 James S. Bikales, Protected by Decades-Old Power Structures, Three Renowned Harvard Anthropologists Face Allegations of Sexual Harassment, The Harvard Crimson (May 29, 2020), Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 28 of 65 29 after she appealed ODR\u2019s initial refusal to investigate her complaint. The investigation eventually found that Professor Bestor committed two counts of sexual misconduct against the professor, but Harvard allowed him to return to work before completing his required sanctions, the Crimson reported. ii. Professor Gary Urton 116. The Crimson also described years of sexual harassment by Professor Urton. 117. The Crimson revealed that, in 2011, Professor Urton pressured a student into unwelcome sex by propositioning her in exchange for a letter of recommendation and a high grade in his class. Fearing professional reprisals if she did not assent, the student remained silent for years, the Crimson said. The student eventually complained in 2016 to then-University President Drew Faust and Harvard\u2019s sexual harassment officer, yet the University took no steps to investigate or protect other students, according to the Crimson.15 118. In a subsequent article, the Crimson further reported that Professor Urton had propositioned a female graduate student on a research trip in 2003, and for the following nine years, made her professional development at Harvard contingent on a sexual relationship with him.16 According to the Crimson, she complained to Harvard\u2019s Dean for Graduate Student Affairs Garth McCavana, but, echoing Mr. Avakian, Dean McCavana responded that complaints rarely worked out in the victim\u2019s favor, which discouraged her from contacting the Title office 15 Id. 16 James S. Bikales, Anthropology Faculty Call for Urton\u2019s Resignation as More Former Students Accuse Him of Sexual Misconduct, The Harvard Crimson (June 5, 2020), resignation/. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 29 of 65 30 was essentially told that could file a complaint or get a degree, but not both,\u201d the former student told the Crimson.17 119. For his part, Professor Urton reminded the University that the allegations against him were \u201cwell known\u201d and that \u201cHarvard has had at its disposal (and has discounted) [the allegations] for three years.\u201d18 He also acknowledged that Harvard knew \u201cthese are issues that do not affect the Department of Anthropology alone, but are pervasive within the University.\u201d19 120. The articles, Professor Urton\u2019s response, and the resulting fallout laid bare Harvard\u2019s complicity in the abuse that, upon information and belief, Anthropology Department professors had been committing against women students for over a decade. Before the Crimson\u2019s reporting, Plaintiffs were aware only of the misconduct to which they and a few others had been subjected. The Crimson, however, exposed both a broader pattern of abuse and that, for years, ODR, the Title Office, faculty, and administrators systematically refused to act on students\u2019 complaints. This inaction, in turn, facilitated new abuses (including Plaintiffs\u2019), all perpetrated under threats to the careers of additional female students. J. Harvard Conducts an Inadequate Title Investigation that Exposes Plaintiffs to Further Retaliation 121. After the publication of the Crimson and Chronicle articles in May and August, 2020, respectively, Harvard finally began to investigate Plaintiffs\u2019 longstanding allegations against Professor Comaroff. This investigation, however, was limited in scope, placed inordinate burdens 17 Id. 18 Letter from Gary Urton, Professor, Harvard Univ., to Claudine Gay, Edgerley Fam. Dean of the Fac. of Arts and Scis., Harvard Univ., and Lawrence Bobo, Dean of the Div. of Soc. Scis., Harvard Univ. 1-2 (May 31, 2020). 19 Id. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 30 of 65 31 on Plaintiffs, and proved woefully inadequate. It has left Plaintiffs vulnerable to further harassment and retaliation and perpetuated the hostile environment they face in the Department. a. Harvard Refuses to Investigate Professor Comaroff Unless Plaintiffs Proceed with Formal Complaints 122. In May 2020\u2014shortly after assuring Plaintiffs that he had filed a formal complaint with ODR\u2014Mr. Avakian backtracked. He now told Plaintiffs that he would not participate in the case, and that they would need to file formal complaints with themselves if they intended to pursue the matter confirmed to Plaintiffs that unless they filed formal complaints would not fully investigate their case. 123. Ms. Kilburn, Ms. Czerwienski, and Ms. Mandava thus filed formal complaints against Professor Comaroff with on May 18, July 15, and July 31, 2020, respectively\u2014 knowing that if they did not, Harvard would continue to ignore Professor Comaroff\u2019s pattern of sexual harassment and future students would remain vulnerable to him. b. Harvard Allows Professor Comaroff to Tamper with Evidence 124. Professor Comaroff quickly poisoned the process. Harvard allowed him to do so. 125. On or about August 6, 2020, Professor Comaroff received a copy of Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s complaint. The complaint relied, among other sources of proof, on messages Harvard Student 2 had sent to Ms. Czerwienski in 2017 detailing Professor Comaroff\u2019s ongoing abuse. Upon information and belief, that same day, Professor Comaroff pressured Harvard Student 2\u2014over whose dissertation defense he would soon be presiding\u2014to delete those messages. 126. And throughout summer 2020, Professor Comaroff and his allies tampered with witnesses: they contacted Harvard Post-Doc 1 and two female UChicago graduate students, Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 31 of 65 32 threatening repercussions if they did not remain silent about their knowledge of his misconduct. These threats had their intended effect. 127. This tampering violated Harvard\u2019s policies and procedures. Plaintiffs reported these issues to ODR\u2019s investigator (Ilissa Povich) and to Harvard deans. But Harvard refused to act. c. Harvard Allows Professor Comaroff to Retaliate Against Ms. Kilburn 128. Harvard also allowed Professor Comaroff to weaponize the process to retaliate against Ms. Kilburn. 129. Professor Comaroff named three of the most prominent scholars in Ms. Kilburn\u2019s field\u2014Peter Geschiere, Caroline Elkins, and Sue Cook\u2014as witnesses in his defense. These scholars had no firsthand knowledge of the relevant events and did not even know Ms. Kilburn. But, by drawing them into the process, Professor Comaroff ensured that they would know about Ms. Kilburn\u2019s formal complaint against him and his animus towards her. 130. All three of these professors are preeminent scholars in Ms. Kilburn\u2019s field and would have been potential advisors and mentors available to replace Professor Comaroff. But because allowed Professor Comaroff to needlessly involve them in Ms. Kilburn\u2019s case, Ms. Kilburn can no longer turn to them as advisors or mentors, nor can she count on them as impartial reviewers. Through this action, Professor Comaroff flatlined Ms. Kilburn\u2019s nascent career. 131. Professor Comaroff did not stop there: he also named Professor George Meiu\u2014one of Ms. Kilburn\u2019s current dissertation committee members\u2014as a witness to testify about the layout of a well-known seminar room. Professor Meiu had no relevant testimony to provide in Professor Comaroff\u2019s defense. He was, however, set to preside over Ms. Kilburn\u2019s qualifying exams and charged with determining whether Ms. Kilburn would be awarded a doctorate at the end of her studies. He was also working closely with the Comaroffs. Although Professor Meiu refused to give Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 32 of 65 33 testimony, he made it clear to Ms. Kilburn that he did not support her complaint. Ms. Kilburn was thus forced to delay her qualifying exams for months. 132 played along with Professor Comaroff and approached the witnesses for interviews. It, predictably, found that they did not have information material to Ms. Kilburn\u2019s complaint. Nonetheless took no steps to investigate or forestall Professor Comaroff\u2019s efforts to use the process to poison the well. 133. Ms. Kilburn therefore complained to Mr. Avakian and Kwok Yu, the Harvard Associate Dean who was overseeing Plaintiffs\u2019 complaints, that Professor Comaroff was calling witnesses for the purpose of derailing her career. But the Title Office also took no discernable action. d. Harvard Obtains and Discloses Ms. Kilburn\u2019s Confidential Medical Records to Professor Comaroff Without Her Consent 134. The investigation only got worse. In 2020 contacted Ms. Kilburn\u2019s psychotherapist, a private therapist unaffiliated with Harvard, and obtained the psychotherapy notes from her sessions with Ms. Kilburn did not obtain Ms. Kilburn\u2019s consent for the release of those records. 135. After obtaining the notes without Ms. Kilburn\u2019s consent then withheld the full notes from Ms. Kilburn, redacting swaths of the notes and refusing to disclose the redacted portions even as ODR\u2019s investigator grilled her about the redacted contents during an interview. 136 then provided the notes to Professor Comaroff as part of its draft report. Professor Comaroff, in turn, deployed the notes to gaslight Ms. Kilburn, claiming that she must have imagined that he sexually harassed her because she was experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder\u2014a condition that she developed as a direct result of his conduct. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 33 of 65 34 137. Finally published the notes in its Final Report concerning Ms. Kilburn\u2019s complaint against Professor Comaroff and appended them as exhibits, making Ms. Kilburn\u2019s medical records available to anyone with access to the Final Report.20 e. Harvard Refuses to Hold Professor Comaroff Responsible for his Pattern of Sexual Harassment and Retaliation 138. ODR\u2019s findings were issued in August 2021, over a year after Plaintiffs had filed their complaints. Despite a process stacked against Plaintiffs made one finding in Ms. Kilburn\u2019s favor: it determined that Professor Comaroff had \u201cover the course of approximately five minutes\u201d repeatedly described how Ms. Kilburn \u201cwould be raped\u201d in certain parts of Africa found that these unprompted and graphic descriptions constituted \u201csevere\u201d sexual harassment against Ms. Kilburn. 139. As to Professor Comaroff\u2019s other, repeated sexual harassment and assaults against Ms. Kilburn (including his forced kissing and groping) and his retaliation against Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski, however found that Professor Comaroff had not violated Harvard\u2019s Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy. 140. ODR\u2019s reports\u2014portraying Professor Comaroff\u2019s misconduct as a one-off verbal incident\u2014reveal willful blindness to the overwhelming evidence that he engaged in a pattern of serial sexual harassment and retaliation that Harvard knew about but failed to stop. i. Ms. Kilburn\u2019s Report 141. In Ms. Kilburn\u2019s case refused to interview two thirds of the witnesses Ms. Kilburn identified (even as it interviewed or attempted to interview all of the witnesses Professor 20 Harvard persisted in this course despite a request from Ms. Kilburn that Harvard limit access to her confidential medical information. On or about September 28, 2021, Ms. Kilburn\u2019s counsel requested that Harvard not further disclose her medical records; inform her of individuals who have received a copy of her medical records; and instruct these individuals to turn over the records to Harvard\u2019s general counsel\u2019s office without retaining copies. Harvard rejected these requests. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 34 of 65 35 Comaroff named also ignored the testimony of witnesses it did interview: throughout the investigation, Ms. Kilburn gave consistent, specific testimony detailing each of the repeated instances when Professor Comaroff kissed and touched her without consent. At least three separate witnesses confirmed that she had been reporting his pattern of abuse to them since 2017, while the harassment was ongoing, and long before she filed her complaint with ODR. 142. ODR, however, cited \u201cinconsistencies\u201d in Ms. Kilburn\u2019s statements and used them to discount her testimony. These \u201cinconsistencies\u201d are, in reality, a pretext to avoid a finding of serial harassment and insulate Harvard from liability. To cite but a few examples: a. Ms. Kilburn told that Professor Comaroff kissed her in front of the Barker Center with force. Yet rejected this live, corroborated testimony because found it \u201cinconsistent\u201d with a sentence fragment from Mr. Avakian\u2019s notes. In fact did not even interview Mr. Avakian about this reference, but had it done so would have discovered that the reference did not contradict Ms. Kilburn\u2019s testimony. b. Ms. Kilburn testified that Professor Comaroff kissed her at his home after a brunch. Another witness corroborated Ms. Kilburn\u2019s testimony, and admitted that the witness\u2019s account was \u201ccredible\u201d and \u201ccontemporaneous,\u201d because Ms. Kilburn had told her about the kiss \u201con the same day\u201d it occurred. Nonetheless rejected this corroborated testimony because Ms. Kilburn could not recall against precisely which wall in the room Professor Comaroff had assaulted her. c. Ms. Kilburn and three other witnesses testified that Professor Comaroff groped her thigh, but rejected Ms. Kilburn\u2019s testimony based primarily on a non- existent \u201cinconsistency\u201d in her consistent statements about where Professor Comaroff was sitting before he groped her. d. Professor Harkness testified at Ms. Kilburn\u2019s proceeding that Ms. Kilburn had complained to him and that Professor Comaroff has sexually harassed students at UChicago ignored his testimony entirely. 143. In addition entirely failed to consider multiple incidents of harassment against Ms. Kilburn, including Professor Comaroff\u2019s repeated invitations to meet off campus, his Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 35 of 65 36 forbidding her from working with her advisor, and his efforts (after Ms. Kilburn\u2019s clear and repeated efforts to avoid him) to forcibly enter an enclosed space with her over her resistance. ii. Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s Reports 144 made no finding against Professor Comaroff on the central issue in Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s cases: whether Professor Comaroff threatened them and other students in retaliation for discussing his sexual misconduct. Instead, ODR\u2019s finding in Ms. Mandava\u2019s case rested on its conclusion that Ms. Mandava had not engaged in protected activity. To reach that conclusion ignored Ms. Mandava\u2019s testimony (corroborated by contemporaneous messages referencing the conversations at issue) that she had complained of Professor Comaroff\u2019s harassment to Professor Subramanian and to multiple students. It also ignored her testimony that Professor Comaroff had told her he knew she had engaged in such conversations, and that she confirmed his belief before he threatened her. 145. With respect to Ms. Czerwienski concluded that she \u201cengaged in a protected activity by \u2018sharing with other students her knowledge of [Professor Comaroff\u2019s] purported . . . sexual harassment of\u2019 [Harvard Student 2].\u201d Still determined that Professor Comaroff did not have \u201cnotice\u201d that Ms. Czerwienski had engaged in protected activity. In doing so ignored Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s testimony that weeks before Professor Comaroff\u2019s October 13, 2017 threat, Harvard Student 2 told Professor Comaroff that Ms. Czerwienski was discussing his misconduct with other students. And further ignored the testimony of three separate students who (in ODR\u2019s own words) \u201ceach understood the last student referenced by [Professor Comaroff] in the October 13 conversation . . . was [Ms. Czerwienski].\u201d 146. Moreover refused to consider any of Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s written communications with Harvard Student 2. These communications show Harvard Student 2 detailing Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 36 of 65 37 Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment and reference Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s discussions with other students about his harassment. They further reflect that Harvard Student 2 told Professor Comaroff about those discussions and notified him that Ms. Czerwienski engaged in protected activity. iii Recommends No Discipline 147. Based on these and other inequities that permeated its blinkered investigation did not recommend discipline for Professor Comaroff. Indeed proposed no action that would prevent further harassment or retaliation against Plaintiffs, much less remedy the harm they had suffered. 148. Ms. Mandava, Ms. Czerwienski, and Ms. Kilburn therefore appealed ODR\u2019s decisions. The University\u2019s appellate panel, however, held to ODR\u2019s determination and summarily concluded that no \u201cprocedural violation occurred.\u201d The Title Office subsequently informed Plaintiffs that \u201c[t]he findings and determinations reached in the course of [ODR\u2019s] investigation are . . . final and cannot be re-visited.\u201d 149. Harvard\u2019s position is therefore clear: it views ODR\u2019s determination that Professor Comaroff is not responsible for most of his sexual harassment against Ms. Kilburn and for his retaliation against Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski as final and sound. K. An External Review Confirms Ms. Mandava\u2019s Claims 150. After issued its Final Reports, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (\u201cFAS\u201d) (the division of Harvard to which the Department belongs) conducted a review to determine whether Professor Comaroff\u2019s \u201ccorrective rape\u201d discussion with Ms. Kilburn violated its Professional Conduct Policy, and whether Professor Comaroff\u2019s October 2017 threat to Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski violated that policy. It appointed an external factfinder to review ODR\u2019s Final Report Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 37 of 65 38 and record of investigation concerning Ms. Mandava\u2019s case (i.e., the same evidence that reviewed). 151. In December 2021, the external factfinder concluded, based on this evidence, that, on October 13, 2017, Professor Comaroff threatened Ms. Mandava to stop her from participating in discussions about his sexual misconduct. The investigator found that his statements violated the Professional Conduct Policy. L. Harvard Announces Inadequate and Temporary Sanctions for Professor Comaroff 152. On January 20, 2022\u2014nearly five years after Ms. Mandava, Ms. Czerwienski, and Harvard Student 2 began reporting Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment, and over a decade after Harvard first learned of the risk he posed to students\u2014Dean of Claudine Gay announced limited findings and discipline against Professor Comaroff. Dean Gay wrote that after an investigation by and FAS, Professor Comaroff \u201cwas found to have engaged in verbal conduct that violated the Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy and the Professional Conduct Policy.\u201d She provided no further detail about his underlying conduct. 153. Harvard imposed limited, temporary sanctions on Professor Comaroff in response: the placed Professor Comaroff on leave for the spring 2022 semester and relieved him of teaching required courses (but evidently not elective courses), from serving on dissertation committees, and from advising graduate students who do not have at least one other co-advisor for the 2022-2023 academic year. Harvard did not take any measures to prevent Professor Comaroff or those in his network from engaging in further harassment or retaliation against Plaintiffs or other students.21 21 Dean Gay\u2019s statement further referred victims of harassment to Harvard\u2019s Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, a Harvard program that has been defunct for over a year. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 38 of 65 39 M. \u201cPerfectly Legitimate Office-Hours Advice\u201d: Harvard Exposes Plaintiffs to Further Retaliation from the Comaroffs and Their Allies 154. Mere hours after Harvard released its statement, Professor Comaroff and his wife resumed their campaign of retaliation. On January 20, 2022, Professor Jean Comaroff disseminated a press release from Professor John Comaroff\u2019s lawyers disparaging Plaintiffs. She sent the message to a broad segment of the Comaroffs\u2019 professional network, including former students, Harvard faculty, and other Anthropology scholars with the power to influence Plaintiffs\u2019 careers. One of the recipients of Professor Jean Comaroff\u2019s email was Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s current advisor, whom Ms. Czerwienski selected after she was forced to drop Jean Comaroff as an advisor, and who is charged with determining whether Ms. Czerwienski will be awarded a Ph.D. 155. In her email, Professor Jean Comaroff thanked the recipients for their \u201csupport and affirmation\u201d during the investigation and wrote that she was sharing the press release to provide \u201cthe full context\u201d behind Harvard\u2019s findings, as she believed this case \u201cspeaks to social and political conditions in the contemporary academy\u201d with \u201cserious professional implications for the future.\u201d 156. The statement Professor Jean Comaroff appended to her email\u2014authored by Professor John Comaroff\u2019s lawyers\u2014panned Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition to sexual harassment as an \u201cattack on academic freedom.\u201d 157. Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley joined in the press release\u2019s attack. She commented, \u201cWhat this case boils down to: two students took offense at perfectly legitimate office-hours advice\u201d (emphasis added). She exhorted \u201c[e]veryone who advises at Harvard\u201d to \u201cnote this attack on academic freedom.\u201d 158. The press release and Professor Halley\u2019s comment not only grossly mischaracterized Professor Comaroff\u2019s conduct\u2014including his insistence to Ms. Kilburn that she Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 39 of 65 40 would be raped and murdered in a country irrelevant to her studies, his unwarranted physical advances, and his threats against Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski for speaking out about his sexual harassment\u2014it also evinced a clear intent to discredit Plaintiffs and to dissuade students from making complaints about similar harassment. 159. The Comaroffs\u2019 efforts paid off. Within days, they convinced 38 faculty members to sign a public letter that minimized Professor Comaroff\u2019s abuse and misrepresented the few factual findings made. The letter falsely stated that Professor Comaroff had simply given Ms. Kilburn \u201cadvice intended to protect an advisee from sexual violence\u201d\u2014even though (as credited) he had repeatedly described how Ms. Kilburn \u201cwould be raped\u201d in a country far away from the one she planned to study. The Harvard faculty members further dismissed the external factfinder\u2019s conclusions, questioning why the review was \u201cjustif[ied].\u201d And they bemoaned that Harvard would \u201csanction\u201d a \u201ccommitted university citizen\u201d by investigating such complaints against a faculty member they \u201cknow . . . to be an excellent colleague.\u201d By signing the letter, Harvard faculty further curtailed Plaintiffs\u2019 narrowing universe of potential advisors: amongst the signatories are Professor Greenhalgh, Professor Elkins, and dozens of other faculty members. 160. Both communications, distributed to academics with the power to influence Plaintiffs\u2019 careers, constitute textbook retaliation. Their message is clear: students who experience harassment should shut up. It is the price to pay for entry into academia. N. Harvard\u2019s Unlawful Policies Underpin Its Deliberate Indifference 161. Plaintiffs\u2019 odyssey of abuse was not accidental. It was, instead, the product of at least five ongoing practices, the effects of which are now well known: to protect powerful faculty, even at the expense of students. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 40 of 65 41 162. First, Harvard does not investigate or otherwise act on credible reports of sexual harassment unless the victim proceeds with a formal complaint, even if Harvard has received prior complaints against the same professor. Harvard maintains this policy despite a December 30, 2014 warning from the Department of Education\u2019s Office for Civil Rights that \u201cif a recipient knows . . . about sexual harassment that creates a hostile environment, a recipient must take immediate and appropriate action to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred . . . regardless of whether a student has complained, asked the recipient to take action, or identified the harassment as a form of discrimination.\u201d22 Harvard could respond to student complaints by investigating their allegations or bringing its own formal complaint; but Harvard has repeatedly chosen not to do so. 163. Second ordinarily does not credit women\u2019s complaints unless they are corroborated by independent evidence, no matter how credible the complainant\u2019s testimony. Other survivors have publicly attested that Harvard has \u201cignored some of the most egregious cases of harm and sexual harassment that were brought to their office because of lack of documentary evidence.\u201d23 At one time, Harvard\u2019s written procedures concerning complaints of sexual assault explicitly provided that Harvard ordinarily would not consider a case unless allegations were supported by \u201cindependent corroborating evidence.\u201d Harvard has since removed that requirement from its published procedures, but it has persisted in practice. There is a consensus among scholars 22 Letter from Joel J. Berner, Reg\u2019l Dir., U.S. Dep\u2019t of Educ., Off. for C.R., to Martha C. Minow, Dean, Harvard L. Sch. 3-4 (Dec. 30, 2014); see also Dear Colleague Letter from Russlynn Ali, Assistant Sec\u2019y for C.R., U.S. Dep\u2019t of Educ., Off. for C.R., to Title Coordinators 4 (Apr. 4, 2011) (same). 23 Ann Gibbons, Harvard Bans Former Anthropology Chair After Finding Persistent Sexual Harassment, Science (June 10, 2021), chair-after-finding-persistent-sexual-harassment. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 41 of 65 42 that the archaic historical requirement of independent corroboration in cases of gender violence (and sexual assault in particular) rests on biases against women as lacking credibility. 164. Third, even as Harvard requires corroboration, its rules sharply restrict the written corroboration that complainants may offer. Even when a complainant has corroborating communications, Harvard will not admit them unless both parties to the communication participate in the proceeding and make themselves available for cross-examination. This rule arbitrarily excludes (among other things) statements by witnesses who are dissuaded from participating in the process by well-grounded fears of repercussions\u2014even direct threats by the accused himself. For example, Professor Comaroff\u2019s intimidation (including reading her complaint aloud to her) and threats of retaliation deterred Harvard Student 2 from participating in the process. As a result, Harvard ignored Harvard Student 2\u2019s contemporaneous written accounts of her abuse. 165. Fourth, as a matter of policy, Harvard does not take measures to protect students from professional retaliation. Despite Plaintiffs\u2019 repeated complaints and expressed concerns that Professor Comaroff would damage their careers through contact with colleagues and former students at other institutions, and despite reports that Professor Comaroff did so, Harvard has done nothing to prevent him from disparaging Plaintiffs to prospective employers. Indeed, Harvard has professed that it will do nothing to prevent this. 166. Fifth, Harvard failed to adequately train faculty in the Department to report sexual harassment by faculty against students. Despite knowing that some faculty would be reluctant to report misconduct committed by powerful senior faculty, and despite reports of sexual harassment by faculty in the Department (including Professor Comaroff), Harvard took no known steps to train or encourage faculty in the Department to make reports. As a result, faculty who knew of the Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 42 of 65 43 danger Professor Comaroff posed, dating back to his time at UChicago, did not timely report this knowledge to Harvard\u2019s Title Office, exposing Plaintiffs to abuse. 167. These shortcomings were not public and were not known to Plaintiffs as their ordeal unfolded, but they were no mystery to Harvard. Harvard Professor Stephen Blyth wrote in a May 2018 letter to then-President Drew Faust that Harvard\u2019s \u201ccurrent institutional structure may actively discourage victims from pursuing complaints.\u201d24 He explained that Harvard fails to instill \u201cconfidence that perpetrators will, when appropriate, be removed from the University,\u201d and concluded, \u201cHarvard has been an institution that does not act\u201d (emphasis added).25 Similarly, in 2021, Harvard faculty sent a letter to Harvard complaining about the pervasive deficiencies in ODR\u2019s process. Indeed, Deputy Provost Peggy Newell and Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Emma Dench admitted flaws in Harvard\u2019s process to Plaintiffs. Dean Dench acknowledged to Plaintiffs that the process made students \u201cgo mad\u201d because it left them \u201cin limbo forever,\u201d and Deputy Provost Newell affirmed that Mr. Avakian has mishandled Plaintiffs\u2019 complaints. 168. To date, however, Harvard has failed to correct these inequities. It has, to the contrary, repeatedly resisted programmatic changes to the process. Harvard\u2019s Graduate Student Union has suggested such changes. So have Plaintiffs. But Harvard persists in its archaic policies and customs, maintaining a \u201cculture in which the abuse of power is normalized and accommodated.\u201d26 24 Letter from Stephen Blyth, Professor, Harvard Univ., to Drew G. Faust, President, Harvard Univ. (May 7, 2018), letter/h2qAM6WfEOWiRHQVmu0N2M/story.html?camp=bg%3Abrief%3Arss%3Afeedly&rss_id=feedl y_rss_brief&s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Atwitter. 25 Id. 26 Harvard University Anthropology Department, Standing Committee for a Supportive Departmental Community Final Report 10 (2021). Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 43 of 65 44 O. Harvard\u2019s Deliberate Indifference Has Harmed and Continues to Harm Plaintiffs 169. Harvard\u2019s failure to prevent and redress Professor Comaroff\u2019s abuse and retaliation has profoundly altered the academic trajectories and career prospects of Ms. Czerwienski, Ms. Kilburn, and Ms. Mandava. It has also caused them significant emotional distress\u2014emotional distress that will continue for the foreseeable future. 170. All three Plaintiffs have been forced to delay their degree progress to participate in ODR\u2019s lengthy\u2014and ultimately futile\u2014process. They spent hundreds of hours marshalling evidence, preparing submissions, and struggling to understand ODR\u2019s arcane evidentiary rules, taking valuable time from their studies, writing, and other academic work\u2014only for Harvard to refuse to acknowledge Professor Comaroff\u2019s serial harassment and threats against students, just as it has done for years. Learning and living with the reality that Harvard is, and has for years been, willing to protect a serial harasser at the expense of their careers has taken a significant toll on Plaintiffs. 171. This ordeal has made it impossible for Ms. Kilburn to proceed with her doctorate as planned. As a fifth-year graduate student, she must form a dissertation committee consisting of advisors and faculty with expertise in her area of study, but her geographical region is studied by only three Harvard professors in her field: the Comaroffs and their former advisee, Professor Meiu. Nor can Ms. Kilburn look outside the Department to Professor Geschiere, Professor Elkins, or Dr. Cook, whom Professor Comaroff needlessly involved in her case. Ms. Kilburn must instead change her course of study and build an entirely new professional network. These limitations are profoundly damaging to Ms. Kilburn\u2019s academic progress; it will be virtually impossible for her to finish her doctorate within the planned seven-year timespan. If Ms. Kilburn is unable to find Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 44 of 65 45 new advisors and successfully develop a new field of expertise, she may be forced to leave academia entirely, having wasted years of her life and vast financial and personal resources. 172. Ms. Czerwienski had to direct her course of study away from Professor Comaroff\u2019s regional expertise and sever her advising relationship with Professor Jean Comaroff. The effects are far-reaching: Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s current advisor was one of the recipients of Professor Jean Comaroff\u2019s retaliatory email. And a prominent anthropologist in Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s subspeciality derided Ms. Czerwienski and her co-complainants for their \u201cTitld [sic uptightness.\u201d 173. Ms. Mandava had to change the focus of her dissertation away from Professor John Comaroff\u2019s subject matter expertise and has been unable to receive crucial letters of recommendation from Professors Jean and John Comaroff. 174. Given Professor John Comaroff\u2019s influence in the field and retaliation against them, all three Plaintiffs face dismal job prospects upon completion of their degrees, which has caused and will continue to cause irreparable damage to their earning potential. 175. In short, Harvard utterly failed Ms. Czerwienski, Ms. Kilburn, and Ms. Mandava, just as it has failed Professor Comaroff\u2019s many other victims. 176. By hiring and retaining Professor Comaroff\u2014and by ignoring complaints about him for years\u2014Harvard recklessly disregarded the likelihood that its students would suffer serious harm Count One Violation of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 Deliberate Indifference to Gender Discrimination and Hostile Educational Environment (20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681) (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs) Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 45 of 65 46 177. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 178. This count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs. 179. Plaintiffs are enrolled at Harvard as graduate students. 180. At all times relevant to this action, Harvard has received, and continues to receive, federal financial assistance. 181. Harvard has discriminated against Plaintiffs Czerwienski, Kilburn, and Mandava by subjecting them, through deliberate indifference, to discrimination based on their gender, including disparate treatment, retaliation, and a hostile environment that was sufficiently severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive to interfere with their educational opportunities and deprive them of the benefits of their educational programs. Relevant actions include, but are not limited to: a. In October 2017, Professor Comaroff retaliated against Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski by threatening their careers because he believed they had reported and would report his sexual harassment to other students and faculty, which is a protected activity under Title IX. b. From 2017 through 2022, Professors John and Jean Comaroff created a hostile educational environment for Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski because of the Comaroffs\u2019 belief that Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski had reported Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment and later his retaliation to other students, to faculty, and to Harvard. The Comaroffs\u2019 retaliatory actions at this time included, but are not limited to, threatening Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s careers and disseminating disparaging and misleading statements about Plaintiffs. c. From 2017 through 2021, Professor John Comaroff engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and retaliation against Ms. Kilburn, which created a hostile educational environment. d. In 2021, Professor Comaroff perpetuated the hostile environment by retaliating against Ms. Kilburn for complaining about his harassment. His acts of retaliation included, but are not limited to, baselessly naming prominent scholars in her field as witnesses in Harvard\u2019s process. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 46 of 65 47 e. In January 2022, Professors John and Jean Comaroff disseminated disparaging and misleading statements about Plaintiffs in retaliation for Plaintiffs\u2019 filing of complaints of discrimination with Harvard\u2019s ODR. f. In February 2022, Professors John and Jean Comaroff and other Harvard faculty retaliated against Plaintiffs by publishing a false or misleading statement that would reasonably dissuade students from making complaints against faculty. 182. Before Professor Comaroff took these actions, appropriate persons at Harvard with authority to implement corrective measures were on actual notice of the risk he posed to students. Harvard knew that Professor Comaroff had sexually harassed and otherwise discriminated against other students before he retaliated against Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski and before he sexually harassed and retaliated against Ms. Kilburn. In addition, since 2017, Harvard has been on actual notice of the hostile academic environment that Plaintiffs themselves have endured at Harvard. Harvard has shown continued deliberate indifference to Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment and retaliation by tolerating, condoning, ratifying, and failing to take remedial action to correct it. 183. Harvard has also maintained an official policy, custom, and/or practice of deliberate indifference to a known overall risk of sexual harassment, retaliation, and gender-based disparate treatment against graduate students in the Anthropology Department. Specifically, Harvard has (among other things) failed to adequately train its employees to prevent, report, and correct sexual harassment and retaliation and to address its effects; failed to adequately act on multiple reports of sexual harassment and retaliation by multiple professors; maintained and enforced dispute resolution policies and processes that cause Harvard officials to fail to act on reports of sexual harassment and fail to deter systemic sexual harassment; and otherwise failed to implement adequate procedures to detect, monitor, and correct sexual harassment and retaliation. Harvard\u2019s official policy of deliberate indifference to gender discrimination has systemically deprived Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 47 of 65 48 women and non-binary graduate students in the Department of benefits, privileges, and placement services relative to men. 184. Harvard\u2019s deliberate indifference to the known risk of sexual harassment and retaliation that Professor Comaroff posed, its inadequate response to Plaintiffs\u2019 complaints, and its failure to correct pervasive issues of sexual harassment and discrimination in the Department have themselves exacerbated the hostile environment that Plaintiffs experienced in the Department. 185. Through its deliberate indifference, Harvard has denied all three Plaintiffs their rights to work and learn in an environment free of gender discrimination and associated retaliation. Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer harm, including loss of future educational and employment opportunities, humiliation, embarrassment, reputational harm, emotional and physical distress, mental anguish, and other economic and non-economic damages. 186. Because of the continuous nature of Harvard\u2019s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs are entitled to the application of the continuing violation doctrine to the unlawful acts alleged herein. 187. Because a reasonable person in each Plaintiff\u2019s position would have first discovered that Harvard\u2019s unlawful practices and handling of prior complaints against professors in the Anthropology Department were the probable cause of her injury within the applicable limitations period, Plaintiffs are entitled to the application of the discovery rule to the unlawful acts alleged herein. 188. Because Professor Comaroff threatened their careers if they spoke out about his misconduct, because Harvard ratified that threat by failing to act on it, and because Professor Comaroff\u2019s threat induced Plaintiffs Mandava and Czerwienski to keep silent about his misconduct until May 2019, equity estops Harvard from relying on the statute of limitations. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 48 of 65 49 189. Plaintiffs are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of Title IX, including compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys\u2019 fees and costs, and other appropriate relief. Count Two Violation of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 Retaliation (20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681) (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs) 190. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 191. This count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs. 192. Plaintiffs are enrolled at Harvard as graduate students. 193. At all times relevant to this action, Harvard has received, and continues to receive, federal financial assistance. 194. In addition to discriminating against Plaintiffs through deliberate indifference to the risk and reality of a sex-based hostile environment, Harvard discriminated against Plaintiffs through its deliberate indifference to the retaliatory acts of its employees,27 including: a. In October 2017, Professor Comaroff retaliated against Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski by threatening their careers because he believed they had reported and would report his sexual harassment to other students and faculty, which is a protected activity under Title IX. b. From 2017 through 2022, Professors John and Jean Comaroff created a hostile educational environment for Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski based on the Comaroffs\u2019 belief that Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski had reported Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment and later his retaliation to other students, to faculty, and to Harvard (a protected activity). This retaliation includes, but is not limited to, threatening Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski\u2019s 27 Plaintiffs assert Count Two (along with their other claims) in addition to and in the alternative to Count One and maintain that retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 49 of 65 50 careers and disseminating disparaging and misleading statements about Plaintiffs for having filed complaints of discrimination. c. In 2021, Professor Comaroff perpetuated the hostile environment by retaliating against Ms. Kilburn for complaining about his harassment (a protected activity), including by baselessly naming prominent scholars in her field as witnesses in the proceedings in retaliation for her formal complaint. d. In 2022, Professors John and Jean Comaroff and Professor Janet Halley retaliated against Plaintiffs by disseminating a false or misleading statement that would reasonably dissuade students from making complaints against faculty. e. In 2022, 38 Harvard faculty members retaliated against Plaintiffs by publishing a false or misleading statement that would reasonably dissuade students from making complaints against faculty (a protected activity). 195. Before Professor Comaroff and his allies took these actions, appropriate persons at Harvard with authority to implement corrective measures were on actual notice of the risk they posed to students. Harvard also knew that its policies, customs, and practices unreasonably exposed students (including Plaintiffs) to retaliation. Harvard was further aware that from 2017 through 2020, the above retaliation continued to chill Plaintiffs\u2019 opposition to Professor Comaroff\u2019s discrimination and continued to harm their education and careers. Nonetheless, Harvard maintained a policy, custom, and practice of deliberate indifference to retaliation in its educational programs leaving Plaintiffs vulnerable to it. 196. Harvard\u2019s actions would dissuade a reasonable student from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. 197. Because of the continuous nature of Harvard\u2019s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs are entitled to the application of the continuing violation doctrine to the unlawful acts alleged herein. 198. Because a reasonable person in each Plaintiff\u2019s position would have first discovered that Harvard\u2019s unlawful polices were the probable cause of her injury within the applicable limitations period, Plaintiffs are entitled to the application of the discovery rule. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 50 of 65 51 199. Plaintiffs are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under Title IX, including compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys\u2019 fees and costs, and other appropriate relief. Count Three Violation of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 Gender Discrimination (20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681) (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs) 200. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 201. This count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs. 202. Plaintiffs are enrolled at Harvard as graduate students. 203. At all times relevant to this action, Harvard has received, and continues to receive, federal financial assistance. 204. In addition to discriminating against Plaintiffs through deliberate indifference to discrimination (including sexual harassment and retaliation) by its employees, Harvard has also discriminated against all three Plaintiffs by subjecting them to disparate treatment based on gender and gender-based bias or animus. Specifically, Harvard maintains official policies, procedures, and customs applicable to cases of sexual and gender-based harassment and retaliation based on bias against women, against students who complain about gender-based harassment and retaliation, and/or in favor of men. As a result, Harvard deprived Plaintiffs of the benefits of its educational programs and subjected them to discrimination based on their gender. 205. Harvard\u2019s differential treatment of Plaintiffs is a direct and proximate result of gender discrimination. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 51 of 65 52 206. Harvard has failed to prevent, respond to, adequately investigate, and/or appropriately resolve instances of gender discrimination. 207. Because of Harvard\u2019s continuous unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer harm, including, but not limited to, loss of future educational and employment opportunities, humiliation, embarrassment, reputational harm, emotional and physical distress, mental anguish, and other economic damages and non-economic damages. 208. Because of the continuous nature of Harvard\u2019s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs are entitled to the application of the continuing violation doctrine to the unlawful acts alleged herein. 209. Because a reasonable person in each Plaintiff\u2019s position would have first discovered that Harvard\u2019s unlawful polices were the probable cause of her injury within the applicable limitations period, Plaintiffs are entitled to the application of the discovery rule. 210. Plaintiffs are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for violations of Title IX, including compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys\u2019 fees and costs, and other appropriate relief. Count Four Violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 12, \u00a7 11I) (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs) 211. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 212. This count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs. 213. Plaintiffs are enrolled at Harvard as graduate students. 214. At all times relevant to this action, Harvard was an educational institution and has received, and continues to receive, federal financial assistance. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 52 of 65 53 215. The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (\u201cMCRA\u201d) forbids efforts to \u201cinterfere\u201d or \u201cattempt to interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion\u201d with another person\u2019s \u201cexercise or enjoyment\u201d of any \u201crights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth\u201d of Massachusetts. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, \u00a7 11H(a)(1). The act gives any person aggrieved by a violation the right to bring an action for equitable relief and money damages. Id. \u00a7 11I. 216. Professor Comaroff subjected Ms. Kilburn to a pattern of gender-based harassment and assault continuing from 2017 until at least April 2019 using threats, intimidation, and coercion. 217. Professor Comaroff also threatened, intimidated, and coerced Plaintiffs for speaking about and opposing his sexual harassment and discrimination with the goal of inducing them to stop their speech and opposition to his sexual harassment and gender discrimination, all in violation of federal and state law. Relevant acts included, but are not limited to, the following: a. In October 2017, Professor Comaroff threatened the careers of Ms. Mandava and Ms. Czerwienski because he believed they had reported and would report his sexual harassment to other students and faculty, which is a protected activity under Title IX. b. From 2020 to 2022, Professor Comaroff disclosed Ms. Kilburn\u2019s allegations to faculty members in her field and enlisted them as witnesses. c. In 2022, Professors John and Jean Comaroff and Professor Janet Halley disseminated an email disparaging Plaintiffs to other faculty with the power to influence Plaintiffs\u2019 careers. d. In 2022, 38 Harvard faculty members published a false or misleading statement that would reasonably dissuade students from making complaints against faculty. 218. In doing so, Professor John Comaroff, Professor Jean Comaroff, Professor Halley, and other Harvard faculty interfered and/or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion with Plaintiffs\u2019 rights under federal and Massachusetts law, including: Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 53 of 65 54 a. The right to be free of actions by an educational institution that \u201cdiscriminate [on the basis of sex] against any student admitted to\u201d a graduate \u201cprogram or course of study in providing benefits, privileges and placement services,\u201d Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151C \u00a7 2(d); b. The right not to \u201cbe excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance\u201d under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a); and c. The right to \u201cequality under the law\u201d and freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex, guaranteed by Article 1 of the Massachusetts Constitution. 219. Harvard is vicariously liable for the actions of its faculty in violation of the because Harvard employees took those actions within the scope of their employment. 220. The above-alleged threats, intimidation, and coercion in violation of the upended Plaintiffs\u2019 academic careers and caused and continue to cause them emotional, reputational, and economic harm, for which they are entitled to damages, including punitive damages, and equitable relief. Count Five Sexual Harassment Under Massachusetts Law (Violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Chapters 214 \u00a7 1C) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Kilburn) 221. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 222. This count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Kilburn. 223. Plaintiff Kilburn is enrolled at Harvard as a graduate student. 224. At all times relevant to this action, Harvard was an educational institution and has received, and continues to receive, federal financial assistance. 225. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151C \u00a7 2(g) prohibits an educational institution from sexually harassing students in any program or course of study. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 54 of 65 55 226. From 2017 to 2019, Professor Comaroff made sexual advances on Ms. Kilburn and engaged in verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature. 227. Ms. Kilburn understood that Professor Comaroff\u2019s conduct was a term or condition of the benefits, privileges, or placement services of her program and influenced the evaluation of academic achievement. 228. Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment unreasonably interfered with Ms. Kilburn\u2019s education by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or sexually offensive educational environment. 229. Harvard is strictly liable for Professor Comaroff\u2019s sexual harassment of Ms. Kilburn. 230. Professor Comaroff\u2019s harassment inflicted injuries and threatens future injuries for which Harvard is liable for damages, including punitive damages, and appropriate equitable relief under Massachusetts law. Count Six Violation of the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93, \u00a7 102) (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs) 231. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 232. This count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs. 233. The Massachusetts Equal Rights Act (\u201cMERA\u201d) guarantees \u201c[a]ll persons within the commonwealth\u201d the \u201csame rights enjoyed by white male citizens\u201d to \u201cmake and enforce contracts\u201d and \u201cto the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.\u201d Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, \u00a7 102. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 55 of 65 56 234. As alleged in Count Eight, Plaintiffs made a contract with Harvard to provide them with graduate education free from gender discrimination and retaliation, in exchange for their matriculation, labor, tuition payments, and fees, among other things. 235. By subjecting Ms. Kilburn to a pattern of gender discrimination, including gender- based harassment, by subjecting all Plaintiffs to retaliation in their graduate program, and by creating an unequal and hostile educational environment, Harvard, Professor Comaroff (acting within the scope of his employment), and other Harvard faculty members deprived Plaintiffs of the benefits of their contracts with Harvard and the full and equal benefit of state and federal law, including Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151C \u00a7 2(d), Title IX, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a), and the Massachusetts Constitution, based on their gender. 236. In doing so, Harvard acted knowingly and with reckless indifference to Plaintiffs\u2019 rights. 237. Harvard is vicariously liable for the actions of its faculty in violation of the because Harvard faculty took those actions within the scope of their employment. 238. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under the MERA, including compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys\u2019 fees and costs, and other appropriate relief. Count Seven Negligent Hiring and Supervision (Massachusetts Common Law) (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs) 239. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 240. This count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 56 of 65 57 241. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, Professor Comaroff was an agent of and employed by Harvard. 242. Harvard owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to avoid selecting a professor it knew or had reason to know posed a significant risk of harm to students and to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiffs from sexual harassment and retaliation by its employees. 243. Harvard knew or should have known that Professor Comaroff posed a risk to and was unfit to work with, exercise influence over, or supervise women students. Harvard, however, failed to exercise due care in hiring Professor Comaroff and in retaining him in a position of access, influence, and authority over women students without adequate training or supervision. 244. As a direct and proximate result of Harvard\u2019s breach of its duty of care, Plaintiffs were subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation by Professor Comaroff. 245. Plaintiffs suffered damages and injuries for which Harvard is liable under state law. Count Eight Breach of Contract (Massachusetts Common Law) (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs) 246. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 247. This count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs. 248. Harvard represents that it has a broad sexual misconduct policy and that it takes active measures to prevent and punish sexual harassment and assault. For example, Harvard\u2019s Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy, applicable to conduct occurring between September 1, 2014 and August 14, 2020, states: Harvard University is committed to maintaining a safe and healthy educational and work environment in which no member of the University community is, on the Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 57 of 65 58 basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in any University program or activity. Gender-based and sexual harassment, including sexual violence, are forms of sex discrimination in that they deny or limit an individual\u2019s ability to participate in or benefit from University programs or activities. . . . Retaliation against an individual for raising an allegation of sexual or gender-based harassment, for cooperating in an investigation of such a complaint, or for opposing discriminatory practices is prohibited. 249. Harvard\u2019s Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy also promises that Harvard will \u201cprevent incidents of sexual and gender-based harassment from denying or limiting an individual\u2019s ability to participate in or benefit from the University\u2019s programs.\u201d It commits that Harvard will \u201cprovide prompt and equitable methods of investigation and resolution to stop discrimination, remedy any harm, and prevent its recurrence.\u201d 250. Harvard\u2019s Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy also gives Harvard \u201can obligation to keep the community safe and to address incidents of alleged harassment that it knows about or reasonably should know about.\u201d Harvard\u2019s FAQs Concerning the Harvard University Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy and Procedures No. 12. 251. Similarly, Harvard\u2019s Interim Title Sexual Harassment Policy, applicable to conduct occurring on or after August 14, 2020, promises that the University will \u201crespond promptly and equitably to sexual harassment in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent\u201d and \u201cprevent incidents of sexual harassment from denying or limiting an individual\u2019s ability to participate in or benefit from the University\u2019s programs or activities.\u201d 252. Further, under Harvard\u2019s Interim Other Sexual Misconduct Policy, applicable to conduct occurring on or after August 14, 2020, the University will \u201crespond promptly and equitably to allegations of other sexual misconduct.\u201d Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 58 of 65 59 253. Harvard\u2019s Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy and Procedures for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, applicable to conduct occurring between September 1, 2014 and August 14, 2020, specifically charges the with \u201cmaintaining a safe and healthy educational and work environment in which no member of the community is excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in any University program or activity on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.\u201d And Harvard\u2019s Interim Policies and Procedures Addressing Title Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment and Other Sexual Misconduct for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, applicable to conduct occurring on or after August 14, 2020, similarly charge the with \u201cmaintaining a safe and healthy educational and work environment in which no member of the community is, on the basis of sex, including sexual orientation or gender identity, excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination in any University program or activity.\u201d Harvard\u2019s Professional Conduct Policy also provides that \u201c[f]aculty must comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and professional standards including policies and practices; this includes, but is not limited to, policies regarding discrimination and sexual and gender-based harassment\u201d and that \u201c[n]on- compliance . . . could result in varying sanctions.\u201d 254. Harvard\u2019s Whistleblowing Policy further provides that \u201c[t]he University will protect from retaliation members of the Harvard community who make good faith reports of suspected violations of the law or University policy.\u201d 255. Similarly, Harvard\u2019s Non-Retaliation Policy provides that \u201c[t]he University expressly forbids anyone to take any form of retaliatory action against any member of the Harvard community who in good faith voices concerns, seeks advice, files a complaint or grievance, seeks the aid of Human Resources, testifies or participates in investigations, compliance reviews, Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 59 of 65 60 proceedings or hearings, or opposes actual or perceived violations of Harvard University\u2019s policy or unlawful acts\u201d and further promises that \u201cretaliation will not be tolerated.\u201d 256. These promises are part of the contract that Harvard makes with its students in exchange for their matriculation, labor, tuition payments, and fees. 257. Plaintiffs performed under this contract. Harvard did not. Harvard permitted Professor Comaroff to sexually harass Ms. Kilburn and to retaliate against all three Plaintiffs. Harvard failed to take effective measures to \u201cprevent incidents of sexual and gender-based harassment\u201d and to \u201cprotect\u201d Plaintiffs from retaliation. Indeed, contrary to Harvard\u2019s policy, Harvard has tolerated a sexually hostile environment within its Anthropology Department and failed to provide Plaintiffs with methods of investigation that were prompt and equitable or designed to stop discrimination, remedy any harm, and prevent its recurrence. Harvard thus failed to meet Plaintiffs\u2019 reasonable expectations of the equal educational benefits to which they are entitled under Harvard\u2019s policies. 258. Harvard\u2019s breaches of contract have caused Plaintiffs substantial economic damages, including lost future earnings, among other injuries, for which Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages and appropriate equitable relief. Count Nine Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Massachusetts Common Law) (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs) 259. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 260. This count is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 60 of 65 61 261. All contracts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts contain an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, including the contract between Harvard and Plaintiffs. This implied covenant prohibits actions that will have the effect of destroying or injuring the rights of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract. 262. Harvard\u2019s multiple Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policies Professional Conduct Policy, Whistleblowing Policy, Non-Retaliation Policy, and other materials applicable to students all contain promises to Plaintiffs that are part of binding contracts between Harvard and Plaintiffs Czerwienski, Kilburn, and Mandava. 263. Harvard violated the reasonable expectations of Plaintiffs under these contracts. 264. Harvard breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by maintaining an investigatory and dispute resolution process that is inadequate to effectively remedy sexual harassment and retaliation against students, by failing to take the steps necessary to prevent and correct the rampant sexual misconduct and retaliation committed by Professor Comaroff, by failing to provide Plaintiffs with a complaint process that comports with basic fairness, and by turning a blind eye to the hostile environment and unequal access to education afforded to Plaintiffs based on their gender. These acts and omissions have injured the rights of Plaintiffs to receive the benefits of their contracts with Harvard. 265. Upon information and belief, Harvard\u2019s actions as alleged herein were performed in bad faith, in that the purpose behind Harvard\u2019s practices and policies was to facilitate the evasion of Harvard\u2019s obligations to address sexual misconduct and discrimination associated with Professor Comaroff. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Harvard\u2019s actions as alleged herein were performed in bad faith in that Harvard deliberately refused to investigate informal complaints of harassment against professors in the Anthropology Department, knowing full well that few, if Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 61 of 65 62 any, students would file formal complaints with and that investigations rarely result in sanctions against professors. Upon information and belief has published misleading statistics regarding the duration of its investigations, inducing participants to believe that investigations are significantly shorter than they are. 266. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Harvard\u2019s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Count Ten Inducing Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invasion of Privacy (Massachusetts Common Law and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, \u00a7 1B) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Kilburn) 267. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in each and every aforementioned paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 268. This count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Kilburn. 269. From 2018 to 2019, Plaintiff Kilburn received treatment from a licensed therapist. 270. Under Massachusetts law, it is a breach of fiduciary duty for a healthcare provider to disclose medical information about the patient without the patient\u2019s consent. 271 healthcare provider\u2019s unauthorized disclosure of private medical information is also an invasion of privacy actionable under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, \u00a7 1B. 272. Federal regulation 45 C.F.R. \u00a7 164.508 at all relevant times prohibited the release of Ms. Kilburn\u2019s medical records to Harvard without her specific, written, and signed authorization. 273 third party who induces a healthcare provider to disclose information that the third party knew or should have known was confidential is liable to the patient for the damages that flow from that disclosure. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 62 of 65 63 274. Plaintiff Kilburn\u2019s therapist possessed medical records that contain confidential information communicated during private therapy sessions for the purpose of therapeutic treatment. Plaintiff Kilburn reasonably expected that the information would be kept confidential. 275. Plaintiff Kilburn did not authorize Harvard to obtain her psychotherapy notes or to disclose them to others. 276. Harvard knew or should have known of the existence of the physician-patient relationship between Ms. Kilburn and her therapist. 277. Harvard intended to induce Ms. Kilburn\u2019s therapist to disclose Ms. Kilburn\u2019s psychotherapy notes or Harvard reasonably should have anticipated that its actions would induce Ms. Kilburn\u2019s therapist to disclose Ms. Kilburn\u2019s psychotherapy notes. 278. During its investigation, Harvard obtained, used, discussed, and disclosed Plaintiff Kilburn\u2019s confidential psychotherapy records to multiple people, including, but not limited to, Professor Comaroff, his lawyers (one of whom is a Harvard faculty member), several faculty members on Harvard\u2019s appeal committee, members of the Office for Gender Equity, Title coordinators, and deans. 279. Harvard did not reasonably believe that Ms. Kilburn\u2019s therapist could disclose that information to Harvard without violating the duty of confidentiality that the therapist owed Ms. Kilburn. 280. By inducing Plaintiff Kilburn\u2019s therapist to disclose Plaintiff Kilburn\u2019s medical records without her consent, Harvard induced a breach of fiduciary duty and invasion of privacy under Massachusetts law. 281. Harvard persisted in this course despite a request from Ms. Kilburn that Harvard limit access to her confidential medical information. Specifically, on or about September 28, 2021, Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 63 of 65 64 Ms. Kilburn\u2019s counsel requested that Harvard not further disclose her medical records; inform her of individuals who have received a copy of her medical records; and instruct these individuals to turn over the records to Harvard\u2019s general counsel\u2019s office without retaining copies. Despite affirmative notice that Ms. Kilburn did not consent to Harvard\u2019s continued use and disclosure of her medical records, Harvard rejected these requests Wherefore, Plaintiffs request the following relief: a declaratory judgment that Harvard\u2019s policies, practices and/or procedures challenged herein are illegal and in violation of the rights of Plaintiffs under, inter alia, Title and the applicable Massachusetts state laws and doctrines set forth above; b permanent injunction against Harvard and its officers, owners, agents, successors, employees and/or representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in any further unlawful practices, policies, customs, and usages as set forth herein; c. An award of damages to Plaintiffs, including compensatory damages and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial; d. An award of litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees; e. An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest available under law; and f. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues triable of right to a jury. Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 64 of 65 65 Dated: February 8, 2022 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sean Ouellette Sean Ouellette (BBO# 697559 700 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 300 Washington 20003 Telephone: (202) 499-5200 [email protected] -- and -- Russell Kornblith (pro hac vice forthcoming) Carolin Guentert (pro hac vice forthcoming 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5650 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case 1:22-cv-10202 Document 1 Filed 02/08/22 Page 65 of 65"} |
8,616 | Harry Whitaker | Northern Michigan University | [
"8616_101.pdf"
] | {"8616_101.pdf": "The North Wind \u2022 January 25, 2018 \u2022 suspended-for-sexual-misconduct/ Former prof suspended for sexual misconduct Winter Keefer former professor of psychology retired and signed a separation agreement with the university after being suspended with pay for \u201cviolation of the university\u2019s Sexual Misconduct Policy.\u201d In a strongly worded Oct. 6 letter obtained by The North Wind via a Freedom of Information Act Request, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs Dale Kapla outlined what he called \u201cegregious behavior\u201d by former professor Harry Whitaker. The behavior included asking a \u201cfemale student for sex while [Whitaker was] intoxicated\u201d and several days later in his office telling her \u201c\u2018the offer still stands.\u2019\u2019\u2019 Kapla also said in the letter addressed to Whitaker, which notified him of his suspension, that Whitaker \u201crepeatedly commented on the appearance\u201d of a second female student who worked in his department\u2019s office and \u201crepeatedly invited the same female student to coffee, lunch and/or dinner alone\u201d with him off campus to \u201cdiscuss a research project.\u201d Kapla said Whitaker did not extend the same offer to male students. Most of Kapla\u2019s letter pertained to the second student, who worked as a secretary in Whitaker\u2019s department. Kapla said during one of Whitaker\u2019s invitations to dinner alone with him off campus, he \u201casked the same female student whether she owned a car, and that she need not worry as they would find a place to hide it.\u201d After \u201crepeated invitations by [Whitaker], the same female student answered don\u2019t know.\u2019\u201d Kapla said Whitaker \u201cthen stopped both lunch/ dinner invitations and the offer to discuss a research project met with the former female student employee in person and it is difficult to put into words the impact your conduct has had on her emotional well-being and education,\u201d Kapla said in his letter to Whitaker. \u201cYour conduct has severely eroded the respect and reverence she had for you as a professional and role model. Your conduct has raised questions about the real reasons behind your work with students. Your conduct caused her to avoid you, which left her wondering how such avoidance would affect her employment and education.\u201d Kapla said Whitaker told the female student to keep the lunch and dinner invitation to discuss her research project \u201cconfidential as to avoid gossip among other students\u201d and also \u201cnot to tell\u201d the department head and secretary. Kapla said Whitaker first denied this but later admitted to asking her to do this. \u201cYour behavior is nothing short of egregious, and is not, and will not be tolerated by the university,\u201d Kapla wrote am therefore recommending your immediate dismissal from Northern Michigan University.\u201d Whitaker On the same day Kapla\u2019s letter was sent to Whitaker, Director of Public Safety and Police Services Michael Bath sent Whitaker a \u201cno access\u201d letter informing him that, as a result of his suspension with pay from NMU, Whitaker would be prohibited from entering onto any property owned by the university effective immediately. \u201cIf you are observed on any University owned property without prior approval, you will be treated as a trespasser and arrested on criminal charges,\u201d Bath\u2019s letter to Whitaker stated. According to Bath\u2019s letter, one exception to the no access order was that Whitaker would be allowed to attend meeting(s) with the staff in the Cohodas Administrative building with prior approval and verification from the AAUP. Whitaker \u201cvigorously denied any wrongdoing\u201d in a Dec. 15 letter to Kapla and requested that Kapla\u2019s Oct. 6 letter be removed from his personnel file. Whitaker had also requested on Oct. 20 an appeal and review of his case by the Faculty Review Committee (FRC). No documents pertaining this review were obtained via the request. Whitaker sent a second letter to Kapla on Jan. 11, which he requested be added to his personnel file, that offered his version of the events outlined in Kapla\u2019s Oct. 6 letter. While Whitaker did not deny asking the woman for sex during a \u201cfuneral celebration,\u201d he said she wasn\u2019t a student at the time indeed had been drinking excessively that evening and would never have remembered the alleged incident except for the fact that the woman showed up in my office a few weeks later, to ask me if remembered what happened at the party,\u201d Whitaker said in his letter to Kapla did not, whereupon she told me that had asked her up to my hotel room interpreted this as light banter and replied that the offer still stands. She became annoyed, telling me that she preferred women not men promptly apologized.\u201d Whitaker also said this incident happened nearly a decade ago and that, though she did return to his department as a graduate student, he was never her professor nor had he ever been in any \u201csupervisory role of her.\u201d Referencing the second female student from Kapla\u2019s letter, Whitaker said his comments about the student\u2019s appearance started in the winter semester of 2016 when the student came to work upset about breaking up with a \u201clong-term boyfriend did attempt over the next seven or eight months to help restore her self-esteem,\u201d Whitaker said. Whitaker also stated that the invitation to lunch and dinner to discuss research was also extended to a male student extended an invitation to this woman, and to a male student who was in the same class, asking them if they would like to discuss turning their class paper into a publication,\u201d Whitaker said. Whitaker said the invitations were extended during the winter semester of 2017 and that he met the male student \u201cfirst for dinner at the dining facility in the Student Center,\u201d then later in the semester at Whitaker\u2019s home. Kapla\u2019s allegations that Whitaker had tried to keep his invitations to meals off campus with the female a secret was never addressed in Whitaker\u2019s Dec. 11 letter. However, Whitaker did say he stopped the invitations after it became clear she was \u201cnot interested in having lunch or dinner\u201d with him. \u201cAfter that, my only contact with her was an email sent to her on March 17, 2017, inquiring whether or not she was going to attend the Wildcat Weekend event, assuming could bring up the research project again at that time. She did not reply nor did see her at Wildcat Weekend,\u201d Whitaker said. On March 27, Whitaker said he received an email from Director of Equal Opportunity and Title Coordinator Janet Koski, asking him to see her about a complaint. \u201cOf course after that it was inappropriate for me to bring up the research project with this woman,\u201d Whitaker said in his letter to Kapla. Though Whitaker appealed his case to the FRC, he later opted to retire and sign a separation agreement on Dec. 4, agreeing to be retired and separated from by Dec. 31. By signing the separation agreement, Whitaker agreed not to \u201cask for, involve or permit any student to participate in any way in his future research, and not to initiate or solicit contact with any student while on campus or through the use of any media or device, including email.\u201d The separation agreement also states that the \u201cno access\u201d letter sent by Bath would remain in effect for a minimum of 24 months after which, at Whitaker\u2019s request, NMU\u2019s Public Safety Department could reassess the order. If the order is reassessed, a determination will be made based on Whitaker\u2019s compliance with the separation agreement and the potential impact to university community members. Through the separation agreement, the no access order contained the exception of Whitaker using the Health Center in its current location with Bath\u2019s approval, and only while such benefits are available to retirees. The separation agreement also included a non-disparagement agreement that states, \u201cThe Employee agrees and covenants that the Employee shall not at any time make, publish, or communicate to any person or entity or in any public forum any defamatory or disparaging remarks, comments, or statements concerning NMU, or any of its past or present trustees officers, employees, students or related third-parties.\u201d The Sexual Misconduct Policy found in the Public Safety and Police Services tab of the website states that Sexual Misconduct is a term includes sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, dating violence, voyeurism, sex discrimination, domestic violence, and any other conduct of a sexual nature that is nonconsensual. Dale Kapla declined to comment on anything regarding Whitaker\u2019s case and referred any request for comment on NMU\u2019s current Sexual Misconduct Policy to President Fritz Erickson. Erickson said employees of the university are prohibited from talking about personnel matters, but student complaints about harassment will always be investigated, especially when there is a pattern of complaints. \u201cOur primary concern will always lie with our students,\u201d Erickson said."} |
7,801 | Vance Fulkerson | University of Northern Colorado | [
"7801_101.pdf",
"7801_102.pdf",
"7801_103.pdf",
"7801_104.pdf",
"7801_105.pdf",
"7801_106.pdf",
"7801_107.pdf"
] | {"7801_101.pdf": "By By | The Denver Post | The Denver Post UPDATED: UPDATED: May 6, 2016 at 9:20 May 6, 2016 at 9:20 Denver Post file Denver Post file University of Northern Colorado President Kay Norton speaks during a July 2009 press conference. University of Northern Colorado President Kay Norton speaks during a July 2009 press conference \u2014 University of Northern Colorado president Kay Norton pledged a thorough \u2014 University of Northern Colorado president Kay Norton pledged a thorough investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by theater professor Vance Fulkerson, investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by theater professor Vance Fulkerson, saying the truth will probably be \u201ccomplicated and painful.\u201d saying the truth will probably be \u201ccomplicated and painful UNC: No limits on misconduct probe UNC: No limits on misconduct probe 2/13/25, 10:29 UNC: No limits on misconduct probe \u2013 The Denver Post 1/3 \u201cThe University of Northern Colorado has placed no limits on the investigation,\u201d Norton said, \u201cThe University of Northern Colorado has placed no limits on the investigation,\u201d Norton said, reading from a statement at the beginning of a Friday morning news conference, the first time reading from a statement at the beginning of a Friday morning news conference, the first time she has spoken publicly about the allegations. \u201cWe will fully investigate Mr. Fulkerson\u2019s conduct, she has spoken publicly about the allegations. \u201cWe will fully investigate Mr. Fulkerson\u2019s conduct, as well as how the university responded to the conduct over the years. We will not shrink from as well as how the university responded to the conduct over the years. We will not shrink from the truth, whatever it may be.\u201d the truth, whatever it may be.\u201d Fulkerson, 63, was arrested last week and has been charged with a felony count of sexual Fulkerson, 63, was arrested last week and has been charged with a felony count of sexual exploitation of a child, as well as two lesser counts. He is accused of secretly videotaping young exploitation of a child, as well as two lesser counts. He is accused of secretly videotaping young men as they used his toilet, according to an arrest affidavit. men as they used his toilet, according to an arrest affidavit. No one answered the door at Fulkerson\u2019s Greeley home Friday. No one answered the door at Fulkerson\u2019s Greeley home Friday. In the days since Fulkerson\u2019s arrest, a number of former students and colleagues have come In the days since Fulkerson\u2019s arrest, a number of former students and colleagues have come forward saying they made complaints to university officials going back nearly two decades forward saying they made complaints to university officials going back nearly two decades about Fulkerson\u2019s behavior, only to see little apparent action on those complaints. One student about Fulkerson\u2019s behavior, only to see little apparent action on those complaints. One student said he submitted to a sexual act with Fulkerson in 1991 after a night of drinking encouraged said he submitted to a sexual act with Fulkerson in 1991 after a night of drinking encouraged by the professor. by the professor. That student filed a written sexual- harassment complaint about Fulkerson to a university That student filed a written sexual- harassment complaint about Fulkerson to a university official. Three years later, Fulkerson was given tenure. official. Three years later, Fulkerson was given tenure. Other former students and colleagues of Fulkerson\u2019s said the university\u2019s theater department Other former students and colleagues of Fulkerson\u2019s said the university\u2019s theater department had a culture of permissiveness in regards to teacher-student relationships. had a culture of permissiveness in regards to teacher-student relationships. Current senior Scottie Collins, a theater major, disputed that Friday, saying instead that the Current senior Scottie Collins, a theater major, disputed that Friday, saying instead that the faculty works to build strong mentoring relationships with students. faculty works to build strong mentoring relationships with students. \u201cTheir main priority and concern is to guide our careers,\u201d said Collins, who has not taken a class \u201cTheir main priority and concern is to guide our careers,\u201d said Collins, who has not taken a class from Fulkerson. from Fulkerson. He said the ordeal has brought the theater department together \u201cas a family.\u201d He said the ordeal has brought the theater department together \u201cas a family.\u201d \u201cIf anything, this will make us a stronger family,\u201d he said. \u201cIf anything, this will make us a stronger family,\u201d he said. Norton said the university\u2019s investigation, being conducted by Mountain States Employers Norton said the university\u2019s investigation, being conducted by Mountain States Employers Council Inc., will look at policies governing student-faculty relationships. She said she would Council Inc., will look at policies governing student-faculty relationships. She said she would engage the campus in \u201canswering serious questions\u201d about how students and faculty members engage the campus in \u201canswering serious questions\u201d about how students and faculty members should interact. should interact. \u201cWe will improve our rules and processes, if need be,\u201d she said. \u201cAnd we will do it thoughtfully, \u201cWe will improve our rules and processes, if need be,\u201d she said. \u201cAnd we will do it thoughtfully, together as a campus community. We are going to learn whatever lessons there are in this sad together as a campus community. We are going to learn whatever lessons there are in this sad situation.\u201d situation.\u201d Later in the news conference, though, Norton said there are \u201cno obvious gaps\u201d in university Later in the news conference, though, Norton said there are \u201cno obvious gaps\u201d in university policies and said, instead, that focus must be put on adhering to standards. policies and said, instead, that focus must be put on adhering to standards. \u201cThe question is the commitment to these, the communication of these and the culture at the \u201cThe question is the commitment to these, the communication of these and the culture at the university that supports these rules,\u201d she said. university that supports these rules,\u201d she said. University officials have put no timeline on the investigation. University officials have put no timeline on the investigation. In the meantime, Fulkerson has been suspended with pay from the university and is barred In the meantime, Fulkerson has been suspended with pay from the university and is barred from campus and contacting students. from campus and contacting students. 2/13/25, 10:29 UNC: No limits on misconduct probe \u2013 The Denver Post 2/3 \ue905 \ue905 2009 2009 \ue907 \ue907July July \ue907 \ue90710 10 Audio bonus: John Moore on 850 Audio bonus: John Moore on 850 Originally Published: Originally Published: July 10, 2009 at 3:12 July 10, 2009 at 3:12 John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or [email protected] [email protected] John Moore discusses his investigation into the allegations at the University of Northern John Moore discusses his investigation into the allegations at the University of Northern Colorado with Dave Logan and Lois Melkonian on 850 AM\u2019s \u201cRide Home\u201d program, Colorado with Dave Logan and Lois Melkonian on 850 AM\u2019s \u201cRide Home\u201d program, Thursday, July 9. To listen, Thursday, July 9. To listen, click here click here 2/13/25, 10:29 UNC: No limits on misconduct probe \u2013 The Denver Post 3/3", "7801_102.pdf": "< HTTP://WWW.CULTUREWEST.ORG/> Changing the Culture of Culture Convicted theater professor Vance Fulkerson released from prison one year early 2/13/25, 10:29 Convicted theater professor Vance Fulkerson released from prison one year early - CultureWest 1/5 < By John Moore June 8, 2013 Disgraced University of Northern Colorado theater professor Vance Fulkerson, who was sentenced to four years in prison in 2010 for the felony sexual exploitation of five children, has been released one year early and is now living in Boulder. Many students and alumni expressed outrage when Fulkerson received only a four-year prison sentence. He faced a maximum of 12 years in jail. Fulkerson, 67, did his time at the Bent County Correctional Facility in Las Animas and is now a registered sex offender with Boulder County. < WithPictures.pdf> The exact addresses of all sex offenders in Boulder County are included in the registry to warn neighbors, in compliance with sex-offender registration laws. Fulkerson is registered as living in a Boulder apartment complex. (Here is the link to the public registry.) < WithPictures.pdf> According to the registry web site, \u201cPersons should not rely solely on the sex-offender registry as a safeguard against perpetrators of sexual assault in their communities. The crime for which a person is convicted may not accurately reflect the level of risk.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:29 Convicted theater professor Vance Fulkerson released from prison one year early - CultureWest 2/5 The charge for which Fulkerson was sentenced involved five victims, all under the age of 18. Greeley police identified 13 victims who were secretly videotaped by Fulkerson as they used the toilet in the bathroom in Fulkerson\u2019s Greeley home. There were dozens of other boys on videotapes that were confiscated from Fulkerson\u2019s home, many of whom were never identified or chose not to participate in the criminal prosecution. Fulkerson resigned from in September 2009, after 18 years at the school. He had been credited with boosting the credibility and national profile of UNC\u2019s theater program. In exchange for his guilty plea in March 2010, prosecutors dropped 16 counts against him, including six felony counts of sexual exploitation and nine misdemeanor \u201cpeeping Tom\u201d charges. The videotaping occurred roughly over a two-year period from 2007 to 2009. Fulkerson was arrested July 2, 2009, after a student discovered a video camera inside a digital clock on top of the toilet in his bathroom. Police said the video fed directly into six televisions in Fulkerson\u2019s bedroom. It was there Fulkerson edited the video and created more than 150 DVDs, prosecutor Anthony Perea said at the trial. His shower curtain was clear, so Fulkerson could easily record the boys as they showered as well, Perea said. All the videos were labeled with brief descriptions of what the victims were doing. Perea argued that Fulkerson used his lengthy resume to lure UNC\u2019s youngest male theater students to his home. \u201cThis resume was his candy to get victims into his house and into his bathroom to pull their pants down and urinate for him,\u201d Perea said. One victim who was taking a private voice lesson at Fulkerson\u2019s house said Fulkerson sent him to the bathroom and told him to try urinating while singing. \u201cHe told me, \u2018You know the muscles you use to pee? Well, that\u2019s where you need 2/13/25, 10:29 Convicted theater professor Vance Fulkerson released from prison one year early - CultureWest 3/5 to sing from, so why don\u2019t you go in and try using the bathroom and sing?\u2019 \u201d the man said. Fulkerson\u2019s attorney, Alexander Garlin, argued at the trial that his client is a repressed homosexual who was raped by at least three men between the ages of 11 and 13. That repression worsened when he began to care for his elderly and sick parents in the 1990s. Click here to subscribe to the CultureWest.org Monthly E-Newsletter < By John Moore Award-winning arts journalist John Moore was named one of the 12 most influential theater critics in the United States by American Theatre Magazine during has 12 years at The Denver Post. Hen then created a groundbreaking new media outlet covering Colorado arts an culture as an in-house, multimedia journalist for the Denver Center for the Performing Arts. He also founded The Denver Actors Fund, a nonprofit that has raised more than $600,000 for theatre artists in medical need. He is now a journalist for hire as the founder of Moore Media Colorado. You can find samples of his work at MooreJohn.Com. Contact him at [email protected] View all of John Moore's posts. < 2/13/25, 10:29 Convicted theater professor Vance Fulkerson released from prison one year early - CultureWest 4/5 < HTTP://WWW.CULTUREWEST.ORG/> Proudly powered by WordPress < . 0 comments Sort by Facebook Comments Plugin Oldest Add a comment... 2/13/25, 10:29 Convicted theater professor Vance Fulkerson released from prison one year early - CultureWest 5/5", "7801_103.pdf": "Raymond Vance Fulkerson Raymond Vance Fulkerson Ex prof Fulkerson pleads guilty to Ex prof Fulkerson pleads guilty to sexual exploitation sexual exploitation 2/13/25, 10:31 Ex prof Fulkerson pleads guilty to sexual exploitation \u2013 The Denver Post 1/4 By By | | [email protected] [email protected] | The Denver Post | The Denver Post UPDATED: UPDATED: May 6, 2016 at 4:25 May 6, 2016 at 4:25 \u2014 Former University of Northern Colorado drama professor Vance Fulkerson \u2014 Former University of Northern Colorado drama professor Vance Fulkerson \u2014 arrested last year for secretly videotaping male students while they used the toilet in his home arrested last year for secretly videotaping male students while they used the toilet in his home \u2014 pleaded guilty Monday to sexual exploitation of children, a Class 3 felony. \u2014 pleaded guilty Monday to sexual exploitation of children, a Class 3 felony. Fulkerson, 64, will be sentenced March 3. Fulkerson, 64, will be sentenced March 3. The presumptive range for the crime to which Fulkerson pleaded guilty is four to 12 years in The presumptive range for the crime to which Fulkerson pleaded guilty is four to 12 years in prison. However, Weld County District Judge Thomas Quammen could sentence him to as little prison. However, Weld County District Judge Thomas Quammen could sentence him to as little as probation or as long as life in prison, Weld prosecutor Anthony Perea said. as probation or as long as life in prison, Weld prosecutor Anthony Perea said. The plea agreement reached with prosecutors requires Fulkerson to register as a sex offender. The plea agreement reached with prosecutors requires Fulkerson to register as a sex offender. Before making his decision, Quammen will weigh Fulkerson\u2019s past \u2014 both good and bad \u2014 as Before making his decision, Quammen will weigh Fulkerson\u2019s past \u2014 both good and bad \u2014 as well as Fulkerson\u2019s responsibility for the care of his 92-year-old mother, his attorney Alexand er well as Fulkerson\u2019s responsibility for the care of his 92-year-old mother, his attorney Alexand er Garlin said. Garlin said. \u201cWe do not want professor Fulkerson to go to prison,\u201d Garlin said. \u201cWe do not want professor Fulkerson to go to prison,\u201d Garlin said. No victims were present for the plea. No victims were present for the plea. Garlin told reporters outside the Weld County Courthouse that Fulkerson should be judged not Garlin told reporters outside the Weld County Courthouse that Fulkerson should be judged not for just what he did to five young victims but also for his work in the theater and his for just what he did to five young victims but also for his work in the theater and his community. community. \u201cProfessor Fulkerson has done a lot of good things in his life,\u201d Garlin said. \u201cAnd we will bring \u201cProfessor Fulkerson has done a lot of good things in his life,\u201d Garlin said. \u201cAnd we will bring that out at his sentencing.\u201d that out at his sentencing.\u201d In exchange for his guilty plea, prosecutors dropped 16 counts against Fulkerson, including six In exchange for his guilty plea, prosecutors dropped 16 counts against Fulkerson, including six felony counts of sexual exploitation of a child and nine misdemeanor \u201cpeeping Tom\u201d charges. felony counts of sexual exploitation of a child and nine misdemeanor \u201cpeeping Tom\u201d charges. Thirteen victims Thirteen victims In all, there were 13 victims in the case, Perea said. The charge Fulkerson pleaded guilty to In all, there were 13 victims in the case, Perea said. The charge Fulkerson pleaded guilty to involved five victims, all under the age of 18. involved five victims, all under the age of 18. The crimes took place on March 1, 2008, and July 2, 2009, according to court documents. The crimes took place on March 1, 2008, and July 2, 2009, according to court documents. Fulkerson was arrested later in July after a student found a video camera inside a digital clock in Fulkerson was arrested later in July after a student found a video camera inside a digital clock in a bathroom, police said. a bathroom, police said. Fulkerson on Monday told Quammen he understood his rights as a criminal defendant. He Fulkerson on Monday told Quammen he understood his rights as a criminal defendant. He declined to talk after his brief court appearance. declined to talk after his brief court appearance. Several of Fulkerson\u2019s victims either are expected to speak at his sentencing or will submit Several of Fulkerson\u2019s victims either are expected to speak at his sentencing or will submit letters to the judge beforehand, Perea said. letters to the judge beforehand, Perea said. 2/13/25, 10:31 Ex prof Fulkerson pleads guilty to sexual exploitation \u2013 The Denver Post 2/4 \ue905 \ue905 Originally Published: Originally Published: January 4, 2010 at 2:40 January 4, 2010 at 2:40 Fulkerson is expected to speak at the sentencing. Fulkerson is expected to speak at the sentencing. \u201cHe\u2019s very remorseful,\u201d Garlin said. \u201cHe wants to move forward and wants to live out his life in \u201cHe\u2019s very remorseful,\u201d Garlin said. \u201cHe wants to move forward and wants to live out his life in some satisfactory way.\u201d some satisfactory way.\u201d Fulkerson resigned from in September after 18 years at the school. Fulkerson resigned from in September after 18 years at the school. Fulkerson has been credited with boosting the credibility and national profile of UNC\u2019s theater Fulkerson has been credited with boosting the credibility and national profile of UNC\u2019s theater program. program. But some students have said he was a sexual predator and have claimed that their reports to But some students have said he was a sexual predator and have claimed that their reports to school officials of alleged misconduct were ignored. school officials of alleged misconduct were ignored report by the Mountain States Employers Council cleared of several acts of wrongdoing report by the Mountain States Employers Council cleared of several acts of wrongdoing in its handling of allegations against Fulkerson. in its handling of allegations against Fulkerson. Outside investigation Outside investigation The outside investigator was hired after the sexual-misconduct allegations against Fulkerson The outside investigator was hired after the sexual-misconduct allegations against Fulkerson raised other questions about relationships between theater department faculty and students. raised other questions about relationships between theater department faculty and students. Although the report concluded school officials had not ignored complaints against Fulkerson, it Although the report concluded school officials had not ignored complaints against Fulkerson, it faulted administrators for failing to communicate with those who filed complaints. faulted administrators for failing to communicate with those who filed complaints. It also found at least three instances since the early 1990s in which professors in the School of It also found at least three instances since the early 1990s in which professors in the School of Theatre Arts and Dance may have had sexual relationships with students and two other times Theatre Arts and Dance may have had sexual relationships with students and two other times when faculty members used marijuana at parties where students were present. when faculty members used marijuana at parties where students were present. Following the investigation president Kay Norton initiated meetings with campus groups Following the investigation president Kay Norton initiated meetings with campus groups at which \u201ccampus climate\u201d has been discussed, spokesman Nate Haas said. The talk, he said, at which \u201ccampus climate\u201d has been discussed, spokesman Nate Haas said. The talk, he said, has centered on \u201cwhat the university represents, what we stand for and when it\u2019s appropriate has centered on \u201cwhat the university represents, what we stand for and when it\u2019s appropriate to say, \u2018That flies in the face of who we are.\u2019 \u201c to say, \u2018That flies in the face of who we are.\u2019 \u201c Similarly, UNC\u2019s faculty council has been working on changes to policies and procedures related Similarly, UNC\u2019s faculty council has been working on changes to policies and procedures related to allegations of misconduct. to allegations of misconduct. \u201cWe anticipate sometime in the spring hearing back about what they\u2019ve wrapped up in their \u201cWe anticipate sometime in the spring hearing back about what they\u2019ve wrapped up in their discussions and will be looking at refining policies and procedures related to conduct and discussions and will be looking at refining policies and procedures related to conduct and sexual harassment,\u201d Haas said. sexual harassment,\u201d Haas said. Monte Whaley: 720-929-0907 or Monte Whaley: 720-929-0907 or [email protected] [email protected] 2/13/25, 10:31 Ex prof Fulkerson pleads guilty to sexual exploitation \u2013 The Denver Post 3/4 2010 2010 \ue907 \ue907January January \ue907 \ue90744 2/13/25, 10:31 Ex prof Fulkerson pleads guilty to sexual exploitation \u2013 The Denver Post 4/4", "7801_104.pdf": "Day in Court: Disgraced Theater Prof Vance Fulkerson Sentenced Michael de Yoanna March 4, 2010 2/13/25, 10:31 Day in Court: Disgraced Theater Prof Vance Fulkerson Sentenced - 5280 1/4 [/blog/2010/03/Fulkerson-Vance.jpg] Back in January, Vance Fulkerson, the former University of Northern Colorado drama professor accused of secretly videotaping young 2/13/25, 10:31 Day in Court: Disgraced Theater Prof Vance Fulkerson Sentenced - 5280 2/4 men as they used his bathroom, pleaded guilty to charges that allowed him to avoid a drawn-out and likely embarrassing trial. The former prof admitted to one felony count [../?p=24173] of sexual exploitation of a child, as 16 other charges were dropped. Yesterday, the saga came to an end, as Fulkerson\u2019s attorneys tried to paint a picture of a mostly good man who had gone astray. And the 64-year-old Fulkerson finally spoke to the court, apologizing for what he had done am ashamed of my secretive fantasizing, and pray that its disclosure does not invalidate my previous attempts to foster their belief in themselves and their talent, and apologize to them sincerely from the bottom of my heart,\u201d he said (via 9News [ ). \u201cFirst and foremost, there was nothing they did that was a direct cause or in any way justified my behavior; my misuse of their presence in my life was purely the consequence of my own distorted thinking and immersion in fantasy. Nothing they did caused this.\u201d But his statements seemed only to anger his former students, reports Denver Post theater critic John Moore [ source=rss] , who points out that \u201cmany alumni believe an internal investigation into the theater program following Fulkerson\u2019s arrest was half-hearted, at best.\u201d Thomas McNally, the head of performance studies at UNC, was somewhat more sympathetic truly grieve for the peeping Tom victims. I\u2019m confused, angry, and upset with my friend. His troublesome and unnatural actions were due at least in part to his abused past life, where coming out about his true sexual orientation was violently punished with beatings and extreme religion\u201d (via the Greeley Tribune [ ). Fulkerson, who faced a sentence ranging from probation to 12 years in prison, got four years behind bars and five years of parole. He will also be required to register as a sex offender upon his release (via 7News [ ). 2/13/25, 10:31 Day in Court: Disgraced Theater Prof Vance Fulkerson Sentenced - 5280 3/4 One year of 5280 for just $19.95 $12. That\u2019s only $1 per issue \u00bb [ HTTPS://EZSUBSCRIPTION.COM/M52/SUBSCRIBE?KEY=73CWGT] [/byline/michael-de-yoanna] Michael de Yoanna [/byline/michael-de-yoanna] 2/13/25, 10:31 Day in Court: Disgraced Theater Prof Vance Fulkerson Sentenced - 5280 4/4", "7801_105.pdf": "Oh, the can of wriggling, worm-like items the Vance Fulkerson case has opened. Fulkerson, you'll recall, is a former University of Northern Colorado drama instructor accused earlier this year of secretly filming children in his bathroom; in September, he learned of nine additional charges against him, including four felony sexual... Oh, the can of wriggling, worm-like items the Vance Fulkerson case has opened. Fulkerson, you'll recall, is a former University of Northern Colorado drama instructor accused earlier this year of secretly filming children in his bathroom; in September, he learned of nine additional charges against him, including four felony sexual exploitation of a child allegations and five misdemeanor unlawful sexual contact beefs. Shudder. Now, a report about UNC's handling of the Fulkerson matter (on view here and below) is out, and it goes beyond specifics about his case to look at interactions between School of Theatre Arts and Dance students and the faculty as a whole. Among the revelations: Information about student- instructor parties at which marijuana was smoked and booze was consumed (presumably by underage attendees as well as those old enough to do so legally), as well as at least a couple of other dubious student-faculty sexual relationships in years past. The result, writes the document's author, Karin Ranta-Curran, was a \"blurring\" of \"student-faculty boundaries president Kay Norton, in a letter to students and colleagues on view below, makes it clear that she was troubled by many of the findings -- a point spokesman Nate Haas echoes. \"Nothing in the report came as a surprise,\" he concedes, \"but that isn't to say we're not disappointed. We are think in hindsight, at the very least, we could have done a better job communicating with everybody involved when the issue arose.\" Norton's already announced several steps intended to address issues raised by the report -- among them the suggestion that some drama department staffers interpret rules governing faculty-student interactions more liberally than they should. That's not a message Haas wants to send. \"Professional conduct standards should apply university-wide,\" he stresses. \"There are probably some nuances depending on the area you're in, and there may be some things that are specific to programs. The performing-and-visual-arts department has put together a task force to look at some of those issues and ask those kinds of questions specific to that area of study. But there are definitely boundaries, and we want to make sure everyone understands them.\" The review process will be campus-wide, Haas continues, and while \"some of the recommendations are less complex, and relatively easy to implement, the long-range-planning campus-climate piece of this will be ongoing.\" As will the fallout from the allegedly freaky Fulkerson. Read on for more details: Kay Norton's letter to students and faculty Some sex, some drugs and a whole lot of Vance Fulkerson creepiness in report By Michael Roberts November 3, 2009 Listen to the article now 1.0x Audio by Carbonatix Food for Thought: Subreddit Dining Moderator Won't Serve Trumpian Ideologies Dear Students and Colleagues have received the report from Mountain States Employers Council resulting from its review that we commissioned of 1) the current nature of the environment in the School of Theatre Arts and Dance, and 2) how handled past complaints against former Professor Vance Fulkerson. We were all deeply troubled, not only by the alleged conduct of Mr. Fulkerson which led to his arrest, but also by the resulting questions concerning as a community, some going back almost twenty years, which were raised in press reports following the arrest. We owed it to our students and their parents, our faculty and staff, and the citizens of Colorado to take a serious look at ourselves in light of those allegations. The best way to do this was to call in a neutral and experienced third party, the Mountain States Employers Council, Inc. The report from Mountain States is straightforward. Although the report confirms that, contrary to some press reports did not ignore specific complaints over the years, the report does identify areas for improvement in policies, practices and climate. You can view the report in Ursa ( on the Employee or Student tab. While the report details are specific to one school, many issues it raises should be addressed campus-wide. At the beginning of this process we initiated several actions to evaluate our policies and culture. This report has shed light on several other appropriate actions. In sum, we are moving forward by acting on the following items: 1. Complaint reporting, tracking and follow-up procedures The Dean of Students, Provost, General Counsel, Human Resources Director and others, as appropriate, will clarify UNC's procedures for documenting reports and for communicating with parties involved when there is an investigation and resolution of an incident. 2. Review of guidelines for faculty offering private (not part of the university curriculum) lessons to students In consultation with the Provost, academic deans, faculty and others as appropriate, the university will clarify its position on private lessons and external employment. 3. Review of sexual harassment policies Faculty Senate-led group of faculty, staff and students is reviewing relevant university policies and will be recommending changes to the Board Policy Manual, which will clarify our policies and procedures around sexual harassment. 4. Professional conduct standards addressing appropriate faculty-student interactions The College of Performing and Visual Arts has convened a task force to address multiple ethical issues related to the arts in higher education, which will include developing standards of professional conduct that are specific to field of study and augment UNC's defined University Values. The Provost will work with other faculty and academic deans to identify additional fields of study where such standards of professional conduct are to be developed. 5. Shared understanding of university policies and procedures related to issues raised in the report We are evaluating UNC's new employee orientation process to include clear, more direct, information about these issues. The College of Performing and Visual Arts is using its mentor/prot\u00e9g\u00e9 program, which pairs pre-tenure professors with experienced faculty members, to address topics such as appropriate faculty-student interactions. Other training and mentorship programs will be similarly updated. Our orientation and support programs for students are under continuous review as well. 6. Long-range planning focus on campus climate Building a respectful and inclusive teaching and learning community is a key component of UNC's Academic Plan, and we will continue to focus on campus environment as we develop a University Plan. My strategy sessions with campus governance and work groups this semester include conversations about how to build on and connect the planning efforts of groups such as the Equity and Diversity Council and the Work Environment Task Force. As said in the State of the University Address, each test of our institutional character is an opportunity to strengthen our community. We know that rules and laws alone do not build community. The strength of our campus community lies in the power of 15,000-plus individual students, faculty and staff members who stand up for what and who we are at the University of Northern Colorado. We must continue to ask ourselves how it feels to be part of our community, to talk to each other about how we want to be treated, and to be willing to say, \"That's not who we are,\" when someone does not uphold our university values. Even as we put this painful and humbling event behind us, we will remain committed to the process of working together to be a welcoming, inclusive and respectful university community. Sincerely, Kay Norton Text of the Mountain States Employers Council report To: Kay Norton President University of Northern Colorado Subject: Review of the School of Theatre Arts and Dance Environment Conducted by: Karin Ranta-Curran Mountain States Employers Council, Inc. Date of Report: October 28, 2009 Investigation Active: July 15 to October 28, 2009 Procedure: On July 7, 2009, at the request of the University of Northern Colorado undertook a workplace investigation of Raymond \"Vance\" Fulkerson, a tenured professor. Along with Mr. Chris Chrisbens of Mountain States Employers Council explained the investigation process to and clarified the investigator's role and the necessary expectations in this process as communicated to all participants and referenced below. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by Professor Fulkerson's arrest and subsequent events, it was determined that the investigation should be expanded beyond an examination of the conduct forming the basis of the criminal charges against Professor Fulkerson to determine potential employee misconduct, to include a general review of the current nature of the environment within the School of Theatre Arts and Dance (\"TAD\") and a review of how handled past complaints against Professor Fulkerson to identify areas for possible improvement. This report details the findings of the review of environment and the complaint process. Background and Summary of Issues Raymond \"Vance\" Fulkerson was a tenured professor of Theatre Arts with the School of Theatre Arts and Dance at UNC. He was employed by as an instructor or as a professor from 1989 to 2009.2 He earned tenure in 1993. His area of expertise is musical theatre. On July 1, 2009, a criminal complaint was filed with the Greeley Police Department (\"GPD\") by a 21 year old male against Professor Fulkerson. The complainant was a former student who had been living at Professor Fulkerson's home since June 27, 2009 during the Little Theatre of the Rockies' Forever Plaid production. The complainant suspected that Professor Fulkerson had a hidden camera located in a bathroom located in his home. Professor Fulkerson was arrested on July 2, 2009 and his arrest attracted significant media attention. In media reports about Professor Fulkerson's arrest, several individuals claimed that they had had negative interactions with Professor Fulkerson, including claiming that Professor Fulkerson made overt sexual comments in their presence, that he propositioned male students, and that he had committed sexual assaults against students. Several media reports claimed that although received complaints about Professor Fulkerson failed to address the complaints. In response to the media reports conducted a media outreach campaign that requested information from the public about Professor Fulkerson. There were a variety of methods by which information could be communicated to UNC, including the ability to contact me directly received twenty contacts with regard to the media reports. Of these contacts, eight pertained specifically to Professor Fulkerson's alleged misconduct. The other twelve dealt with as a whole, ranging from allegations of favoritism in admissions and casting to inappropriate behavior by other faculty members attempted to speak directly with each individual who contacted and conducted fourteen interviews. The remaining six contacts did not respond to my request for their participation. Also attempted to contact all individuals identified in media reports. The contacts collected as a part of the media outreach served as the basis for this review. The complaints were summarized into seven topics had discussions with current and former faculty, staff and complainants. All current faculty and staff members of were interviewed. It is important to note that requested an interview with Professor Fulkerson through his legal counsel; however, he declined to participate due to the ongoing criminal investigation. Investigator Findings This section identifies each of the issues addressed. Investigator findings and commentary follows to develop specific areas of concern, address credibility assessments, or provide other subjective comment. Issue 1: It has been alleged that Professor Fulkerson was charging students for voice lessons, that he was videotaping voice lesson students in his bathroom and that he possessed child pornography. Can you tell me what, if anything, you know about these alleged activities? Findings and Observations: The purpose of asking faculty and staff about Professor Fulkerson's alleged activities was to determine whether any faculty members may have been aware of Professor Fulkerson's alleged activities. No faculty members report being aware that Professor Fulkerson may have videotaped his male voice lesson students while they were using the bathroom at his home as alleged. No faculty members report being aware that Professor Fulkerson may have been in possession of child pornography as alleged. All faculty and staff members interviewed appeared to be genuinely repulsed by the kind of conduct alleged. Several faculty members report knowing that Professor Fulkerson was conducting private voice lessons in his home. The same faculty members state that they were aware that Professor Fulkerson gave private voice lesson to students enrolled at UNC. These faculty members report that they became aware of this either directly from Professor Fulkerson himself or through students who were taking lessons from him. None of the faculty members who knew about the private voice lessons knew how much Professor Fulkerson charged the students. The propriety of Professor Fulkerson offering private voice lessons to students and others appears to be a point of confusion among faculty members. Several faculty members stated that they believed policy prohibited such activities, whereas others thought the practice was acceptable documentation pertaining to this issue adds to the confusion. In 1998, then-Dean Howard Skinner sent a letter to faculty prohibiting them from offering private lessons and several faculty members report that a subsequent interim dean sent a similar letter sometime in 2004. The issue was studied by a task force regarding outside employment. It is unclear when this task force met and made these conclusions. Several faculty members also report that as recently as 2008, the Director of and the Dean of the College of Visual Arts informed faculty members that they had to disclose any outside employment and have those outside employment activities approved. Regardless of UNC's policies with regard to this issue, it appears that several faculty members were aware of Professor Fulkerson's private teaching activities. Although a significant amount of time and energy has been devoted to studying the propriety of faculty offering private lessons, the confusion about what policy regarding this issue remains. The allegation that Professor Fulkerson used private voice lessons in his home to videotape male voice lesson students while they were using the bathroom in his home clearly illustrates that the practice of faculty offering private voice lessons could lead to abuse if it is not closely monitored by officials. Issue 2: At any point [during your tenure at UNC], have you ever been aware of alcohol being provided to underage students at sponsored events? Findings and Observations: The purpose of this question was to determine the accuracy of media reports that alcohol was commonly given to students by faculty members during events. No faculty members were aware of underage students being provided alcohol at sponsored events. There were reports of students who were over the age of 21 purchasing alcohol at events and also that students over the age of 21 brought alcohol to events where faculty and staff members were present, such as cast or graduation parties. There were reports that Professor Fulkerson had given underage high school and college students alcohol at functions associated with conferences and other events. There were also allegations that Professor Fulkerson had used alcohol to take advantage of students in various situations. These reports were not corroborated. However, what is clear from my interviews is that several faculty members of the faculty perceive a distinction between the relationships they have with their students as compared to faculty-student relations in other academic programs at UNC. Certain faculty members are of the opinion that as a result of the time and contact they have with theatre and dance students and the emotional/psychological nature of creative processes students are required to use, the relationships are deeper and stronger. Several faculty members reported that the teacher-student relationship becomes blurred at times given these conditions and that socializing with students often occurs common example of social interaction between faculty and students are informal gathering on Friday afternoons at a restaurant in Greeley. Several faculty members stated that they will often go to the restaurant on Fridays and that students will often be present and join the faculty members in a social setting. Through the information have gathered in this review understand that the student- teacher relationship may be different between faculty and students as compared to other academic departments at UNC. However am not persuaded that the unique nature of these relationships requires or explains increased socialization between faculty and students. Arguably, the uniqueness of these relationships may require the faculty to be more respectful and vigilant in terms of preserving the student-faculty relationship in light of these different circumstances. Several faculty members described the efforts they made to ensure the student-teacher relationship remained appropriate, which included not attending social events where students would be present, leaving cast parties early, and conducting student meetings in their office. It is clear that appropriate lines can be drawn between faculty and students even with the different complexion those relationships have within review of this issue appears to be needed within faculty in order to clarify what the boundaries are and how faculty members can maintain them. Issue 3: At any point [during your tenure at UNC], have you ever been ever aware of faculty using illicit drugs at private parties where students were present? At sponsored events? Findings and Observations: The purpose of this question was to determine the accuracy of media reports that illicit drugs were used by faculty members during private events while students were present. Two faculty members report seeing illicit drug use by faculty members at private parties where students were present. Both identified marijuana as the substance being used at these events. One faculty member claimed that the incident they observed took place in the early 1990s. The other report was more recent, within the past few years. No one reported knowing of any drug use at sponsored events. As with the claims of alcohol use have the same concerns about levels of socialization between faculty and students. Some faculty members appear to use the unusual status of the faculty-student relationship as a justification for frequent socializing with students. For the reasons outlined in the previous section am not persuaded that the nature of these relationships explains or requires increased social interaction between faculty and students. Issue 4: At any point [during your tenure at UNC], have you ever been aware of faculty sexually harassing students or making sexually inappropriate comments or innuendo? Findings and Observations: The purpose of this question was to determine the accuracy of media reports that students were being sexually harassed by faculty members. Several faculty members reported that in their opinion, Professor Fulkerson had made sexual comments/innuendos on a regular basis. These faculty members reported that Professor Fulkerson made such comments and it was their opinion that students and faculty members dismissed his actions as \"just being Vance [Fulkerson].\" Several faculty members reported an incident involving auditions for a production in which female students were going to be asked to undress as a part of the audition. However, there were complaints from faculty and students about the auditions and the director did not hold any auditions where nudity was required. No other incidents of possible sexual harassment were reported to me by faculty members. Issue 5: At any point [during your tenure at UNC], have you ever been aware of faculty engaging in sexual relationships with students? Findings and Observations: The purpose of this question was to determine the accuracy of media reports that sexual relationships between faculty and students were common. Several faculty members reported rumors regarding an alleged sexual relationship between a professor and a student in the early 1990s spoke with the student at length. The matter was investigated and action taken. Several faculty members reported hearing of an incident involving a professor who allegedly had a sexual relationship with a student in the late 1990s spoke with the student at length. The student left because of the relationship. The matter was investigated and the professor resigned. Other faculty members reported being aware of a relationship between a former student and faculty member, but that they could not identify whether the relationship began before or after the student graduated. Given the information outlined above, this investigator does not find that sexual relationships between faculty and students are pervasive. Issue 6: At any point [during your tenure at UNC], have you ever been aware of allegations of favoritism being shown by faculty members? Findings and Observations: The purpose of this question was to address media reports and reports by former students that favoritism was rampant within TAD. Allegations of favoritism centered primarily on concerns about casting decisions by faculty. There were no allegations of favoritism in grading consider the allegations pertaining to favoritism to be unfounded. The program is quite competitive and it is apparent that the faculty members may have subjective preferences in making casting decisions. No faculty members could report any casting decisions made by fellow faculty members that they felt were outrageous or unwarranted. All of the faculty members stated that they viewed their colleagues as having preferences for students based on their talent level or willingness to have their performance directed. However, there appears to be a philosophical difference between faculty members regarding casting decisions. Several faculty members report that they make casting decisions based on talent and ability to fulfill the physical requirements of the part, including appearance. Other faculty members report that they believe the goal should be to equalize performance opportunities, especially for junior and senior-level students cannot determine whether these philosophical differences translate into confusion among students regarding casting decisions. However, it may be helpful for faculty to discuss casting philosophies with one another and students Issue 7: How were complaints against Professor Fulkerson handled? In media reports regarding Professor Fulkerson's arrest, several individuals claimed that they had had negative interactions with Professor Fulkerson, including claiming that Professor Fulkerson made overt sexual comments in their presence, that he propositioned male students, and that he had made sexual advances towards students. Several media reports claimed that although had received complaints about Professor Fulkerson failed to address the complaints it received. Again, it is important to note that requested an interview with Professor Fulkerson through his legal counsel; however, he declined to participate due to the ongoing criminal investigation. Findings and Observations: Without revealing confidential personnel and student information can provide the following assessment. Regarding a 1992 complaint of misconduct, the matter was reported by fellow students who had general complaints about Professor Fulkerson. The Acting Dean of Students encouraged input from the student identified by the original complainants. He investigated the complaints, interviewing all complainants, 6 additional students and 3 faculty members. In my experience as an investigator, it appears that the Acting Dean's investigation was thorough and as comprehensive as the circumstances allowed. The Acting Dean made recommendations to the Dean of the College of Performing Arts and the Dean took action. However, there is no record of any communications with the complainants regarding the investigation or its outcome. One of the complaining students confirmed that he had not received any information from about his complaint after he had provided the letter to the Acting Dean. Regarding complaints of inappropriate language and jokes in 1994, the Dean of Students investigated the complaints by interviewing the complainants and Professor Fulkerson. The Dean took action, but as with the 1992 complaints, there is no record of any communications with complainants regarding the investigation or its outcome. Regarding complaints of inappropriate comments of a sexual nature made during a senior practicum class in 2003, the Human Resources Director investigated complaints by interviewing the complainant, several students in the class and Professor Fulkerson. The Director took action and informed the complainant that action had been taken without providing specific details of the personnel actions significant part of any investigation is follow-up with the complainant(s) and it appears that in the two earlier cases, there were no communications with the complainants after the investigations were complete. While the Human Resources Director followed-up with the complainant, it appears that past practices in did not involve this step. This is a significant omission from the investigation process. As a result, twenty year old issues have again become matters of controversy due to Professor Fulkerson's arrest should make clear in policy that there will be communication with complainants informing them of the conduct of an investigation and whether action is taken. Summary of Findings 1. This investigator finds that several faculty members were aware that Professor Fulkerson was conducting private voice lessons in his home to students and was charging the students for those lessons. This investigator finds no information suggesting that any faculty members were aware of the alleged potential of activities regarding videotaping voice lesson student in the bathroom in his private home. This investigator finds no information suggesting that any faculty members were aware of the alleged possession of child pornography. 2. This investigator finds that alcohol has been purchased or brought by of-age students at sponsored events. This investigator finds no information suggesting that underage students were provided with alcohol by faculty members. It is also clear that there are informal events where students and faculty members regularly socialize together. 3. This investigator finds information suggesting that a few faculty members over the past twenty years have used marijuana at private parties where students were present. This investigator finds no information suggesting that faculty have used illicit drugs at sponsored events where students were present. 4. This investigator finds it more likely than not that Professor Fulkerson made various sexually inappropriate comments and innuendos to students. However, this investigator finds no information suggesting that other faculty members made sexually inappropriate comments or innuendo. 5. This investigator finds that their have been isolated incidents of faculty-student relationships, but there is no information suggesting that faculty regularly engage in sexual relationships with students. 6. This investigator finds that there is no information suggesting that favoritism has been shown by faculty members. 7. This investigator finds that UNC, through its Human Resources Director and former leadership investigated and acted upon past complaints against Professor Fulkerson. However, it appears that did not have a policy or practice of communicating with the complainants informing them of the conduct of an investigation and whether action was taken. Conclusion The purpose of this review was to determine whether the atmosphere within the School of Theatre Arts and Dance was appropriate and professional and whether complaints against Professor Fulkerson were investigated and acted upon. Overall found the faculty and staff to be professional and genuinely concerned about the students and the school's reputation. However, there appears to be significant confusion among some faculty members with regard to polices pertaining to faculty providing private instruction for students. There also appears to be a tendency among a few faculty members to view the unique and close nature of the facultystudent relationship as a reason or justification for blurring student-faculty boundaries. It is this investigator's opinion that addressing expectations in these two areas would help modify the atmosphere so that inappropriate faculty conduct would be more likely to be identified as such by fellow faculty members and brought to the attention of authorities. Further, it appears that earlier complaints about Professor Fulkerson were investigated and addressed by leadership and that several of the deans were not hesitant to take action. However, past failures of former leadership to follow up with the complainants has led to the perception by complainants, and in turn the public, that and leadership failed to address the complaints. It is this investigator's opinion that addressing this short-coming in the complaint process, for example, by coordinating complaints through the Human Resources Director or through University-wide policy, will correct this misimpression, and more importantly create an atmosphere that will encourage complainants to come forward because they will know that their complaints are being addressed. Analysis Decision-makers for the University of Northern Colorado are responsible for assessing whether the facts of this matter support the allegations, findings and conclusions presented here or otherwise establish unacceptable conduct. This investigation report is intended to be the tool for making that analysis by identifying the relevant allegations and addressing sources of supporting and refuting information. This investigator's commentary is also shared, but it is important to understand that another person, such as an administrator, judge or a juror, might reach different conclusions based on the same or additional information Respectfully submitted COUNCIL, INC. Karin Ranta-Curran Workplace Investigations Sign up for the This Week's Top Stories newsletter to get the latest stories delivered to your inbox Email \u2022 Enter Email reCAPTCHA I'm not a robot Privacy - Terms began his career with Westword in 1990 as music editor. In 1999, he took on a new role, full-time media reporter, as author of a column called The Message. In 2008, he became the lead writer for Westword's news blog, The Latest Word, a position he held until January 2023. Michael continues to freelance for Westword, covering everything from business to sports and the media; he also contributes to Jazziz, a national music magazine. He holds a bachelor's degree from what is now Colorado Mesa University and master's degrees from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Northwestern University. [email protected] message from Michael Roberts: If you value independent journalism, please consider making a contribution to support our continued coverage of essential stories and to investigate issues that matter. Use of this website constitutes acceptance of our terms of use, our cookies policy, and our privacy policy. View our accessibility policy and policy. Westword may earn a portion of sales from products & services purchased through links on our site from our affiliate partners. \u00a92025 Denver Westword, LLC. All rights reserved. Do Not Sell or Share My Information", "7801_106.pdf": "By By UPDATED: UPDATED: May 13, 2020 at 6:52 May 13, 2020 at 6:52 The University of Northern Colorado \u201cwill not shrink from the truth\u201d in its The University of Northern Colorado \u201cwill not shrink from the truth\u201d in its investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by a theater professor investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by a theater professor and how the university responded to his conduct over the years. and how the university responded to his conduct over the years. That was the message delivered by President Kay Norton at a press That was the message delivered by President Kay Norton at a press conference at on Friday. conference at on Friday. Raymond Vance Fulkerson, 63, was arrested last week after a former student Raymond Vance Fulkerson, 63, was arrested last week after a former student discovered that the professor had been videotaping people as they used discovered that the professor had been videotaping people as they used the toilet and shower in his Greeley home search of Fulkerson\u2019s home also the toilet and shower in his Greeley home search of Fulkerson\u2019s home also turned up child pornography, police said. turned up child pornography, police said. Fulkerson, who has taught at since 1989, has been placed on paid Fulkerson, who has taught at since 1989, has been placed on paid administrative leave and is not allowed on campus. He is scheduled to administrative leave and is not allowed on campus. He is scheduled to appear in Weld District Court on July 30. appear in Weld District Court on July 30 UNC: \u2018No limits\u2019 on investigation UNC: \u2018No limits\u2019 on investigation of sexual misconduct by theater of sexual misconduct by theater professor professor 2/13/25, 10:32 UNC: \u2018No limits\u2019 on investigation of sexual misconduct by theater professor \u2013 Greeley Tribune 1/4 Norton said the university is using outside legal and human resources Norton said the university is using outside legal and human resources professionals to conduct an extensive investigation into the allegations. professionals to conduct an extensive investigation into the allegations. Since the news of Fulkerson\u2019s arrest, some former theater students Since the news of Fulkerson\u2019s arrest, some former theater students have come forward and said they experienced unwelcome behavior by have come forward and said they experienced unwelcome behavior by Fulkerson while they were students. One student said he complained to Fulkerson while they were students. One student said he complained to university officials about an incident in 1991 but that nothing came of it. university officials about an incident in 1991 but that nothing came of it. \u201cThe University of Northern Colorado has placed no limits on the \u201cThe University of Northern Colorado has placed no limits on the investigation,\u201d Norton said. \u201cWe will fully investigate Mr. Fulkerson\u2019s investigation,\u201d Norton said. \u201cWe will fully investigate Mr. Fulkerson\u2019s conduct, as well as how the university responded to the conduct over the conduct, as well as how the university responded to the conduct over the years. We will not shrink from the truth, whatever it may be.\u201d years. We will not shrink from the truth, whatever it may be.\u201d Norton said the university has rules regarding faculty behavior toward Norton said the university has rules regarding faculty behavior toward students, \u201cbut they are not enough. They are not effective if we do not students, \u201cbut they are not enough. They are not effective if we do not commit to them wholly, each of us. We will improve our rules and processes commit to them wholly, each of us. We will improve our rules and processes if need be. And we will do it thoughtfully, together as a campus community.\u201d if need be. And we will do it thoughtfully, together as a campus community.\u201d When asked about reports that the university hadn\u2019t done anything years When asked about reports that the university hadn\u2019t done anything years ago when a complaint was first made about Fulkerson, Norton said, \u201cIf that ago when a complaint was first made about Fulkerson, Norton said, \u201cIf that were the case \u2013 and don\u2019t believe it was the case \u2013 that nothing was done were the case \u2013 and don\u2019t believe it was the case \u2013 that nothing was done that would be extremely troubling to me. However, you do have to that would be extremely troubling to me. However, you do have to remember the span of time we\u2019re talking about and that the law that applies remember the span of time we\u2019re talking about and that the law that applies to situations like this continues to evolve.\u201d to situations like this continues to evolve.\u201d The university code of conduct includes a section on \u201camorous The university code of conduct includes a section on \u201camorous relationships,\u201d which doesn\u2019t prohibit relations between consenting adults relationships,\u201d which doesn\u2019t prohibit relations between consenting adults but discourages them. The code, in part, states: \u201cBecause these relationships but discourages them. The code, in part, states: \u201cBecause these relationships may give rise to the perception on the part of others that there is favoritism may give rise to the perception on the part of others that there is favoritism or bias in academic or employment decisions, the university discourages or bias in academic or employment decisions, the university discourages such relationships.\u201d such relationships.\u201d The university has sophisticated policies pertaining to sexual harassment, The university has sophisticated policies pertaining to sexual harassment, said Norton, adding that faculty, staff and students are told about the said Norton, adding that faculty, staff and students are told about the policies during orientation. However, when it comes to training people policies during orientation. However, when it comes to training people about such matters, \u201cit tends to go over your head if you don\u2019t think it about such matters, \u201cit tends to go over your head if you don\u2019t think it applies to you.\u201d applies to you.\u201d The main question the university must address, she said, is whether there is The main question the university must address, she said, is whether there is commitment to current rules and effective communication of the codes. commitment to current rules and effective communication of the codes. 2/13/25, 10:32 UNC: \u2018No limits\u2019 on investigation of sexual misconduct by theater professor \u2013 Greeley Tribune 2/4 David Longanecker, president of the Western Interstate Commission for David Longanecker, president of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, said some colleges in the 15-state region his organization Higher Education, said some colleges in the 15-state region his organization spans have policies prohibiting faculty from dating students. There are spans have policies prohibiting faculty from dating students. There are others that, like UNC, discourage it. others that, like UNC, discourage it think there should be a strong policy against having relations with any of think there should be a strong policy against having relations with any of your students,\u201d Longanecker said. \u201cThe reason for that is not just because of your students,\u201d Longanecker said. \u201cThe reason for that is not just because of the movement of adolescents into young adulthood at that period of time, the movement of adolescents into young adulthood at that period of time, but even in older adults you\u2019re talking about a power relationship that but even in older adults you\u2019re talking about a power relationship that doesn\u2019t put students in a fair arena.\u201d doesn\u2019t put students in a fair arena.\u201d There\u2019s a reason strict policies against such relations exist in the workplace, There\u2019s a reason strict policies against such relations exist in the workplace, he said, and they should likewise apply on college campuses. he said, and they should likewise apply on college campuses. Longanecker added that he has personally known most presidents Longanecker added that he has personally known most presidents dating back to the early 1980s. He said the allegations that university dating back to the early 1980s. He said the allegations that university officials didn\u2019t act when sexual misconduct complaints were made \u201cseems officials didn\u2019t act when sexual misconduct complaints were made \u201cseems so contrary to what any of them believe, would have carried forward.\u201d so contrary to what any of them believe, would have carried forward.\u201d Norton said has developed a culture in which faculty are accessible and Norton said has developed a culture in which faculty are accessible and do their best to mentor students toward success. \u201cThat\u2019s one of the reasons do their best to mentor students toward success. \u201cThat\u2019s one of the reasons this is so painful to us as a university community,\u201d she said, visibly this is so painful to us as a university community,\u201d she said, visibly distressed as she spoke. distressed as she spoke. Norton said each department at needs to look at whether there are Norton said each department at needs to look at whether there are specific areas that merit certain rules on behavior. She said members of the specific areas that merit certain rules on behavior. She said members of the College of Performing and Visual Arts had been involved in those kinds of College of Performing and Visual Arts had been involved in those kinds of discussions in recent years. discussions in recent years. \u201cNonetheless, you\u2019re never done when you\u2019re talking about human \u201cNonetheless, you\u2019re never done when you\u2019re talking about human behavior,\u201d she said. \u201cAs long as we\u2019re talking about human beings and social behavior,\u201d she said. \u201cAs long as we\u2019re talking about human beings and social interaction the opportunity for things to go awry exists, and only as a interaction the opportunity for things to go awry exists, and only as a community can you really have effective responses to that.\u201d community can you really have effective responses to that.\u201d University spokesman Nate Haas said the internal investigation could take University spokesman Nate Haas said the internal investigation could take several weeks or more. several weeks or more. Norton said there are some paper records of previous incidents being Norton said there are some paper records of previous incidents being looked at. She also said the investigation could encompass scores of people looked at. She also said the investigation could encompass scores of people because of Fulkerson\u2019s long history at the college. because of Fulkerson\u2019s long history at the college. \u201cWe are not shrinking from the question of who knew what and when, and \u201cWe are not shrinking from the question of who knew what and when, and should something have been done differently than what was done,\u201d she should something have been done differently than what was done,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s going to take some time to sort all of that out.\u201d said. \u201cIt\u2019s going to take some time to sort all of that out.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:32 UNC: \u2018No limits\u2019 on investigation of sexual misconduct by theater professor \u2013 Greeley Tribune 3/4 2009 2009 \ue907 \ue907July July \ue907 \ue90711 11 Originally Published: Originally Published: July 11, 2009 at 2:12 July 11, 2009 at 2:12 Norton said the information gathered from the investigation is likely to be Norton said the information gathered from the investigation is likely to be complicated and painful. complicated and painful. \u201cWe cannot change the past, but we can and will learn from it,\u201d she said. \u201cWe cannot change the past, but we can and will learn from it,\u201d she said. 2/13/25, 10:32 UNC: \u2018No limits\u2019 on investigation of sexual misconduct by theater professor \u2013 Greeley Tribune 4/4", "7801_107.pdf": "Become HuffPost Member Today \u2014 And Go Ad Free! See More Raymond Vance Fulkerson, Former University Of Northern Colorado Theater Professor, Has Been Denied Parole Former Prof Denied Parole, Secretly Videotaped Students In Bathroom By Matt Ferner Jun 20, 2011, 10:54 Updated Aug 20, 2011 Go Ad-Free 2/13/25, 10:32 Raymond Vance Fulkerson, Former University Of Northern Colorado Theater Professor, Has Been Denied Parole | HuffPost Denver 1/6 Raymond Vance Fulkerson, 63, a former University of Northern Colorado theater professor who is serving four years in prison for secretly videotaping underage boys that showered and used the toilet in his home bathroom, has been denied parole at the Bent County Correctional Facility in Las Animas on Wednesday. Fulkerson pleaded guilty in January to one felony account of sexual exploitation of a child, 7News reports, and in exchange for the guilty plea, prosecutors dropped 16 total counts against him. 2/13/25, 10:32 Raymond Vance Fulkerson, Former University Of Northern Colorado Theater Professor, Has Been Denied Parole | HuffPost Denver 2/6 Fulkerson was accused of secretly videotaping at least 13 male students between the ages of 5 and 16 who would come to his home for voice and acting lessons. The former theater professor was once highly celebrated at the nationally known University of Northern Colorado theater program. Judge Thomas Quammen stated in Fulkerson\u2019s original trial in March: I'm sure a lot of students went through your program, and you made a great impact on them. But you are here today because you violated the trust of these victims and in a very base way. The Denver Post reports that the videotaping took place over an approximately two-year period from 2007-2009. Fulkerson was arrested in 2009 when one of the victimized students discovered a hidden camera inside of a digital clock on top of the toilet in the bathroom of Fulkerson\u2019s home. The video recorded from that bathroom was fed directly to six of Fulkerson\u2019s televisions in his bedroom which also doubled as his video editing suite where Fulkerson created more than 150 DVDs from the secretly recorded footage. The Denver Post reports that prosecutor Anthony Perea said that Fulkerson used his lengthy and accomplished resume to lure young actors to his home for coaching. Some victims came in from out of state to stay with Fulkerson over the summer and study with him. Perea made this statement during Fulkerson\u2019s original trial: This resume was his candy to get victims into his house and into his bathroom to pull their pants down and urinate for him. 2/13/25, 10:32 Raymond Vance Fulkerson, Former University Of Northern Colorado Theater Professor, Has Been Denied Parole | HuffPost Denver 3/6 During his original sentencing hearing, Fulkerson was emotional and appeared to deeply regret his actions, The Denver Post reports Fulkerson\u2019s statement: Go Ad-Free \u2014 And Protect The Free Press The next four years will change America forever. But HuffPost won't back down when it comes to providing free and impartial journalism. For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless newsroom. We hope you'll join us Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages. Sadly hurt everyone closest to me. My words of encouragement and my belief in [my students] were sincere. The trial and conviction of Faulkerson led to a comprehensive review of the University of Northern Colorado\u2019s School of Theatre Arts and Dance and a reassessment of private, unsupervised tutoring by professors. The 10-page report by Mountain States Employers largely exonerated the theatre program of wrongdoing in the wake of Fualkerson\u2019s arrest, according to The Greeley Tribune Suggest a correction | Submit a tip 2/13/25, 10:32 Raymond Vance Fulkerson, Former University Of Northern Colorado Theater Professor, Has Been Denied Parole | HuffPost Denver 4/6 Tina Fey And Amy Poehler Interrupt Jimmy Fallon Monologue To Pile On Trump Mitch McConnell Polio Survivor, Slams Jr.'s Confirmation Former 'SNL' Star Says Barbra Streisand Tried To Confront Her About Her Impression Man Whose Wife Was Killed In Horrific Hippo Attack Sues Safari Booking Company 2/13/25, 10:32 Raymond Vance Fulkerson, Former University Of Northern Colorado Theater Professor, Has Been Denied Parole | HuffPost Denver 5/6 Part of HuffPost News. \u00a92025 BuzzFeed, Inc. All rights reserved. The Huffington Post 2/13/25, 10:32 Raymond Vance Fulkerson, Former University Of Northern Colorado Theater Professor, Has Been Denied Parole | HuffPost Denver 6/6"} |
7,663 | Gopal Balakrishnan | University of California – Santa Cruz | [
"7663_101.pdf",
"7663_102.pdf",
"7663_103.pdf",
"7663_104.pdf",
"7663_105.pdf",
"7663_106.pdf",
"7663_107.pdf",
"7663_108.pdf"
] | {"7663_101.pdf": "View Comments Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy The university also determined that Balakrishnan did not break the rules by hiring his own private investigator to interrogate complainants. Nidhi Subbaraman BuzzFeed News Reporter Updated on September 25, 2018 at 1:13 pm Posted on September 25, 2018 at 11:32 am Subscribe to BuzzFeed Daily Newsletter 2/13/25, 10:32 Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy 1/10 Demonstrators carrying a banner reading \u201cWe must oppose sexual abuse. Fire Gopal, out all abusers\u201d briefly interrupted the Santa Cruz graduation ceremony in June. MeTooUCSC / Facebook / Via Facebook: metooucsc Professor Gopal Balakrishnan, whose reputation provoked a #MeToo-inspired campaign at the University of California at Santa Cruz, broke the school\u2019s harassment policy when he had oral sex with an undergraduate without her consent while she was drunk, BuzzFeed News has learned Marxist historian in the humanities division, Balakrishnan has been under investigation by the school\u2019s Title office since February. As reported by BuzzFeed News in May, the professor has been accused of a wide range of inappropriate behaviors, from pushing himself onto unwilling colleagues to using cocaine with students, between 2006 and 2017. In previous stories about his case, Balakrishnan has denied all wrongdoing, and his lawyers said he was a victim of an anonymous smear campaign on campus. The investigation found that some of the accusations, including that he stared at one student\u2019s chest, likely happened as the complainants described, but did not violate 2/13/25, 10:32 Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy 2/10 university policies. The Title office also referred the complaints about drug use to a different university office for further review. Balakrishnan is still on paid leave until the administration determines what disciplinary action to take, according to investigation documents. \u201cDiscipline can take many forms, ranging from a written warning, suspension, all the way to termination Santa Cruz spokesperson Scott Hernandez-Jason told BuzzFeed News by email. He said he was unaware of any Santa Cruz faculty member who had ever been fired. In an unexpected twist, the school\u2019s official report included statements from a private investigator hired by Balakrishnan\u2019s lawyers. The had called at least three of the complainants and asked them about their stories \u2014 a tactic that they say was intimidating, and that some lawyers say violates the school\u2019s own policy and federal guidelines for harassment investigations. \u201cTo me, it is a total miscarriage of justice for them to have allowed that,\u201d said Kristina Larsen, a lawyer who worked as an administrator at San Diego for two decades and is advising two of Balakrishnan\u2019s accusers. For the school to effectively endorse a professor to hire a private investigator, she said, \u201cis sending a terrifying message to future complainants.\u201d Balakrishnan and his lawyers did not respond to a request for comment. University spokesperson Hernandez-Jason said, \u201cUnder our policies, parties are not precluded from hiring an investigator. However, we expect anyone acting on behalf of the parties to be professional and respectful to the parties and/or witnesses involved.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:32 Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy 3/10 Graffiti in a bathroom on the Santa Cruz campus. Provided to BuzzFeed News This inquiry follows a tumultuous year on campus that began when graffiti calling Balakrishnan a \u201csexual predator\u201d appeared scrawled on bathroom mirrors. Flyers slipped under faculty doors, and signed \u201cUndergraduate Students invested in the Humanities departments,\u201d asked for a boycott of Balakrishnan and his work. In the face of these anonymous accusations, some faculty expressed their support of Balakrishnan in an email thread. It leaked, and provoked further outrage among current students and alumni. Nine people crafted an online letter demanding that Balakrishnan be barred from professional social events. That document, published in November 2017, weeks after the Harvey Weinstein allegations, included seven anonymous firsthand accounts of interactions with Balakrishnan that shocked the network and gathered over 160 signatures. 2/13/25, 10:32 Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy 4/10 Annaliese Harlander was among the hundreds of alumni who read this letter. As she told BuzzFeed News and school investigators, the anonymous stories motivated her to file a complaint about what happened to her. Harlander told the university that one night after graduation in 2013, Balakrishnan was attending a party at her friend\u2019s house next door. Harlander said she drank a lot, and remembers the rest of the night in flashes. She told the Title investigator that Balakrishnan walked her home, that they kissed, and at some point, the two were both naked. She said that the professor performed oral sex on her and that he was trying to penetrate her, and remembers telling him to stop. She woke up the next day naked, disturbed, and reliving disturbing flashbacks to scenes of the night before. Two former students who were present at the party and heard the story from Harlander the next day, or in the weeks following, confirmed details of the account to the university, according to the investigator\u2019s report obtained by BuzzFeed News. Harlander\u2019s mother also confirmed to investigators that her daughter had mentioned such an event. In a statement to the Title investigator, Professor Balakrishnan said that he was present at the party on the evening in question, but that he did not have intercourse with Harlander. He also offered an alternate version of events: that Harlander had pulled him into her house as he was walking to his car, and took her top off \u2014 at which point he left. He also argued that university policies should not apply because the alleged incident took place off campus and because Harlander had graduated. The investigator disagreed, based on testimony from Harlander and three people who were at the party or spoke with her in the days after. \u201cRespondent, with knowledge of Complainant\u2019s extreme intoxication, took advantage of her [intoxication], went to her home and engaged in physical conduct of a sexual nature with Complainant. This sexual conduct included attempted penetration of his penis in Complainant\u2019s vagina and performing oral sex on Complainant with Respondent\u2019s genitalia situated in Complainant\u2019s face,\u201d investigator GayLynn Conant, a consultant hired by Santa Cruz to investigate Balakrishnan\u2019s case, wrote in a Sept. 18 report to 2/13/25, 10:32 Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy 5/10 Interim Title Officer Cherie Scricca. Conant concluded that Balakrishnan\u2019s conduct \u201cfalls squarely within the definition of prohibited conduct under the University of California Policy on Sexual Harassment Policy dated February 10, 2006.\u201d Conant also investigated complaints filed by at least three other current or former students. In one case, alum Brian Glasscock told the investigator that Balakrishnan had provided him with cocaine and alcohol when Glasscock attended a party at Balakrishnan\u2019s home in 2009. Glasscock, who was 18 at the time, said that Balakrishnan drove him home that night while drunk and high. The Title office referred Glasscock\u2019s case to the office of UCSC\u2019s Executive Vice Chancellor Marlene Tromp. She is currently reviewing this report, which includes interviews with nine people besides Glasscock and Balakrishnan, according to a letter the school sent to Glasscock and obtained by BuzzFeed News. In another complaint, alumnus Beth Peller alleged that when she was an undergraduate in 2014, Balakrishnan sat across from her at a university caf\u00e9, stared at her breasts, and asked her to go to a bar with him. Her complaint also claimed that in a separate incident, she had tried to prevent Balakrishnan from flirting with a drunk undergraduate at a bar, at which point Balakrishnan became verbally and physically aggressive. The Title office found that the \u201cpreponderance of evidence\u201d suggested Balakrishnan was involved in at least some of the events described, but that his actions did not violate the university policy on sexual harassment and sexual violence at the time of the incidents. This case and another one, provided by student Amanda Reyes, a witness to Peller\u2019s incident at the bar, were referred to Tromp to review for possible violations of other university policies, such as the Faculty Code of Conduct. Peller said she is frustrated by the emotional and administrative demands placed on her during the lengthy investigation process. For example, due to a dispute between Balakrishnan and her over where on her body a tattoo was located, she said she was asked to submit a photo of her upper body to investigators, which she found humiliating. 2/13/25, 10:32 Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy 6/10 \u201cFrom my experience, due process seems retraumatizing and seems to protect the rights of the accused,\u201d Peller said. But she remains conflicted. \u201c At the same time don\u2019t want to say, don\u2019t come forward.\u201d Harlander, Glasscock, and Peller were all contacted by phone by Eric Mason, a California-based private investigator hired by Balakrishnan\u2019s attorneys. Mason called Harlander while she was at work and asked about the details of the incident she reported to the school and the outcome she wished to see, she said. Glasscock\u2019s call with Mason was short, about a minute, and Mason was polite. However, he was expecting the complaint process to be confidential, and found a call from an investigator who said he was attached to a two-person legal team intimidating. Mason had previously tried to reach Peller by looking for her at previous addresses. When he didn\u2019t find her there, he called her phone. But Peller said she refused to answer his questions. Glasscock and Peller were concerned enough to file new complaints with the University of California asking to review Mason\u2019s participation in the investigation. \u201cWe\u2019re broke students, he has this expensive legal team that he\u2019s able to pay for because he\u2019s on paid leave,\u201d Peller told BuzzFeed News. But the school ruled that his participation was allowed. Peller had hung up on Mason before answering his questions, but his statement detailing his interactions with Harlander said that her story was inconsistent, and was quoted in the final Title report. (Mason did not respond to voicemails asking for comment.) \u201cIncreasingly, we\u2019re seeing people who are accused of sexual assault hiring their own lawyers and mounting what are often intimidating tactics against their victims of \u201cFrom my experience, due process seems retraumatizing and seems to protect the rights of the accused.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:32 Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy 7/10 assault,\u201d Noreen Farrell, the executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, told BuzzFeed News. Though routine in legal proceedings, such responses used to be rare in administrative inquiries at universities. And it could be intimidating, Farrell pointed out \u2014 \u201cIt could be continuing evidence of harassment and retaliation against a victim and schools should look at that very closely.\u201d Emma Marie Chiang for BuzzFeed News Over the summer, following the publication of a BuzzFeed News story disclosing the investigation, a new petition drafted by Santa Cruz alumni and published online asked the university to fire Balakrishnan and describe the steps it would take to \u201cprotect reporters and survivors from intimidation and retaliation.\u201d There are now 684 signatures, including more than 400 students and alumni. Some former students have been petitioning for such developments for over a decade, and are unsurprised by the current findings. 2/13/25, 10:32 Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy 8/10 \u201cIt seems like too little too late know they\u2019ve had more complaints than that, and they never took any of the other ones seriously,\u201d said former student Trevor Sangrey, who lodged a joint complaint with six other graduate students in 2009 alleging that Balakrishnan was openly hostile toward women and gender-nonconforming students. \u201cI\u2019d like to see some reckoning for the fact that there is a significant pattern here,\u201d Sangrey said. Harlander, who has begun corresponding with the other complainants and is planning to attend a protest in October, says that Balakrishnan should no longer be teaching. \u201cWe all agree that he should be fired,\u201d Harlander told BuzzFeed News September 25, 2018 at 1:13 This story has been updated with comments from Santa Cruz September 25, 2018 at 12:06 Harlander plans to attend a protest in October. An earlier version of this post suggested that all of the complainants would be attending. An earlier version also erroneously suggested that Mason had contacted Reyes Some Called It \u201cVigilante Justice.\u201d But An Anonymous Campaign Triggered Real Investigation Into Santa Cruz Professor. 2/13/25, 10:32 Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy 9/10 a brand. \u00a9 2025 BuzzFeed, Inc Press Privacy Consent Preferences User Terms Accessibility Statement Ad Choices Help Contact Sitemap Nidhi Subbaraman BuzzFeed News Reporter Comments Share your thoughts Be One of the First to Comment 2/13/25, 10:32 Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy 10/10", "7663_103.pdf": "screenshot of Gopal Balakrishnan speaking at an event in December 2016. Credit: YouTube Fired Santa Cruz prof Gopal Balakrishnan set\u2010 tles sexual assault lawsuit by former student March 7, 2024 2/13/25, 10:33 Fired Santa Cruz prof Gopal Balakrishnan settles sexual assault lawsuit by former student 1/6 The civil suit between Gopal Balakrishnan, a former professor of history of consciousness at Santa Cruz, and Anneliese Harlander, a alumna who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Balakrishnan in 2013, concluded in a hearing room in Santa Cruz Superior Court on Wednesday morning with a five-figure settlement. Attorneys Erik Babcock and Dan Siegel entered the courtroom on Ocean Street having hammered out a deal in the lobby: Balakrishnan will pay Harlander $45,000, spread out over a period of three years, with payments on Sept. 1 each year starting in 2024. Neither party admitted fault as part of the settlement. The two parties also agreed to avoid disparaging each other publicly. Judge Timothy Volkmann reiterated the agreement: \u201cNo one\u2019s going to file any postings or social media information demeaning the other or attacking the other \u2014 everybody\u2019s going to treat each other with mutual respect,\u201d he said before the sparsely attended courtroom The settlement marked the end of a multiyear legal battle that polarized the academic community in Santa Cruz. The civil suit was one chapter in a larger saga that some in the media perceived as academia\u2019s iteration of the #MeToo movement, occurring right as that movement became a prominent hashtag in 2017. Balakrishnan became an associate professor at in 2006 and received tenure in 2015. He was fired from the school in 2019 after an internal investigation determined he had violated university policy multiple times. The investigation found evidence to substantiate allegations by Harlander and others that Balakrishnan had committed sexual assault and harassment, been physically violent toward at least one student, and provided drugs and alcohol to underage students at his residence, according to documents filed with the court in the case. Balakrishnan never faced criminal charges. Two of the three legal chapters in that saga \u2014 the university\u2019s internal investigation that led to Balakrishnan\u2019s firing, and his unsuccessful attempt to appeal that decision through the courts \u2014 concluded in 2019 and this Quick Take Gopal Balakrishnan, a former professor at Santa Cruz, agreed to pay $45,000 to Anneliese Harlander, a alumna who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Balakrishnan, according to the terms of Wednesday's settlement. Jury awards $7.2 million to ex police lieutenant in racial discrimination suit 2/13/25, 10:33 Fired Santa Cruz prof Gopal Balakrishnan settles sexual assault lawsuit by former student 2/6 February, respectively. Harlander\u2019s civil suit was the final court case still pending related to allegations against Balakrishnan. At Wednesday\u2019s hearing, the former professor quietly entered the courtroom with his counsel and sat in the back row as the proceedings commenced. Aside from confirming to the judge that he understood the terms of the settlement, Balakrishnan was silent for the hearing. Harlander entered minutes after Balakrishnan and stood next to Siegel in the front of the courtroom. The entire hearing, from start to finish, took six minutes. Harlander left the courthouse smiling but declined to comment. Siegel declined to comment on the settlement. \u201cYou were there,\u201d he told a journalist. Reached via phone, Balakrishnan\u2019s lawyer said neither he nor his client had any comment. Lookout reached out to for comment but did not hear back by publication time. Once limited to a campus whispernet, rumors of Balakrishnan\u2019s misbehavior went public in 2017, when student-made flyers sprouted around campus. The flyers and concomitant bathroom graffiti called for a boycott of Balakrishnan\u2019s work and alleged that he was a sexual predator. Soon after, a group of past and current students published an open letter in the form of a public Google Doc, which detailed specific allegations against Balakrishnan. The document, signed by over a hundred people, included purported firsthand anecdotes describing unwanted sexual contact and other inappropriate behavior involving Balakrishnan. Meanwhile, some members of the academic community fretted over what they perceived as unsubstantiated allegations. Writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education in January 2018, Katherine Mangan reported on an anonymous letter written by a \u201cSanta Cruz scholar\u201d objecting to the rancor spurred by the anonymous Google Doc. \u201cThis letter, like the graffiti before, not only presented no evidence, it did not even make a concrete allegation. \u2026 It literally suggested that undergraduate students are entitled to see him removed from his job because they have heard unsubstantiated rumors about him, and consequently feel uncomfortable with his presence,\u201d the anonymous academic\u2019s letter said, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2/13/25, 10:33 Fired Santa Cruz prof Gopal Balakrishnan settles sexual assault lawsuit by former student 3/6 group of faculty in the humanities also released a letter \u201ccondemning the anonymous messages,\u201d Mangan reported at the time UCSC\u2019s interim Title officer at the time, Cherie A. Scricca, urged those with direct knowledge of any incidents related to Balakrishnan to come forward. Title refers to the 1972 federal law prohibiting sexual harassment and discrimination; the term has become synecdoche for investigations into sex-related discrimination and harassment. The wellspring of public support spurred by the Google Doc encouraged Harlander and others to file formal university complaints regarding Balakrishnan, which spurred an official university investigation into his behavior. Though Harlander was interviewed by university investigators for the Title inquest, she went public with her story in 2018, when the San Jose Mercury News and other outlets interviewed her about the case. Harlander\u2019s complaint, which mirrors the findings of the Title investigators, alleges that Balakrishnan attended a graduation party in June 2013 where Harlander was present. Harlander, who was 22 at the time, drank too much and became \u201cobviously intoxicated,\u201d the statement of facts reads; Balakrishnan \u201cwalked plaintiff back to her home and without her permission let himself into her residence.\u201d The statement alleges that Balakrishnan removed both her clothes and his and attempted unwanted oral sex. The complaint states that Harlander \u201cdid not consent \u2026 and/or was incapable of consent\u201d due to her intoxication. Harlander originally filed her civil suit against Balakrishnan in March 2019, shortly after the Title investigation leading to Balakrishnan\u2019s dismissal was \u201ccomplete,\u201d according to Executive Vice Chancellor Marlene Tromp fired Balakrishnan that August. Balakrishnan later challenged the university\u2019s decision to fire him in court, arguing that the events for which he was disciplined took place off campus and/or with non-university-affiliated persons, and therefore the university was not justified in \u201cterminat[ing] his employment and deny[ing] him emeritus status officials tell Camper Park students they can stay through the end of the academic year 2/13/25, 10:33 Fired Santa Cruz prof Gopal Balakrishnan settles sexual assault lawsuit by former student 4/6 This separate but related legal case involving Balakrishnan and the University of California Board of Regents reached its conclusion Feb. 1, when the California Court of Appeals ruled against the former professor. The court\u2019s opinion summary reveals in great detail the university\u2019s findings. It includes allegations from four complainants, Harlander among them. The court documents also detail allegations by an anonymized Jane Doe, described as a \u201cpoet and academic from the East Coast,\u201d who encountered Balakrishnan at a party while she was visiting Berkeley in 2013 for the East Bay Poetry Summit. Doe kissed Balakrishnan at some point during the evening, before going to bed, according to the court documents. Later, the appellate court filing said, Doe awoke to find Balakrishnan \u201cdrunkenly trying to get into bed and asking to have sex with her.\u201d The court filing said that Doe told Balakrishnan she was uninterested and asked him to leave. Later, Doe described finding Balakrishnan naked and \u201cloom[ing] over her while she lay in bed.\u201d Court documents also include accounts by two students alleging that Balakrishnan gave underage students and others \u201ccocaine and alcohol\u201d during a 2009 party at his residence. One of the students, a Ph.D. candidate in history of consciousness at Santa Cruz listed in court documents as \u201cPatrick M.\u201d, also alleged that Balakrishnan, who was his faculty advisor, became physically aggressive with him during a discussion over his dissertation. Patrick M. filed an official complaint in 2017 after allegations about Balakrishnan\u2019s behavior became public. Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here. 2/13/25, 10:33 Fired Santa Cruz prof Gopal Balakrishnan settles sexual assault lawsuit by former student 5/6 \u00a9 2025 Lookout Santa Cruz. All Rights Reserved Powered by Newspack 2/13/25, 10:33 Fired Santa Cruz prof Gopal Balakrishnan settles sexual assault lawsuit by former student 6/6", "7663_104.pdf": "Court Upholds Decision To Terminate Professor\u2019s Employment Based On Conduct That Occurred Off-Campus And That Did Not Involve Students CATEGORY: Private Education Matters TYPE: Private Education DATE: Feb 28, 2024 Dr. Gopal Balakrishnan was a tenured professor at the University of California (UC) Santa Cruz. In 2017, an anonymous letter was published online, accusing Dr. Balakrishnan of engaging in a pattern of sexual intimidation, harassment, and assault against young women and gender nonconforming people during his time as a professor. The letter contained seven anonymous firsthand accounts of alleged abuse and called the University to act. Over 150 people signed the letter to show their support. Dr. Balakrishnan denied the accusations and blamed \u201cthe current context of national indignation around the issue of sexual harassment.\u201d In response, the University said that it was aware of the letter and asked individuals with relevant information to contact the Title office to assist its investigation. The University received multiple complaints about Dr. Balakrishnan\u2019s conduct. Two of the more serious complaints involved Jane Doe and Anneliese H. The University engaged an outside investigator to conduct an investigation. Jane Doe, a poet and academic from the East Coast, traveled to Berkeley in 2013 and attended a Poetry Summit. Doe, a friend, and Dr. Balakrishnan stayed overnight at the house of the professor who was hosting the Summit. The investigator concluded that one night, Dr. Balakrishnan climbed into bed and pressed himself against Jane Doe. The investigator concluded that Dr. Balakrishnan engaged in unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature, which was squarely within the definition of prohibited conduct under UC\u2019s Policy on Sexual Harassment that was in place at the time of the incident. However, the investigator could not substantiate a 2/13/25, 10:33 Court Upholds Decision To Terminate Professor\u2019s Employment Based On Conduct That Occurred Off-Campus And That Did Not I\u2026 1/3 violation of this policy because it only applied to members of the University community. Anneliese H., two days after graduating from Santa Cruz, attended a party at the off-campus apartment of her friend. There, for the first time, she met Dr. Balakrishnan, without realizing he was a professor. Dr. Balakrishnan offered to walk Anneliese home, and after arriving at her home, invited him inside. Anneliese was nearly blacked out, and Dr. Balakrishnan forced himself on Anneliese despite her clear directives. The investigator concluded that, again, it was more likely than not that Dr. Balakrishnan engaged in unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature, falling squarely within the definition of prohibited conduct under University policy. This conduct occurred after Anneliese had completed her coursework, but before her degree was conferred. The University held an administrative hearing and ultimately dismissed Dr. Balakrishnan and denied him emeritus status. Dr. Balakrishnan filed suit, alleging, among other claims, that the University lacked jurisdiction to discipline him with respect to Jane Doe or Anneliese H. because they were not University students. The University argued that Dr. Balakrishnan\u2019s conduct towards Jane Doe was subject to discipline because the Faculty Code of Conduct listed the types of unacceptable behavior, which included conduct against members of the community. \u201cCommunity,\u201d the University argued, meant the community at-large, rather than the University community. Dr. Balakrishnan, on the other hand, argued that the Faculty Code only applied to matters \u201cin the scope of their professional roles, not at an after-party for an off- campus poetry summit unaffiliated with the University. The Court concluded that Dr. Balakrishnan\u2019s behavior was not justified by the Faculty Code and that his behavior impaired the University\u2019s central functions. For example, allowing this conduct to continue without consequence or sanction was clearly incompatible with sustaining an environment conductive to learning. The Court reasoned that neither Jane Doe nor her friend would want to work with Dr. Balakrishnan or anyone from the University in the future if they saw this behavior had no consequences. Dr. Balakrishnan next argued the University had no jurisdiction over Anneliese H\u2019s complaint because she was not a student or member of the University community 2/13/25, 10:33 Court Upholds Decision To Terminate Professor\u2019s Employment Based On Conduct That Occurred Off-Campus And That Did Not I\u2026 2/3 when he sexually harassed her. The Court disagreed based on the evidence, which showed that at the time of the party, the University had not yet audited Anneliese\u2019s grades or conferred her degree. In any event, the Court also concluded that the University\u2019s sexual harassment policy extended to incidents with members of the University community, a broad definition that included non-student participants in University programs, such as vendors, contractors, visitors, and patients. The Court upheld the University\u2019s decision to dismiss Dr. Balakrishnan. Balakrishnan v. The Regents of the University of California (Feb. 1, 2024) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2024 Cal. App 68]. Note: This case is an important reminder for schools that, based on its policies, employees can be disciplined for off-campus conduct. Private Education Matters Non-Profit Customer Service Position Not Religious Enough To Permit Discriminatory Hiring Practices Private Education Matters Labor Commissioner Finds That Teacher\u2019s Assistant Not Given Adequate Time To Receive Vaccine View More News 2/13/25, 10:33 Court Upholds Decision To Terminate Professor\u2019s Employment Based On Conduct That Occurred Off-Campus And That Did Not I\u2026 3/3", "7663_105.pdf": "Statement on dismissed faculty member September 24, 2019 By Public Affairs We are grateful that concurred with the and President Janet Napolitano to dismiss Gopal Balakrishnan, a formerly tenured professor who violated the 2015 Policy on Sexual Harassment and the Faculty Code of Conduct. We are also pleased President Napolitano concurred with Chancellor Larive\u2019s recommendation to deny Balakrishnan emeritus status. Balakrishnan was on leave since we started our investigation and was suspended without pay on Aug. 15. The Regents of the University of California recommendation of Chancellor Cynthia K. Larive We thank the courageous people who stepped forward to report their experiences to our Title Office and participated in the adjudication process. Our campus is a safer place because of their bravery. The misconduct, , harmed the complainants, and that trauma rippled through our campus and university system undermining our ability to carry out the mission and central functions of the university. Our campuses must be safe and supportive environments to serve our students and succeed in our educational mission. confirmed through our investigation and adjudication process Sexual misconduct has no place at Santa Cruz, and we work to create a community that is inclusive and welcoming to all. We strive to respond comprehensively and effectively when we learn of allegations, with the goal of protecting everyone in our community. For media inquiries, contact Scott Hernandez-Jason at [email protected] and 831-459-4347. 2/13/25, 10:33 Statement on dismissed faculty member 1/1", "7663_106.pdf": "v (2024) Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California. Gopal BALAKRISHNAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The the CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. A164480 Decided: February 01, 2024 Hathaway Parker, Mark M. Hathaway and Jenna E. Parker, for Plaintiff and Appellant. University of California Office of the General Counsel and Katharine Essick; Munger, Tolles & Olson, Hailyn J. Chen, Los Angeles, and Rebecca L. Sciarrino, for Defendant and Respondent. This appeal addresses the authority of a public university to discipline a faculty member for certain off- campus behavior. We conclude the University of California, Santa Cruz (University or UCSC), could permissibly find, based on the plain language of its internal policies, rules and regulations, that a tenured professor could be dismissed and denied emeritus status for sexually abusing (1) a fellow academic at an event held in connection with an off-campus academic conference and (2) a student whom he volunteered to walk home from an off-campus graduation party, two days after she walked in her graduation ceremony. Plaintiff, Dr. Gopal Balakrishnan, a former tenured professor, appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 1 to set aside the findings and decision of defendant, The Regents of the University of California (Regents), to terminate his employment and deny him emeritus status. In so doing, plaintiff does not dispute the \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 1/22 University's evidentiary finding that he sexually abused two women. Rather, he contends: (1) the University lacked jurisdiction to discipline him because the victims did not qualify as University students, (2) the University misinterpreted and misapplied its own regulations and policies, (3) he did not receive notice of all charges, and (4) the sanctions were excessive. We reject these contentions and affirm the trial court's judgment to deny his writ petition Plaintiff attended Cornell University. He earned a Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, and, in 2000, published a well-received scholarly book entitled The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt. In 2006, after holding several teaching positions at higher learning institutions in the United States and abroad, plaintiff became an associate professor in UCSC's History of Consciousness Department. In 2015, he was promoted to tenured professor. In 2017, an anonymous letter was published online, accusing plaintiff of engaging in a pattern of sexual intimidation, harassment, and assault against young women and gender nonconforming people during his time as a professor. The letter contained seven anonymous firsthand accounts of plaintiff's alleged abuse and called on the University to act. Over 150 people signed this letter to show their support. Plaintiff publicly denied the accusations in the anonymous letter and blamed \u201c \u2018the current context of national indignation around the issue of sexual harassment \u2024\u2019 \u201d In response, the University issued a statement that it was aware of the letter and asked individuals with relevant information to contact the Title office to assist its investigation.2 The University received multiple complaints about plaintiff's conduct. One of the more serious complaints, involving Jane Doe, an academic, came in anonymously. Since Doe did not wish to participate in a formal investigation, the Title office relied on information she gave to a news Web site to identify an eyewitness who was willing to speak. The Title office also decided to investigate complaints from three other individuals: Brian G., Anneliese H. and Patrick M. On February 7, 2018, Executive Vice-Chancellor (EVC) Marlene Tromp notified plaintiff that a single investigation of all four complaints would go forward under the Title office's supervision. The Title office thereafter engaged an outside investigator to conduct the investigation and draft an investigative report, a process that took over six months.3 I. The Allegations and Investigative Findings. A. Jane Doe. 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 2/22 Jane Doe, a poet and academic from the East Coast, met plaintiff when she traveled to Berkeley in 2013 to attend the three-day East Bay Poetry Summit (Poetry Summit), which plaintiff also attended. Doe, along with a friend and professor (Witness 1), were invited to stay overnight at the home of the professor who was hosting the Poetry Summit. One evening, after the Poetry Summit ended for the day, the professor held a party for attendees at her home. It was a festive affair. At some point, Doe and plaintiff were observed kissing. After midnight, however, Doe and Witness 1 retired for the evening to the study where they were sharing a bed short while later, Doe woke up to find plaintiff in the study, drunkenly trying to get in bed and asking to have sex with her. She told plaintiff that she was not interested in sexual activity and \u201c \u2018shooed\u2019 \u201d him from the room. Nonetheless, around 2:00 a.m., Doe woke up again to find plaintiff naked and \u201cloom[ing] over her while she lay in bed.\u201d Plaintiff climbed into bed, and Doe could feel his penis poking into her side. Doe and Witness 1 forced plaintiff from the room and, this time, barricaded the door with furniture so he could not return. After completing the Doe investigation, the investigator found plaintiff engaged in \u201cunwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature which is conduct that falls squarely within the definition of prohibited conduct under the University of California Policy on Sexual Harassment dated February 10, 2006, the policy in effect at the time of the incident.\u201d However, the investigator could not substantiate a violation of this policy because it only applied to \u201c \u2018member[s] of the University community.\u2019 \u201d B. Anneliese H. Anneliese H. walked in her class graduation on June 16, 2013. Days later, on June 18, 2013, Anneliese attended a graduation party at the off-campus apartment of her friend and neighbor, who was a student (Friend 1). There, she met plaintiff for the first time without realizing he was a professor. Friend 1 had audited one of plaintiff's classes and invited him to the party in an effort to obtain his mentorship. As the evening progressed, plaintiff danced and flirted with both Anneliese and Friend 1. Anneliese, who was quite intoxicated, began to feel nauseous and \u201c \u2018on the verge of blacking out or browning out.\u2019 \u201d Plaintiff offered to walk her home. Anneliese agreed and, after arriving at her home, she invited him inside. Plaintiff initiated sexual activity, but Anneliese insisted she only wanted to talk to him. Although Anneliese acknowledged experiencing memory lapses after arriving home, she recalled being undressed in bed and kissing plaintiff. Then, after another memory lapse, she \u201c \u2018came to,\u2019 \u201d to find plaintiff on top of her, performing oral sex. Anneliese repeatedly told plaintiff, \u201c \u2018You need to leave,\u2019 \u201d and do not want to have sex with you,\u2019 \u201d yet he persisted. Plaintiff told Anneliese that he wanted to have anal sex with her. Anneliese was scared, as plaintiff was bigger and stronger than her. Finally, after Anneliese pushed him away several times, plaintiff got up and left. The next day, Anneliese woke up devastated by what happened with plaintiff. Anneliese's friend (Friend 2), also a student, went to Anneliese's home, and they discussed the incident. When Friend 2 told Anneliese that plaintiff may have been a professor, she was \u201c \u2018traumatized.\u2019 \u201d 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 3/22 About a week later, Anneliese told Friend 1 what happened with plaintiff. Friend 1 then shared that on the night of her party plaintiff bought her several drinks despite knowing that she was underage. Later, however, Friend 1 told plaintiff that she was not interested in him, after being \u201c \u2018shocked\u2019 \u201d to learn he was 48 years old. At that point, plaintiff appeared to redirect his focus to Anneliese. Shortly thereafter, Anneliese obtained plaintiff's phone number from Friend 1 and called \u201c \u2018to confront him.\u2019 \u201d Friend 2 was with Anneliese when she made the call and overheard the conversation on speakerphone. When plaintiff answered, Anneliese identified herself. At first, plaintiff flirted with her and asked whether she wanted to meet. Anneliese responded, \u201c \u2018That is not why am calling need to let you know what happened the other night was not was nearly blacked out. You did not have my consent. That is considered rape and it is not OK.\u2019 \u201d At that point, plaintiff became defensive, telling Anneliese that it was not a good time to talk and that he had no idea she had been so intoxicated. Plaintiff also accused Anneliese of \u201c \u2018forc[ing] herself on him or seduc[ing] him.\u2019 \u201d Anneliese responded, \u201c \u2018That is not OK. You knew how drunk was.\u2019 \u201d The call ended after five to 10 minutes; however, plaintiff later called Anneliese back and left a message. She deleted the message without listening to it. In 2018, Anneliese contacted the Title office after receiving a call from Friend 1, who told her about the accusations that had been publicly raised against plaintiff. Anneliese was enraged that plaintiff was denying the accusations and blaming the \u201c \u2018political\u2019 \u201d environment. The Title investigator interviewed Anneliese, her mother, Friend 1, Friend 2, and plaintiff regarding Anneliese's allegations. Plaintiff recalled attending Friend 1's party in June 2013 and meeting Anneliese for the first time. Plaintiff claimed that he left the party alone and was walking to his car when Anneliese came out of her apartment. According to plaintiff, Anneliese pulled him toward her apartment and he \u201creluctantly went in.\u201d After talking briefly, Anneliese suggested sexual activity, which surprised him. However, because Anneliese was highly intoxicated, plaintiff \u201cextricated [him]self from the interaction and left her apartment and went home.\u201d He denied being naked or attempting to have sex with her. According to plaintiff, when Anneliese called him about a month later, she \u201cclearly indicated\u201d having no memory of what transpired between them that evening. After concluding the Anneliese investigation, the investigator found \u201cit is more likely than not that [plaintiff] engaged in unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature which is conduct that falls squarely within the definition of prohibited conduct under the University of California Policy on Sexual Harassment Policy [sic] dated February 10, 2006, the policy in effect at the time of the incident \u2024\u201d This \u201cunwelcome sexual activity occurred on June 18, 2013 after [Anneliese] had completed her course work and participated in commencement but before her degree was conferred.\u201d C. Brian G. and Patrick M. 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 4/22 Former student Brian G. reported that, during the fall or winter of 2009, when he was 18 years old, he attended a small party at plaintiff's residence. Brian knew plaintiff through campus activities but was not his student. At this party, plaintiff gave Brian and other attendees cocaine and alcohol, and afterward he drove Brian home while under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Brian also recalled other occasions during this time period when plaintiff bought him alcohol at local bars although he was underage. Brian contacted the Title office after learning of the public accusations that had been raised against plaintiff because he believed his experiences were relevant. Following an investigation, the investigator found by a preponderance of evidence that plaintiff gave Brian G. alcohol and cocaine at a party and bought him alcohol at least twice at local bars despite knowing he was under age 21. Patrick M. was a Ph.D. candidate in the History of Human Consciousness Department in 2015, and plaintiff was his adviser. According to Patrick, one afternoon he visited plaintiff's office to discuss his dissertation. The pair engaged in a heated discussion regarding the appropriate direction of Patrick's dissertation. At some point, plaintiff became verbally and physically aggressive. Patrick protested and tried to leave, but plaintiff blocked him by lunging at him and aggressively grabbing him. Patrick reported this incident to Professor Dean Mathiowetz in November 2015 and later discussed it with the department's chair, David Marriott. Marriott secured plaintiff's commitment to have no contact with Patrick and assigned Patrick a new adviser. Despite this informal resolution, Patrick came forward with an official complaint after reading the publicity, in 2017, about plaintiff's pattern of abusive behavior. The investigator again found by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff engaged in the alleged misconduct. While plaintiff's \u201coverall intent may have been benign,\u201d his advising approach was detrimental to Patrick. Further, Patrick reasonably viewed plaintiff's conduct as unwelcome and physically aggressive. II. The Four Charges and Administrative Hearing. The investigation reports were forwarded to the University's Charges Committee to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to initiate disciplinary action. On November 9, 2018, the Charges Committee found probable cause as to each complainant: Jane Doe, Anneliese H., Brian G., and Patrick M. With respect to Doe, the Charges Committee acknowledged the investigator did not substantiate a violation of the sexual harassment policy because Doe was not a member of the University community. The committee nonetheless found probable cause under part of the University's Faculty Code of Conduct (APM-015),4 Professional Responsibilities, Ethical Principles, and Unacceptable Faculty Conduct (hereinafter, Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II), which permits faculty members to be disciplined \u201c \u2018for conduct which is not justified by the ethical principles, and which 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 5/22 significantly impairs the University's central functions as set forth in the Preamble.\u2019 \u2024 \u2018Other types of serious misconduct, not specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action [if they also meet the preceding standards] \u2024\u201d5 Accordingly, on November 14, 2018 Tromp issued plaintiff a notice of intent to discipline. In the notice Tromp proposed that plaintiff be dismissed and denied emeritus status \u201cbased on the egregious nature of [his] misconduct \u2024\u201d She also advised plaintiff of his right to a formal hearing under academic senate bylaw 336 before the Committee on Privileges and Tenure Committee) prior to the imposition of any disciplinary sanction. This formal administrative hearing took place over five days in May 2019. Initially, the Committee, made up of three professors, heard and denied 12 prehearing motions brought by plaintiff's counsel. The committee then heard from 11 University witnesses,6 including Witness 1 in the Jane Doe case and Anneliese H., before issuing its final report on July 18, 2019. With respect to Jane Doe, the Committee found clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff violated the Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II, as there was \u201cno question\u201d his conduct toward Doe at an academic event was not justified by ethical principles and undermined the University's central function to provide an environment \u201c \u2018conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom.\u2019 \u201d As to Anneliese H., the Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff's conduct violated 015 II.C.7: Serious violation of University policies governing the professional conduct of faculty (specifically, the University Policy on Sexual Harassment, 2006).\u201d7 It also found \u201ca close nexus\u201d between plaintiff in his role as University representative and his conduct, since he was invited to the graduation party where he met Anneliese by a student who sought to foster his mentorship. Then, after using his professor status to connect with these women, plaintiff treated Anneliese in an \u201cunwelcome, deeply harm[ful]\u201d manner\u2014conduct that constituted a \u201c \u2018serious violation of University policies governing the professional conduct of faculty\u2019 within the meaning of the [Faculty Code of Conduct 015 II.C.7.\u201d The Committee also found plaintiff's conduct independently violated other Faculty Code of Conduct provisions. As in the case of Jane Doe, his sexual abuse of Anneliese was not justified by ethical principles and significantly impaired the University's central functions and, as such, violated the Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II. With respect to Brian G., the Committee found evidence that plaintiff violated the University's policy on substance abuse by knowingly providing him alcohol and cocaine. However, it concluded the evidence presented at the hearing did not meet the clear and convincing standard since Brian was vague as to key information, including times, persons, and dates. Accordingly, this charge was dismissed. 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 6/22 Lastly, the Committee dismissed the charge relating to Patrick M. based on the three-year limitations period set forth in the Faculty Code of Conduct.8 Thus, having unanimously found plaintiff committed serious violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct in the cases of Doe and Anneliese H., the Committee recommended his dismissal and denial of emeritus status. III. Plaintiff's Dismissal and Denial of Emeritus Status. On August 15, 2019 Chancellor Cynthia K. Larive notified plaintiff that she had adopted the unanimous findings and recommendations of dismissal and denial of emeritus status set forth in the Committee's July 2019 report. Chancellor Larive also imposed the interim sanction of \u201csuspension without pay effective with the date of this letter until the earlier of either: 1) dismissal pursuant to my recommendation; or 2) twenty (20) years.\u201d In doing so, Chancellor Larive informed plaintiff that, while \u201cnot relevant to my recommendations to the President and Regents, or the exercise of my authority under [the academic senate bylaws], it is notable that the record before me is devoid of any acknowledgement from you about your behavior or the detrimental impacts of your misconduct on the direct victims or the University.\u201d On August 23, 2019, University of California President Janet Napolitano issued a decision, based on her own independent review of the record, recommending that the Regents dismiss plaintiff from the University's employ.9 In September 2019, the Regents held a meeting to consider President Napolitano's recommendation of dismissal. Plaintiff did not avail himself of the opportunity to appear personally or through counsel. He did, however, submit a written statement arguing that the University lacked jurisdiction to pursue either incident of sexual misconduct because they occurred off campus and involved nonstudents. At the meeting's conclusion, the Regents unanimously voted in favor of plaintiff's dismissal and denial of emeritus status. IV. Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate. On October 2, 2020, plaintiff filed the operative third amended petition for writ of administrative mandate in Alameda Superior Court hearing was held on September 1, 2021. Afterward, the court denied the petition, declining to set aside the administrative findings or sanction. This timely appeal followed Plaintiff contends on appeal: (1) the University lacked jurisdiction to discipline him with respect to Jane Doe or Anneliese H. because they were not University students; (2) in the case of Jane Doe, he cannot be disciplined for violating general ethical principles and there was no evidence his conduct significantly 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 7/22 impaired the University's central functions; (3) in the case of Anneliese H., he cannot be disciplined for violating uncharged provisions of the Faculty Code of Conduct for which he did not receive notice; and (4) the sanctions of dismissal and denial of emeritus status were excessive. We address these contentions post, in appropriate order.10 I. Administrative Mandate: Standard of Review. \u201cTo prevail, a petitioner seeking a writ of administrative mandate must show the agency (in this case, [the University]) (1) acted without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction; (2) deprived the petitioner of a fair administrative hearing; or (3) committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (\u00a7 1094.5, subd. (b); Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 239 [200 Cal.Rptr.3d 851] (Southern California I) [\u00a7 1094.5\u2019s \u2018fair trial\u2019 requirement means there must be a fair administrative hearing].) [Fn. omitted.] \u2018 \u201cAbuse of discretion is established if the [agency] has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.\u201d \u2019 [Citations.]\u201d (Doe v. Regents of University of California (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 521, 532, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 532.) Where, as here, an administrative decision involves a fundamental vested right to employment, the trial court \u201cindependently review[s] the record to determine whether the weight of evidence supports a factual finding, whereas the substantial evidence test applies when a fundamental right is not at issue. (Wences v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 305, 313 [99 Cal.Rptr.3d 199] (Wences).) But [as] the appellate court[, we] appl[y] a substantial evidence test, regardless of whether a fundamental right is involved. (Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 824 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 977 P.2d 693].)\u201d (O'Brien v. Regents of University of California (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1116, 310 Cal.Rptr.3d 339.) Further, as always, we exercise independent judgment on legal issues. (Manderson-Saleh v. Regents of University of California (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 674, 693, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 838 (Manderson-Saleh).) II. The University's Findings as to Jane Doe Stand. A. Plaintiff's Jurisdiction Argument Fails. Plaintiff contends the Jane Doe findings must be set aside because the University cannot \u201cexercise limitless jurisdiction by policing and prosecuting faculty for conduct that occurs off campus after hours, separate and apart from the faculty member's professional role at UCSC.\u201d The following rules apply. \u201cThe University is a statewide administrative agency with constitutionally derived powers. (Cal. Const., art. IX, \u00a7 9, subd. (a); [citation].) Its employees are public employees. [Citation.] The University is administered by the Regents. (Cal. Const., art. IX, \u00a7 9, subd. (a).) Regents have rulemaking and policymaking power in regard to the University; their policies and procedures have the force and effect of statute.\u201d (Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 10.) 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 8/22 Generally, the rules that govern statutory interpretation also govern interpretation of administrative regulations. (Akella v. Regents of University of California (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 801, 817, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 (Akella).) \u201cFurther, policies established by the Regents according to their constitutionally derived rulemaking and policymaking power, like the Academic Personnel Manual, have the force and effect of statute.\u201d (Ibid.) \u201cGenerally, the interpretation of a regulation [or statute] \u2018 \u201cis \u2024 a question of law\u201d and is \u2024 subject to de novo review.\u2019 [Citation.] However, a reviewing court accords an administrative agency's interpretation of its own regulation great weight and deference, unless the interpretation is unauthorized or clearly erroneous. [Citations.] This rule recognizes that an \u2018agency has developed a level of \u201cexpertise\u201d in light of its familiarity with the legal and regulatory issues.\u2019 [Citation.] Courts are particularly deferential of the Regents\u2019 determinations because of its role as a state constitutional entity. [Citations.] Thus, although we are not bound by the Regents\u2019 interpretation, we give it great weight under the circumstances. (See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 12, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 960 P.2d 1031 [citations]; [citation].)\u201d (Manderson-Saleh, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 697, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 838; accord, Akella, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 817, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 [\u201cconsidering it is well within the Regents\u2019 constitutionally delegated authority [citation] to hear and resolve disputes related to the administration of the university's academic affairs \u2018by applying University policies to particular cases\u2019 [citation], we conclude that Privilege & Tenure's interpretation is entitled to a reasonable degree of judicial deference\u201d].)11 In determining that plaintiff's conduct toward Jane Doe was subject to discipline, the University relied on Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II. The relevant provision states: \u201cTh[e] listing of faculty responsibilities, ethical principles, and types of unacceptable behavior is organized around the individual faculty member's relation to teaching and students, to scholarship, to the University, to colleagues, and to the community. Since University discipline, as distinguished from other forms of reproval or administrative actions, should be reserved for faculty misconduct that is either serious in itself or is made serious through its repetition, or its consequences, the following general principle is intended to govern all instances of its application: [\u00b6] University discipline under this Code may be imposed on a faculty member only for conduct which is not justified by the ethical principles and which significantly impairs the University's central functions as set forth in the Preamble\u2024 The Types of Unacceptable Conduct listed below in Sections through are examples of types of conduct which meet the preceding standards and hence are presumptively subject to University discipline. Other types of serious misconduct, not specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action if they also meet the preceding standards.\u201d (Italics omitted.) According to plaintiff, this language permits faculty members to be disciplined only as to matters \u201cin the scope of their professional roles, not after they have hung up their coat and kicked off their shoes at the 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 9/22 end of the day, and certainly not after an after-party for an off-campus poetry summit [unaffiliated] with UCSC.\u201d In its final report, however, the Committee interpreted this provision otherwise: \u201cThe [Faculty Code of Conduct] does in fact extend to interactions between faculty and \u2018the community\u2019: \u2018This listing of faculty responsibilities, ethical principles, and types of unacceptable behavior is organized around the individual faculty member's relation to teaching and students, to scholarship, to the University, to colleagues, and to the community 015, Part II.) The \u2018community\u2019 meant here is clearly not the University community, but the community at large. It is not true that the conduct in question had no relation to the University. The poetry summit was an academic conference (testimony by [Witness 1 p. 272), and [plaintiff's] presence at it was clearly related to his status as a Professor at the University. The question before us, then, is whether [plaintiff's] conduct in the [Jane Doe] incident was conduct which \u2018is not justified by the Ethical Principles and which significantly impairs the University's central functions as set forth in the Preamble\u2019. \u201cThere is no question that the behavior was not justified by the Ethical Principles. We also find that it significantly impairs the University's central functions. The Preamble states: \u2018The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom.\u2019 The University is impaired in this function if its faculty, without consequence or sanction, engage in behavior in the context of professional events that would not be tolerated on campus because of their clear incompatibility with sustaining an environment \u2018conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom\u2019. For example, it is to be expected that neither Ms. [Doe] nor [Witness 1] (nor potentially others who became aware of the behavior) would want to work with [plaintiff] (or even with anyone from UCSC) in the future, if they see that this behavior has no consequences. In other words: only a safe environment is an environment conducive to sharing knowledge and values.\u201d Applying the above stated rules of statutory interpretation, we conclude the Committee's reading of the Faculty Code of Conduct was consistent with the plain and commonsense meaning of the Code's language. (Akella, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at pp. 817\u2013818, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 250.) The Committee's interpretation also gave meaning to the provision \u201cas a whole, giving effect to all of its parts \u2024\u201d (Id. at p. 818, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 250.) And lastly, the Committee's interpretation respected the University's underlying intent in prohibiting faculty conduct \u201cnot justified by the Ethical Principles and which significantly impairs the University's central functions.\u201d (Ibid.) As explained in the Committee's final report, \u201conly a safe environment is an environment conducive to sharing knowledge and values.\u201d Climbing naked and uninvited into bed with and pressing his genitalia against a female academic attending the same academic conference at a party given by the conference host (also a professor) clearly created an unsafe environment not conducive to the sharing of knowledge and values.12 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 10/22 We hasten to add this interpretation of the Faculty Code of Conduct was made by a committee comprised of three of plaintiff's fellow professors, adding to its evidentiary weight. As recognized by numerous courts, \u201ccontextual familiarity matters. The disputed policy language, while not complex or technical, should be interpreted in a manner that is both knowledgeable of and sensitive to the needs of [the] department and university population to which it applies. (See Simi Corp. v. Garamendi (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1505, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 207 [citation] [noting the \u2018particular expertise\u2019 of the agency's commissioner in that case was a \u2018deep understanding of the context in which the regulation exists\u2019]; Berman [v. Regents of University of California (2014)] 229 Cal.App.4th [1265,] 1271\u20131272, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 62 [explaining that the court accords great weight and respect to the administration's construction of the university's student conduct code based on its expertise and familiarity with the legal and regulatory issues].)\u201d (Akella, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 817, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 250.) There is no evidence calling into question the Committee's familiarity with both the Faculty Code of Conduct as a legal document and the significance that its enforcement has within the University community. For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the University's finding that plaintiff's conduct toward Jane Doe at a party held in connection with an off-campus academic conference was subject to discipline under the Faculty Code of Conduct. B. Petitioner Violated Ethical Principles that Significantly Impaired the University's Central Functions. Plaintiff next contends the University lacked authority to discipline him for conduct not enumerated as \u201c \u2018unacceptable conduct\u2019 \u201d in the Faculty Code of Conduct plain, commonsense reading of the Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II, defeats plaintiff's contention. The relevant provision, discussed ante, states: \u201cThe Types of Unacceptable Conduct listed below in Sections through are examples of types of conduct which meet the preceding standards and hence are presumptively subject to University discipline. Other types of serious misconduct, not specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action.\u201d (2d italics added.) This language reflects the University's clear intent to authorize discipline for conduct not specifically laid out in the Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II, if it otherwise meets the standard of violating \u201cethical principles and \u2024 significantly impair[ing] the University's central functions \u2024\u201d Again, the Committee's interpretation of this language is reasonable and entitled to our deference. (Akella, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at pp. 817\u2013818, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 250; Manderson-Saleh, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 697, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 838 [courts accord an administrative agency's interpretation of its own regulation great weight and deference, unless the interpretation is \u201cunauthorized or clearly erroneous\u201d].) Plaintiff deflects with a fairness argument, insisting he had no notice the University would seek to regulate faculty behavior at a non-University event with respect to conduct not articulated in the Faculty Code of Conduct. We disagree. The regulated conduct was in fact set forth in the code, providing notice to him and other faculty members as to what was not acceptable\u2014to wit, \u201cconduct which is not justified 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 11/22 by the ethical principles and which significantly impairs the University's central functions \u2024\u201d The code's failure to enumerate every type of conduct meeting this standard does not render this provision unenforceable. Finally, plaintiff claims the University \u201cpostulated without support that anytime a faculty member engages in conduct that would not be tolerated on campus, the University's central functions are impaired.\u201d Not so. The Committee explained its Jane Doe finding as follows: \u201cThe University is impaired in this function if its faculty, without consequence or sanction, engage in behavior in the context of professional events that would not be tolerated on campus because of their clear incompatibility with sustaining an environment \u2018conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom.\u2019 For example, it is to be expected that neither [Jane Doe] nor [Witness 1] (nor potentially others who became aware of the behavior) would want to work with Professor Balakrishnan (or even with anyone from UCSC) in the future, if they see that this behavior has no consequences. In other words: only a safe environment is an environment conducive to sharing knowledge and values.\u201d Plaintiff's attempt to paint this explanation as mere postulating underscores his ongoing failure to recognize the gravity of his conduct. He sexually abused a fellow academic, Jane Doe, at an academic conference, and when she escorted him from the room, he returned later and abused her again. In response, Doe and Witness 1 were forced to barricade the door for their safety. Plaintiff's colleagues on the Committee appropriately determined that his conduct presented a serious risk to the safety of others in the community and that his continued association with would likely discourage students and professors alike from participating in academic events where he might be present. The 2017 open letter calling on the University to discipline plaintiff for his pattern of abusive behavior, signed by over 150 people, confirms the Committee's determination was well founded, as does Witness 1's testimony about the trauma Doe suffered from his abuse. Accordingly, the University's Jane Doe findings stand. III. The University's Findings as to Anneliese H. Stand. A. Petitioner's Jurisdiction Challenge Fails. Plaintiff contends the University had no jurisdiction over Anneliese H.\u2019s complaint because she was not a student or member of the University community when he sexually harassed her. Plaintiff relies upon the definition of \u201cstudent\u201d in the University's Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations and Students, part III, section 14.00, DEFINITIONS, which states \u201c \u2018student\u2019 \u201d is \u201can individual for whom the University maintains student records and who: (a) is enrolled in or registered with an academic program of the University; (b) has completed the immediately preceding term, is not presently enrolled, and is 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 12/22 eligible for re-enrollment; or (c) is on an approved educational leave or other approved leave status, or is on filing-fee status.\u201d According to plaintiff, Anneliese was a graduate who did not meet this definition, such that the University's sexual harassment policy did not apply to her. Not so. The evidence demonstrated that Anneliese walked in the graduation ceremony on June 16, 2018, about two days before attending the party after which plaintiff sexually harassed her. In fact, she attended this party in part to celebrate her graduation. At that time, the University had not yet audited Anneliese's grades or conferred her degree, which did not occur until July 2018. Under these circumstances, we conclude the evidence supports a finding that Anneliese was in fact a student under the University's policies. In any event, as the Committee pointed out, the University's sexual harassment policy dated February 1, 2006, page 1, states, \u201cSexual harassment may include incidents between any members of the University community, including faculty and other academic appointees, staff, coaches, housestaff, students, and non-student or non-employee participants in University programs, such as vendors, contractors, visitors and patients.\u201d Given this broad standard, \u201cit is not necessary to quibble over the exact moment when [Anneliese H.] ceased being a student. The Sexual Harassment policy prohibits Sexual Harassment of any member of the University community\u2024 There may be some question whether alumni remain members of the University community for the rest of their lives, but certainly a graduating senior does not cease to be a member of the University community on the last day of the final quarter. For this reason, we believe that the University Sexual Harassment policy does prohibit the behavior committed by Professor Balakrishnan on this occasion, and thus that this behavior was a violation of the Sexual Harassment policy, and consequently a violation of the 015.II.C.7).\u201d We conclude the Committee's interpretation was consistent with both the language and purpose of the sexual harassment policy. Moreover, as stated before, the Committee was comprised of three of plaintiff's professor colleagues who were individually and collectively \u201cknowledgeable of and sensitive to the needs of [the] \u2024 university population to which [the policy] applies.\u201d (Akella, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 817, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, citing Simi Corp. v. Garamendi, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1505, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 207, and Berman v. Regents of University of California, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1271\u20131272, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 62.) Relevant here, as the Committee found, Friend 1 invited plaintiff to her graduation weekend party after having audited one of his classes because she was seeking his mentorship. Anneliese knew Friend 1 because they were both students living with other students in off-campus housing. Anneliese met plaintiff at Friend 1's party and was sexually abused by him after he volunteered to walk her home, when she fell ill due to having consumed too much alcohol. In these circumstances, plaintiff's claim that Anneliese had ceased to be a member of the University community entitled to protection under the sexual harassment policy two days before he abused her rings hollow. B. Plaintiff Had Notice of the Charge. 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 13/22 Plaintiff contends he had no notice of one of the two charges against him in the case of Anneliese H. The first charge, discussed ante, was for violation of the University's sexual harassment policy. The second charge, of which plaintiff claims he had no notice, was for a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II. We reject this contention. Plaintiff is correct the notice of intent to discipline issued by the University identified one charge relating to Anneliese H.: \u201cAlleged violation 015 II.C.7: Serious violation of University policies governing the professional conduct of faculty (specifically, the University Policy on Sexual Harassment, 2006).\u201d Following the hearing, the Committee found a violation of the sexual harassment policy and, thus 015 II.C.7, with respect to plaintiff's conduct toward Anneliese. In addition, the committee found his conduct \u201cindependently violated the [Faculty Code of Conduct],\u201d which \u201cprohibits, in general, faculty conduct that is unacceptable because it is \u2018not justified by the Ethical Principles and significantly impairs the University's central functions as set forth in the Preamble 015, Preamble).\u201d The committee reasoned: \u201cStudents have a right to expect that the University does not tolerate faculty who attempt to rape people. The University has an obligation to honor that right.\u201d The Committee's findings and recommendations were then reviewed by Chancellor Larive, who determined, based on her own review of the evidence, that plaintiff violated the University's sexual harassment policy (and, thus 015 II.C.7). Chancellor Larive made no mention of, or finding as to, the Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II, before submitting her recommendation of dismissal and denial of emeritus status to University President Napolitano. After her own review, University President Napolitano adopted the same finding of a violation of the University's sexual harassment policy in submitting her recommendation of dismissal to the Regents, which the Regents then approved\u2014the administrative decision challenged by this writ petition. Plaintiff's lack-of-notice claim thus fails. In the case of Anneliese H., he was charged with\u2014and disciplined for\u2014only the serious violation of the University's sexual harassment policy. IV. The Sanctions Imposed Were Not Excessive. Lastly, plaintiff contends dismissal of a tenured professor and denial of emeritus status for conduct that was never criminally charged, resulting in a loss of \u201cupwards of a million dollars\u201d in salary and benefits, is constitutionally excessive (Cal. Const., art. I, \u00a7 17). We disagree. \u201cWe review the penalty imposed by an administrative body for an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] This court cannot \u2018substitute its discretion for that of the administrative agency concerning the degree of punishment imposed.\u2019 [Citation.] Moreover, \u2018[i]t is only in the exceptional case, when it is shown that reasonable minds cannot differ on the propriety of the penalty, that an abuse of discretion is shown.\u2019 [Citation.]\u201d (Doe v. Regents of University of California (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1106, 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 14/22 479; Hughes v. Bd. of Architectural Examiners (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 685, 692, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 [courts \u201c \u2018pay great deference to the expertise of the administrative agency in determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed\u2019 \u201d].) The University found clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff egregiously sexually abused both Jane Doe and Anneliese. As to the latter, in particular, plaintiff took advantage of Anneliese's extreme intoxication to enter her home and attempt to rape her. Rather than challenge this evidence, plaintiff attempts to minimize its significance. However, as the University's chancellor found, given the nature and severity of plaintiff's conduct, the harm to the victims, and the harm to the University, his dismissal and denial of emeritus status were warranted on the basis of either or both incidents. The University's decisions were well within its discretion The judgment is affirmed 1. Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Reports of sexual violence and sexual harassment at the University are handled by the Title office. When an investigation is warranted, the Title office appoints an investigator to conduct the investigation by interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence and then preparing a written report with findings of fact and a recommendation as to whether any University policy was violated. 3. On February 1, 2018 Tromp placed plaintiff on involuntary leave due to the egregiousness of the allegations against him and for his own protection. 4. See footnote 5, post, page 9. 5. \u201cAPM\u201d refers to the University's Academic Personnel Manual. The Faculty Code of Conduct is found at APM-015. 6. Plaintiff and his counsel declined to participate in the hearing before the Committee. 7. The sexual harassment policy defines \u201c[s]exual harassment\u201d as \u201cunwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects a person's \u2024 education, unreasonably interferes with a person's work or educational performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or learning environment\u2024 [\u00b6] \u2024 [\u00b6] In determining whether the reported conduct constitutes sexual harassment, consideration shall be given to the record of the conduct as a whole and to the totality of the circumstances, including the context in which the conduct occurred.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 15/22 8. Department chair David Marriott testified that he knew of the alleged incident as of November 1 or 2, 2015, the day of or after it occurred. Yet, Patrick did not file a formal complaint until 2018, and plaintiff did not receive notice of the University's intent to discipline him until November 14, 2018, about two weeks past the limitations period. 9. President Napolitano deferred decision on denial of emeritus status pending the Regents\u2019 decision on her dismissal recommendation. 10. Plaintiff raises two additional contentions that we decline to consider: (1) the University's consolidation of two unrelated complaints was prejudicial and (2) the denial of his request for a continuance of the administrative hearing was unfair. We deem these contentions forfeited due to plaintiff's failure, in his opening brief, to support them with reasoned legal argument. (See People v. Guzman (2019) 8 Cal.5th 673, 683, fn. 7, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 453 P.3d 1130 [appellant forfeited due process claim by failing to \u201cdevelop the argument\u201d]; In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 845, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 481, 220 P.3d 524 [\u201c \u2018 \u201cContentions supported neither by argument nor by citation of authority are deemed to be without foundation and to have been abandoned\u201d \u2019 \u201d].) 11. The Akella court recognized the degree of deference owed the University in interpreting one of its policies depends on the interpreter's familiarity with the policy at issue, whether the University has adhered consistently to the interpretation at issue, and whether there was an opportunity for comment to be made on the interpretation. (Akella, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at pp. 816\u2013817, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 250.) 12. We reject plaintiff's suggestion in his reply brief that there was no evidence he attended the poetry summit in his professional capacity. Witness 1 testified at the administrative hearing that the poetry summit was an offsite \u201cacademic conference\u201d organized by \u201cpoets, professors, and members of the community in the East Bay\u201d and that conference participants knew and respected plaintiff as a historian of consciousness. Plaintiff chose not to participate in the hearing and, thus, presented no contrary evidence. Jackson CONCUR: Burns, J. Chou, J. Was this helpful? Yes No 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 16/22 Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law v (2024) Docket No: A164480 Decided: February 01, 2024 Court: Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California. 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 17/22 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 For Legal Professionals 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 18/22 Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 19/22 Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 \uf105 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 20/22 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 21/22 US: \uf09a \uf16a \uf16d By Name Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/13/25, 10:33 v (2024) | FindLaw 22/22", "7663_107.pdf": "By By | | [email protected] [email protected] | Santa Cruz Sentinel | Santa Cruz Sentinel UPDATED: UPDATED: March 7, 2024 at 7:33 March 7, 2024 at 7:33 Santa Cruz alumna Annaliese Harlander reads her letter of complaint against officials handling Santa Cruz alumna Annaliese Harlander reads her letter of complaint against officials handling her accusations of sexual assault against professor Gopal Balakrishnan, who she says tried to rape her her accusations of sexual assault against professor Gopal Balakrishnan, who she says tried to rape her five years ago. (Dan Coyro \u2014 Santa Cruz Sentinel) five years ago. (Dan Coyro \u2014 Santa Cruz Sentinel former Santa Cruz tenured History of Consciousness professor fired in former Santa Cruz tenured History of Consciousness professor fired in 2019 for violations of the university\u2019s sexual assault and faculty codes of conduct settled a 2019 for violations of the university\u2019s sexual assault and faculty codes of conduct settled a separate civil lawsuit with one of his accusers this week. separate civil lawsuit with one of his accusers this week Fired Santa Cruz tenured professor Fired Santa Cruz tenured professor settles civil sexual assault lawsuit settles civil sexual assault lawsuit \u2022 \u2022 News News 2/13/25, 10:34 Fired Santa Cruz tenured professor settles civil sexual assault lawsuit 1/3 \ue905 \ue905 Originally Published: Originally Published: March 7, 2024 at 5:05 March 7, 2024 at 5:05 Gopal Balakrishnan, who came under the scrutiny of the university\u2019s Title office after student- Gopal Balakrishnan, who came under the scrutiny of the university\u2019s Title office after student- led protests and disclosures in 2017, consented Wednesday to a $45,000 settlement with led protests and disclosures in 2017, consented Wednesday to a $45,000 settlement with undergraduate alumna Anneliese Harlander, an agreement tied to a confidentiality clause, undergraduate alumna Anneliese Harlander, an agreement tied to a confidentiality clause, according to the court hearing\u2019s recorded minutes before Santa Cruz County Superior Court according to the court hearing\u2019s recorded minutes before Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Timothy Volkmann. Judge Timothy Volkmann. Following findings from the investigation by the university\u2019s Title office \u2014 tasked with Following findings from the investigation by the university\u2019s Title office \u2014 tasked with overseeing federal law prohibiting discrimination or sexual harassment \u2014 Balakrishnan was overseeing federal law prohibiting discrimination or sexual harassment \u2014 Balakrishnan was moved from paid leave to unpaid leave in August 2018 month later, the Regents of the moved from paid leave to unpaid leave in August 2018 month later, the Regents of the University of California University of California voted to dismiss Balakrishnan voted to dismiss Balakrishnan in a closed session meeting, also opting in a closed session meeting, also opting to deny Balakrishnan emeritus status. to deny Balakrishnan emeritus status. The settlement with Harlander comes a little more than a month after a ruling by the California The settlement with Harlander comes a little more than a month after a ruling by the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District upholding an Alameda County Superior Court Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District upholding an Alameda County Superior Court ruling against Balakrishnan. In that case, Balakrishnan unsuccessfully had appealed his ruling against Balakrishnan. In that case, Balakrishnan unsuccessfully had appealed his dismissal by the Regents. While not disputing the finding that he sexually abused two dismissal by the Regents. While not disputing the finding that he sexually abused two women, Balakrishnan\u2019s case argued that the investigation lacked jurisdiction to discipline women, Balakrishnan\u2019s case argued that the investigation lacked jurisdiction to discipline him because the victims did not qualify as university students, the university misinterpreted him because the victims did not qualify as university students, the university misinterpreted and misapplied its own regulations and policies, he did not receive notice of all charges, and and misapplied its own regulations and policies, he did not receive notice of all charges, and the sanctions were excessive. The courts disagreed on all points, according to the Court of the sanctions were excessive. The courts disagreed on all points, according to the Court of Appeal ruling. Appeal ruling. In 2018, In 2018, Harlander shared with the Sentinel Harlander shared with the Sentinel her interaction with Balakrishnan, some five years her interaction with Balakrishnan, some five years after a confrontation occurred in the aftermath of a June 18, 2013, off-campus graduation after a confrontation occurred in the aftermath of a June 18, 2013, off-campus graduation party. She told the Sentinel that Balakrishnan attempted to have intercourse with her despite party. She told the Sentinel that Balakrishnan attempted to have intercourse with her despite her protests, an incident she first reported to the Title office in January 2018. Further detailed her protests, an incident she first reported to the Title office in January 2018. Further detailed in her civil case, Harlander alleged that she had become intoxicated at the party and that in her civil case, Harlander alleged that she had become intoxicated at the party and that Balakrishnan had accompanied her home, letting himself into her home without permission Balakrishnan had accompanied her home, letting himself into her home without permission and disrobing both of them before the assault. and disrobing both of them before the assault. In a written statement to the investigator, Balakrishnan denied the portions of Harlander\u2019s In a written statement to the investigator, Balakrishnan denied the portions of Harlander\u2019s claim that involved him becoming naked and laying on top of her. claim that involved him becoming naked and laying on top of her. Information on filing a Title complaint through the university is available online at Information on filing a Title complaint through the university is available online at titleix.ucsc.edu/reporting/index.html titleix.ucsc.edu/reporting/index.html also has posted five years of summary Title Data also has posted five years of summary Title Data and Annual Reports, with the most recent being for the 2019-2020 school year, available at and Annual Reports, with the most recent being for the 2019-2020 school year, available at titleix.ucsc.edu/about/data/index.html titleix.ucsc.edu/about/data/index.html.. 2/13/25, 10:34 Fired Santa Cruz tenured professor settles civil sexual assault lawsuit 2/3 2024 2024 \ue907 \ue907March March \ue907 \ue90777 2/13/25, 10:34 Fired Santa Cruz tenured professor settles civil sexual assault lawsuit 3/3", "7663_108.pdf": "Gopal Balakrishnan Born February 27, 1966[4] New Delhi, India[1] Occupation scholar Academic background Alma mater University of California, Los Angeles (Ph.D., 1998) (M.A., 1993) Cornell University (B.A., 1989)[1] Thesis 'The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt' (1998) Doctoral advisor Robert Brenner, Perry Anderson[2] Academic work Discipline Historian Sub- discipline European Intellectual History Institutions University of California, Santa Cruz (2005-2019) University of Chicago (2001- 2005)[3] Gopal Balakrishnan Gopal Balakrishnan was a professor in the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, until he was fired due to allegations of sexual assault. Balakrishnan studied European intellectual history and historical sociology at during the 1990s with Perry Anderson, Robert Brenner, Rogers Brubaker, and Michael Mann. He worked on political thought, intellectual history, and critical theory. Prior to his appointment at UC-Santa Cruz, he was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Chicago. In 2017, a number of people published allegations that Balakrishnan had committed sexual assault on multiple occasions Santa Cruz launched an investigation in 2017 that was extended in May 2018.[5][6] In October 2018, Balakrishnan remained on paid administrative leave.[7][8][9][10] He subsequently resigned as a member of the editorial board of the New Left Review.[3] In September 2019, he was fired from his position at UCSC, becoming the first tenured faculty member to be fired at UCSC.[11][12] Balakrishnan, Gopal; Anderson, Benedict, eds. (1996). Mapping the nation. Verso. Balakrishnan, Gopal (2000). The enemy: an intellectual portrait of Carl Schmitt. Verso. Balakrishnan, Gopal, ed. (2003). Debating Empire. Verso. Balakrishnan, Gopal (2009). Antagonistics: capitalism and power in an age of war. Verso. Balakrishnan, Gopal (September\u2013October 2000). \"Hardt and Negri's Empire\" ( org/II/5/gopal-balakrishnan-hardt-and-negri-s-empire). New Left Review (5). New Left Review. Selected publications Books Articles 2/13/25, 10:34 Gopal Balakrishnan - Wikipedia 1/3 Review of the book Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Balakrishnan, Gopal (September\u2013October 2003). \"Algorithms of war\" ( 3/gopal-balakrishnan-algorithms-of-war). New Left Review (23). New Left Review. Review of the book The Shield of Achilles by Philip Bobbitt. Balakrishnan, Gopal (September\u2013October 2009). \"Speculations on the stationary state\" ( wleftreview.org/II/59/gopal-balakrishnan-speculations-on-the-stationary-state). New Left Review (59). New Left Review. Balakrishnan, Gopal (November\u2013December 2010). \"The coming contradiction\" ( w.org/II/66/gopal-balakrishnan-the-coming-contradiction). New Left Review (66). New Left Review. Review of the book Valences of the Dialectic by Frederic Jameson. 1. Balakrishnan 1998, p. iv. 2. Balakrishnan 1998, p. ii. 3. Faculty Homepage at Santa Cruz ( 4. Balakrishnan, Gopal (1998). The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt (Ph.D.). University of California, Los Angeles. p. iv 41036825 ( ProQuest 304448547 ( 5. \"Some Called It \"Vigilante Justice.\" But An Anonymous Campaign Triggered Real Investigation Into Santa Cruz Professor\" ( -sexual-harassment-investigation). BuzzFeed. Retrieved 2018-05-23. 6. Gladu, Sydney (17 May 2018). \"Sexual Harassment and Assault Allegations Build Against Professor | City on a Hill Press\" ( nd-assault-allegations-build-against-ucsc-professor/). Retrieved 2018-05-23. 7. Johnson, Laretta (2018-10-04). \"Balakrishnan Case Closed\" ( 18/10/04/balakrishnan-case-closed/). City on a Hill Press. Retrieved 2019-04-04. 8. \"Professor at UC-Santa Cruz Disputes Sexual-Assault Accusations\" ( ticle/Professor-at-UC-Santa-Cruz/241964). The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2017-12-03. Retrieved 2018-02-20. 9. Coleman, Mary (2017-12-04). \"Multiple allegations against professor claim he sexually assaulted/harassed them\" ( m/news/multiple-allegations-against-ucsc-professor-claim-he-sexually-assaultedharassed-them/66 7429919). KION-TV. Archived from the original ( -against-ucsc-professor-claim-he-sexually-assaultedharassed-them/667429919) on 2018-02-20. Retrieved 2018-02-20. 10. Kulkarni, Bhargavi (2018-01-19). \"Calif. professor denies sexual harassment charges\" ( b.archive.org/web/20200222195219/ xual-harassment-charges/article_b9b2c840-fd71-11e7-ab8d-f7c0cd15d16b.html). India Abroad. Archived from the original ( sment-charges/article_b9b2c840-fd71-11e7-ab8d-f7c0cd15d16b.html) on 2020-02-22. Retrieved 2018-02-20. 11. \"Statement on dismissed faculty member|\" ( l Public Affairs. Retrieved 2018-09-24. References 2/13/25, 10:34 Gopal Balakrishnan - Wikipedia 2/3 12 Santa Cruz Has Fired Professor After He Violated The University's Harassment Policy\" (http s:// BuzzFeed. Retrieved 2018-09-24. Review of The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt ( 15145447/ Retrieved from \" External links 2/13/25, 10:34 Gopal Balakrishnan - Wikipedia 3/3"} |
7,411 | Peter Cookson | Lewis & Clark College | [
"7411_101.pdf"
] | {"7411_101.pdf": "Untoward Mentor Lewis&Clark dean steps down following a sexual harassment settlement. By September 04, 2007 at 5:00 pm Last month, the dean of Lewis&Clark Graduate School of Education and Counseling announced he would resign at the end of the 2007-2008 school year after five years in that position. In an interview with , Peter Cookson said he wanted to commit more time to his family and writing projects. Among other things, Cookson is the president of the board of directors of the Portland Schools Foundation, a powerful nonprofit group with ties to the City of Portland and Portland Public Schools. WW' s review of hundreds of pages of public documents suggests Cookson's resignation may not have been his decision. An out-of-court settlement reached on April 19 stems from allegations by Cookson's former assistant, Vanessa Fawbush, that from February 2005 until Sept. 12, 2005, Cookson made sexual advances toward her, harassed her and created a hostile work environment. Fawbush alleges Cookson told her he wanted her to have his baby. Cookson says what transpired was \"just a weird situation.\" 2/13/25, 10:34 Untoward Mentor 1/7 The out-of-court settlement (for an undisclosed sum) prohibits both Fawbush, 37, and Cookson, 64, from talking in detail. At the same time, Cookson did tell that the lawsuit \"has nothing to do with\" his announced resignation. Meanwhile, Fawbush's lawyer, Robert Callahan, is careful to adhere to the confidentiality of the settlement. \"In the perfect world, the facts would rebut Dr. Cookson's innuendos,\" Callahan says. \"In the legal world, the constraints placed on Ms. Fawbush prevent her from commenting publicly.\" Separate from the lawsuit (and prior to it), Lewis&Clark hired an investigator to look into the allegations, which Fawbush reported to the human resources department on Sept. 12, 2005. Seven days later, on Sept. 19, the college's investigator wrote, \"There is significant evidence of the dean's actions, comments and behaviors being intimidating to Ms. Fawbush and causing her personal concern and stress.\" On the same day, the college gave Cookson a disciplinary memo. \"Recognizing that there are substantiated findings of violation of the [college's harassment] policy, the college may wish to consider this a matter of such serious degree, that it would serve both the interests of the college and the individual if this individual resigned from his post,\" Anna Sestrich, the investigator, wrote. Notably, Sestrich did not recommend firing Cookson. Thomas Hochstettler, president of Lewis&Clark, did not respond to two requests for comment. David 2/13/25, 10:34 Untoward Mentor 2/7 Ellis, general counsel for the college, says Cookson is \"leaving of his own free will.\" Fawbush's lawyer says Fawbush considered Cookson a mentor. But her relationship with her boss was abused, he says. \"The strong emotion that you express to me in words and in writing makes me uncomfortable because don't know how to respond and you seem to be getting more angry with me more and more often,\" Fawbush wrote to Cookson in an office email on Sept. 9, 2005. Following the complaint, Fawbush requested a job transfer and was reassigned to a new position at the college. In August 2006, she filed a new complaint against the college with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, alleging that her career had suffered as a result of the transfer, while there had been \"no outward effect apparent on Dr. Cookson.\" The bureau closed the complaint in February 2007, finding that Fawbush did not have a case against the college. Yet, \"her allegations against Dr. Cookson were substantiated,\" Amy Klare, a bureau manager told . Documents filed with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries include a number of handwritten letters from Cookson to Fawbush. They are alternately romantic and unsettling. He calls her \"pooh-bear,\" tells her he loves her, gives her gifts and, on one occasion, encloses $200 in cash. In one he writes: 2/13/25, 10:34 Untoward Mentor 3/7 Dear Vanessa, There is a place in my heart for you that will never leave hope we can find a way to be in rhythm with each other because the Gods have asked us to create together, to love together and to change the world together. Be well, my beloved. Peter In another he writes that Fawbush, who is white, cannot expect a \"genuine\" relationship with her black boyfriend. \"For you or any of us to understand the psychology and hidden desires of a 27 year old black man is difficult perhaps impossible at the deepest level,\" Cookson writes do know that most of [the] time the pursuit of white women is an expression of race and not a genuine romance.\" Cookson will remain on the graduate school's faculty after he steps down from his post as dean in June 2008. As of Tuesday, Sept. 4, Cookson's name was still listed on the college's website as a \"contact person\" for reporting incidents of sexual harassment. WWeek 2015 Willamette Week\u2019s reporting has concrete impacts that change laws, force action from civic leaders, and drive compromised politicians from public office. Support WW's journalism today. 2/13/25, 10:34 Untoward Mentor 4/7 Latest Posts Damian Lillard Establishes Scholarship in His Name at Portland State Get Portland's top stories delivered straight to your inbox, everyday. Sign up for our Daily Primer newsletter. indicates required Subscribe * Email Address * 2/13/25, 10:34 Untoward Mentor 5/7 Snow and Ice Get the Better of Portland Again Multnomah County Library Will End Its School Corps an Books2U Programs This Year Former Spirits Director Sues the State Over Termination Oregon Zoo\u2019s Asian Elephant Calf Has a Name: Tula-Tu Researchers Develop Test for Earlier Detection o Pancreatic Cancer 2/13/25, 10:34 Untoward Mentor 6/7 Court Case Over the Reclamation of Ross Island Delaye Portland City Council Committees Kick Off 2/13/25, 10:34 Untoward Mentor 7/7"} |
8,809 | Alex Shchegol | ASA College | [
"8809_101.pdf",
"8809_102.pdf",
"8809_103.pdf",
"8809_104.pdf",
"8809_105.pdf",
"8809_106.pdf",
"8809_107.pdf"
] | {"8809_101.pdf": "By By | New York Daily News and | New York Daily News and UPDATED: UPDATED: November 21, 2021 at 12:43 November 21, 2021 at 12:43 In late September, three years after he was forced out as president of In late September, three years after he was forced out as president of College in Brooklyn amid a flurry of sexual misconduct allegations, Alex College in Brooklyn amid a flurry of sexual misconduct allegations, Alex Shchegol met with the college\u2019s Board of Trustees to beg for a second chance. Shchegol met with the college\u2019s Board of Trustees to beg for a second chance. Alex Shchegol, the president of College, has faced allegations of sexual Alex Shchegol, the president of College, has faced allegations of sexual misconduct. misconduct. Alex Shchegol, the president of College, has faced allegations Alex Shchegol, the president of College, has faced allegations of sexual misconduct. of sexual misconduct MeToo U: President of MeToo U: President of Brooklyn\u2019s College, ousted Brooklyn\u2019s College, ousted over sexual misconduct claims, over sexual misconduct claims, boots board and regains power boots board and regains power 2/13/25, 10:35 college president, ousted over sex misconduct claims, regains power 1/7 At least 10 female students and employees had accused Shchegol of At least 10 female students and employees had accused Shchegol of sexual misconduct including rape, sending unwanted pictures of his penis, sexual misconduct including rape, sending unwanted pictures of his penis, and coercing students who relied on him for visas or employment into sex, and coercing students who relied on him for visas or employment into sex, according to lawsuits, draft lawsuits, letters from lawyers, and college according to lawsuits, draft lawsuits, letters from lawyers, and college documents reviewed by the Daily News. The allegations had resulted in more documents reviewed by the Daily News. The allegations had resulted in more than $2 million in out-of-court settlements, according to a letter from the than $2 million in out-of-court settlements, according to a letter from the college\u2019s board to the Commission on Human Rights obtained by The college\u2019s board to the Commission on Human Rights obtained by The News. News. Despite the laundry list of accusations, Shchegol insisted at the board Despite the laundry list of accusations, Shchegol insisted at the board meeting he was still the right man to lead ASA, a for-profit college that meeting he was still the right man to lead ASA, a for-profit college that focuses on prepping its 3,000 students at campuses in New York City and focuses on prepping its 3,000 students at campuses in New York City and Florida for jobs in tech, healthcare, business and criminal justice, sources Florida for jobs in tech, healthcare, business and criminal justice, sources present said. present said. Shchegol referenced a letter from a sex addiction therapist affirming she\u2019d Shchegol referenced a letter from a sex addiction therapist affirming she\u2019d worked with him on concepts like \u201cvictim empathy\u201d and \u201caccountability.\u201d The worked with him on concepts like \u201cvictim empathy\u201d and \u201caccountability.\u201d The letter, which was obtained by The News, stated he now \u201cunderstood how he letter, which was obtained by The News, stated he now \u201cunderstood how he should behave with employees and students.\u201d should behave with employees and students.\u201d Alex Shchegol argues he reassumed his post as president to boost enrollment at Alex Shchegol argues he reassumed his post as president to boost enrollment at the for-profit college. the for-profit college. Alex Shchegol argues he reassumed his post as president to Alex Shchegol argues he reassumed his post as president to boost enrollment at the for-profit college. boost enrollment at the for-profit college. The board was not persuaded, rejecting Shchegol\u2019s request for reinstatement, The board was not persuaded, rejecting Shchegol\u2019s request for reinstatement, according to people present. according to people present. \u201cYou do something like that\u2026you\u2019re out, that\u2019s it,\u201d said Terrence Lyght, a board \u201cYou do something like that\u2026you\u2019re out, that\u2019s it,\u201d said Terrence Lyght, a board member present at the meeting. \u201cYou did a wrong, you know the member present at the meeting. \u201cYou did a wrong, you know the consequences.\u201d consequences.\u201d At a non-profit college, where the board of trustees has final say over school At a non-profit college, where the board of trustees has final say over school governance, that decisive rejection likely would\u2019ve put an end to Shchegol\u2019s governance, that decisive rejection likely would\u2019ve put an end to Shchegol\u2019s bid to reclaim the presidency. But in the for-profit college sector, where bid to reclaim the presidency. But in the for-profit college sector, where ultimate power is concentrated with the owner, Shchegol \u2014 who\u2019s had full ultimate power is concentrated with the owner, Shchegol \u2014 who\u2019s had full financial control of since he founded the school in 1985 \u2014 held a trump financial control of since he founded the school in 1985 \u2014 held a trump card. card. 2/13/25, 10:35 college president, ousted over sex misconduct claims, regains power 2/7 In early October, Shchegol used his legal authority as sole owner of to In early October, Shchegol used his legal authority as sole owner of to remove five members of the seven-member board who had voted against his remove five members of the seven-member board who had voted against his reinstatement. He replaced them with hand-picked allies including former reinstatement. He replaced them with hand-picked allies including former Brooklyn Democratic Party boss and state Assemblyman Frank Seddio, who Brooklyn Democratic Party boss and state Assemblyman Frank Seddio, who college insiders say is an old friend of Shchegol\u2019s. He also appointed college insiders say is an old friend of Shchegol\u2019s. He also appointed businessman Albert Tylis, who sources said is a nephew of Shchegol\u2019s wife. businessman Albert Tylis, who sources said is a nephew of Shchegol\u2019s wife College on Willoughby Street in downtown Brooklyn College on Willoughby Street in downtown Brooklyn College on Willoughby Street in downtown Brooklyn College on Willoughby Street in downtown Brooklyn. Two members of the old board were spared: Diana Reyna \u2014 a former City Two members of the old board were spared: Diana Reyna \u2014 a former City Council member and ex-deputy to Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams \u2014 Council member and ex-deputy to Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams \u2014 and New York City Health and Hospitals official Xiomara Wallace. and New York City Health and Hospitals official Xiomara Wallace. Reyna Reyna declined to comment and Wallace could not be reached. declined to comment and Wallace could not be reached. On Oct. 11, the new board voted to reinstate Shchegol. On Oct. 11, the new board voted to reinstate Shchegol. Shchegol, who was accused in a lawsuit of threatening to sabotage a Shchegol, who was accused in a lawsuit of threatening to sabotage a student\u2019s visa application when she refused to have sex with him, was atop student\u2019s visa application when she refused to have sex with him, was atop college once again college once again. Reached by phone, Shchegol maintained he is \u201ccompletely innocent.\u201d Reached by phone, Shchegol maintained he is \u201ccompletely innocent never harassed anybody,\u201d he said, blaming the allegations on \u201cdisgruntled never harassed anybody,\u201d he said, blaming the allegations on \u201cdisgruntled employees\u201d who were \u201claid off because of their poor performance and employees\u201d who were \u201claid off because of their poor performance and budget cuts.\u201d budget cuts.\u201d He hung up when asked repeatedly if he\u2019d had sex with any students. He hung up when asked repeatedly if he\u2019d had sex with any students. Seddio, the interim board chair, likened criticism of Shchegol to the Seddio, the interim board chair, likened criticism of Shchegol to the reexamination of Christopher Columbus\u2019 legacy. reexamination of Christopher Columbus\u2019 legacy. \u201cYou got accused in 1492 of landing and killing people? So you\u2019re no good \u201cYou got accused in 1492 of landing and killing people? So you\u2019re no good anymore,\u201d he fumed. anymore,\u201d he fumed. Seddio also joked about Shchegol, saying the \u201cfirst thing the new board did Seddio also joked about Shchegol, saying the \u201cfirst thing the new board did was pass a motion to hire two mohels \u2026 to cut his d\u2013k off.\u201d was pass a motion to hire two mohels \u2026 to cut his d\u2013k off.\u201d Other members of the current board either could not be reached or declined Other members of the current board either could not be reached or declined to comment. to comment. 2/13/25, 10:35 college president, ousted over sex misconduct claims, regains power 3/7 Peter Leyton, a lawyer representing ASA, said Shchegol replaced the old Peter Leyton, a lawyer representing ASA, said Shchegol replaced the old board because it wasn\u2019t doing enough to address falling enrollment at the board because it wasn\u2019t doing enough to address falling enrollment at the college, according to video of a presentation on Thursday to the Florida college, according to video of a presentation on Thursday to the Florida Education Department viewed by The News. Education Department viewed by The News. The new board members, who Leyton argued are \u201cindependent\u201d of Shchegol, The new board members, who Leyton argued are \u201cindependent\u201d of Shchegol, voted to reinstate him as interim president because of his \u201cexperience in\u2026 voted to reinstate him as interim president because of his \u201cexperience in\u2026 marketing and admissions\u201d and will set up a search committee for a marketing and admissions\u201d and will set up a search committee for a permanent president, Leyton claimed. permanent president, Leyton claimed. Sam Ferguson, the executive director for Florida\u2019s Commission for Sam Ferguson, the executive director for Florida\u2019s Commission for Independent Education \u2014 the body that authorizes to operate in that Independent Education \u2014 the body that authorizes to operate in that state \u2014 didn\u2019t buy Leyton\u2019s defense. state \u2014 didn\u2019t buy Leyton\u2019s defense. \u201cI\u2019ve been around a long time, and this is\u2026not something have seen,\u201d he told \u201cI\u2019ve been around a long time, and this is\u2026not something have seen,\u201d he told Leyton. Leyton. \u201cThere is not a major college or university or even vocational or workforce \u201cThere is not a major college or university or even vocational or workforce school that would allow someone with those allegations to be anywhere in school that would allow someone with those allegations to be anywhere in their administration just am chagrined by the whole thing.\u201d their administration just am chagrined by the whole thing.\u201d Shchegol\u2019s stunning second act left employees and accusers wondering how Shchegol\u2019s stunning second act left employees and accusers wondering how he was allowed back. he was allowed back. \u201cThis guy is a monster\u2026he cannot be in charge of a college where he can \u201cThis guy is a monster\u2026he cannot be in charge of a college where he can continue with his predatory actions,\u201d said Victoria Kostyukov, a 31-year continue with his predatory actions,\u201d said Victoria Kostyukov, a 31-year veteran and the former vice president of Admissions and Marketing. She said veteran and the former vice president of Admissions and Marketing. She said she was fired as soon as Shchegol resumed the presidency as retaliation for she was fired as soon as Shchegol resumed the presidency as retaliation for supporting one of his accusers. supporting one of his accusers Florida regulator with oversight of College said it was highly unusual for Florida regulator with oversight of College said it was highly unusual for Shchegol to continue serving as president. Shchegol to continue serving as president Florida regulator with oversight of College said it was Florida regulator with oversight of College said it was highly unusual for Shchegol to continue serving as president. highly unusual for Shchegol to continue serving as president. Shchegol said Kostyukov was fired for poor performance and is out for Shchegol said Kostyukov was fired for poor performance and is out for revenge. Shchegol filed a police complaint the day after The News contacted revenge. Shchegol filed a police complaint the day after The News contacted him, alleging Kostyukov attempted to extort him by saying she would release him, alleging Kostyukov attempted to extort him by saying she would release information to the press. The complaint was provided to The News by a information to the press. The complaint was provided to The News by a representative of and could not be independently verified late Saturday. representative of and could not be independently verified late Saturday. Kostyukov denied the accusation. \u201cThis guy is trying to discredit me,\u201d she said. Kostyukov denied the accusation. \u201cThis guy is trying to discredit me,\u201d she said. 2/13/25, 10:35 college president, ousted over sex misconduct claims, regains power 4/7 One of Shchegol\u2019s accusers, a former student who spoke on the condition of One of Shchegol\u2019s accusers, a former student who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of a anonymity because she signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of a settlement, said \u201che should not have come back at all.\u201d settlement, said \u201che should not have come back at all.\u201d Shchegol, who has made enough money running to buy a Staten Island Shchegol, who has made enough money running to buy a Staten Island mansion and several properties in Florida, shelled out $2.2 million to settle six mansion and several properties in Florida, shelled out $2.2 million to settle six separate claims of sexual misconduct between 2017 and 2019, according to a separate claims of sexual misconduct between 2017 and 2019, according to a letter from the college\u2019s board obtained by The News. letter from the college\u2019s board obtained by The News. He frequently rubbed elbows with city bigwigs, posing for pictures with Sen. He frequently rubbed elbows with city bigwigs, posing for pictures with Sen. Chuck Schumer, Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez and Bronx Borough Chuck Schumer, Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr. Adams and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg served President Ruben Diaz, Jr. Adams and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg served as commencement speakers. as commencement speakers. \u201cNothing happened to Alex,\u201d said the accuser. \u201cWith money he can do \u201cNothing happened to Alex,\u201d said the accuser. \u201cWith money he can do whatever.\u201d whatever.\u201d Allegations of Shchegol targeting vulnerable female students for sex trace Allegations of Shchegol targeting vulnerable female students for sex trace back more than a decade. back more than a decade. In 2006, Irina Akhmetzyanova, a Russian immigrant and student at ASA, filed In 2006, Irina Akhmetzyanova, a Russian immigrant and student at ASA, filed a lawsuit in Brooklyn Federal Court alleging that Shchegol personally offered a lawsuit in Brooklyn Federal Court alleging that Shchegol personally offered to help her obtain a visa, then sabotaged the application process, offering to to help her obtain a visa, then sabotaged the application process, offering to fix it only if she had sex with him. fix it only if she had sex with him. Irina Mokova Irina Mokova Irina Mokova Irina Mokova Akhmetzyanova could not be reached for comment. Akhmetzyanova could not be reached for comment. In an answer to Akhmetzyanova\u2019s lawsuit, Shchegol denied all her sexual In an answer to Akhmetzyanova\u2019s lawsuit, Shchegol denied all her sexual harassment claims and argued that \u201cconducted an adequate harassment claims and argued that \u201cconducted an adequate investigation\u201d into her allegations. The lawsuit was discontinued without investigation\u201d into her allegations. The lawsuit was discontinued without costs to either side. costs to either side. One former employee who worked in the college\u2019s office for welcoming One former employee who worked in the college\u2019s office for welcoming international students and who spoke on the condition of anonymity said it international students and who spoke on the condition of anonymity said it was common for Shchegol to target recently-arrived immigrants. was common for Shchegol to target recently-arrived immigrants can\u2019t tell you how many times that I\u2019d be sitting with a student the first time can\u2019t tell you how many times that I\u2019d be sitting with a student the first time after they arrived in the country and 10 minutes later it would be a call from after they arrived in the country and 10 minutes later it would be a call from Alex saying, \u2018Where does she live? Does she have a boyfriend? How old is Alex saying, \u2018Where does she live? Does she have a boyfriend? How old is she?,'\u201d the employee recalled. \u201cIt was crazy.\u201d she?,'\u201d the employee recalled. \u201cIt was crazy.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:35 college president, ousted over sex misconduct claims, regains power 5/7 Shchegol was able to keep the allegations mostly under wraps with the help Shchegol was able to keep the allegations mostly under wraps with the help of a tight-knit group of loyal staffers who worked to cover his tracks, former of a tight-knit group of loyal staffers who worked to cover his tracks, former staffers said. Shchegol\u2019s wife was also head of Human Resources for the staffers said. Shchegol\u2019s wife was also head of Human Resources for the college at one point, making it difficult to lodge complaints against Shchegol, college at one point, making it difficult to lodge complaints against Shchegol, one accuser said in a lawsuit. one accuser said in a lawsuit was witnessing all this stuff saw it and knew it,\u201d said Kostyukov, the was witnessing all this stuff saw it and knew it,\u201d said Kostyukov, the former admissions director who was for years a close confidante of Shchegol former admissions director who was for years a close confidante of Shchegol and is related to him through marriage was doing my job, trying to cover and is related to him through marriage was doing my job, trying to cover his ass.\u201d his ass.\u201d Meanwhile, the college expanded dramatically \u2014 growing from just over a Meanwhile, the college expanded dramatically \u2014 growing from just over a dozen students at its start in 1985 to a peak of over 5,000 students with three dozen students at its start in 1985 to a peak of over 5,000 students with three campuses across New York City and Florida. campuses across New York City and Florida College in Downtown Brooklyn College in Downtown Brooklyn College in Downtown Brooklyn College in Downtown Brooklyn. In the 2019-20 school year, ASA, whose student body is 62% Black and In the 2019-20 school year, ASA, whose student body is 62% Black and Hispanic and 18% immigrants, collected Hispanic and 18% immigrants, collected $16 million in federal student aid $16 million in federal student aid for for low-income students, despite having a low-income students, despite having a 37% graduation rate. 37% graduation rate. Shchegol, an Shchegol, an immigrant from Ukraine, lined his own pockets in the process, buying a immigrant from Ukraine, lined his own pockets in the process, buying a mansion on Staten Island\u2019s Todt Hill once famous for dinosaur statues mansion on Staten Island\u2019s Todt Hill once famous for dinosaur statues decorating the front lawn, and several homes in Florida, according to decorating the front lawn, and several homes in Florida, according to property records. property records. Lyght, who joined the board in 2016, said he didn\u2019t know about any Lyght, who joined the board in 2016, said he didn\u2019t know about any allegations against Shchegol until they were detailed in a July 2018 lawsuit allegations against Shchegol until they were detailed in a July 2018 lawsuit from a former employee, Irina Mokova, who accused Shchegol of enlisting from a former employee, Irina Mokova, who accused Shchegol of enlisting her to pick out attractive young women for him to solicit. She also claimed he her to pick out attractive young women for him to solicit. She also claimed he accidentally cc\u2019ed her on an email with pictures of his penis meant for a accidentally cc\u2019ed her on an email with pictures of his penis meant for a student. student. \u201cFor decades, Defendant Shchegol would require employees, including \u201cFor decades, Defendant Shchegol would require employees, including (Mokova), to arrange meetings between himself and attractive female (Mokova), to arrange meetings between himself and attractive female international students/prospective students, so he could proposition the international students/prospective students, so he could proposition the students for sex,\u201d the suit alleged, sparking the first media coverage of the students for sex,\u201d the suit alleged, sparking the first media coverage of the allegations against Shchegol. allegations against Shchegol. Shchegol paid Mokova $500,000 to settle her suit out of court, according to Shchegol paid Mokova $500,000 to settle her suit out of court, according to board records reviewed by The News. Mokova didn\u2019t respond to requests for board records reviewed by The News. Mokova didn\u2019t respond to requests for comment. comment. 2/13/25, 10:35 college president, ousted over sex misconduct claims, regains power 6/7 2021 2021 \ue907 \ue907November November \ue907 \ue90720 20 Originally Published: Originally Published: November 20, 2021 at 1:06 November 20, 2021 at 1:06 Another accuser told The News that Shchegol sent her an unsolicited picture Another accuser told The News that Shchegol sent her an unsolicited picture of his penis as well \u2014 then claimed it was an accident. of his penis as well \u2014 then claimed it was an accident. \u201cWhen confronted him with \u2018what was that?\u2019 He was like, \u2018Oh my God, it was \u201cWhen confronted him with \u2018what was that?\u2019 He was like, \u2018Oh my God, it was by mistake.\u2019 But it was clear,\u201d the woman said. \u201cThere\u2019s nothing more clear by mistake.\u2019 But it was clear,\u201d the woman said. \u201cThere\u2019s nothing more clear than the picture.\u201d than the picture.\u201d Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez and Alex Shchegol. Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez and Alex Shchegol. Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez and Alex Shchegol. Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez and Alex Shchegol. In the ensuing months, six more women came forward with allegations of In the ensuing months, six more women came forward with allegations of sexual assault or harassment, according to a 2019 letter from the Board sexual assault or harassment, according to a 2019 letter from the Board of Trustees to the city Commission on Human Rights, which opened an of Trustees to the city Commission on Human Rights, which opened an investigation into following Mokova\u2019s lawsuit. The News is not naming investigation into following Mokova\u2019s lawsuit. The News is not naming any of the women because they all settled their complaints outside of court. any of the women because they all settled their complaints outside of court. The Commission on Human Rights investigation is still open, a spokeswoman The Commission on Human Rights investigation is still open, a spokeswoman told The News, declining to comment further. told The News, declining to comment further. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. and Alex Shchegol. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. and Alex Shchegol. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. and Alex Shchegol. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. and Alex Shchegol. Lyght, who was on the board when Shchegol was forced out in 2018, said all Lyght, who was on the board when Shchegol was forced out in 2018, said all board members thought Shchegol\u2019s departure was permanent. The former board members thought Shchegol\u2019s departure was permanent. The former president\u2019s rapid return to power, he said, was \u201cnot a surprise, more like a president\u2019s rapid return to power, he said, was \u201cnot a surprise, more like a shock.\u201d shock.\u201d \u201cFor me, somebody doing something like that, there\u2019s no way you\u2019re going to \u201cFor me, somebody doing something like that, there\u2019s no way you\u2019re going to come back,\u201d Lyght said. come back,\u201d Lyght said. 2/13/25, 10:35 college president, ousted over sex misconduct claims, regains power 7/7", "8809_102.pdf": "Article 303 Journal of International Students Volume 14, Issue 3 (2024), pp. 303-322 ISSN: 2162-3104 (Print), 2166-3750 (Online) jistudents.org The Innocents Abroad: International Students, Title IX, and the Need to Address Campus Safety James W. Thomas University of Southern Mississippi Masha Krsmanovic University of Southern Mississippi Holly A. Foster University of Southern Mississippi Expectations of campus safety and security are inherent in the development of policies internal to the campus environment as well as to national regulations inclusive of Title IX, the Clery Act, and so forth. Yet, there seems to be an ongoing concern that international students may have heightened risk or are less likely to report violations of policies and regulations. This research is focused on determining to what extent awareness of policies and regulations often linked to equality on campus are a part of international student orientations and outreach. By examining the timing, manner, and extent of training, this article seeks to add to the study of ways that campuses may better engage, prepare, and serve students engaged in international education experiences. Keywords: campus safety, international students, orientations, Title Recent news stories have documented legal claims against faculty that involve alleged inappropriate relationships with international students. Three recent examples are perhaps indicative of concerns that international students need additional training and support. Florida State University is \u201cscrambling\u201d to justify their delay in addressing Dr. Richard Feiock, after he was charged with having \u201cengaged in an \u2018inappropriate sexual relationship\u2019 with a visiting female international student\u201d (Flaherty, 2021, para. 1). Though he ultimately retired, earlier reports of such behavior dated back almost twenty years and, according to the article, \u201cNumerous witnesses told investigators that Feiock was known to prey Thomas et al. 304 on international students, and women from Asia in particular\u201d (para. 7). Similarly, two Chinese students have filed a claim against the University of Illinois that alleges the institution was guilty of \u201cchronic failure\u201d to protect students \u201cfrom abuse by Gang \u2018Gary\u2019 Xu, associate professor and head of the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures and a serial abuser and violent rapist, even after being put on repeated notice of his abuse and mistreatment of students\u201d (Little & Wegg, 2021, p. 2). In both cases, the concerns are noted as they demonstrate ongoing behavior with Feiock having had previous charges against him in 1991 and 2005 (Flaherty, 2021). The allegations against the University of Illinois maintain that the university was aware of, but ignored, the behavior as international students were essential to their finances and they did not wish to lose funding final example is that of the reinstatement of Alex Shchegol as President of College College, a for-profit college system with campuses in Florida and New York, is owned by Shchegol, who was accused of \u201ccoercing students who relied on him for visas or employment into sex,\u201d with one example being in 2006 when an student, Irina Akhmetzyanova, \u201cfiled a lawsuit in Brooklyn Federal Court alleging that Shchegol personally offered to help her obtain a visa, then sabotaged the application process, offering to fix it only if she had sex with him\u201d (Goldberg & Elsen-Rooney, 2021, para. 33). While obviously not a complete overview of the issues, these reports serve as an indicator of the issues that international students may be presented with in their experiences in American institutions. Though these stories are getting headline attention, concerns about international students being at increased risk of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or other power-based crimes have been studied previously. Research of international students who studied in Australia and the United States found that there was a strong perception of sexual harassment and assault being common for international students (Forbes-Mewett & McCulloch, 2016). Concerns about repercussions of reporting such acts are also prevalent as one report noted that \u201cmany factors may contribute to international students\u2019 reluctance to report abuse they experience, including language barriers and a fear of being sent back to their home countries\u201d (Cobler, 2014, para. 4 study has also indicated that there is an awareness among \u201cnon-international, domestic students\u201d that there is an increased vulnerability among international students as they face \u201cbarriers to reporting [sexual violence and sexual harassment] and seeking help because of differing cultural norms and expectations around sexual consent and assault\u201d (Bloom et. al., 2022, p.12). Such studies demonstrate a need to consider how international students may better engage with and be served by Title offices and processes Title and Underrepresented Populations In considering the role of Title and student populations, there are some indications that the policy has not benefited all populations of students equally. Even in considering the access to elements such as athletics, a study demonstrated Journal of International Students 14(3) 305 that the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas had a more direct benefit of access for African American women to participate in athletics than the passage of Title showed for that population (Dees, 2007). This historical consideration is made all the more concerning given that there are indications that minoritized populations of students, including African Americans, are more likely to face sanctions and penalties than their peers. For instance, Trachtenberg (2017) expressed concerns that policies like Title might have disparate impact on students and used a comparison to the University of Virginia\u2019s honor code that saw between 29.7% to 35% of accusations were against African American students, yet they only made up 12% of the student population at the institution. Trachtenberg demonstrates that, because Title work has been largely an internal process to educational institutions individually, the presence of such a bias being echoed in Title is unable to be fully studied. Similarly, studies and analyses have found that it has not been of equal benefit or applied evenly to other populations, such as the LGBTQIA+ community (Culhane, 2013; Nightingale, 2021; Redcay et al., 2021), nor has it seen equal impact across urban, rural, and differing socioeconomic statuses (Ferguson, 2013). Concerns also surface about elements of feelings of institutional indifference or betrayal as, \u201c[t]he Title process itself enacts institutional betrayal toward students by becoming a process wherein they expect to be harmed or otherwise not helped, and also becomes a mechanism in which the institution betrays its students through its failure to prevent victimization, respond adequately when victimization occurs, and normalization of and abusive contexts\u201d (Webermann, 2021, p. 99). As Title seems to impact various groups, locations, and socioeconomic statuses in varied manners, the concern this may have for international students becomes heightened. Many studies have documented concern about institutional policies not sufficiently addressing or acknowledging the overlapping or multiple identities that international students possess (e.g. Buckner et al., 2021; Tavares, 2021; Meng et al., 2018; Adewale et al., 2018). If historically minoritized populations experience a noted challenge with the application of Title IX, students who possess overlapping or multiple identities could experience multiple concerns of Title application and assessment. Faculty and students from American campuses engaging in education abroad carry Title expectations to an extent. Indeed, some have argued that the off- campus protections are as strong as those on campus: \u201cThe scope of Title legislation extends to any educational opportunities whether those occur on campus or off campus. This would also include any study abroad programs, foreign campuses, or international internships\u201d (Odio et al., 2019, p. 118). Given that these protections are seen to follow American students abroad, it is within reason to think that all students enrolled in American higher education would likewise receive protection. While that is the intent, Odio et al. reported that, even in relation to internships, there is some uncertainty of expectations: \u201cIt may not be as obvious to the student or responsible faculty member that off-campus settings are covered by Title just as an on-campus setting would be if the school sanctions the activity or it has an impact on the student\u2019s learning environment. Anyone who is involved in an off-campus internship or school related activity, Thomas et al. 306 whether they are a student, parent, administrator, [or] organizer, should be required to read and comply by the school\u2019s Title policy while participating in that activity\u201d (Odio et al., 2019, p. 118). If such expectations exist that faculty and American students participating in the activity should be required to read and comply, an essential step is ensuring that the material is presented in a responsive way to allow for effective understanding to allow compliance. International Students According to the Institute of International Education [IIE] (2021), 914,095 international students decided to pursue higher education in the United States in the academic year 2020-2021. Even though this enrollment number disrupted the five-year long trend of international enrollments exceeding one million, it still represents an imposing trend which continues to allow the United States to enjoy the position of the leading global provider of higher education. The literature exploring international students\u2019 experiences on campuses has proliferated over the past 20 years producing rich and multifold findings. However, the recent synthesis of the last two decades of research in this domain identified the areas of inquiry that have been overly-researched, as well as those that have not received adequate scholarly investigation (Krsmanovic, 2021). In that regard, it was established that most studies over the past two decades examined students\u2019 social and cultural experience, mainly acculturation, acculturative stress, and social relationships, followed by students\u2019 academic experiences, such as academic performance, success, and retention. Interestingly, no studies were identified in the areas of international students\u2019 understanding of legal policies and procedures in their new settings or the safety elements in place (including no studies grounded in the intersection of international students\u2019 experiences and Title IX). Of interest to this research are the studies that investigated the effects of international students\u2019 campus experiences on their psychological well-being and mental health, as well as correlates of students\u2019 psychological stress. In that regard, evidence exists that intercultural programs and cultural communication on college campuses are positively associated with international students\u2019 person- culture fit, their identification with the host culture, and their psychological well- being (Zhu et al., 2016). Other studies documented that international students\u2019 sense of belonging on campus is associated with low suicide intentions among this student group. Specifically, international students with high levels of campus belongingness report low rates of suicide intentions, as compared to their domestic peers. Domestic students\u2019 suicide intentions, on the other hand, are more associated with family belongingness, a factor that was not found to be as significant for international students (Servaty-Seib et al., 2015). Similarly, a number of studies have postulated a positive relationship between university support provided to international students and their psychological well-being. On that account, Cho and Yu (2015) found positive effects of institutional support on international students\u2019 school-life satisfaction and reduction of their psychological stress, thus highlighting the need for campus programming that would be specifically tailored to this student group. Further, among the social support provided by the members of host communities, Journal of International Students 14(3) 307 international students were most often supported by people from other countries living in their local communities and less often from US-born community members (Bhochhibhoya et al., 2017). Taken together, the presented studies continue to remind campus communities of the urgency to identify unique needs of international students and provide culturally relevant programming to best support this student group. International students often face subtle discrimination and harassment on college campuses. Often due to language barriers and cultural differences, they may be less likely to fully understand campus policies. Oftentimes, the primary goal of international students is to stay in the United States, and some might avoid reporting Title violations for fear of being deported (Hollis & Davis, 2016). In their study on international students\u2019 understanding of Title IX, Hollis and Davis (2016) found that international students did not understand Title including its role in protecting them against sexual violence. International students in this study were largely unaware of any policies regarding sexual violence on campus, and not only lacked understanding of Title IX, but could not identify their Title coordinators, did not know how to report a sexual assault, and were unaware of their rights under Title (Hollis & Davis, 2016). Despite such studies, there is still some concern that analysis of international students and sexual assault and harassment is not fully possible. Brubacker et al. (2017) found that among large surveys that consider sexual crimes including the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), the Campus Sexual Assault Study (CSA), the Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Climate Survey Community Attitudes on Sexual Assault (CASA), and the Online College Social Life Survey (OCSLS), there were only two surveys and AAU, that included details related to nationality or citizenship. Despite the limitation, the article still notes that \u201cInternational students may be more likely to be sexually assaulted than their native student counterparts given their unfamiliarity with the community and culture of the receiving country\u201d (p. 8). Bonistall & Postel (2020) noted that there was a \u201ccritical gap in the literature,\u201d but demonstrated that international students existed at intersectionalities which increase their risks such as \u201cvictim blaming\u201d which may delay or prevent reporting as, for example, \u201cChinese cultural expectations that women must protect their virginity, and if a woman is raped, she bears the responsibility for failing to prevent it\u201d (p. 76). Given these factors, how can institutions of higher education best respond to these situations? Many point to opportunities to address the expectations and policies of reporting crimes and developing a knowledge of Title and related systems as something that should occur during the international student orientation process. However, some studies have shown that students may not be aware of services and safety elements (Murphy et al., 2002). Indeed, a 1988 study of the content of orientation programs for international students that surveyed 169 institutions, academic and administrative requirements ranked first, followed by a community welcome, an overview of campus services, and adjustment programs, none of which covered safety or reporting structures. The elements of safety and protocols Thomas et al. 308 were included in a \u201cMiscellaneous category\u201d that \u201cincluded \u2018prearrival information,\u2019 \u2018improve financial management and decision-making skills,\u2019 \u2018create an awareness of future orientation programs on culture shock, etc.,\u2019 \u2018education on safety,\u2019 \u2018increase the awareness of health and safety issues,\u2019 \u2018make friends in the U.S.,\u2019 \u2018academic skills,\u2019 and \u2018introduce U.S. students to other cultures\u2019\u201d (Steglitz, 1988, p. 6 more recent study of Asian graduate students noted that they \u201creceived a 3-hr orientation that had been used by for several years, which focused mostly on students\u2019 immediate concerns, such as how to keep legal status in the United States, personal safety issues, how to connect a home phone, and so forth\u201d (Fan & Wanous, 2008, p. 1394). Often such personal safety training focuses on how to protect or avoid dangerous events, but does not provide students with a complete view of how to document, report, or address the issues in response to Title IX, Clery Act, and other campus reporting expectations. Further, it may not address how such reporting actions might impact their status, allowing concerns to ferment. There are further concerns regarding how cultural and social understandings vary for international students in relation to Title and sexual assault. For instance, a recent study denoted that international student perception generally was that their host institution provided support regarding the maintenance of their \u201cvisa and legal status [but] not the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion\u201d (Tan & Koo, 2023, p. 13). This separation of the institution\u2019s commitment to Title and the student perception of the duty owed by the institution may prove problematic if not addressed. As another study noted, culturally diverse male students struggled between concerns of wrongful blaming and recognizing male victimization as they encountered their experience from their home country compared to their student experience abroad (Malinen et al., 2023). Cultural understandings and related student perceptions may further complicate international students engagement with Title IX. Research Questions The central research question guiding this study was: How do higher education institutions format their international student orientation, training, or other programs with respect to educating students on preventive safety measures including but not limited to Title IX? To answer this question, we developed the following sub-questions: 1. What are institutional perspectives regarding the need for their Title officers to receive cultural training or specialized training for serving international students? 2. How prevalent is the practice of offering specialized Title and safety training to international students and how are such offerings structured? 3. What are institutional perspectives on international students\u2019 knowledge, practices, or behaviors with respect to Title and other safety measures on campus? Journal of International Students 14(3) 309 This study was designed as a non-experimental quantitative study as its objective was to investigate an educational phenomenon as it exists (Gall et al., 2006). Specifically, we utilized cross-sectional, descriptive survey research as our goal was to explore research questions at one point in time using a national sample of higher education institutions in the United States. We selected survey research as it is particularly suitable for gathering participants\u2019 knowledge, opinions, and practices that can be used to shape future educational policies and initiatives (Gall et al., 2006). Sample and Data Collection Participation in this study was open to all higher education institutions in the United States awarding bachelor degrees or higher. Utilizing the Open Doors report of the Institute of International Education (IIE, 2021), we first obtained the list of 190 institutions enrolling the highest number of international students in the United States in the academic year 2020. To this list, we added 750 public and 1,200 private colleges and universities obtained from the National Center for the Educational Statistics\u2019 website. The final list included 2,140 institutions awarding bachelor degrees or higher. We utilized the website of each institution to obtain email addresses of Title coordinators and deputy coordinators to whom we sent an invitation to participate in the research. Additionally, we obtained approval from the Association of Title Coordinators (ATIXA) to share the research invitation with their members via their listserv is an independent, not- for-profit corporation with active members from colleges, universities, schools, and organizations. The association connects Title coordinators, investigators, and administrators across the nation (ATIXA, 2022). We sent the first email invitation in late February, 2022 and one reminder in early March, 2022. We closed the survey at the end of March at which point we received responses from 113 institutions. Instrument Using our research questions as a guide, we developed an online Qualtrics questionnaire to collect the data. The questionnaire consisted of four major sections of which first was designed to solicit background information about participating institutions, such as student population, institutional type, and institutional size. The second section inquired about the current format and structure of Title training offered at the institution, as well as respondents\u2019 perspective regarding the need for Title offices to receive cultural training or specialized training focused on serving international students. The third group of questions was designed for respondents who reported offering specialized Title training or outreach to international students. They had an opportunity to share what guided their decision to offer this type of training or outreach, its current format and structure, and student feedback about it. Alternatively, participants who reported not offering specialized Title training or outreach to international students had an opportunity to share reasons behind their decision, as well as their Thomas et al. 310 perceptions on the need of offering this type of training or outreach in the future. The last section of the questionnaire asked participants to rate international students\u2019 knowledge, practices, or behaviors with respect to the following items: understanding of their protections under Title IX, reporting practices, knowledge of support and law enforcement services, and safety elements in place. The questionnaire concluded with asking participants to share any future plans or objectives with the aim of increasing outreach and support to international students, as well as any other comments they may have. Results Data analysis for all multiple choice and scale questions was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 21) software and all text responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using NVivo software and thematic data analysis. Upon the conclusion of data collection, we first produced descriptive statistics for the classification and size of institutions that participated in the study. Table 1: Institutional Profiles (n = 113) Type of Institution n % Institutional Classification Doctoral granting R1 institution 20 16.26 Doctoral granting R2 institution 16 13.01 Master\u2019s college and university (inclusive of M1 through M3 status) 45 36.59 Baccalaureate college 32 26.02 Baccalaureate/Associate college (more than 50% of degrees awarded at the associate level) 3 2.44 Associate\u2019s college, technical college, or career college 7 5.69 Institutional Size More than 15,000 students 24 19.51 Between 5,000 and 15,000 students 34 27.64 Less than 5,000 students 65 52.85 Title Training Regarding the institutional offerings of Title training programs, most respondents (n=114, 92.68%) reported offering Title training to their students. Six institutions (4.88%) did not report such practice, and three institutions (2.44%) responded as not being sure if such training was being offered at their college or university. Journal of International Students 14(3) 311 Next, all institutions were asked to respond to an open-ended question and share how their Title training is structured and offered. In that regard, the majority of open-ended responses (n=55) revealed institutions offering both online and in-person training options for their campus community. In-person training most commonly took place during their orientation week or in first-year experience courses, while online programming was structured as either video training via Learning Management Systems (LMS) or via third-party training products. The next group of respondents (n=31) shared offering only online training, most commonly implemented via third party products. Other examples included modules, videos, and quizzes, as well as email communication and/or email resource distribution. Eight institutions reported offering in-person training only, while 13 had ongoing trainings in addition to their regular mandatory programs. These trainings were either implemented throughout the year as optional programs or offered on demand. Lastly, 24 institutions shared the practice of having either optional or required Title training for special student populations which included student athletes, housing residents, fraternities and sororities, international students students, certain scholarship recipients, performers, student employees, student organization leaders, and medical students. Results for Research Question One Our first research question asked, \u201cWhat are institutional perspectives regarding the need for their Title officers to receive cultural training or specialized training for serving international students?\u201d As illustrated in Table 2, the majority of responding institutions reported a need for Title officers to receive cultural training. However, only one-third shared that their Title officers receive such training or any other programming focused on serving international students. Table 2: Title Officer Training (n=113) Statement n % Is there a need for Title officers to receive cultural training and/or training focused on serving international students? Yes 98 86.73 No 5 4.42 Not sure 10 8.85 Does your Title officer receive any type of cultural training, or any training focused on serving international students? Yes 38 33.63 No 65 57.52 Not sure 10 8.85 Thomas et al. 312 Next, participants had the opportunity to share their thoughts about the need for Title officers to receive cultural training and/or training focused on serving international students. In doing so, most of them attributed this need to either the barriers to Title officers\u2019 understanding of this student group or the barriers to international students\u2019 understanding of Title policies. Overall, respondents collectively agreed that cultural training is essential for Title officers who need to be culturally responsive in handling students\u2019 issues. Similarly, they expressed the need for Title officers to connect with international programs on their campuses so they could better understand the international student population they serve, as well how students\u2019 cultural norms may influence their understanding of Title policies and protections. Further discussed was the need for understanding cultural variations of acceptable or unacceptable behaviors and cultural differences in relation to the topics of sex, interpersonal relationships, gender, patriarchy, sexual assault, and parent/family issues. Several participants specifically mentioned that having this type of training would greatly aid Title officers in \u201creceiving reports and conducting investigations.\u201d Some opinions shared were that many Title officers \u201care not prepared to properly address and serve international students,\u201d while others disclosed that Title officers \u201chold a lot of power and make life-changing decisions so they must be aware of hidden bias and the importance of avoiding stereotypes in their decisions and interactions.\u201d With respect to international students\u2019 barriers, many respondents disclosed that \u201cinternational students are unaware of Title requirements\u201d and that \u201cTitle is completely new to them,\u201d so cultural training would help Title officers better tailor the training to address these knowledge gaps. Some reflected on the fact that \u201cinternational students are more vulnerable to Title IX-related incidents due to factors such as isolation and different cultural norms regarding sex or language barriers,\u201d while others noted that they see very little, if any, Title policy violations among this student population. Great focus in participants\u2019 responses was also devoted to language barriers and assessing students\u2019 understanding of the language used in institutional policies and procedures, as well as the terminology used in Title training programs. The next group of responses included international students\u2019 limited comprehension of Title laws and legal ramifications, including those related to students\u2019 visa status. Helping international students understand legally acceptable behavior in dating and interpersonal relationships was identified as another area of concern, as well as the students\u2019 cultural understanding of what constitutes assault, consent, and physical boundaries. Institutions that reported offering specialized training to their Title officers were asked to share their experiences with this type of programming. Regarding the topics covered, responses included \u201canti-bias and anti-assumption training,\u201d training specific to the countries represented on campus, cultural competency and norms, inclusive practices, cultural barriers to reporting and participating in investigations, and implications for students\u2019 visa status. With respect to the office or person tasked with facilitating this training, most administrators utilized their personal background, experience, and competencies in these areas to design and Journal of International Students 14(3) 313 offer these programs. The next group of responses included utilizing the programs available through professional organizations, such as ATIXA, NASPA, and NACUA, while many participants relied on collaborations with international student offices on their campuses. Results for Research Question Two Our second research question asked, \u201cHow prevalent is the practice of offering specialized Title and safety training to international students and how are such offerings structured?\u201d Table 3 illustrates participants\u2019 perspectives regarding the need and practices for offering this type of training. Table 3: International Student Training (n=114) Statement n % Is there a need for international students at your institution to receive additional Title training? Yes 29 40.28 No 14 19.44 Not sure 29 40.28 Does your office provide any type of specialized Title training or outreach to international students? Yes 39 34.21 No 72 63.16 Not sure 3 2.63 Institutions that reported offering specialized Title training or outreach for international students were asked to provide open-ended responses about their experience with this initiative. Regarding their decision to implement this type of programming, most institutions disclosed having large enrollment of international students and, consequently, a need to orient them to culturally sensitive aspects of Title IX, sexual assault, harassment, dating, relationships, and understanding boundaries. Several participants specifically reflected on their international students \u201cbeing subjected to behaviors that violated Title policies\u201d while not being aware of the rights, protections, and support resources in place. Some institutions offered this training to international students due to their large representation among student athletes, while other responses included the training being required from international student offices, individual departments, or state laws. Regarding the structure and format of the specialized training, the most common practices were either facilitating the training during the international student orientation or utilizing the staff from international student offices to deliver it. Other formats included training offered by students\u2019 respective departments, a training embedded in a first-year seminar course for international students, required online modules, and follow-up outreach to this student group Thomas et al. 314 by Title office staff. Two institutions reported having informational materials and training in other languages. Among the 39 institutions offering specialized Title training for international students, 17 reported not soliciting students\u2019 feedback upon completing the training, while 12 did. The remaining 10 were not sure if such feedback was being collected. The institutions that solicited student feedback shared that their students appreciated this effort and found the presented information useful both in terms of understanding the laws and policies of their host country and in terms of having the opportunity to reflect on their own cultural norms in their new setting. The feedback also reflected some international students being surprised with Title IX-related topics being discussed so openly and some disclosing their prior experiences with attempting to report inappropriate behaviors but not being taken seriously. Institutions that reported not offering specialized Title training or outreach to international students were asked to share the reasons behind this decision to which most responded that it was not an intentional decision, but more of an unintentional practice or institutional custom. As one response illustrated, \u201cIt is an oversight, rather than an intentional decision.\u201d The major group of responses included lack of resources or staff capacity to engage in these efforts. This perspective was particularly prevalent among understaffed or one-person Title offices. As captured in some of the responses do not have the time, funding, or resources to provide culturally specific training barely have the resources and time to do general training\u201d or \u201cLack of resources to do anything above the bare minimum right now, unfortunately.\u201d The next group of answers justified this decision by low international student enrollments or by a small number of policy violations among this student group. Several respondents disclosed being new to their positions and continuing standing practices which did not include specialized outreach to international students significant number of respondents also commented on acknowledging the need for this type of training and their plans to explore such opportunities in the future or to deliver it if requested by their campus partners. On the other hand, some administrators were firm in their perspective that all students should receive the same training because it sends \u201cclear, consistent message to all students.\u201d Despite the recurring finding of low Title violations committed by international students, some perspectives focused only on international students as potential perpetrators of Title violations, but not as a population vulnerable to these crimes: \u201cSexual harassment and sexual abuse is just that regardless of where the individual is from. Just because they are from a different country or culture does not give them permission to sexually harass or abuse individuals.\u201d Results for Research Question Three Our third research question asked, \u201cWhat are institutional perspectives on international students\u2019 knowledge, practices, or behaviors with respect to Title and other safety measures on campus?\u201d To answer this question, the institutions that reported offering specialized Title and safety training to international students were asked to rate the effectiveness of these efforts on international Journal of International Students 14(3) 315 students\u2019 knowledge, practices, or behaviors in several areas (Group 1, n=37). Alternatively, institutions that reported not offering specialized Title or safety training were asked to rate international students\u2019 knowledge, practices, or behaviors in the same areas (Group 2, n=60). To test for the differences between the responses of the two groups, we conducted independent samples t-tests. As illustrated in Table 4, the analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups for all areas except one (measured at .05 value). Effect sizes for the areas of significant differences ranged from moderate to large (Cohen, 1998). On average, the institutions that offered specialized Title or safety training to international students rated students\u2019 knowledge, practices, or behaviors significantly higher for almost all areas. Table 4: Between Group Differences (n1=37, n2=60) Area Group t p d International students\u2019 understanding of their protections under Title 1 3.22 .89 .448 .016 .532 2 2.78 .76 International students' awareness of Title cases 1 2.97 .78 .033 .009 .572 2 2.47 .95 International students' reporting of Title cases 1 3.17 .91 .308 .003 .650 2 2.58 .90 International students' knowledge of support services and safety elements in place 1 3.67 .83 .176 .001 .746 2 3.05 .83 International students' knowledge of law enforcement services available to campus 1 3.36 .90 .491 .007 .585 2 2.83 .91 International students\u2019 awareness of processes to find relevant data from reports such as those required by the Clery Act and relevant reporting structures 1 2.53 1.03 .503 .586 .121 2 2.41 .96 The last question in the survey asked participants to share their future plans for international student outreach and any other thoughts they may have about the Thomas et al. 316 issues examined in this research. In that regard, some participants expressed the hope that return to in-person operations will allow for more outreach and face-to- face programming for this student group, while those already offering such programs shared their intentions to continue doing so and potentially provide more robust events. Some shared their plans for designing follow-up surveys to test for students\u2019 comprehension, while others revealed the intention to partner with international student offices to develop culturally appropriate sexual misconduct and prevention training. Other suggestions included having professional organizations, such as add this training to their toolbox substantial number of participants disclosed that taking part in this research raised their awareness and piqued their interest in learning more about how they can better support their international students, expressed their appreciation for these topics being investigated, and said they would welcome considering recommendations from this research in their future work. Others shared being in the process of developing marketing materials aimed specifically at addressing visa and immigration related concerns for victims of sexual violence, as well as getting existing policies and resources translated in the common languages spoken by their international students Through an analysis of the data, our research presents several main findings. First, most institutions see a need for cultural training, but few offer such training. Second, several respondents indicated that having specific training for international students would greatly aid Title officers in working with those students. Third, most institutions do not provide specialized Title training or outreach to international students, yet those who were asked about specialized Title training responded positively. Fourth, institutions that offer specialized training to international students rate students\u2019 knowledge, practices, and behaviors related to Title significantly higher than those institutions that do not offer such training. Research (Fan & Wanous, 2008; Steglitz, 1988) notes that most international student orientation programs focus on general safety and student concerns, without discussion of Title IX. This is reflected in our study, which found that few institutions provide Title training specifically geared for international students and their potentially unique needs. One potential issue for programming for international students is that while many Title officers reported a need for specialized training for international students, they noted that Title officers may not fully understand this population or their specific needs related to Title IX. This is especially evident as some respondents completely disregarded international students as a vulnerable population and only focused on them as potential perpetrators of Title violations. In such cases, additional training for Title officers could be beneficial to their relationships with international students. One of the main implications for practice emerges from the finding that not offering specialized Title training to either Title coordinators or international students was reported as unintentional oversight, rather than an Journal of International Students 14(3) 317 intentional decision. Thus, the main significance of this study is that it raises critical questions that have been overseen in higher education practice. As numerous participants in this study noted, completing our questionnaire prompted them to reflect on improving their practice in this domain and raising new conversations within their institutions. Thus, the starting point in improving educational practice should be to expand the conversations in this direction among higher education institutions potential approach to doing so could be by conducting need assessments among Title officers or international students. Next, reflecting on our study sample, it can be noted that most responsive institutions in this matter were small institutions enrolling less than 5,000 students. We received the least responses from large institutions (over 15,000 students) which are more likely to host higher numbers of international students. Therefore, our research highlighted the need for engaging large institutions in these critical conversations and making them more accountable and transparent with respect to their international students\u2019 Title understanding and protections. Further, our research identified that a critical barrier to offering more programming of this type is the fact that Title offices are often under-staffed or operated by just one person. Thus, a recommendation emerges that Title training for international students should not be a sole responsibility of Title offices but a shared initiative with other campus units, mainly international student services but possibly other student affairs offices as well particularly disheartening finding of this research was reflected in some of the responses where participants perceived international students through the lenses of potential Title perpetrators, instead of potential victims. As a result, institutions of higher education enrolling international students should not only conduct bias training among their Title staff but ensure that they also receive appropriate cultural training as it pertains to the issues examined in this study. The results of this study should be considered in light of several limitations. Notably, our study surveyed Title officers specifically. While some institutions have dedicated Title departments, some Title officers are filling multiple roles, and in some cases are not as knowledgeable about training that is offered to students. We did not survey International Student Services staff to better understand how Title training could fit into their specialized orientation programs. Future research on International Student Services staff may be beneficial to better understanding how Title officers can work with International Student Services staff to develop training to meet the needs of international students. Lastly, given the scarcity of research in this domain, we could not utilize or adapt any prior instruments and we had to develop a new instrument guided by our research questions. Our instrument, however, has not been pilot tested, and we did not calculate any validity and reliability measures for it. Future studies replicating this inquiry should seek expert input in reviewing and possibly improving our questionnaire. Thomas et al. 318 Conclusions and Recommendations Our work contributes to the discussion of Title training for international students in the United States by demonstrating the varied responses and concerns of this population. As these students may be especially vulnerable to Title violations there is a need for consistent and culturally responsive training, yet we have found that little training specifically focuses on addressing the overlapping challenges that may include differences in cultural, language, and legal understandings. This study points out the need for such specialized training as the results show it is generally lacking at most institutions despite a clear need. While considerations of American students engaged in study abroad opportunities have been found to be covered by Title as officially sanctioned events, less focus has been dedicated to the need of American institutions to effectively onboard and explain the gestalt of Title to international students enrolling in American campuses. We hope that this study will encourage Title officers to consider the needs of international students and how Title offices can work with International Student Services offices to address the needs of this special population. While it may take time to develop more nuanced trainings, research related to the effective understanding of other services have noted that providing material that has effectively been translated into the primary language of the international student may allow for more effective intervention in various fields (Gebhard, 2012; Liestman & Wu, 1990; McCarthy, 2016). Pending further research and development for international student responsiveness, the translation of Title policies and reporting structures into the primary language of all international students on campus may provide some immediate response to this concern Adewale, T., D'amico, M. M., & Salas, S. (2018). \u201cIt\u2019s kinda weird\u201d: Hybrid identities in the international undergraduate community. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 861-883. Association of Title Coordinators [ATIXA]. (2022). About ATIXA. Bhochhibhoya, A., Dong, Y., & Branscum, P. (2017). Sources of social support among international college students in the United States. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 671-686, Bloom, B. E., Park, E., Swendeman, D., Oaks, L., Sumstine, S., Amabile, C., Carey, S. & Wagman, J. A. (2022). Opening the \u201cBlack Box\u201d: Student- generated solutions to improve sexual violence response and prevention efforts for undergraduates on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 18. Journal of International Students 14(3) 319 Bonistall Postel, E. J. (2020). Violence against international students critical gap in the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(1), 71-82. Buckner, E., Lumb, P., Jafarova, Z., Kang, P., Marroquin, A., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Diversity without race: How university internationalization strategies discuss international students. Journal of International Students, 11(S1), 32-49. Cho, J., & Yu, H. (2015). Roles of university support for international students in the United States: Analysis of a systematic model of university identification, university support, and psychological well-being. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(1) 11\u201327. Cobler, N. (2014, April 3). International students and their partners face additional barriers when dealing with domestic violence. The Daily Texan. Retrieved from partners-face-additional-barriers-when-dealing-with/ Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Culhane, J. G. (2013). Bullying, litigation, and populations: the limited effect of Title IX. Western New England Law Review, 35(2), 323-352. Retrieved from Dees, A. J. (2007). Access or interest: Why Brown has benefited African- American women more than Title L. Rev., 76, 625. Retrieved from _sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals Fan, J., & Wanous, J. P. (2008). Organizational and cultural entry new type of orientation program for multiple boundary crossings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1390-1400. Ferguson, K. D. (2014). Achieving gender equity under title ix for girls from minority, urban, rural, and economically disadvantaged communities. Marquette Sports Law Review, 24(2), 353-418. Retrieved from Flaherty, C. (2021, April 1). Florida State scrambles to explain alleged abuser's long tenure. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from explain-alleged-abusers-long-tenure Forbes-Mewett, H., & McCulloch, J. (2016). International students and gender- based violence. Violence Against Women, 22(3), 344-365. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg. W. R. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Pearson Education. Gebhard, J. G. (2012). International students\u2019 adjustment problems and behaviors. Journal of International Students, 2(2), 158-164. Thomas et al. 320 Goldberg, N. & Elsen-Rooney, M. (2021, November 20). MeToo U: President of Brooklyn\u2019s College, ousted over sexual misconduct claims, boots board and regains power. New York Daily News. Retrieved from for-profit-college-sexual-harassment-scandal-20211120- hv7czunsdnaprf5wafjf7bkwqy-story.html Hollis, L., & Davis, R. A. (2016). International students immigrating to the Title environment qualitative cultural analysis of community college international students. In R. L. Raby and E. J. Valeau, International Education at Community Colleges (pp.75-92). Institute of International Education [IIE]. (2021). Enrollment trends. Open Doors Report on Educational Exchange. Krsmanovic, M. (2021). The synthesis and future directions of empirical research on international students in the United States: The insights from one decade. Journal of International Students, 11(1), 1\u201323. Liestman, D., & Wu, C. (1990). Library orientation for international students in their native language. Research Strategies, 8(4), 191-96. Retrieved from Little, J., & Wegg, J. (2021, January 28 Amended Complaint. Retreived from 28-FINAL-UIUC-Amended-COC-Complaint-002.pdf Malinen, K., VanTassel, B., Kennedy, K., MacLeod, E., & O'Rourke, K. (2023). Victimhood and blame dialectics in culturally diverse male students\u2019 discussions about sexual assault policies. The Journal of Men\u2019s Studies, 0(0). McCarthy, C. (2016). Improve safety of your international students. Campus Security Report, 12(12), 1-6. Retrieved from Meng, Y., Kebede, M., & Su, C. (2018). Reconciling multiple identities: Experiences of international undergraduate students in the United States. In Global Perspectives on International Student Experiences in Higher Education (pp. 72-92). Routledge. Murphy, C., Hawkes, L., & Law, J. (2002). How international students can benefit from a web\u2010based college orientation. New Directions for Higher Education, 2002(117), 37-44. Nightingale, S. (2021). \u201cIt probably hurt more than it helped survivors of sexual assault and their experience with the college Title reporting process. Advances in Social Work, 21(4), 1280-1299. Odio, M. A., Keller, P. R., & Shaw, D. D. (2019). Protecting our students: Title IX, sexual harassment, and internships. Sport Management Education Journal, 13(2), 117-125. Redcay, A., Counselman-Carpenter, E., & Wade, G. (2021). Public accommodations for individuals: Current policies, pending debates. Journal of International Students 14(3) 321 Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 1- 10. Servaty-Seib, H., Lockman, J., Shemwell, D., & Marks, L. R. (2015). International and domestic students, perceived burdensomeness, belongingness, and suicidal ideation. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 46(2), 141\u2013153. Steglitz, I. (1988). Survey of university orientation programs for international students and scholars. In J. Mestenhauser, G. Marty, & I. Steglitz (Eds.), Culture, learning, and the disciplines (pp. 5-15). Washington, DC: NAFSA. Tan, G. A., & Koo, K. (2023). From students to colleagues: The becoming of international student affairs professionals. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 1-15. Tavares, V. (2021). International students in higher education: Language, identity, and experience from a holistic perspective. Rowman & Littlefield. Trachtenberg, B. (2017). How university Title enforcement and other discipline processes (probably) discriminate against minority students. Nevada Legal Journal, 18, 107. Retrieved from Webermann, A. R. (2021). Student perceptions of Title reporting and response (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, Baltimore County). Zhu, L., Liu, M., & Fink, E. L. (2016). The role of person-culture fit in Chinese students\u2019 cultural adjustment in the United States Galileo mental model approach. Human Communication Research, 42, 485\u2013505, Author bios W. THOMAS, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the University of Southern Mississippi. He received his PhD in Higher Education from the University of Kentucky. His research interests include histories of education, student affairs, and student services with a focus on professionalization and access. Email: [email protected] KRSMANOVIC, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the University of Southern Mississippi. Her research interests include international students, first-year experience, first-year seminars, scholarship of teaching and learning, and faculty development. Prior to her academic career, she worked in varied international settings leading the design and facilitation of training programs in the fields of and adult education. Email: [email protected] A. FOSTER, PhD is an Associate Professor in the School of Education at the University of Southern Mississippi. She received her Ph.D. in higher education from the University of Virginia where she studied student behaviors Thomas et al. 322 and how academic and student affairs can collaborate to educate students to prevent unsafe behaviors. She is interested in student behaviors and student life, both historical and current. Email: [email protected]", "8809_103.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Holliman v Coll. United States District Court, E.D. New York Aug 29, 2024 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2024) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Delegate legal research to CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) 08-29-2024 HOLLIMAN, Plaintiff, v COLLEGE, INC., et al., Defendants JUDGE: Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 1/30 On March 27, 2023, plaintiff Zakkiyyah Abdullah Holliman commenced this action against defendants College, Inc. (\u201cASA\u201d), Duwayne Carthan (\u201cCarthan\u201d), and Alex Shchegol (\u201cShchegol\u201d), alleging claims of discrimination on the basis of sex and gender, sexual harassment, and retaliation, in violation of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1681 et seq. (\u201cTitle IX\u201d), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. \u00a7\u00a7 290 et seq. (\u201cNYSHRL\u201d), and the New York City Administrative Code, \u00a7\u00a7 8-101 et seq No. 1). In her Amended Complaint, filed on April 18, 2023, plaintiff added analogous claims against the corporate defendant ASA, pursuant to Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2000e, et seq. (\u201cTitle No. 6). When defendants failed to file an Answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, the Clerk of Court entered a default against defendants and Carthan on June 29, 2023, and against defendant Shchegol on October 11, 2023. On December 7, 2023, plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment against all defendants No. 23). The Honorable Orelia E. Merchant referred the Motion to the undersigned. (Electronic Order, dated December 8, 2023). On February 1, 2024, defendants and Shchegol filed a Cross Motion, seeking to vacate the default against both defendants, dismiss the claims against defendant Shchegol for lack of proper *2 service, and requesting leave for both defendants to file an Answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint No. 27). 2 Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court respectfully recommends that defendants' Motion to vacate the default be granted; defendants' Motion to dismiss the Complaint as to defendant Shchegol be denied; and plaintiff's Motion for default judgment against defendants and Shchegol be denied without prejudice. As for plaintiff's Motion for default judgment against defendant Carthan, although defendant Carthan has failed to appear and failed to respond to the Motion for default judgment, the Court respectfully recommends that the Motion should be denied until plaintiff's claims against defendants and Shchegol are resolved and plaintiff files an amended pleading clarifying whether references to \u201cDJ\u201d are intended to refer to defendant Carthan or some other individual. (See infra n.3). 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 2/30 In her Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant is a private for-profit college offering bachelor's degrees, associate's degrees, and professional certificates in business administration, health disciplines, legal studies, and computer technology. (Am. Compl. \u00b6 12 has three campuses: one in Midtown Manhattan, one in Downtown Brooklyn, and one in Hialeah, Florida. (Id.) Beginning on or about August 21, 2007, plaintiff was employed by defendants and Shchegol, with the job title of Financial Aid Advisor. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 9, 10, 47). Plaintiff alleges that Shchegol owns and operates ASA, with the authority to hire and fire, demote, promote, and discipline plaintiff, determine her pay rate and control her employment records. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 16, 29-30). Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Carthan was and still is the *3 director of outreach at ASA, who also had the authority to hire, fire, demote, promote, and discipline plaintiff. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 18, 26-28). 1 3 1 Citations to \u201cAm. Compl.\u201d refer to plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed April 18, 2023 No. 6). According to plaintiff, when she was initially hired to work for ASA, she was assigned to the Manhattan Campus, receiving a salary of $54,340.00. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 48, 51). In or around 2011, plaintiff was transferred to the Brooklyn Campus, located at 151 Lawrence Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201. (Id. \u00b6\u00b619, 52). Plaintiff alleges that shortly after her transfer to the Brooklyn Campus, defendant Carthan began making sexual remarks to plaintiff and touching plaintiff's cheeks several times a week. (Id. \u00b6 52). She further alleges that he would make comments about her breasts, stand over her at her desk and try to put his hand down her shirt, and discuss his sexual activities with other women. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 53-54). 2 2 Plaintiff states that her salary was decreased to $50,700.00 in or around 2016 but does not appear to allege retaliation based on the salary reduction. (Am. Compl. \u00b6 49). According to plaintiff, beginning in 2011 and continuing through 2018, defendant Carthan told plaintiff about having had intercourse with staff members and students, and he would sexually harass plaintiff's co-workers, including having a relationship with a front desk receptionist, \u201cJennifer,\u201d 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 3/30 who Carthan would take to the basement on occasion for sex. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 55-57). Plaintiff alleges that she and other colleagues complained to Victoria Shtamler, who plaintiff alleges was her boss, but Shtamler took no action. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 36, 42, 57). 3 3 In the Amended Complaint, plaintiff refers to defendant Duwayne Carthan by his initials (\u201cDC\u201d). (Am. Compl. \u00b6 17). However, beginning in paragraph 57 and on, plaintiff refers to an individual named \u201cDJ.\u201d Nowhere does plaintiff identify a separate individual with the initials \u201cDJ\u201d and, within the context of the specific allegations, it appears that plaintiff is referring to \u201cDC.\u201d Since the issue of defendant Carthan's liability hinges on the allegations of misconduct set forth in the Complaint, the Court declines to make a determination on plaintiff's Motion for default judgment against Carthan, until plaintiff clarifies that all references in the Complaint to \u201cDJ\u201d actually refer to Duwayne Carthan. Plaintiff alleges that in or around 2018, Jennifer reported Carthan to the human resources department, and he was forced to resign. (Id. \u00b6 62). Despite knowing about the harassment of *4 Jennifer and other employees, defendant Shchegol rehired Carthan in or around October of 2021. (Id. \u00b6 63). Plaintiff further alleges that approximately a month after his return, defendant Carthan began making sexual comments to plaintiff, causing plaintiff to try to keep her distance from him. (Id. \u00b6 65). She claims that \u201c[t]his was becoming exhausting.\u201d (Id.) She began asking to work from home to minimize contact with him, noting that two or three times a week, he would make sexual comments about plaintiff and try to show her pictures of other women from his phone. (Id.) The Amended Complaint contains other examples of specific conduct by defendant Carthan in April and May of 2022. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 66-69). In May of 2022, plaintiff alleges that defendant Carthan backed her into a corner and tried to feel her up, but she \u201cfought him off.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 70). 4 4 4 The Amended Complaint appears to allege that defendant Shchegol, defined by plaintiff as \u201cALEX,\u201d resigned his post, but it is unclear whether plaintiff was referring to Shchegol or Carthan. (See Am. Compl. \u00b6 64 (alleging: \u201cUpon information and belief and as per the media organizations, ALEX, \u2018accused of using his perch to sexually abuse vulnerable students has resigned from 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 4/30 his post for the second time in the last four years following a Daily News expose'\u201d)). Plaintiff alleges that after she rejected Carthan's advances, he began making comments, suggesting that plaintiff was a \u201cdisgruntled employee.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 71). Nevertheless, Carthan continued his unwanted advances in June of 2022, suggesting that they go upstairs to a room in the building to which he had a key, and trying to kiss plaintiff in front of a student on or about June 15, 2022, telling the student that plaintiff was \u201c\u2018like a sister to [him].'\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 72, 73). Following these incidents, plaintiff requested permission from her supervisor, Shtamler, to work from home that Friday, claiming that she had a doctor's appointment, but really needing time to think about how to approach the situation with defendant Carthan. (Id. \u00b6 74). Although her supervisor gave her permission, when plaintiff returned to work on or about June 20, 2022, she *5 was told that Carthan had filed a formal complaint about plaintiff working from home, which plaintiff alleges was retaliation. (Id. \u00b6 75). 5 On or about June 20, 2022, plaintiff complained to her manager, Shtamler, reporting defendant Carthan for sexual harassment and explaining that he was making complaints about plaintiff as a \u201ccover up.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 77). Plaintiff explained that the misconduct had been occurring since before defendant Carthan had resigned in 2018, and that she knew that Shtamler had witnessed it. (Id.) Shtamler denied witnessing any sexual harassment but agreed that plaintiff should go to the human resources department. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that shortly after leaving Shtamler's office at 6:00 p.m., defendant Carthan called and texted plaintiff's phone repeatedly. (Id. \u00b6 78). That same night, plaintiff sent a complaint to the human resources department, and an appointment was set for June 29, 2022. (Id. \u00b6 79). Plaintiff alleges that she spoke to the Title coordinator, and reported several of the incidents with Carthan, but the coordinator repeatedly advised plaintiff that she could withdraw her complaint at any time, which plaintiff alleges was an attempt to discourage plaintiff from proceeding forward with her complaint. (Id. \u00b6 80). On July 1, 2022, plaintiff returned to the office and was told that there would be a \u201cno contact order\u201d with defendant Carthan effective that night. (Id. \u00b6 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 5/30 81). Plaintiff advised the human resources department that she did not feel comfortable being in the office with Carthan and she asked to work from home, a request that was denied. (Id. \u00b6 82). Plaintiff was told that Carthan had been assigned to work out of the Manhattan Campus, but plaintiff subsequently learned that he was still in Brooklyn. (Id.) Plaintiff then brought suit, alleging that defendants and Shchegol failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent defendant Carthan's sexual harassment, then retaliated against plaintiff for complaining. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 84, 87). Plaintiff *6 claims that she was humiliated, degraded, embarrassed, victimized, and emotionally distressed (id. \u00b6 88), and she brings claims of discrimination under State and City law (First through Fifth Causes of Action); a claim of sexual harassment/hostile work environment under Title (Sixth Cause of Action); and claims of discrimination against the corporate defendant under Title (Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action). (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 95-124). 6 Following the filing of plaintiff's Motion for default judgment on December 7, 2023, defendants and Shchegol filed a Cross Motion on February 1, 2024 to vacate the previously entered default, dismiss the claims against defendant Shchegol, and requested leave to Answer the Complaint. With respect to defendant Shchegol, defendants argue that he was not properly served, and, in any event, they contend that neither defendant willfully or intentionally defaulted and they have a meritorious defense to the claims. With respect to defendant ASA, defendants argue that despite being served pursuant to the New York Business Corporation Law did not receive notice of the lawsuit. Since defendants have moved to vacate the previously entered default, the Court addresses the Motion to vacate before turning to plaintiff's Motion for default judgment. I. Sufficiency of Service Acting on behalf of himself and defendant ASA, of which he claims to be the sole shareholder, defendant Shchegol has submitted an Affidavit, in which he seeks to vacate the default, claiming that he was not properly served and that ASA, although served pursuant to service upon the Secretary of State, was no longer in operation and therefore had no access to the *7 address at 7 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 6/30 which service would have been sent. (Shchegol Aff. \u00b6\u00b6 1, 3-8, 9-10). Accordingly, defendants assert that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. 5 5 Citations to \u201cShchegol Aff.\u201d refer to the Affidavit of Alex Shchegol, filed February 1, 2024 No. 271). A. Legal Standard Personal jurisdiction is a necessary prerequisite to entry of a default judgment. If a defendant does not receive service in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and does not waive formal service, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See Martin v. New York State Dep't of Mental Hygiene, 588 F.2d 371, 373 (2d Cir. 1978); see also Michaelson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 709 F.Supp. 1279, 1282 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (stating that proper service on a defendant of a summons and complaint is a prerequisite to personal jurisdiction). Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes the manner in which service of process must be effectuated in order to subject a defendant to the court's jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. Thus, it is well established that failure to adequately prove proper service of court documents under Rule 4 bars the entry of a default judgment. See, e.g., Orellana v. World Courier, Inc., No. 09 576, 2010 3861002, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010) (denying motion for default judgment against a defendant for whom plaintiff had not adequately proved service); Cowder v. Administration for Children & Families, No. 09 628, 2010 723440, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2010) (denying motion for default judgment where service had not been properly effected); Llaviganay v. Cipriani 110 LLC, No. 09 737, 2009 1044606, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2009) (noting that inadequate proof of service bars entry of default judgment). *8 8 Rule 4 provides, however, that service may also be effected by \u201cfollowing state law . . . [of] the state where the district court is located.\u201d Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1). Thus, in this case, service under Rule 4 may also be deemed proper if plaintiff has complied with New York State law. Since defendants and Shchegol have not indicated any intention to waive service, the issue is 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 7/30 *9 whether all necessary documents have been served in compliance with the requirements of Rule 4 or New York law. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a natural person may be served by \u201cleaving a copy of the [pleadings] at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there.\u201d Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1), (2)(B). New York law provides for service upon an individual by delivering the summons and complaint to \u201ca person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode . . .,\u201d to be followed by mailing a copy to the individual's \u201clast known residence.\u201d N.Y. C.P.L.R. \u00a7 308(2) (McKinney 1994). According to Rule 4, \u201c[u]nless federal law provides otherwise or the defendant's waiver has been filed, a domestic . . . corporation . . . [can] be served . . . in a judicial district of the United States . . . by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and - if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires - by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant.\u201d Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(1)(B). Section 306 of the New York Business Corporation Law provides that: service of process on the secretary of state as agent of a domestic or authorized foreign corporation shall be made [by]. . . personally delivering [all necessary documents] to . . . the secretary of state or a deputy, or with any person authorized by the secretary of state to receive such service, at the office of the department of state in the 9 city of Albany ....Service of process on such corporation shall be complete when the secretary of state is so served. N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law \u00a7 306(b)(1)(i) (McKinney 2023). Thus, a corporation registered to do business in New York may be served by proper service upon the Secretary of State of New York. The technical requirements of Rule 4, Section 306, and Section 308 notwithstanding, courts have recognized that the fundamental purpose of 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 8/30 service is to give a defendant notice of the claims against them; due process requires that service be \u201creasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections Holdings (USA), Inc. v. United Air Lines, 871 F.Supp.2d 143, 154 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652 (1950)). At its core, this standard is one of reasonableness. Id. Thus, courts will deem valid efforts to serve outside the bounds of Rule 4 where a defendant has \u201cactual notice\u201d of the documents mailed. See, e.g., Burda Media, Inc. v. Blumenberg, No. 97 7167, 2004 1110419, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2004) (finding defendant could not void default because plaintiff made a good faith effort to serve the defendant and the defendant received actual notice despite any \u201ctechnical defect\u201d in service) (internal citations omitted). B. Analysis In moving to vacate the default, defendants contend that they were not properly served and did not receive actual notice of the lawsuit until May 2023. Plaintiff disputes that they were *10 not properly served and contends that defendants were well aware of the lawsuit prior to the filing of the Complaint. (Pl.'s Opp. at 8). 6 10 7 6 In defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Default Judgment and In Support of Defendants Alex Shchegol and College Inc.'s Cross-Motion to Dismiss, To Vacate the Default, and For Leave to Respond to the Complaint, filed March 4, 2024 No. 30) (\u201cReply Mem.\u201d), defendants contend that \u201cthe evidence shows that and Shchegol did not learn about the lawsuit until at least May 2023....\u201d (Reply Mem. at 5 (citing Shchegol Aff. \u00b6\u00b6 10-13)). They further concede that thereafter, Shchegol \u201cinadvertently overlooked the lawsuit\u201d for much of 2023 due to the financial issues facing the College. (Id.) 7 Citations to \u201cPl.'s Opp.\u201d refer to Plaintiff's Affirmation & Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Vacate, filed February 22, 2024 No. 29). 1. Service Upon Shchegol 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 9/30 Plaintiff contends that on or about July 11, 2022, plaintiff mailed a claim letter to defendants, enclosing a copy of the proposed complaint. (Id., Ex. 3). On or about July 27, 2022, the president of ASA, Jose Valencio, contacted plaintiff's counsel in an email to request additional time to respond to the proposed complaint. (Id., Ex. 4 month later, on or about August 29, 2022, an attorney from Kaufmann, Borgeest, & Ryan, claiming to represent ASA, contacted plaintiff's counsel indicating that her firm was investigating the claims and asking plaintiff's counsel to confirm that nothing had been filed with the or any other administrative agency. (Id., Ex. 5). 8 8 Although the date referenced in Plaintiff's Affirmation & Memorandum of Law is August 29, 2023, the email exhibit reflects the date as August 29, 2022. (See Pl.'s Opp., Ex. 5). According to plaintiff's counsel, after many email exchanges with defendants' attorneys, suggesting mediation, plaintiff determined in late March 2023 that defendants were \u201cengaging in dilatory tactics.\u201d (Pl.'s Opp. at 8-9). Thus, on March 27, 2023, plaintiff filed the Complaint, and then filed the Amended Complaint on April 18, 2023. (Id. at 9). Thereafter, plaintiff made several attempts to serve Shchegol at each of his publicly available residences. (Id. at 11). Specifically, according to the invoices showing service attempts, plaintiff's process server successfully served an individual at 377 Ocean Terrace, Staten Island, New York 10301-4555, on April 13, 2023, but the individual receiving service refused to provide a name. (Id., Ex. 8). On May 2, 2023, the process server again attempted to serve the defendant at \u201c1- 377 Ocean Terrace,\u201d but was advised that no one by that name lived there No. 11, Ex. 6). *11 11 On June 27, 2023, plaintiff filed a Motion to extend the time to serve defendant Shchegol, and in a status report to the Court, noted that Shchegol had called counsel and requested an additional 30 days to respond, which counsel agreed to. (Pl.'s Opp. at 9 No. 11, Ex. 1 at 2). On July 6, 2023, the process server served defendant at 680 Golden Beach Drive, Golden Beach, Florida 33160-2246. (Pl.'s Opp., Ex. 8). Also on July 17, 2023, the process server made additional attempts to serve defendant Shchegol at two locations in Brooklyn: 111 Lawrence Street, Apt. 31, and 151 Lawrence Street. (Id.) Finally, on July 24, 2023, the process server served an individual 9 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 10/30 identified as \u201cChristian\u201d at 724 Todt Hill Road, Staten Island, New York 10304-1327. (Id.) 9 Plaintiff claims that service was also attempted at 19333 Collins Avenue, Apt. 2206, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160-2373. (Pl.'s Opp. at 12). Although plaintiff makes this claim of service at 19333 Collins Avenue, it does not appear that an actual proof of service has been filed verifying service at this location. In moving to vacate the default, defendant Shchegol states that plaintiff attempted to serve him with process on \u201cthree separate occasions, none of which was at a place where was present, reside, do business, or check mail.\u201d (Shchegol Aff. \u00b6 2). With respect to the Golden Beach address, Shchegol concedes that he jointly owns the home with his wife, from whom he is separated, but the home is vacant, and he has not visited it in several years. (Id.) He claims that he \u201cdid not receive the summons and Complaint as a result of any of the Plaintiff's three attempts to serve [him] with process.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 8). 10 10 Defendant notes that in an attempt to serve him at the Golden Beach address, plaintiff's process server \u201cclaims to have affixed a copy of the summons and [C]omplaint to the door of a building located at that address after having unsuccessfully attempted, on three prior occasions, to find a person at that location with whom the papers could be left.\u201d (Shchegol Aff. \u00b6 3 (citing No. 6)). According to the process server, he then mailed a copy to the same address. (Id. (citing No. 17-2)). He also denies receiving service at two of the other locations at which plaintiff attempted service. (Id. \u00b6 5-7). With respect to the 111 Lawrence Street address, defendant contends that he does not live there and has never been associated with that address and \u201csuspect[s]\u201d that the *12 plaintiff was attempting to serve him at 151 Lawrence Street, which is the location of his former business. (Id. \u00b6 6). According to defendant, in April 2023, when plaintiff attempted service at that location was no longer in business, having closed in or around the first quarter of 2023. (Id. \u00b6 10). Thus, even if this had been a proper place for service, defendant Shchegol claims that there were no active employees, officers, or board members who had access to that address to review or receive mail. (Id.) 12 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 11/30 Finally, with respect to service at the Todt Hill Road address, defendant Shchegol claims that he does not reside there; it is a residence where his wife lives, and he was not there on the date of service, nor does he check mail there or regularly communicate with his wife. (Id. \u00b6 7). He also claims not to know \u201cChristian,\u201d the individual who allegedly accepted service. (Id.) Defendant does not address the plaintiff's efforts to serve him at the Ocean Terrace or Collins Avenue addresses; he simply states that he did not learn of this action through any of plaintiff's attempts to serve him or ASA. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 8, 11). He claims, however, to have received notice - he is unclear when - \u201cwhen the Plaintiff mailed a copy of the summons and Complaint to me.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 12). He does not state the address to which plaintiff mailed the summons and Complaint that he received. He simply states that since he did not believe he had been properly served, he did not believe that he was obligated to appear. (Id.) He claims, however, that he began searching for counsel, which took some time because was in extreme financial hardship and had difficulty paying legal fees.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 13).11 11 In defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law, defendant Shchegol denies plaintiff's counsel's assertion that he called plaintiff's counsel in May 2023 to request an extension of time to respond to the Complaint, and, in any event, he contends that such a phone call would be irrelevant to the question of valid service. (Reply Mem. at 3). Although the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating sufficiency of service in the first instance, Lian Qing Yu v. 58 Asian Corp., No. 16-CV-7590 (AJN), 2018 1415214, at *1 *13 13 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2018) (citing Commer v. McEntee, 283 F.Supp.2d 993, 997 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)), the New York courts have held that the affidavit of the process server, indicating that the party was properly served, constitutes \u201cprima facie evidence of proper service[,] and the defendant's conclusory denial of receipt of the summons and complaint\u201d has been found insufficient to raise an issue of fact. Sando Realty Corp. v. Aris, 619 N.Y.S.2d 140, 209 A.D.2d 682 (2d Dep't 1994). In Degonzague v. Entwistle, No. 5407-09, 3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany 2009), the process server served the defendants, husband and wife, 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 12/30 Id. at 4. by providing the husband with two copies of the pleadings at the marital residence, located in Castleton. In moving to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the wife claimed that she and her husband were separated, and she provided an address in Albany, where she was residing. In denying the wife's motion to dismiss, the court held that she had failed to meet her burden of proof: The defendant offers little evidence to refute the facts affirmed in the affidavits of the process server. The defendant claims she is separated from her husband. The defendant does not establish when she separated from her husband and whether the separation was a trial separation or a legal separation. The defendant did not deny that 1486 Bame Road, Castleton, New York was the marital residence of her and her husband. Although the defendant stated that she moved to the City of Albany, she offers no proof indicating when she moved and when she established her alleged new residence. The defendant failed to offer any proof regarding her alleged change of residence such as notices to the post office regarding her mail, the Department of Motor Vehicles, bank statements, phone or utility bills or the deed from the purchase of a home or a lease. Under these circumstances, the marital residence remained Gina Entwistle's \"usual place of abode\" for the purpose of service of process pursuant to [C.P.L.R.] \u00a7 308(2). In this case, defendant Shchegol has provided even less information to demonstrate that he does not reside at the location on Todt Hill Road, where he claims his wife resides. He has not provided any information as to when he and his wife allegedly separated, when he moved out *14 of the marital home, or even the address where he claims to have been residing at the time of service or where he resides currently. As in the Degonzague case, defendant Shchegol has not provided any evidence, such as a lease or deed for his new residence, postal notices, change of address forms submitted to the DMV, phone or utility bills, etc. In addition, while he challenges plaintiff's efforts to serve him at three locations, he does not address the process server's affidavit of service at two other locations, nor does he 14 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 13/30 address plaintiff's counsel's assertions that over a year before the attempts to serve him were made, plaintiff's counsel was in contact with ASA's president and with an attorney who claimed to represent the defendants.12 12 Although the attorney who claimed to represent defendant never explicitly stated that her firm also represented defendant Shchegol individually (see Pl.'s Opp., Exs. 5-6), as the sole shareholder of ASA, it is likely that defendant Shchegol received notice of the lawsuit. As noted, defendant Shchegol claims he only learned of the case when plaintiff's counsel mailed him a copy of the pleadings, but he fails to state the address to which the copy was mailed or when he received that mailing. Finally, it is notable that even though he claims to have consulted counsel after learning of the case, it took him months, until February 1, 2024, to move to vacate the defaults that had been entered against defendant on June 29, 2023 and against him personally on October 11, 2023. Although he claims in his Reply Memorandum of Law that he \u201cinadvertently overlooked the lawsuit\u201d due to the financial and regulatory concerns facing at the time (Reply Mem. at 5), he also claims that ceased operations in the first quarter of 2023, and no one was receiving mail at the address on file with the Secretary of State. (Shchegol Aff. \u00b6\u00b6 9-10). However, defendant Shchegol does not explain how any \u201cissues\u201d could be resolved on behalf of defendant if there was no longer a viable address for and Shchegol was not at any of the publicly available addresses listed for him. *15 15 Thus, the Court concludes that not only did plaintiff exercise reasonable diligence in attempting service on defendant Shchegol, see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Kaul, 120 N.Y.S.3d 95, 97, 180 A.D.3d 956 (2d Dep't 2020), but the Court finds that defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit, see Burda Media, Inc. v. Blumenberg, 2004 1110419, at *6-7, and he has failed to demonstrate that service in this case was deficient. 2. Service Upon With respect to defendant ASA, plaintiff asserts that it was properly served pursuant to New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules Section 311, by delivery of the summons and complaint upon the Secretary of State on April 19, 2023. (Pl.'s Opp. at 12 (citing N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law \u00a7306; Exs. 7, 9)). \u201cService of 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 14/30 process upon such corporation shall be complete when the secretary of state is so served.\u201d N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law \u00a7 306. Defendants contend that service upon was ineffective because at the time was out of business and did not have access to the address where the summons and Complaint were delivered. (Defs.' Mem. at 1-2; Shchegol Aff. \u00b6 10). According to defendant Shchegol, who alleges he is the sole shareholder of defendant ASA, the Secretary of State had 151 Lawrence Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, on file as the address for at the time of service in April 2023. (Shchegol Aff. \u00b6 9). Defendants contend that due to various regulatory and financial issues \u201cclosed its business in or around the first quarter of 2023.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 10). Thus, according to defendants had no employees at 151 Lawrence Street, and no access to the address to receive mail or sort it. (Id.) *16 13 16 13 Citations to \u201cDefs.' Mem.\u201d refer to defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Default Judgment and In Support of Defendants Alex Shchegol and College Inc.'s Cross-Motion to Dismiss, To Vacate the Default, and For Leave to Respond to the Complaint, filed February 1, 2024 No. 272). Although the plaintiff primarily carries the burden of proving the defendant has been properly served, Lian Qing Yu v. 58 Asian Corp., 2018 1415214, at *1, a basic level of proof from the defendant is needed to establish that he did not deliberately avoid service. In Criollo v Fine Interiors Inc., for example, while the defendant did not provide any concrete evidence that he had not received the summons and complaint, he did provide a specific date when he \u201cfirst became aware of the lawsuit,\u201d a date that fell after service was purportedly effected. 19 5974, 2021 1200318, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. March 3, 2021). Moreover, the plaintiff in Criollo claimed that he \u201cinformed his attorney . . . within five minutes of finding the documents\u201d concerning the lawsuit. Id. Thus, the Court held that, due to his prompt action with respect to finding an attorney once he was made aware of the lawsuit, and the timing of service relative to his claims about moving residences, he did not willfully default. Id. at *10; see also Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. David Licht, No. 03 6764, 2004 2389824 at *4, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2004) (holding that the defendant did not willfully default because the defendant gave specific 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 15/30 months and dates during which he or his family members were \u201cunexpected[ly]\u201d ill, which prevented him from responding to the plaintiff's complaint on time). In this case, defendants have not provided any evidence to verify the timing of ASA's closure, nor does the Shchegol Affidavit state a specific date when closed, speculating that it closed sometime in the first quarter of 2023. (Shchegol Aff. \u00b6 10). While the Shchegol Affidavit states that \u201con March 1, 2023 lost its accreditation, and shortly thereafter (in late March of 2023), the Board of Trustees made the unfortunate decision to suspend ASA's business operations indefinitely\u201d (Shchegol Aff. \u00b6\u00b6 33-34), defendants never provide an exact date for that suspension, nor do they specify a date after which ASA's employees were no longer able to access the Brooklyn address where service was to be *17 effectuated for ASA. Defendant Shchegol also initially claimed that he was \u201cunsure of the precise date\u201d when he \u201creceived notice of the lawsuit\u201d (Shchegol Aff. \u00b6 12), but later claimed that defendants did not receive notice until \u201cat least May 2023.\u201d (Reply Mem. at 5). The Shchegol Affidavit also does not specify when defendant Shchegol \u201cbegan searching for counsel\u201d for nor does it indicate how long the search took, beyond vaguely stating that the search \u201ctook time\u201d due to defendant ASA's \u201cextreme financial hardship\u201d and \u201cdifficulty paying legal fees.\u201d (Shchegol Aff. \u00b6 13). Furthermore, as noted previously by the Court, defendants do not address plaintiff's contention that defendant retained counsel in 2022 in relation to this matter (Pl.'s Opp. at 8, Exs. 4, 5), and they deny that defendant Shchegol called plaintiff's counsel to request additional time to respond to the Complaint in May of 2023. (Reply Mem. at 3). 17 Thus, defendants' lack of specificity with respect to receiving notice of the lawsuit and the closure of falls short of establishing that closed before service was effected, and that defendants did not intentionally avoid service. Apart from defendants' failure to provide any evidence regarding the timing of the closure of the college, the New York Secretary of State's records indicate that is still listed as an active corporation. If a business closes prior to service but does not notify the Secretary of State of its closure, 14 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 16/30 delivery of summons and complaint to the Secretary of State still constitutes sufficient service on a corporation. See Logan v. World Luxury Cars, Inc., No. 15 00248, 2022 2466834, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. March 30, 2022) (holding that although defendants claimed their business was no longer in operation, its active status with the Department of State meant that \u201cthe Secretary of State had the correct address for an existing *18 corporation, and there is no question that the summons and complaint was sent to and properly served on the Corporate Defendant\u201d); see also Andrey Nevelskiy v. Advanced Professional Group, Inc., No. 23 2364, 2024 2745190, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2024) (ruling that although defendant is \u201ca Wyoming corporation,\u201d its registration with the New York Department of State means it was \u201cproperly served\u201d by mail to the New York address listed therein). 18 14 The Court last accessed said records on August 26, 2024. New York Dep't of State, Div. of Corps., Defendants fail to provide any evidence to suggest that the Secretary of State was informed of ASA's purported closure after the school lost its accreditation. Therefore, irrespective of whether was closed at the time of service, delivery of the summons and complaint to the Secretary of State sufficiently constitutes service on defendant ASA. 3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as to Defendant Shchegol In defendants' Cross Motion to vacate the entry of default, they also move to dismiss the Complaint as to defendant Shchegol. They contend that because plaintiff's attempt to serve defendant Shchegol never resulted in the summons and Complaint actually being \u201cdelivered to him personally, and none of the addresses where service was attempted [were] his actual place of business, dwelling place, or any place he spends time[,]\u201d service against him is \u201cdefective. . . making the entry of default \u2018void' as to him and requiring that the Complaint be dismissed as against him as a matter of law.\u201d (Defs.' Mem. at 1). Since the Court has found that service was proper as to defendant Shchegol, the Court respectfully recommends that defendants' Motion to dismiss the Complaint as to defendant Shchegol be denied. 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 17/30 II. Good Cause to Vacate Default Apart from challenging the sufficiency of service, defendants also contend that there is good cause to vacate the default. (Defs.' Mem. at 12; Reply Mem. at 4). Defendants contend *19 that their default was not willful, that they have a meritorious defense to the action, and that plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice if the action proceeds on the merits. (Defs.' Mem. at 1223; Reply Mem. at 4-10). 19 A. Legal Standard Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that \u201c[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.\u201d Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Rule 55 sets forth a two-step process for an entry of default judgment. See Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 95-96 (2d Cir. 1993). First, the Clerk of Court enters the default pursuant to Rule 55(a) by notation of the party's default on the Clerk's record of the case. See id. Second, after the Clerk of Court enters a default against a party, if that party fails to appear or otherwise move to set aside the default pursuant to Rule 55(c), the court may enter a default judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b). Pursuant to Rule 55(c), the Court may set aside an entry of default for good cause. The standard for setting aside the entry of a default pursuant to Rule 55(c) is less rigorous than the \u201cexcusable neglect\u201d standard for setting aside a default judgment by a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b). Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 276 (2d Cir. 1981). The main factors for the Court to consider in determining the appropriateness of relieving a party of a default are whether the default was willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice the adversary, and whether a meritorious defense is presented. Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d at 96; Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d at 277. Other relevant equitable factors may also be considered, such as \u201cwhether the failure to follow a rule of procedure was a mistake made in good faith and whether the entry of default would bring about a harsh or unfair result.\u201d Id. The party seeking relief from an entry of *20 default bears the burden of proof. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Licht, 2004 2389824, at *3 (quoting In re Martin-Trigona, 20 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 18/30 763 F.2d 503, 505 n.2 (2d Cir. 1985)). Defaults are not favored, however, and \u201cdoubts are to be resolved in favor of a trial on the merits.\u201d Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d at 277. B. Analysis 1. Willfulness The test for willfulness is not simply whether a defendant was properly served and failed to respond. Instead, the relevant inquiry for determining willfulness relates to the defaulting party's actions \u201cafter it became aware of the existence of the litigation or entry of default.\u201d Prestige Capital Corp. v. Fuber LLC, No. 16 9577, 2017 2558803, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2017) (citing Swarna v. Al-Awadi, 622 F.3d 123, 142-43 (2d Cir. 2010)); In re 3, LLC, v. Messer, 501 B.R. 491, 501-03 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding that despite the defaulting parties' admittance of awareness of the action, proper service, and the defaulting parties' failure to timely respond to the motion for default judgment, their actions, \u201cwhile negligent, [did] not rise to the level of willfulness\u201d). Willfulness is \u201cmore than mere[] neglect or carelessness.\u201d Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Licht, 2004 2389824, at *4 (finding defendant's explanations for letting the case \u201clanguish\u201d plausible and acceptable); see also Swarna v. Al-Awadi, 622 F.3d at 143 (holding that willfulness \u201crequires something more than mere negligence, such as egregious or deliberate conduct\u201d) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted finding of willfulness does not require that the default occurred due to bad faith, but the default must be the \u201cdeliberate and intended consequence of movant's actions.\u201d Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Licht, 2004 2389824, at *4 (citing Gucci Am., Inc. v. Gold Ctr. Jewelry, 158 F.3d 631, 635 (2d Cir. 1998)). \u201cConduct may be found to be willful where it is egregious, not satisfactorily explained, or is rationalized by *21 flimsy excuse.\u201d Id. See also Kuklachev v. Gelfman, No. 08 2214, 2009 497576, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2009) (finding willfulness where defendants \u201ctook a calculated risk that the case would be resolved in their favor\u201d and pursued insurance coverage and dismissal of plaintiffs' claim in lieu of answering another defendant's cross claims); S.E.C. v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 739 (2d Cir. 1998) (finding willfulness where no explanation of defendant's 21 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 19/30 conduct was provided, and defendant's counsel acknowledged defendant's \u201coutright disregard\u201d towards warnings of default). Defendants contend that their default was not willful because they lacked notice of the lawsuit until May 2023 and lacked the money to retain counsel. (Defs. Reply at 4-5). Further, defendant Shchegol believed that he had not properly been served and therefore had no obligation to respond. (Id. at 5). In their Reply Memorandum of Law, defendants add that Shchegol \u201cinadvertently overlooked the lawsuit for much of 2023 amid the extensive financial and regulatory hardships facing ASA.\u201d (Reply Mem. at 5). Even accepting as true defendants' explanation that did not receive notice as a result of service by the Secretary of State and that Shchegol did not receive the Complaint served upon his wife's residence, defendants have not provided a satisfactory explanation for why no action was taken for almost 10 months, from May 2023 - when Shchegol concedes he learned about the lawsuit - until February 2024, when the Cross Motion to vacate the default was finally filed. During this time, Shchegol claims he was seeking an attorney for but provides no information as to his efforts to find counsel or when counsel was actually retained. The Court finds defendant Shchegol's excuse that he \u201cinadvertently overlooked\u201d the need to respond as not credible. As previously noted, defendant Shchegol also fails to address plaintiff's contention that defendant had counsel in 2022 when the proposed complaint was first brought to the *22 attention of the President of ASA, and he does not explain why that counsel was not consulted about the pitfalls of not responding to the Complaint. Moreover, even after the plaintiff moved for default on December 7, 2023, defendants waited almost two months to file the Cross Motion to vacate the default. 22 All said, defendants waited more than nine months after they concede having knowledge of the action to file the Motion to vacate the entry of default. The \u201coutright disregard\u201d shown by defendants in this case supports a finding that the default was willful. See S.E.C. v. McNulty, 137 F.3d at 739; see also Dixon v. Ragland, No. 03 0826, 2005 2649484, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2005) (finding willfulness where defendants offered no explanation for their failure to respond to the complaint); Dominguez v. United States, 583 F.2d 615, 618 (2d Cir. 1978) (finding that counsel's 10-month delay in seeking 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 20/30 to vacate a dismissal could not be characterized as excusable neglect), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1117, 99 S.Ct. 1023 (1979). If willfulness were the only factor to be considered in determining whether to vacate a default, the Court would have no hesitation in recommending that the Motion to vacate be denied. However, the Court is constrained to consider the two remaining factors: whether defendant has made a showing that it has a meritorious defense to the claims and whether there will be prejudice to plaintiff if the default is vacated. 2. Meritorious Defense To demonstrate a sufficiently meritorious defense, \u201cthe defendant need not establish his defense conclusively. . . but he must present evidence of facts that, if proven at trial, would constitute a complete defense.\u201d S.E.C. v. McNulty, 137 F.3d at 740 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In other words, the defendant must show that there is some determination to be made by the factfinder. American Alliance Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Eagle Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 57, 61 (2d Cir. 1996). Although the proffered defense \u201cneed not be ultimately persuasive at this stage,\u201d *23 id., \u201cdefendants cannot simply assert in a conclusory fashion that they would prevail at trial.\u201d Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Licht, 2004 2389824, at *4. Moreover, the defendant \u201cneed only establish a defense to at least one claim - not every claim pled in the complaint.\u201d Wildflower + Co. v. Mood Apparel, Ltd., 338 F.R.D. 192, 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). 23 a. Plaintiff's Title Claims In asserting a defense to plaintiff's Title claims, defendants note that because plaintiff is asserting a hostile work environment theory, there are two affirmative defenses that they can raise in opposition: (1) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior, and (2) that the employee \u201cunreasonably\u201d failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities offered by the employer. (Defs.' Mem. at 14-15 (citing Miller v. New York State Police, No. 20- 3976, 2022 1133010, at *3 (2d Cir. Apr. 18, 2022))). Defendants contend that during the period of alleged harassment, they had \u201cextensive anti-harassment policies and procedures in place,\u201d employed a 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 21/30 Title officer, and had a human resources department to hear complaints, all of which plaintiff acknowledges. (Id. at 15 (citing Am. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 62, 77, 79-80)). Defendants also contend that plaintiff failed to take advantage of these resources and did not report the harassment from defendant Carthan until June 20, 2022, \u201cdespite allegedly having endured two distinct periods of harassment by Carthan\u201d from 2011 to 2018 and after October 2021. (Id.). Moreover, once she did report it took steps to investigate and prevent further harassment. (Id. at 15-16). Defendants contend that at trial, they will be able to assert the Faragher/Ellerth defense based on their actions immediately following *24 plaintiff's complaint to the human resources department. (Id. at 16 (citing cases)). This defense, if established at trial, would constitute a complete defense to the Title hostile work environment claims. 15 24 16 15 See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 542 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (1998). 16 Defendants contend that they also intend to argue that plaintiff cannot establish a hostile work environment, many of her claims are untimely, and plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (Defs.' Mem. at 16). Defendants also contend that with respect to plaintiff's Title retaliation claim, she will not be able to establish the necessary element of an adverse employment action. (Id. at 17); (see Collymore v. City of New York, No. 16 8270, 2023 5834784, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2023) (listing the four elements a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) plaintiff employee participated in a protected activity; (2) defendant knew of the activity; (3) plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action). Adverse actions can include termination, demotion with decrease in salary, diminished responsibilities, or loss of benefits, see Rivera v. New York City Dept. of Edu., No. 21 6134, 2023 2563665, at * 18 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2023) - none of which appear to be alleged in the Complaint. To the extent that plaintiff alleges that her hours were reduced, defendants contend that she was a salaried employee, not an hourly one, and her complaint about being denied permission to work from home is not true. (Id. at 17-18). 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 22/30 Thus, there appear to be several issues of fact that, if found in defendants' favor, may provide a defense to the plaintiff's Title hostile work environment and retaliation claims. b. Plaintiff's Title Claims Defendants also argue that they have a meritorious defense to plaintiff's Title claims for the same reasons that they have a meritorious defense to her Title claims. They also *25 argue that there is no private right of action under Title IX. (Defs.' Mem. at 18 (citing Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625, 630 n.3 (2d Cir. 1997))). 25 Plaintiff disputes this assertion, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946 (1979), which held that an individual has a private right of action under Title IX. (Pl.'s Opp. at 15). Moreover, plaintiff disputes defendants' claimed defenses, noting that here, the defendants hired a \u201csexual predator to continue with his sexual practices.\u201d (Id. at 15-16). Again, there appear to be factual issues relating to plaintiff's claims and the extent of defendants' knowledge that could provide a defense to the Title claim. c. Plaintiff's and Claims As for plaintiff's state law claims, defendants assert that plaintiff cannot prevail on a claim of discrimination against either defendant Shchegol or defendant because she does not allege that they engaged in any discriminatory acts; the allegations relate only to the conduct of defendant Carthan. (Defs.' Mem. at 19). Citing the New York Court of Appeals' decision in Doe v. Bloomberg, defendants contend that the only way an employer can be held liable under the for discrimination is if \u201c\u2018the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it.'\u201d (Id. (quoting 36 N.Y.3d 450, 455, 143 N.Y.S.3d 286, 289 (2021))). Defendants assert that not only did they not know about the alleged discrimination before plaintiff reported it in June 2022, but promptly investigated and took corrective action. (Id. at 20). Moreover, because retaliation claims 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 23/30 under federal and New York state law are governed by the same standards, defendants contend that plaintiff's retaliation claim also fails. (Id.) In addition, defendants contend that while the allows claims to be brought against an employer, the definition of \u201cemployer\u201d does not include individuals such as defendant *26 Shchegol as a shareholder of ASA. (Defs.' Mem. at 21 (citing Doe v. Bloomberg, 36 N.Y.3d at 459)). Thus, defendants argue that this is a complete defense for Shchegol under the NYCHRL. (Id.) As for ASA, defendants contend that plaintiff will be unable to establish any \u201cunwanted gender-based conduct. . .beyond \u2018petty slights and trivial inconvenience.'\u201d (Id. at 22 (citing Livingston v. City of New York, 563 F.Supp.3d 201, 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2021))). 26 In response to defendants' arguments, plaintiff disputes defendants' claimed lack of knowledge based upon \u201cDJ's\u201d prior behavior and that Shchegol \u201cparticipated in the sexual harassment by re-hiring DJ\u201d after he had been terminated. (Pl.'s Opp. at 14). 17 17 As noted in n.3, supra, it is unclear whether plaintiff's references to \u201cDJ\u201d refer to defendant Duwayne Carthan or someone else. For the same reasons set forth above, disputed factual issues may provide a defense not only to plaintiff's Title claims but to her and claims as well review of the respective arguments of the parties demonstrates that many of the defenses raised by defendants and Shchegol hinge on factual determinations of disputed facts. Bearing in mind the preference of the Second Circuit to decide cases on their merits, see Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d at 277, the Court finds that, if true, some of defendants' asserted defenses may ultimately be \u201cmeritorious.\u201d 3. Undue Prejudice Although defendants' failure to act diligently has delayed the resolution of this case, plaintiff has not demonstrated that setting aside the notation of default against defendants Shchegol and will cause the loss of evidence, create increased difficulties for discovery, or provide greater opportunity for fraud and collusion. See Ward v. Ramkalawan, No. 11 4295, 2013 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 24/30 1149108, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 *27 1149068 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2013) (finding that \u201cdelay alone is not a sufficient basis for establishing prejudice\u201d). 27 Accordingly, the Court finds that granting defendants' Motion will not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff. In summary, the Court finds that although it appears that defendants were properly served and their default was willful, defendants have raised potential meritorious defenses to some, if not all, of plaintiff's claims. Given that vacatur of the notation of default will not unduly prejudice the plaintiff, and despite the egregiousness of defendants' conduct in this case in failing to act diligently in responding to the Complaint, the Second Circuit's strong preference for disposition on the merits and resolving all doubts in favor of the movant impels the Court, with some reluctance, to respectfully recommend that defendants' Motion to vacate the notation of default be granted. However, it should be noted that if defendants fail to act diligently in the future, the Court will recommend sanctions. 18 18 An additional consideration is the need for plaintiff to file a corrected amended complaint and to re-serve all the defendants as discussed infra Plaintiff has also moved for default judgment against defendant Carthan, who has not appeared or responded to the Motion for default judgment. The Second Circuit has warned that default judgment is an extreme remedy that should be used only when the need to move a case forward expeditiously trumps a party's right to be heard before a court of law. See Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d at 277. While the Second Circuit has recognized the \u201cpush on a trial court to dispose of cases that, in disregard of the rules, are not processed expeditiously [and] . . . delay and clog its calendar,\u201d it has held that courts must *28 balance that interest with their responsibility to \u201c[afford] litigants a reasonable chance to be heard.\u201d Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d at 95-96. 28 Although defendants Shchegol and have appeared and moved to vacate the default, defendant Carthan has not appeared and the Motion for default 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 25/30 judgment against him is extant. Thus, the Court must consider whether entering a default judgment against Carthan as one of three defendants is premature at this point. See Bleecker v. Zetian Sys., Inc., No. 12 2151, 2013 5951162, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing Chloe v. Zarafshan, 06 03140, 2009 2956827, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2009)). Before entering a final judgment as to some of the parties in an action but not all, the Court must \u201cexpressly\u201d determine that there is no reason to delay judgment against those defaulting parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). There are no \u201cfixed criteria\u201d guiding the application of this rule. Mitchell v. Lyons Pro. Servs., Inc., 727 F.Supp.2d 116, 119 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 1460 (1980)). Rather, \u201c[t]he decision of whether to enter a final judgment against some but fewer than all of the parties in an action is left to the sound discretion of the district court.\u201d Abbott Lab'ys v. Adelphia Supply USA, No. 15 5826, 2020 7643213, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2020) (citing Bleecker v. Zetian Sys., Inc., 2013 5951162, at *6). However, \u201cdefault judgment cannot be issued where the relief requested would prejudice actively litigating defendants.\u201d Knowles- Carter v. Feyonce, Inc., No. 16 2532, 2017 11567528, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2017). When a default judgment is entered, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint pertaining to liability, but not as to damages. See Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1080, 113 S.Ct. 1049 (1993). Courts in this Circuit have \u201cconsistently *29 delayed\u201d rendering default judgments \u201ceven where a plaintiff seeks joint and several liability in order to avoid the problems of dealing with inconsistent damage determinations.\u201d Unitrans Colsolidated, Inc. v. Classic Closeouts, LLC, 09 2098, 2010 1265206, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Mitchell v. Lyons Pro. Servs., Inc., 727 F.Supp.2d at 119 (citing Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (1872)); see also Lemache v. Tunnel Taxi Mgmt., LLC, 354 F.Supp.3d 149, 152 (E.D.N.Y. 2019); Abbott Lab'ys v. Adelphia Supply USA, 2020 7643213, at *3 (quoting Harvey v. Home Savers Consulting Corp., No. 07 2645, 2008 724152, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2008)) (collecting cases); International Gemmological Inst., Inc. v. Rafaeil, No. 05 2395, 2005 3880222, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2005), report and 29 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 26/30 recommendation adopted, No. 05 2395, 2006 739822 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2006) (collecting cases). Here, plaintiff seeks entry of a default judgment finding defendants ASA, Shchegol, and Carthan jointly and severally liable for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses and costs, stemming from alleged violations of the various federal, state, and local civil rights laws described above. (See Pl.'s Opp. at 5-6). If the Court were to grant plaintiff's Motion only as to defendant Carthan and award damages against Carthan, the judgment could adversely prejudice defendants and Shchegol, who have appeared to contest plaintiff's position on their liability for the rights violations pled in the Complaint. See Falls Lake Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Nexus Builders Corp., No. 21 1403, 2022 992714, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022); see also Century Sur. Co. v. Whispers Inn Lounge, Inc., No. 13 9049, 2014 8392302, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2014) (denying default judgment without prejudice, where \u201c[g]ranting [plaintiff's] requested relief and declaring that the underlying action *30 is not covered. . . would, in effect, decide the case for [the co-defendant], even though it disputes [plaintiff's] claims\u201d). 30 Apart from the potential prejudice to defendants and Shchegol, if this Court were to proceed to a damages inquest against defendant Carthan, there are several issues with the Complaint that need to be clarified before a default judgment can be rendered. As noted supra at n.3, in alleging claims against defendant Carthan in the Amended Complaint, plaintiff has used the defendant's initials - \u201cDC\u201d - in describing conduct allegedly attributable to him. (See Am. Compl. \u00b6 17). However, beginning in paragraph 57 and on, the allegations in the Complaint refer to an individual designated as \u201cDJ.\u201d The plaintiff does not define \u201cDJ\u201d nor does plaintiff identify another individual who is alleged to be involved in the discriminatory, harassing conduct alleged in the Complaint. While it may be that \u201cDJ\u201d was really meant to refer to defendant Carthan, absent clarification as to whether the references to \u201cDJ\u201d were meant to refer to \u201cDC,\u201d the Court cannot consider these allegations in assessing defendant Carthan's liability similar, but perhaps less significant, issue relates to paragraph 64 of the Amended Complaint and the allegation that \u201cALEX\u201d resigned his post. (See 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 27/30 Am. Compl. \u00b6 64 (alleging: \u201cUpon information and belief and as per the media organizations, ALEX, \u2018accused of using his perch to sexually abuse vulnerable students has resigned from his post for the second time in the last four years following a Daily News expose'\u201d)). Although the Complaint defines \u201cALEX\u201d as defendant Shchegol (id. \u00b6 10), it appears that plaintiff may be intending to refer to defendant Carthan and not Shchegol, since this is the only allegation accusing Shchegol of directly engaging in harassing conduct. Again, before determining whether a default judgment should be entered against defendant Carthan, and before defendant Shchegol can responsibly enter an Answer to the allegations, plaintiff needs to clarify these issues. *31 31 Accordingly, the Court respectfully recommends that plaintiff's Motion for default judgment against Duwayne Carthan be denied without prejudice and with leave to refile once plaintiff's claims against College, Inc. and Alex Shchegol are resolved and the risk of prejudice is obviated. It is further recommended that plaintiff be granted leave to file a motion for an amended complaint, given the need to clarify the discrepancies in the Amended Complaint identified herein and plaintiff's own request for leave to amend to add claims \u201cincluding but not limited to adding an aiding and abetting claim against [defendant Shchegol] under [t]he New York City Administrative Code.\u201d (Pl.'s Opp. at 17). If the District Court adopts this Court's Report and Recommendation, it is further recommended that plaintiff be directed to serve her proposed amended complaint and appropriate motion papers as required by Local Civil Rule 7 within 2 weeks of the Order adopting the Report and Recommendation; that defendants be given 2 weeks to oppose the motion to amend; and that plaintiff be given one week to reply Accordingly, the Court respectfully recommends that the District Court: (1) vacate the Clerk of Court's entry of default against defendants and Shchegol pursuant to Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) deny 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 28/30 defendants' Motion to dismiss the Complaint as to defendant Shchegol; (3) deny plaintiff's Motion for default judgment against defendant Carthan without prejudice; (4) grant plaintiff leave to move to amend her Complaint; and (5) grant defendants Shchegol and leave to Answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with a copy to the undersigned, within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report. See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) (2); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) (providing the *32 method for computing time). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. See, e.g., Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008). 32 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Report and Recommendation to the parties either electronically through the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system or by mail ORDERED. About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 29/30 Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/13/25, 10:35 Holliman v Coll., 23 2340 (OEM) (CLP) | Casetext Search + Citator 30/30", "8809_104.pdf": "The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation November 15, 2022 3:17 pm is operating an Student Hotline to provide free legal advice to current and former students of College. Contact the Student Hotline at 212-659-6166 or [email protected]. Amir Khafagy Documented \ue816 May we use cookies to track your activities? We take your privacy very seriously. Please see our privacy policy for details and any questions.Yes No 2/13/25, 10:36 The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation - New York Legal Assistance Group 1/10 College, a for-profit school based in that targets immigrant students, has lost its accreditation. Plagued by years of legal troubles which include consumer fraud, sexual assault allegations and rogue leadership, the college has reached the end of the line with Middle States Commission on Higher Education, the nation\u2019s leading college accreditation bureau. In its decision released on November 11, Middle States said that College failed to provide quality education, failed to pay employees in a timely manner and failed to prove the college is operational, among other issues. Last month, as Documented previously reported, the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) found that advertisements were deceptively promising low-income immigrant students that the college could help them stay in the country and provide them with $4,000-$8,000 \u201cgifts\u201d upon graduation. The college was forced to pay $112,500 in civil penalties. Jessica Ranucci, the Coordinating Attorney of the Special Litigation Unit with New York Legal Assistance Group, says that over the past few years they have worked with about a dozen students who have sought help with student loan debt accumulated at College. Many are international students who were duped by ASA\u2019s ads. \u201cThere are a lot of immigrants that go to ASA, and absolutely those ads that you saw that promise people visas are deeply problematic and seem to target immigrants,\u201d she said. \ue816 2/13/25, 10:36 The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation - New York Legal Assistance Group 2/10 As Ranucci sees it marketing practices are explicitly defrauding vulnerable students as a means to profit off of federal and state student financial aid. \u201cIn our experience, they often use misleading or outright false statements to induce students to enroll,\u201d she said. \u201cTheir graduation rates are really low. Even the people who do graduate a lot all of them earn minimum wage. They\u2019re a for- profit company so federal money flows into their pockets former executive at spoke to Documented about the internal struggles at the college, which has campuses in Brooklyn and Manhattan. According to Meagen Rockenbach, ASA\u2019s former director of digital marketing, the school\u2019s owner and former president Alex Shchegol has been secretly controlling the school\u2019s day-to- day operations, even though he resigned amid a sexual assault scandal. Shchegol was fired in 2019 after at least 10 women accused him of sexual harassment and rape. Then, in 2021, Shchegol briefly regained control of the college and fired the entire board of directors, only to resign again in January 2022. Although Shchegol maintained no official position at ASA, he continued to exert influence on the overall marketing and other aspects of the school, Rockenbach said. Even as the school was under investigation for deceptive marking, Rockenbach claims that Shchegol wanted to run the ads that the found to be illegal. \ue816 2/13/25, 10:36 The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation - New York Legal Assistance Group 3/10 \u201cHe wanted me to run those ads on Facebook while they were being investigated and said no,\u201d she said. \u201cHe didn\u2019t understand why they were problematic.\u201d In addition to allegations of Shchegol\u2019s improprieties, in 2014, the college faced a class action lawsuit for allegedly taking advantage of low-income minority students by misrepresenting its certificate and degree programs as a way to pocket millions of dollars of federal and state student financial aid. The suit was ultimately dismissed in 2015 but they refiled and the case was settled in 2016. Just last year, the college was placed under probation and was in danger of losing its accreditation for the very same thing. Rockenbach\u2019s allegation that the college consistently failed to pay her in a timely manner was among the numerous reasons that first prompted the Middle States Commission in October 2022 to require to submit a show cause report, which was the final opportunity for the college to prove that it is meeting Middle States accreditation requirements. The school failed. \u201cThe immediate adverse action to withdraw accreditation from College reflects the seriousness with which the Middle States Commission on Higher Education takes our commitment to quality assurance,\u201d said Middle States President Dr. Heather F. Perfetti. ASA\u2019s accreditation will officially expire on March 1, 2023, which will revoke the college\u2019s access to federal funding and its state license to operate. That could happen even sooner if the school fails to submit a report by December 9 showing that the school immediately notified staff, faculty, and current and prospective \ue816 2/13/25, 10:36 The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation - New York Legal Assistance Group 4/10 students of the withdrawal of accreditation as well as provided accurate information regarding the school\u2019s accreditation status on its website. The college has the right to appeal the decision. Middle States declined to answer any specific questions about College. Originally published on Documented on November 15, 2022 \uf09a \uf099 \uf08c \uf0d2 \uf02f \uf0e0 Related Articles Brick Underground: What undocumented tenants and apartment hunters should know about their rights in \ue816 2/13/25, 10:36 The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation - New York Legal Assistance Group 5/10 January 31, 2025 /// No Comments Tenants\u2019 Rights Unit Senior Supervising Attorney Allison Yurick spoke with Brick Underground about undocumented immigrants\u2019 rights as tenants in NYC. Read More \u00bb New York Times: Inside the N.Y.C. Immigration Crackdown That Yielded 39 Arrests January 30, 2025 /// No Comments In light of the recent and, thus far, the biggest show of force from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New York City under the new federal administration, Jodi Ziesemer, Read More \u00bb \ue816 2/13/25, 10:36 The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation - New York Legal Assistance Group 6/10 City Limits: Advocates, Health Providers Look to Ease Immigrants\u2019 Fears of Accessing Care Under Trump January 28, 2025 /// No Comments Norma Tinubu, Interim Associate Director of NYLAG\u2019s LegalHealth Unit, spoke with City Limits about what we\u2019re seeing through our medical legal partnership throughout NYC. Read More \u00bb \ue816 2/13/25, 10:36 The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation - New York Legal Assistance Group 7/10 NYLAG\u2019s Melissa Chua Receives NYCLA\u2019s 2025 Public Service Award January 23, 2025 /// No Comments The New York County Lawyers Association awarded co-director of NYLAG\u2019s Immigrant Protection Unit Melissa Chua with their Public Service Award Thursday evening. Read More \u00bb \ue816 2/13/25, 10:36 The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation - New York Legal Assistance Group 8/10 Documented: 250,000 People Ordered Deported by New York Immigration Courts, Data Shows January 22, 2025 /// No Comments commented on the impact of immigration overenforcement on orders for removal and further harm in light of Documented\u2019s latest findings. Read More Reader Immigration Groups Get Ready For Mass Deportation, While Many Migrants Dismiss Fears December 26, 2024 /// No Comments Immigrant Protection Unit Co-director Jodi Ziesemer spoke about our work with to prepare our immigrant neighbors for what\u2019s ahead. Read More \u00bb \u00ab Previous Next \u00bb \ue816 2/13/25, 10:36 The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation - New York Legal Assistance Group 9/10 100 Pearl Street 19th Floor New York 10004 Phone: 212-613-5000 Tax ID: 13-3505428 Careers Contact Us Newsroom Privacy Policy Communications Privacy Policy Whistleblower Policy Terms & Conditions Follow Us \uf16d \uf099 \uf39e \uf08c Copyright 2025 | All Rights Reserved \ue816 2/13/25, 10:36 The Long Troubled College Loses its Accreditation - New York Legal Assistance Group 10/10", "8809_105.pdf": "President of Brooklyn for-profit college resigns for second time following Daily News investigation into sexual misconduct claims By Staff January 10, 2022 The president of a Brooklyn for-profit college accused of using his perch to sexually abuse vulnerable students has resigned from his post for the second time in the last four years following a Daily News expose. Alex Shchegol, the founder and long-time president of College, a for-profit institution with roughly 3,000 students across three campuses in New York City and Florida, first called it quits in 2018 following a lawsuit alleging he used an employee to help him find women to abuse. The suit was later settled out of court for $500,000, according to documents reviewed by The News. Read more from the Daily News here Categories: Uncategorized \ue805620 Sponsored Article Planning For Your Campus Master Plan By Gordian February 1, 2025 Data-driven, unbiased decision making is crucial to forming a sustainable master plan. Whether you\u2019re initiating a new master plan or updating an existing one, now is the time to put facilities data at the forefront of this major strategic effort. An objective analysis of facilities performance will be critical to your plan\u2019s success, the bedrock of an intelligent long-term strategy. It gets the planning process off to a 2/13/25, 10:36 President of Brooklyn for-profit college resigns for second time following Daily News investigation into sexual misconduct claims - \u2026 1/3 strong start. Here are three ways higher ed leaders benefit from leading their master planning efforts with comprehensive facilities data. 1. Improvement of Ownership Capabilities campus facilities portfolio is complex to manage. Older buildings add to the character and the legacy of the institution, and pose significant risks. New buildings are critical for attracting new students and remaining relevant in a competent marketplace, but require significant time and financial investments. Facilities data helps institutional leaders act as more thoughtful facilities owners. It provides the foundation for more informed decision-making that acknowledges current and ongoing campus needs and expenses. By getting a clear picture of where your institution is today, you can channel the innovation and ingenuity typical of the planning process to create the most powerful and financially- responsible impact upon your campus. 2. Give Accurate Direction to the Master Planners Data helps guide institutions to better manage their master planners. Master planning must focus equally on addressing issues inside existing buildings and adding new facilities to be successful. Facilities data helps support this mindset as an intelligent and productive starting place facilities condition assessment provides concrete evidence that certain buildings must be accounted for in the planning process to ensure the institution continues to meet campus needs. Facilities performance benchmarking and analytical insights can provide a contextual understanding of how specific investment decisions align with broader market trends. This data will impact a campus\u2019 competitive edge in an increasingly volatile environment. 3. Empower People Across Campus By engaging people across campus in the review of existing conditions and priorities before beginning the master planning process, campus stewards can better ensure they are speaking to an informed audience who understands the constraints and compromises necessary to create a successful master plan. Additionally, this review can open up the conversation on complex issues so the planning team can focus on resolving problems, rather than finding them. Objective facilities data, presented in a way that\u2019s easy for anyone to understand, provides a basis for these fruitful conversations. Download this free guide to find out more about why facilities data should be the cornerstone of your campus master plan. Leading With Facilities Data Planning firms across the country create master plans that are often exciting, dynamic and inspirational, and that attend to the stated needs of the institution. However, a planning process lacking facilities data that demonstrates how campus properties support the institution\u2019s mission may result in a campus that ages poorly and is unable to carry the institution into the future. The typical master planning process is, unfortunately, susceptible to overlooking existing needs. This oversight is not willful, but the result of using underdeveloped or outdated facilities data and the inherent vulnerability in the transfer of knowledge and insights. Existing financial plans only compound the problem, as they may not provide the capacity to support the campus over time, and risk growing out of sync with the realities of the higher education landscape. 2/13/25, 10:36 President of Brooklyn for-profit college resigns for second time following Daily News investigation into sexual misconduct claims - \u2026 2/3 This is why it is imperative for campus leaders to begin the master planning process with current facilities data and to consistently refer to that data for the duration of the process commitment to leading with data results in intelligent campus stewardship, the optimization of existing assets and balanced action toward institutional goals. These conditions lead to happy faculty, happy donors and happy students. 2/13/25, 10:36 President of Brooklyn for-profit college resigns for second time following Daily News investigation into sexual misconduct claims - \u2026 3/3", "8809_106.pdf": "The Innocents Abroad \uf060 \uf019 2/13/25, 10:36 View of The Innocents Abroad 1/1", "8809_107.pdf": "College Type Private for-profit college Active 1985\u2013March 1, 2023 President Jose Valencia Provost Edward Kufuor Academic staff Faculty total:290 (60 full-time / 230 part-time) [1] Undergraduates Over 4,500 Location New York City and Hialeah, Florida, United States Campus Urban Website June 2022 Archive (https:// web.archive.org/web/20220 612110120/ a.edu College College was a private for-profit college in New York City and Hialeah, Florida. The college had three campuses: Midtown Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn in New York, and Hialeah in Florida. It offered associate degrees, bachelor's degrees, and professional certificates in the divisions of business administration, health disciplines, legal studies, and computer technology. Although it was accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, that accreditation was removed in 2023 as the college failed to meet several of the commission's standards.[2] The institution closed on March 1, 2023.[3 was founded in 1985 with one campus location in Manhattan, New York. Known then as Advanced Software Analysis, the college focused on computer programming, as New York had a dire shortage of qualified mainframe programmers at that time.[4] In 1999 received authorization from the New York State Board of Regents to confer degrees in accounting, computer programming, information technology, and medical assisting.[5] The college's president, Alex Shchegol, was removed by the college's board of trustees in 2018 after multiple allegations of sexual misconduct that resulted in over $2 million in out-of-court settlements. After the board denied his request in late 2021 to be reinstated, he used his power as owner of the college to replace five of the seven members of the board of trustees, and they reinstated him.[6] In 2022, the U.S. Department of Education began to restrict the college's access to federal financial aid. Later that year, the college's accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, announced its intention to stop accrediting the college in 2023. After being accused of \"running misleading ads targeting low-income people and immigrants College agreed to pay over $100,000 to New York City's consumer protection division. It is also the subject of a class-action History 2/13/25, 10:36 College - Wikipedia 1/4 lawsuit by employees alleging that the college has not paid them. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education said that the college would close on February 24, 2023, and while initially, the college disputed the claim,[7] its last day of operation was March 1, 2023.[3] Degree conferring authority was officially revoked by the New York State Education Department on July 25, 2024.[8 College was authorized by the New York State Board of Regents to confer Associate of Occupational Studies and Associate in Applied Science degrees. ASA's associate degree program in Medical Assisting was accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs upon the recommendation of the Curriculum Review Board of the American Association of Medical Assistants Endowment. The college was formerly accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education,[9] until its removal in 2023 for failing to meet several of the commission's accreditation standards.[2] In 2008 College launched their Athletic program out of their Brooklyn campus [1] known as the Avengers. Starting with a small basketball team, the athletic department expanded to 13 sports programs combined over the three campuses: including men's & women's soccer, varsity football, men & women's basketball, baseball, men's lacrosse, men's & women's track & field and men's & women's tennis. All programs were members of the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) Division I, Region XV.[2 Brooklyn, known as the Avengers, had four sports teams: men's & women's basketball, baseball, and football Manhattan, known as the Mad Titans, had one sports team, men's basketball. There were plans to add women's basketball, but they never came to fruition before the college's closure Miami, known as the Silver Storm, had 13 sports teams: men's & women's soccer, football, men & women's basketball, baseball, cheerleading, men's lacrosse, softball, men & women's track & field, and men & women's tennis. Head tennis coach Brian Slack entered his sixth season at the helm of the men's and women's tennis programs at College and his third at College Miami. Slack won seven National Championships, all with College, four on the men's side and three on the women's side NY's football program played their first season in 2009 and gained national recognition during their 2012\u20132013 season after being ranked #5 nationally and earning a Carrier Bowl bid against Snow College. During the 2017 season ranked 14th by the with a 9\u20131 regular-season record earned an invite to the Valley of the Sun Bowl in Mesa, Arizona and came away victorious over Mesa Community College 28\u201323. Accreditations and approvals Athletics Accomplishments 2/13/25, 10:36 College - Wikipedia 2/4 The Miami football program began in 2015 and was the only junior college football program in the state of Florida before ASA's closure in 2023. Charles Baldwin, American footballplayer 1. \"College Navigator College\" ( 404994). Nces.ed.gov. Retrieved August 19, 2016. 2 COLLEGE\" ( 11/11/msche-withdraws-accreditation-from-asa-college/). Middle States Commission on Higher Education. November 11, 2022. Retrieved November 14, 2022. 3. Biever, Nicole (February 15, 2023 Statement on the Announced Closure of College\" ( college/). Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Retrieved March 10, 2023. 4 College President Jose Valencia Receives Prestigious Appointment to the Florida Association of Postsecondary Schools and Colleges (FAPSC), Making An Impact on the South Florida Higher Education Landscape\" ( sa-college-president-jose-valencia-receives-prestigious-appointment-to-the-florida-association-of- postsecondary-schools-and-colleges-fapsc-making-an-impact-on-the-south-florida-higher-educati on-la/). Miami Community News. July 1, 2021. 5 College | Accredited College Institution in Brooklyn & Manhattan NY\" ( g/web/20220630155634/ Archived from the original on June 30, 2022. 6. Goldberg, Noah; Elsen-Rooney, Michael (November 20, 2021). \"MeToo U: President of Brooklyn's College, ousted over sexual misconduct claims, boots board and regains power\" ( w.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/ny-alex-shchegol-asa-for-profit-college-sexual-harassmen t-scandal-20211120-hv7czunsdnaprf5wafjf7bkwqy-story.html). New York Daily News. Retrieved November 22, 2021. 7. Schwartz, Natalie (February 24, 2023). \"Embattled for-profit College closes without teach-out plan\" ( ut-plan/643553/). Higher Ed Dive. Retrieved February 24, 2023. 8. \"Closures of Degree-Granting Institutions\" ( osures-degree-granting-institutions). New York State Education Department. Retrieved November 28, 2024. 9. Halperin, David. \"15 Higher Education Stories Worth Investigating\" ( g/2021/15-higher-education-stories-worth-investigating/). Republic Report. Retrieved December 7, 2021. Website - june 2022 archive ( Retrieved from \" Alumna References External links 2/13/25, 10:36 College - Wikipedia 3/4 2/13/25, 10:36 College - Wikipedia 4/4"} |
7,504 | Tom Gaddis | Pellissippi State Community College | [
"7504_101.pdf",
"7504_102.pdf",
"7504_103.pdf",
"7504_104.pdf"
] | {"7504_101.pdf": "Three women accused this Pellissippi professor of sexual harassment. He still has his job. Published 10:42 a.m June 28, 2018 Updated 10:47 a.m June 29, 2018 At the end of a cooking class in the fall of 2013, Caitlin Knight and her classmates at Pellissippi State Community College milled about, sweeping the floor and cleaning dishes. Then, Knight says, the coordinator of the school\u2019s Hospitality and Culinary Arts programs, Tom Gaddis, walked up behind her, reached his hand inside her chef\u2019s pants, grabbed the top of her underwear and pulled up, giving her a wedgie in a classroom at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. \u201cHe laughed after it,\u201d Knight, now 25, said in a recent interview. \u201cIt was just absolutely petrifying.\" Knight said that wasn't the first time Gaddis harassed her, but, fearing retribution, she stayed silent for years. She finally spoke out in December 2017 and filed a complaint with Pellissippi, detailing several allegations against Gaddis, including the wedgie. More: Read Pellissippi's investigative report into Knight's allegations Knight is not alone in accusing Gaddis of sexual harassment. Two other women \u2014 Anna White, also a former Pellissippi State student, and Holly Knowling, a current culinary professor \u2014 have told college officials that Gaddis harassed them on campus, too. Pellissippi administrators investigated and found Gaddis had sexually harassed Knight, but they didn't fire him. Instead, they issued him a written reprimand, telling him to complete sexual harassment training and keep his hands off students, documents show. Travis Dorman Knoxville 2/13/25, 10:42 Pellissippi professor who sexually harassed student still has his job 1/7 Gaddis denies Knight's allegations and said he only accepted the reprimand to avoid legal expenses. Meanwhile, the University of Tennessee \u2014 where some of the culinary classes take place \u2014 has temporarily banned Gaddis from its campus as officials work \"to clarify a timeline of events and gather additional information,\" said spokeswoman Tyra Haag. But he remains on the job as long as no one else accuses him of sexual harassment. \"This is why women don't tell,\" said Knowling, whose own sexual harassment complaint against Gaddis was resolved in 2015. \u2018This is some kind of manipulation\u2019 When Caitlin Knight enrolled in Pellissippi\u2019s Culinary Arts program in the fall of 2012, she was depressed. She continued to grieve the death of her father as she coped with the pain of watching her older brother struggle with opiate addiction. Her love of cooking, she said, \"was probably the only thing knew for sure at that time.\" She talked to Gaddis about her father's death, and he told her he \"would really look out for me when was in the program,\" Knight said. \"At 19 was like, 'Wow, the ego on this guy to protect this young student who needs his protection,'\" Knight said. \"You get that feeling like this is gross. This is more than someone being kind. This is some kind of manipulation going on.\" Knight said Gaddis began to massage her shoulders, whisper in her ear and initiate hugs where he\u2019d grab her by the waist, pull her close and hold her \u201cfor several minutes\u201d as he spoke to her. When she didn\u2019t tell him to stop, he began pulling her onto his lap \u201clike Santa\u201d when they would meet in his office at Pellissippi\u2019s campus on Division Street, Knight said. It was not uncommon for him to pinch or pat her bottom afterwards, she said. \u201cIt\u2019s just all very inappropriate. So that was just sprinkled in all the time, any time saw him,\u201d Knight said, adding that Gaddis\u2019 interest in her became a running joke among her classmates. \u201cEverybody knew,\u201d she said. \u201c\u2018Tom Gaddis, oh Tom Gaddis is coming. Caitlin here comes your boyfriend.\u2019 It was normalized by everyone around me that he was a creeper, but nobody 2/13/25, 10:42 Pellissippi professor who sexually harassed student still has his job 2/7 really said, \u2018Hey, you should really speak out about this,\u2019 or, \u2018Hey, this isn\u2019t OK.\u2019 Being so young had no idea that had any power and was able to do anything.\u201d As coordinator, Gaddis seemed to be everywhere. Knight\u2019s cohort, a group of students that progress through a degree program together, contained about 20 students, and Gaddis advised them one on one. He also supervised instructors, taught classes and frequently stopped by classrooms and culinary events. Because of the power he wielded, many students believed Gaddis was a dean, three former students said. He\u2019s not. He answers to the dean of Business and Computer Technology; the Hospitality and Culinary Arts programs are concentrations within the school\u2019s two-year Business Administration program. \u201cHe\u2019s been at Pellissippi for so long\u201d \u2014 two decades \u2014 \u201cand he basically made it out like, \u2018I\u2019m the manager have total control over your grades can make you or break you,\u2019\u201d said Anna White, whose last name was Hickey when she was a culinary student at Pellissippi from 2011 to 2013. 'Oh, he does that to you, too\u2019 White was 22 years old when she was hospitalized and missed her class\u2019s orientation. Gaddis later gave her a one-on-one tour of the University of Tennessee Visitor\u2019s Center on Neyland Drive, where instructors teach cooking classes for Pellissippi\u2019s Culinary Arts program. Pellissippi\u2019s website describes the program as a \u201ccollaboration\u201d with UT. White said Gaddis suggested she ride with him in his car to the Visitor\u2019s Center. She turned down the offer and drove herself. As soon as she arrived, Gaddis ran over to her and insisted she hold his hand, White said. Throughout her time at Pellissippi, White said Gaddis gave her special treatment, allowing her to redo tests and homework assignments if she made a bad grade. He also gave her long hugs, looked her up and down, and made comments like, \u201cAnna, in another life would try to make you my wife,\" White said. Whenever she went to meet with him in his office, White said, \u201cHe would always pull me onto his lap and tell me, \u2018You know you\u2019re my favorite,\u2019 that kind of thing.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:42 Pellissippi professor who sexually harassed student still has his job 3/7 One day when White passed by Gaddis\u2019 office, the door was cracked. White said she looked inside and saw Knight on Gaddis\u2019 lap. \u201cMe and her talked afterward like, \u2018Oh, he does that to you, too,\u2019\u201d White said. \u201cWe kind of became close. We bonded over that.\u201d White never formally filed a complaint with Pellissippi, but she did talk to the Pellissippi official who investigated Knight\u2019s complaint. She spoke of her experiences with Gaddis then and said she didn\u2019t come forward earlier because she feared Gaddis would retaliate against her. \u2018Oh, he wants me to change in front of him\u2019 At a culinary event at Pellissippi\u2019s Division Street campus in the spring of 2013, Knight said Gaddis approached her and suggested she change her chef\u2019s coat. Knight said Gaddis took her into his office, handed her a spare coat, shut the door, wheeled a chair in front of it, sat down, and looked at her, saying nothing just go, \u2018Oh, he wants me to change in front of him,\u201d Knight said. Knight was only wearing a bra underneath her chef\u2019s coat. She said she faced Gaddis and quickly changed into the new coat while \u201cthinking he could not possibly do something right now.\" After she finished changing, Knight said Gaddis grabbed her hand and pulled her onto his lap was absolutely panicked and terrified that was going to be molested in some way,\" she said felt cold and dead, and he eventually opened his door and was like, 'Well, it's time to get back to the event, you've got to go remember thanking my lucky stars that nothing happened because think it would have broken me further.\" Then, in the fall of 2013, Knight said Gaddis gave her a wedgie when he stopped by Tyler White's cooking class at the University of Tennessee Visitor's Center. Tyler White is a chef at UT\u2019s Culinary Institute who is now married to Anna White. When Carole Gary, Pellissippi\u2019s human resources director, investigated Knight\u2019s complaint in December, she didn\u2019t speak to anyone who could say for sure that they witnessed the wedgie. 2/13/25, 10:42 Pellissippi professor who sexually harassed student still has his job 4/7 But Gary did talk to one former student in the class who reported seeing Gaddis\u2019 arm \u201changing behind\u201d Knight in the area \u201cof the center of her back and bottom,\u201d Gary wrote in her report. The former student said she couldn\u2019t see what Gaddis was doing but noticed Knight \u201chad a solemn blank stare and looked distressed.\u201d Knight told the former student later that week that Gaddis had reached inside her pants during class, according to Gary\u2019s report. Knight also confided in her then-roommate, Bailey Brown. Brown confirmed that Knight told her in 2013 about the wedgie and about changing in front of Gaddis. \u2018This is why women don\u2019t tell\u2019 Gaddis\u2019 behavior was not just reserved for students. Holly Knowling, a 52-year-old culinary professor at Pellissippi who shared an office suite with Gaddis until recently, said he subjected her for years to unwanted hugs and unwelcome comments. \u201c\u2018Looking at your butt is the best part of my day,\u2019 was a frequent statement got,\u201d she said. In 2015, Knowling complained about Gaddis to a coworker, who then reported the conversation to Pellissippi officials. During that conversation, Knowling said Gaddis often gave her hugs, introduced her to colleagues as his \u201cwife at work,\u201d initiated conversations \u201cof a sexual nature,\u201d constantly asked her to lunch, and frequently had closed-door meetings with female students. Knowling told the \u2013 Tennessee that she didn\u2019t tell her coworker everything Gaddis had said and done. She said she didn\u2019t know the coworker would report the conversation, and she didn\u2019t file a complaint herself because she feared retribution. \u201cIt was very uncomfortable with the way academia is set up,\u201d Knowling said. \u201cHe is the program coordinator, so he\u2019s not my boss, but he does make my schedule and sort of outlines every single thing do, and shared an office with him. It\u2019s pretty unrealistic to think that wouldn\u2019t be super uncomfortable.\u201d In September 2015, Knowling and Gaddis agreed to meet with a Pellissippi official to resolve the complaint. Gaddis acknowledged Knowling\u2019s \u201cconcerns and committed to not repeat the behaviors,\u201d an investigative report reads. 2/13/25, 10:42 Pellissippi professor who sexually harassed student still has his job 5/7 \u201cBoth parties stated they were satisfied with this outcome.\u201d Pellissippi, Gaddis respond Knight\u2019s complaint came more than two years later, but her allegations dated back to 2013 and 2014 \u2014 before Knowling\u2019s complaint. Although Pellissippi officials found Gaddis had sexually harassed Knight, they decided his actions \u201cwere not a continuation of previously warned against behavior,\u201d Carole Gary, Pellissippi\u2019s human resources director, wrote in an email. \u201cWe feel that appropriate action was to issue a warning and require Dr. Gaddis to alter his work habits and undergo training,\u201d Gary continued. \u201cIt is our belief that Dr. Gaddis corrected any inappropriate interactions in 2015.\u201d Gaddis remains the coordinator of Pellissippi's Culinary Arts program but is no longer the coordinator for the Hospitality program. That decision was not disciplinary, as it was made in September 2017, before Knight's complaint was filed, Gary said written reprimand issued to Gaddis in April details Pellissippi\u2019s response: Gaddis is not to touch students or faculty members unless it is required by the curriculum. Gaddis is not to give students rides in his car. He can give students rides in a college vehicle for college events if there is more than one student in the vehicle. Gaddis is not to have closed-door meetings with students. Gaddis is to complete sexual harassment training twice a year. Gaddis is to restrict his visits to the Culinary Institute, based on terms decided by his boss. (Gaddis is currently banned from UT\u2019s campus.) Pellissippi officials will conduct sexual harassment and misconduct training for all culinary and hospitality students each semester. When reached by email, Gaddis did not acknowledge interview requests and instead sent the following statement about Knight\u2019s allegations: \u201cIn late 2017 several accusations were made against me concerning conduct that was alleged to have occurred between 2012 and 2014 vigorously denied the allegations throughout the investigation process. In the end reluctantly chose to accept a written reprimand in lieu of continuing in my legal defense and incurring substantial legal costs. 2/13/25, 10:42 Pellissippi professor who sexually harassed student still has his job 6/7 am committed to following the steps outlined in the written reprimand and will strive to do my part to make the Culinary Program open and welcoming to all students and faculty, and free from any manner of discriminatory conduct.\u201d Gaddis did not respond to follow-up emails asking about the other women who accused him of sexual harassment. \u2018The domino effect\u2019 Knight left Knoxville in 2014 and moved back home to Franklin, Tennessee. She\u2019s now raising her toddler son and working toward becoming a certified life coach. Last year, Knight watched as the #MeToo movement empowered women across the country to share their stories of being sexually harassed and abused by powerful men. She thought about Gaddis. And she decided to speak out, she said, \"to go all the way until this man is in no way around students that he could potentially harm physically or mentally.\" \u201cThe emotional ride that you go on, through shaming yourself and feeling guilty and suppressing it and rationalizing it and the issues that spur from that, the domino effect, is really extensive,\" Knight said. \"Nobody deserves to go through that. And if can help it, then nobody will.\u201d Update: After this story was published, Pellissippi President L. Anthony Wise sent the following email to students, faculty and staff: \"By now am sure many of you have seen the article posted online today by the News Sentinel want to reassure you that we take allegations of sexual harassment such as this seriously. As you know, we support a safe campus environment and have procedures in place for anyone to report any violations. We encourage individuals who believe their rights have been violated to speak up and make their concerns formally known.\" Reach Travis Dorman at [email protected] or on Twitter @travdorman. 2/13/25, 10:42 Pellissippi professor who sexually harassed student still has his job 7/7", "7504_102.pdf": "Home \u00bb Types of Sexual Harassment at Work \u00bb Unwanted Touching Or Grabbing Harassment Attorney Unwanted Touching Or Grabbing California workplace harassment lawyers free evaluation & consultation | if no recovery, then no fee | no obligations 866-680-7184 2/13/25, 10:43 Unwanted Touching Lawsuit | Grabbing Harassment Lawyer California 1/10 Harassment Attorneys ( pellissippi-state-coordinator-accused-sexual-harrasment-tom-gaddis/735651002 community college professor in Tennessee was accused of pulling students onto his lap, holding them close, and even giving one a \u201cwedgie,\u201d where he reached down her pants to pull up her underwear state senator in Oregon was forced to resign after allegations that he had groped and repeatedly engaged in unwanted physical contact with several women in the state Capitol building, including at least one woman senator. Managers and cooks at a pancake restaurant in Illinois were sued for inappropriate touching of wait staff; their actions included pushing women up against a cooler wall, slapping their buttocks, and grabbing them by the waist as they simulated sex acts. 866-680-7184 2/13/25, 10:43 Unwanted Touching Lawsuit | Grabbing Harassment Lawyer California 2/10 These are just three of the many news stories that surfaced in the first part of 2018 about unwanted touching or grabbing in the workplace. The problem isn\u2019t uncommon; more than 25 percent of women, and in some estimates, as many as 85 percent, have been harassed at work. The gap is so wide because so many people do not report or talk about the unwanted physical or verbal harassment they receive, for fear of retaliation or getting fired from a much-needed job. Those fears are not unfounded. An analysis found that as many as 75 percent of women who formally reported sexual harassment in the workplace faced some type of retaliation, such as exclusion from meetings or promotions, or even termination. For that reason, many employees did not speak up, but told only a coworker or spoke informally with a manager. When Unwelcome Touching or Grabbing Equals Harassment The occasional pat on the back from a coworker or someone standing too close while you\u2019re trying to work may not constitute sexual harassment, but a pattern of physical touching certainly can. While in the workplace, you do not have to tolerate any touching that you don\u2019t want. In fact, some harassers enjoy pushing the boundaries just to see you get uncomfortable, or to see what they can get away with. Here are some examples of unwanted touch: You\u2019ll note that some of these don\u2019t even involve direct contact, but uncomfortable, unnecessary, or unwarranted proximity for the workplace. Some or all of these actions may create a hostile work environment that you don\u2019t have to tolerate. Why Isn\u2019t Unwanted Touching Reported More Often? One reason unwelcome touching doesn\u2019t get reported is because the victims second- guess themselves. \u201cMaybe he was just trying to be nice,\u201d they think. Or, \u201cMaybe he Hugging \u2022 Grabbing by the shoulders or waist \u2022 Groping \u2022 Giving \u201cmassages\u201d \u2022 Kissing (anywhere on your body, not just the lips) \u2022 Standing or sitting very close \u2022 Brushing against you \u2022 Whispering or getting very close to your face to speak \u2022 866-680-7184 2/13/25, 10:43 Unwanted Touching Lawsuit | Grabbing Harassment Lawyer California 3/10 just doesn\u2019t know that bothers me.\u201d In other cases, recipients of unwanted touching don\u2019t want to rock the boat, or simply don\u2019t know the best way to report the behavior. Many harassers have a pattern of these actions, and they\u2019re skilled at making it seem like they are completely innocent. In reality, they want to make you uncomfortable. They may intend to progress toward worse behavior, like stalking or sexual assault. When you consult an experienced sexual harassment attorney, you can get the support you need to stop the behavior before it moves from merely uncomfortable to downright dangerous. Plus, when people come forward and tell their stories, often other victims feel empowered to speak out as well. That\u2019s what makes reporting harassment important, especially when you work with a knowledgeable attorney who can guide you through the process. Why Is Unwanted Touching a Problem? In addition to typically violating California\u2019s Fair Employment and Housing Act, unwanted touching or groping is a problem that we should eradicate from the workplace for other reasons. Harassment in the workplace: Costs employers money. In 2015 alone, the federal government recovered $164.5 million for employees who made a case for harassment at work. That doesn\u2019t include what state regulators and private attorneys recovered for their clients. \u2022 Harms employees who are the recipients of unwanted touching. Physical, mental, and emotional damage due to unwanted touching and harassment can result in more sick days and higher medical costs as victims manage the impact of these negative behaviors. \u2022 Results in decreased productivity. Not only do harassers waste time by their actions, and victims must spend time moving away from or avoiding the harasser, but these problems hurt the productivity and morale of other employees who witness damaging behavior. \u2022 Leads to increased turnover. In many cases, employees simply quit to get away from unwanted touching or groping at work. Coworkers leave because they don\u2019t want to become the next victim, or they dislike seeing the harassing behavior. Employers lose valuable workers, and have to spend the time and money to train replacements. \u2022 866-680-7184 2/13/25, 10:43 Unwanted Touching Lawsuit | Grabbing Harassment Lawyer California 4/10 How Should You Proceed if You\u2019re the Victim of Unwanted Touch or Grabbing in the Workplace? You don\u2019t have to tolerate unwelcome touching. An experienced sexual harassment attorney can evaluate your case, and help you decide on the next steps. You can\u2014and should\u2014meet with a lawyer who has experience in these cases before you take any action, including internal reporting of the behavior to your human resources department. (Remember that H.R. exists to benefit the company, not individual workers like you.) An attorney can also help you document incidents of unwanted touching with dates, times, witnesses, and details of the encounter. Proper documentation is vital to building a case that will lead to changes in the workplace, and aid recovery of damages for your emotional distress or other harms suffered due to the misconduct. If you decide to file a claim, a knowledgeable lawyer can give you necessary support and advocacy, whether the case goes to mediation or litigation. Contact an experienced attorney today if you are experiencing unwanted touching or grabbing in your workplace. Makes qualified employees avoid the company. If a business develops a reputation as harboring harassers or tolerating harassing behavior, owners and managers may not attract top talent who hear about the problem. This issue can persist even if a company takes steps to discipline or remove harassers and institute training 866-680-7184 2/13/25, 10:43 Unwanted Touching Lawsuit | Grabbing Harassment Lawyer California 5/10 866-680-7184 2/13/25, 10:43 Unwanted Touching Lawsuit | Grabbing Harassment Lawyer California 6/10 866-680-7184 2/13/25, 10:43 Unwanted Touching Lawsuit | Grabbing Harassment Lawyer California 7/10 866-680-7184 2/13/25, 10:43 Unwanted Touching Lawsuit | Grabbing Harassment Lawyer California 8/10 If you are wronged, we will make it right. Schedule a free consultation or CASE* (We practice in California only REQUIRED* 866-680-7184 2/13/25, 10:43 Unwanted Touching Lawsuit | Grabbing Harassment Lawyer California 9/10 866-680-7184 free consultation Winer, Burritt & Scott \u00a9 2025. All rights reserved | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Law Firm by Rankings.io 866-680-7184 2/13/25, 10:43 Unwanted Touching Lawsuit | Grabbing Harassment Lawyer California 10/10", "7504_103.pdf": "The professor was not terminated or suspended Pellissippi State culinary arts professor is still teaching at the community college, even after an internal investigation found he sexually harassed a student. Administrators did not suspend or terminate Tom Gaddis, even after three allegations of sexual harassment and allowing sexual harassment to happen were investigated by the community college from 2012 through 2015. Instead, Pellissippi State President Anthony Wise sent a written reprimand to Gaddis. Wise wrote, \u201cIf any additional allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment are brought against Dr. Gaddis, the college will take immediate action.\u201d In one instance detailed in the investigative report completed by the school, Gaddis asked Caitlin Knight, a former Pellissippi State student, to change clothes in front of him. Investigation: Pellissippi State professor sexually harassed student, given written reprimand Author: Marc Sallinger (9 News) Published: 6:48 July 17, 2018 Updated: 10:30 July 17, 2018 \uf04b 2/13/25, 10:43 Investigation: Pellissippi State professor sexually harassed student, given written reprimand | wbir.com 1/3 \u201cShe was asked to change from her chef\u2019s coat into a chef\u2019s coat supplied by Dr. Gaddis while Dr. Gaddis remained in the office,\u201d the school\u2019s investigative report found. \u201cHe then pulled her into his lap and slapped her on the butt on her way out of the office.\u201d In an interview with 10News, Knight said Gaddis used his position as coordinator of the culinary arts program to pressure her into situations that made her feel uncomfortable. The events took place in 2013, according to the school. \"It was well known around that he had the ability to get you a job or to blacklist you,\" Knight said. \"It's really startling and hard to go back to and think about. It started with hugs and then the hugs got longer, the touches more lingering. Then closer to more inappropriate places, then pats on the butt as was going by or leaving.\" In another instance, Gaddis reached down Knight's pants and grabbed her underwear to give her a wedgy while others were around in the classroom. Knight is outraged by the school's lack of punishment for a man she said preyed on her while she was vulnerable grown man who has power, whether he's your professor or the dean of the program, he definitely used that power over me and other women,\" Knight said. In 2015, faculty member Holly Knowling filed a report with the college alleging Gaddis engaged in behavior that was construed as sexual harassment. Knowling said she supports the other two women who filed the reports, but declined to comment further as she is a member of the faculty. Pellissippi State responded with the following: \"All actions taken by Pellissippi State were done so under the policies and assistance of the Tennessee Board of Regents system office,\" the school wrote. \"We take every allegation and complaint seriously safe environment for teaching, learning and working is critical to any academic institution, including campuses free from harassment and discrimination in all its insidious forms.\" The school says the timeline of events was taken into account when determining the proper punishment for Gaddis. \"The complaint of sexual harassment made by Holly Knowling against Dr. Gaddis in 2015 was the first such complaint Pellissippi State received,\" the school wrote. 2/13/25, 10:43 Investigation: Pellissippi State professor sexually harassed student, given written reprimand | wbir.com 2/3 Gaddis was required to engage in sexual harassment prevention training following the 2015 allegation and the school says no further allegations were made until 2017 when Knight filed her complaint concerning Gaddis' actions in 2013. The school wrote that Gaddis had already changed his behavior and taken the sexual harassment training following the 2015 allegation. \"In determining the appropriate discipline for this complaint, the College has taken into consideration that the actions taken in 2015 were effective in modifying Dr. Gaddis\u2019 behavior,\" the school wrote. \"We have instituted additional restrictions, detailed in the April 3 written reprimand, on his interactions with students that should preclude any inappropriate behavior in the future.\" Gaddis recently stepped down from his position as coordinator of the culinary arts program. He has notified the university that he plans to take a medical leave in the fall, but states that he will still \"assist with administrative duties,\" as the doctor permits. Gaddis established the hospitality program at Pellissippi State in 1996 and was named hospitality educator of the year in 2008 by the Tennessee Hospitality Association. In the written reprimand, Wise also told Gaddis he cannot touch any student, cannot have closed door meetings with students, and must complete sexual harassment training. Knight says she hopes other women who have been through similar situations feel empowered to come forward with their own stories. She hope Gaddis is given a harsher punishment. \"It is extremely disappointing,\" said Knight. \"It was a huge opportunity for administrators to take responsibility and take action and say this is a broken system ARTICLE... 2/13/25, 10:43 Investigation: Pellissippi State professor sexually harassed student, given written reprimand | wbir.com 3/3", "7504_104.pdf": "34\u00b0 Knoxville Closings and Delays \uf00d 3 Weather Alerts In Effect \uf00d \uf0c9 News Watch Live First Alert Weather \uf002 Following an investigation into sexual harassment claims, a Pellissippi professor stepped down from his coordinator position at the community college. According to an investigative report released by Pellissippi's Equity and Compliance Office, a college student in the Culinary Arts Program between August 2012 and May 2014 took classes on Pellissippi's campus and at the Culinary Institute at University of Tennessee-Knoxville where Dr. Tom Gaddis was an instructor in Pellissippi's Hospitality and Culinary Programs. The report states that the student in question contacted human resources in early December 2017. She alleged that she had been \"a recipient of unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature from Dr. Gaddis\" when she was a student. The student was interviewed on December 5. In the interview, the victim said that when she started the culinary program, her father had recently passed away and, according to the report, \"she was in a very vulnerable place.\" According to her complaint, she thought Gaddis recognized her state of mind and initiated physical contact that was not wanted. According to the report, the student described it as an \"uninvited front to front hugging where Gaddis would hold her at the waist for an extended period of time while she tried to lean away from him.\" The student also described it as Gaddis \"coming up behind her and rubbing and massaging her shoulders; and placing his open hand on her bottom.\" That behavior, per the report, was \"pervasive and persistent\" during her time as a student. It is revealed in the report that, according to the student, Gaddis' behavior escalated over time in several \"major incidents.\" Pellissippi professor accused of sexual harassment (WVLT) By Maggie Gregg Published: Jul. 27, 2018 at 4:47 2/13/25, 10:43 Pellissippi professor accused of sexual harassment 1/8 The report lists three of those instances. The first, allegedly happened in the fall semester of 2013 in a culinary class where Gaddis was not the instructor. According to the student, the class was ending when Gaddis came into the room. The student alleged Gaddis came up behind her and \"reached inside her chef pants and grabbed her underwear and pulled up on it.\" She said that another student witnessed the incident. The second incident listed happened, according to the student, during a culinary event at the campus on Division Street. The student said Gaddis claimed her chef coat was not appropriately laundered and told her he had a spare coat for her to wear. He asked her to come into his office. According to the report, when the student followed him into the office, he closed the door, gave her the coat and placed his chair against the closed door. He sat in the chair, the student said, and nodded for her to change her clothes. The student said that Gaddis watched her change with only a bra on underneath her chef coat. She then claims that Gaddis pulled her into his lap as she tried to leave the room and held her there \"for a period of time.\" In the report, she said when Gaddis let her leave, he slapped her posterior as she exited the office. The third incident happened at an apartment in June of 2014. According to the student, Gaddis had helped her get the apartment and therefor knew where she lived. According to the report, one of the student's friends had been murdered the night before and Gaddis showed up to the apartment unannounced. He hugged her, the student said, and sent her upstairs to take a shower because he was going to take her out. She said she went upstairs, showered and changed quickly because she was afraid Gaddis would follow her. She said he took her out for drinks at Double Dogs near the Hardin Valley campus. After they both \"had a couple of beers each,\" the student said Gaddis began to initiate physical contact by putting his arm around her and pulling her head close to his. After, they left and went to a park where the student said Gaddis told her about his marriage, \"how it was a marriage of convenience and he and his wife had an understanding that they could 'go out on each other.'\" The student said she thought this was a \"less than subtle suggestion that he wanted to have sex with her.\" They left the park and returned to her apartment where, she said, they sat on the couch and he kissed her between her neck and face. She said she pulled away and he left the apartment soon after. When asked why the student did not report the incidents at the time or try to stop the behavior, the student said she \"didn't really know what to do about it and was unsure how to handle it.\" She alleged that Gaddis called himself the Dean of the department and knew he had a lot of power over her career as a student and culinary career. In the report, the student said she also knew that there was talk amongst students that Gaddis was known for that type of behavior. She believed, because many people knew about his actions, it must have been \"just the way it was.\" While she said she did not report the behavior, she discussed it with friends, who witnessed it and one experienced it as well. She said at the time she did not understand it was harassment. According to the report, she left soon after her friend died and moved back to Franklin, Tennessee. According to the report, Gaddis was interviewed on December 19 at the campus on Division Street with his attorney, John Lawhorn, in attendance. When interviewed, Gaddis stated he had no recollection of inappropriate hugging or rubbing of shoulders with the student. He did reveal that he may have reciprocated a hug that the student initiated. However, he claimed that the hug was frame\" like one would give relatives. He also did not recall touching her posterior and had no \"recollection\" of putting his hand inside her chef pants. Later, in an email to human resources, he denied reaching into her pants instead of having \"no recollection\" of the event and asked for more details on the incident, which human resources did not have at the time. He denied the allegations from the student saying he stayed in the office as she changed clothes and said that, instead, he waited outside. When asked about the events surrounding the visit to the student's apartment in June 2014, he did not answer at the advice of his attorney, stating that the student was not a student at that time. In the interview, Gaddis was asked if there were any witnesses to corroborate his story or character. He named a colleague. According to the report, Gaddis ending the interview saying that he does not hang out the with students, does not go to their parties or out for drinks with them. 2/13/25, 10:43 Pellissippi professor accused of sexual harassment 2/8 On December 21, human resources interviewed witness number one who stated she was a former Pellissippi State hospitality/culinary student. In the interview, she said she did no want to be identified because she was afraid of retaliation from Gaddis and was also afraid he would try to contact her. She alleged that, while she was a Pellissippi student, she experienced inappropriate physical contact of a sexual nature from him which began before, the report says, she was officially a student. The behavior included Gaddis insisting on holding witness number one's hand as they walked into the Visitor Center at despite her saying she did not need him to hold her hand. She claimed that he also initiated frequent and persistent hugs that were front to front where he would hold her in place around the waist and hold on \"a lot more seconds than he should have.\" The witness also said Gaddis held onto her shoulders from the front, massaged them at times and pulled her face close to his in an uncomfortable manner. Witness number one also claimed that he would pull her into his lap on occasion, sometimes behind closed doors in his office, sometimes with the door open. This witness said she saw Gaddis hug the student in question in a similar way in his office. She said she thought she got special treatment, such as being allowed to make up a test in the vestibule outside of his office if she missed, and thought that the student got the same treatment. The witness said Gaddis had a reputation amongst the students, and she tought some of the faculty, of being \"handsy\" with female students. She said the student shared with her at the time that she was experiencing unwanted physical contact from Gaddis. She said they discussed their similar experiences. The witness cited Gaddis' status in program and fear of retaliation when asked why she did not report the behavior or ask him to stop. She told the interviewer that she was good friends with the student and did not believe the student would make up the allegations. The report reveals that a second witness was interviewed on December 21. Witness number two stated that she was worried about retaliation from Gaddis and asked not to be identified. She also said she was not friends with the student and only knew her through school. Witness number two had a culinary class in the fall not taught by Gaddis, which she said, was when she believed she observed unwelcome contact from Gaddis to the student. She said that, as class was ending, Gaddis came into the room and worked his way over to the student. Witness number two said the student was standing behind a table across from the witness. Gaddis went to the student, the witness said, and stood closely behind her and talked quietly with her. She saw his arm hanging behind the student, in the area of the center of her back and posterior. She believed that something was going on due to the behavior of the student who was looking \"down at the table and looked very grim and blank.\" According to the report, witness number two said that the incident happened very quickly but it was one of those times where you see something happen that should not and you can't believe it. The witness did admit, however, that she could not clearly see what was happening and could not say for sure whether Gaddis had his hand in the student's pants. Witness number two did not experience similar behavior from Gaddis. She said in her interview she believed that was due to her having grown up with a strong father and three brothers and gave off \"vibes\" that she would not tolerate that. She did say that there was talk amongst students at the time that Gaddis was \"creepy\" with young women. Witness number two was asked if she thought the student would make up the allegations to which she replied, \"No, absolutely not third witness was interviewed on December 21. He was a student in the hospitality/culinary program and Pellissippi State at the same time as the student. Witness number three knew about Gaddis' behavior due to information from the student and witness number one. He said he saw Gaddis hug young female students with \"some frequency.\" The witness said it was common knowledge that Gadiss was inappropriate with some women, and it was talked about \"openly\" among students. According to the report, the student talked to witness number three shortly after the incident at her apartment in June 2014 and knew about the student's allegations. He said he heard about Gaddis reaching into the student's past first in the fall of 2015, from witness number two. two years after it was alleged to have occurred. In the report, it clarifies that witness number three did not have any first-hand knowledge of some of the more serious alleged events, and he revealed that he did not have any first-hand knowledge of Gaddis interacting with the student in question. However, in the interview, he said he had information that he thought \"would speak to Gaddis' character and personal integrity.\" According to the third witness, Gaddis had a \"bizarre habit\" of making things up and liked to tell tales about himself. In the interview, the witness said that Gaddis would tell students in his classes he had been a sniper with a secret organization but couldn't talk about it. He also told students that he was on the Clemson National Championship Football team, the witness said. He said students found the roster for that team, but did not see Gaddis' name on the list. 2/13/25, 10:43 Pellissippi professor accused of sexual harassment 3/8 Witness number three said he was very good friends with the student. When asked if the student could be fabricating the allegations, he said, \"Absolutely not, what would be in it for her?\" On January 9, 2018, human resources interviewed Chef Tyler White, an employee at the Culinary Institute at the University of Tennessee and worked closely with Pellissippi students enrolled in UT's culinary program, according to the report. He also worked closely with Gaddis. White said that Gaddis often visits his classrooms to check in on students or meet with White. At the beginning of the interview, the report says, White said Gaddis' attorney had contacted him already regarding the allegations that the student had against Gaddis. White said in the interview that he had seen Gaddis hug the student in a front to front manner on several occasions as well as hug other young female students over the year in the same way. He could not name a specific student or time, but claimed he had also seen him massage the shoulders of female students. The report then says White said Gaddis' attention were for young, pretty, white women. However, when asked if he had ever seen Gaddis reach inside the student's pants, White claimed he had never seen him touch anyone \"below the waist\" and had never seen him pull a female student into his lap. He did add that Gaddis paid an unusual amount of attention to the student while she was enrolled in the program. In the past year, White said, he had seen Gaddis exhibit a lot less of the hugging and shoulder massaging behavior with females. He described the student as \"very young and immature\" at the time she was in the program, but had matured a lot over the past few years. White said she was \"interesting\" and well liked by her peers, had ok grades and attendance. He said, at the time, she could be flirtatious and may have \"engaged in attention getting behavior.\" When asked if her flirtatious behavior would imply she initiated physical contact or hugging, White said, \"No wouldn't see her as someone who would have initiated anything like that,\" with Gaddis. White was asked if he thought the student made up the allegations. He said that she would not do it and affirmed that he had witnessed some of the things she alleged. White said, for his own part, he tried not to be one-on-one with students, but Gaddis would make it \"very clear to his students that they had to see him for advising,\" a one-one-one meeting. He also claimed that Gaddis would bring students to in his car and would be alone with female students then. The report describes three interviews with witnesses who all alleged that they had never seen any inappropriate conduct on Gaddis' part. All three of them were conducted on January 19, 2018. Witness number four, a former student in the hospitality restaurant management program at Pellissippi, said she talked to Gaddis for the first time when she was debating on whether or not to go back to school. In the interview, she said she would have nothing but good things to say about Gaddis because he had been a strong help to her during school and since the opening of her own restaurant. She claimed she never saw any inappropriate interactions with Gaddis that made her uncomfortable or she deemed inappropriate. Witness number four was asked about hugging, to which she revealed that she had hugged and been hugged by him but not inappropriately. She said that, due to her social nature, she occasionally initiated the hugs but mentioned that Gaddis never initiated hugs while in a classroom. Even in social settings, she claimed he was very professional. She said that she never heard any of the students speak about Gaddis as creepy or inappropriate and also said she never heard him talk about being in a secret organization as a sniper or being on the Clemson football team. She did not recognize or remember the student who had the allegations against him. Witness number five came to Pellissippi and the culinary program straight from high school. According to the report, in the interview she believed that Gaddis was warm, welcoming and generous and understood him to be \"the head honcho man\" who developed the curriculum. She also said Gaddis was easy to talk to and acted appropriately as a counselor when she opened up about her personal life. She said she had been hugged by him, but not inappropriately. 2/13/25, 10:43 Pellissippi professor accused of sexual harassment 4/8 She said that she never felt offended by him, that he always left his door open when they were talking in his office and she never experienced any inappropriate behavior with him. Witness number six was a student in the hospitality/management program. She claimed that, though she had seen Gaddis hug students, including her, it was never inappropriate. In the interview, she said he did not have children of his own and treated the students as substitutes, in a fatherly fashion and only wanted students to succeed. She revealed in the interview that she had already spoken with Gaddis' attorney and was told that there was an allegation against him by a student who was in an international cooking class, a class the attorney believed witness number six had taken at the same time. She said she didn't remember seeing Gaddis exhibit any inappropriate behavior in that class. She did say that she remembered the student with the allegations and stated that she was \"crazy\" and had \"no qualms about being herself.\" The student, at the time, was a bit of a \"loose cannon\" and you never knew what to expect, witness number six said. When asked about the allegations that Gaddis grabbed the student's underwear, witness six said it was surprising because he was so professional with her. She also said that she thought the student was \"laid back\" and \"chill\" and seemed to be the type to brush off that type of behavior so the student's allegations confused her. At the end of the report, the \"decision maker,\" official who determines whether or not a violation of any policies occurred based on the evidence, recommended that \"appropriate disciplinary action determined by management and human resources,\" possibly including further harassment training, be given. That decision was filed on March 3, 2018. On April 3, 2018, Gaddis was issued a written letter of reprimand stating that if any more allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment are reported against him, the college will \"take immediate action, including suspension of Gaddis with pay, if the the allegations are supported, the College will take appropriate disciplinary action up to and including termination.\" The reprimand also says, \"Dr. Gaddis is not to touch any student at any time except as necessarily required by the curriculum. Dr. Gaddis is not to touch any student or faculty member in or out of class for any other reason including but not limited to hugging and placing his hand(s) on another's body part.\" He was also instructed not to take students anywhere in his personal car and is not to have any closed door meetings with any students few months after the reprimand was issued, it was revealed that Gaddis stepped down from his position at Pellissippi as the school's Culinary Arts coordinator. Most Read 2/13/25, 10:43 Pellissippi professor accused of sexual harassment 5/8 \uf144 Murfreesboro mother\u2019s instincts leads to early cancer diagnosis for 9-month-old son \uf144 Mules that helped deliver Hurricane Helene disaster relief killed in tragic crash Jury finds Megan Boswell guilty of murder in death of her 1-year-old child \uf144 Mom of 2 kids who froze to death while sleeping in a van says she asked for help: \u2018I\u2019m sorry, but tried\u2019 \uf144 Knoxville\u2019s Gay Street Bridge to be converted to pedestrian crossing, mayor says Reports: JCPenney to close stores nationwide. Here\u2019s the list \uf144 \u2018It\u2019s going to be sad' | No federal funding expected in Morgan County following deadly tornado \uf144 Woman killed day after ex-fianc\u00e9 bonds out of jail, dad says: \u2018If he\u2019d just stayed in there...' 2/13/25, 10:43 Pellissippi professor accused of sexual harassment 6/8 Latest News \uf144 \u2018Stronger than it\u2019s ever been System President Randy Boyd giving annual \u2018state of the university\u2019 address \uf144 The Scent of Strength: Marine Corps veteran turns soap-making into a healing business \uf144 Cold and dry through Valentine\u2019s Day with another round of rain and storms this weekend \uf144 \u2018It\u2019s been so long' | Family of Tennessee astronaut excited for return after months of delays in space \uf144 Marshals arrest man wanted on child sex crime charges out of Alcoa, Marshals say \uf144 Maryville teacher placed on suspension after facing DUI, drug charges 2/13/25, 10:43 Pellissippi professor accused of sexual harassment 7/8 calm evening seeing the stars with a chilly Friday ahead \uf144 Jury finds Megan Boswell guilty of murder in death of her 1-year-old child Public Inspection File Public Inspection File [email protected] - 865-450-8888 Terms of Service Privacy Policy Applications Statement Closed Captioning/Audio Description Advertising Digital Marketing At Gray, our journalists report, write, edit and produce the news content that informs the communities we serve. Click here to learn more about our approach to artificial intelligence Gray Local Media Station \u00a9 2002-2025 News First Alert Weather Sports Video Support Local Businesses 6450 Papermill Drive Knoxville 37919 (865) 450-8888 2/13/25, 10:43 Pellissippi professor accused of sexual harassment 8/8"} |
8,329 | Michael O’Mahony | University of California – Davis | [
"8329_101.pdf",
"8329_102.pdf",
"8329_103.pdf"
] | {"8329_101.pdf": "Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 In some cases, harassment, assault spans months or even years CW: Sexual assault, violence, harassment Last fall Davis officials from Strategic Communications sent The California Aggie a total of 19 cases representing all substantiated complaints of Davis employees found to be in violation of the Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (SVSH) Policy between the time period of 2016\u201318. The case reports and summaries totalled just under 700 pages and each case report was heavily redacted. The Aggie spoke with university officials in the Strategic Communications and the Public Records Office as well as the university\u2019s Title officer in relation to the cases and combed through each and every page to summarize the findings of each case. These documents were released upon the submission of a public records request for Title documents from at least six news media outlets. Instead of releasing the documents publicly itself on the Davis website, for instance, the Director of News and Media Relations Melissa Blouin said the university decided to send the documents to The Aggie as a courtesy while also responding to the parties that submitted the initial request. Each case includes a \u201crespondent,\u201d the accused, and either one or multiple \u201ccomplainants,\u201d the accuser(s). The names of the respondents in the initially-released 14 cases were redacted, but the names of the respondents in the last five cases were included. The university investigator assigned to each case also interviewed witnesses with relevant knowledge of the situations at hand. \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 1/23 Even in cases of misconduct substantiated by university findings, if the respondent is not a \u201chigh-level public official or does not hold a special position of trust in relation to the complainant,\u201d disclosing their identity would \u201cconstitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,\u201d according to the media response letter from the university sent alongside the cases. In most, if not all, of these cases, the respondents repeatedly downplayed and defended their actions, sometimes claiming that cultural differences were an explanation for their behavior \u2014 such as in the case of former Food and Sensory Science Professor Michael O\u2019Mahony who was found to have engaged in a pattern of misconduct and said Americans don\u2019t \u201cget\u201d irony when asked about his actions, or in the case of current Symphony Conductor Christian Baldini who claimed his misconduct toward a student was the result of his Argentinian heritage or of an unnamed male professor who said his kiss on the cheek of a female student could be chalked up to custom. Additionally, the complainants in these cases frequently expressed fear of retaliation if they reported. The timeframe of harassment reported by the complainants ranged from one incident to months or even years of misconduct. Wendi Delmendo, the Davis chief compliance and Title officer, said the university is participating in outreach efforts and has the Center for Advocacy, Resources and Education as a means to help campus community members feel safe coming forward to talk about sexual harassment or assault. In the 2016\u201317 year, the university received 105 reports of sexual violence while in the 2017\u201318 year, there was a total of 344 complaints sexual harassment, sexual violence or other prohibited behavior resolved through informal resolutions or formal investigations. Corrective action for each respondent was determined on a case-by-case basis. While some individuals who violated policy were terminated from their position or resigned in lieu of intended termination, others received lesser actions, such as in case 170215 in which a respondent who was found to have harassed a co-worker from 2013\u201317 received a 15-day suspension without pay. Delmendo said corrective action is influenced by different policies that relate to staff members versus faculty members and whether the employees are union or non-union members. During this specific 2016\u201318 time period, there were also policy changes stemming from legal developments as well as a systemwide consultations. When asked how she thought the release of these cases would impact the university\u2019s image, Delmendo said she hoped the impact would be positive, \u201cto show the university takes these things seriously, and when we receive these reports we look into them and when they are substantiated we take corrective action.\u201d The following are 19 different cases in which complaints brought against Davis employees between 2016\u20132018 concerning sexual harassment, assault and/or violence were found to be substantiated through a university investigation. The Aggie has summarized each report for length and clarity. All of the quotes are taken from official case documents. Each case no. is hyperlinked with the entirety of the official case document as released by the university to The Aggie. Professor\u2019s 30-plus years of misconduct Case No.: 160142 Respondent: Professor Michael O\u2019Mahony \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 2/23 Outcome: Resigned in lieu of intended termination Michael O\u2019Mahony, a professor at Davis, was alleged of three violations of university policy, with the first allegation being substantiated as a violation of both policy and of the Faculty Code of Conduct. The university substantiated the allegation that O\u2019Mahony had made \u201can unwelcome and demeaning comment of a sexual nature\u201d to a graduate student in April of 2016. According to several sources interviewed in relation to the investigation, O\u2019Mahony had a well-known reputation and history of saying \u201cpolitically incorrect\u201d comments, \u201cdating back to at least the late 1980s.One source stated that a female friend had requested their presence at a meeting with O\u2019Mahony in the early 80s \u201cbecause she was uncomfortable with things he had said to her.\u201d O\u2019Mahony had a well-known reputation and history of saying \u201cpolitically incorrect\u201d comments, \u201cdating back to at least the late 1980s. \u201cThere is a long history of complaints regarding O\u2019Mahony\u2019s conduct and previous substantiated allegations of sexual harassment, indicating a pattern,\u201d the university concluded. \u201cHis behavior demonstrates either an inability or unwillingness to cease introducing subjects of a sexual nature into his interactions with students.\u201d The earliest sexual harassment complaints filed against O\u2019Mahony appear to be from 2007, during which time he reportedly passed around pornographic cartoons in a class he was teaching. In 2011, he made a comment alluding to students offering up sex in return for better grades. In 2013, he was found to have sexually harassed a staff member, leading to a temporary reduction in his salary. That same year, he made a student uncomfortable after calling her \u201cgorgeous\u201d and \u201cexotic.\u201d Also in 2013, he made a comment insinuating that students \u201cput out\u201d for good grades. He was counseled in 2016 after an allegation regarding inappropriate touching. As a result of the investigation, O\u2019Mahony resigned in lieu of termination on Feb. 28, 2017. Professor sexually harassed student, later threatened her Case No.: 160045 Respondent: Professor Nilesh Gaikwad Outcome: Resigned in lieu of intended termination The complainant in this case is a graduate student who received unwanted comments about her appearance, unwanted gifts and a hug and kiss on the cheek from Nilesh Gaikwad, a former Davis nutrition and environmental toxicology associate professor, whose lab she worked in. The student was retaliated against when she returned the gift to Gaikwad \u2014 she underwent private and public criticism, received threatening comments and had her projects assigned to other people. \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 3/23 The sexual harassment began in 2015 with an invasion of personal space \u2014 Gaikwad reached over the student and used her computer mouse with her hand still on it. Gaikwad disputed this account, instead saying it was the student who was inappropriately close to him on multiple occasions and who touched him inappropriately. Gaikwad wrote in an unspecified letter that the student \u201cis cute,\u201d and later denied that he wrote this. The student said Gaikwad inappropriately hugged her, pressed his body against hers and held her for an extended period of time. She was later gifted a purse containing chocolates from Gaikwad, which she later returned to him through a co- worker. The co-worker placed it on Gaikwad\u2019s desk with a note saying the student \u201cfelt it was inappropriate\u201d and requested that he \u201crespect her personal space.\u201d Gaikwad then crumpled the note and threw both it and the purse into the trash. Gaikwad denied ever giving the student a gift, claiming that he bought the purse on clearance, had it lying around in his car and said the student misinterpreted the gesture as a gift. After this, there was another incident in which the student described being forcefully hugged and restrained by Gaikwad while the two were both working on a piece of broken lab equipment. \u201cHe held on to me put my arms down and tried to get away but he would not let go, as was trying to get away and pulling back, he pulled in and kissed my cheek,\u201d the complainant said in the case report felt disgusted, uncomfortable and realized that he was definitely not hugging me professionally.\u201d Gaikwad denied this account, saying he \u201cwas sweating and does not see how she could view the hug as romantic.\u201d He wrote in a response to the complainant that it was customary to give someone you know well a kiss on the cheek when hugging them. The student also described a final incident where Gaikwad showed her a PowerPoint slide which contained the word \u201cCuTe.\u201d He dismissed this, saying he was showing her an organization\u2019s promotional material. Gaikwad was found to have engaged in unwanted sexual conduct and it was found that the workplace became \u201cintimidating and offensive as a result of\u201d his actions. It was also found that Gaikwad\u2019s actions after all of the alleged harassment took place constituted retaliation, such as when he publicly criticized her in a lab meeting. Gaikwad was found to have violated the Faculty Code of Conduct and University Sexual Harassment policies. While what appears to be Gaikwad\u2019s professional website claims that he \u201cleft his tenure track professor position at Davis to start worlds (sic) first steroidomics company,\u201d he actually resigned from his position in lieu of intended termination. Four employees report postdoc for unwelcome sexual misconduct Case No.: 170080 Respondent: George Chenaux, former postdoctoral researcher Outcome: Early termination \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 4/23 Four employees came forward in February of 2017 to report \u201cunwelcome conduct of a sexual nature\u201d from George Chenaux, a former postdoctoral researcher at Davis, occurring over the prior 18-month period. The university substantiated allegations from three of the complainants, but one of the substantiated allegations was found not to be in violation of policy. \u201cComplainant 2\u201d reported that Chenaux pushed the complainant against a wall and rubbed his body against hers. He only stopped once she elbowed him in the face. \u201cComplainant 3,\u201d a different individual in the case, described Chenaux as her superior, reported that he frequently touched her without her consent over a period of 18 months despite being told not to on numerous occasions. He only stopped once she elbowed him in the face. Complainant 2 also described Chenaux as more senior than her and a fellow colleague whom she has a strictly professional relationship with. In January of 2016, however, at a celebratory event, Chenaux was drinking in excess and began touching her inappropriately little while later, after the complainant purposefully evaded Chenaux, he found her, pressed her against a wall and grinded on her. She told him to stop, but eventually had to use force to get him to move away. Complainant 3 said Chenaux would frequently place his hands on her hips and physically move her to the side instead of asking her to move. Though she asked him to stop, he would just laugh in response. On one occasion, Chenaux requested to speak with Complainant 3 alone. Though she did not feel comfortable doing so, she felt she had to speak with him because he was her superior. Chenaux accused her of turning him in and became \u201cvery hostile\u201d and \u201cberated her.\u201d She left this meeting in tears. \u201cIt was an obvious and brazen move to intimidate me and make me feel silent,\u201d she said in the report. Ultimately, University Investigator Carl L. Reed concluded Chenaux committed sexual violence against Complainant 2 and sexually harassed Complainant 3. Chenaux was subject to a termination of his postdoc appointment earlier than the previously-intended termination of his position. Six employees report colleague for misconduct at Davis hospital Case No.: 170385 Respondent: Clinical Nurse Antonio Martinez Outcome: Resigned in lieu of intended termination This case involves six complainants who alleged their coworker, Antonio Martinez, a clinical nurse, engaged in unwelcome behavior while they worked together at Davis hospital. In September of 2017, \u201cComplainant 4\u201d informed a manager that Martinez had touched her inappropriately on a number of occasions. After an official from Harassment & Discrimination Assistance and Prevention Program (HDAPP) followed up with the managers of the employees in this case, six complainants emerged. \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 5/23 All six of the complainant\u2019s reports were substantiated and a university investigator determined that the reports given by Complainants 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Martinez\u2019s behavior violated policy. Martinez engaged in inappropriate touching, unwelcome physical conduct, along with invading personal space and using inappropriate and unwelcome language of a sexual nature. \u201cComplainant 3\u201d said at first she thought Martinez\u2019s constant attention was nice \u2014 he walked her to her car, offered to pay for meals and brought her blankets so she could take a nap \u2014 but she soon became uncomfortable and began parking farther away so he wouldn\u2019t follow her out to her car. She told Martinez to stop because it was making her uncomfortable, but he laughed in response as if \u201cit was all a joke.\u201d Between 2008\u201310, Complainant 3 said this behavior occurred on a daily basis. \u201cThe more she told him to stop, the more [he] seemed to touch her,\u201d the case states. In 2012, Complainant 3 moved to a managerial position. Around 2016, Martinez was banned from working on the complainant\u2019s unit \u201cbecause of his conduct towards women co-workers.\u201d She believed Martinez targeted a specific group of women \u2014 she, along with Complainant 1 and 2, are all young, married women. Complainant 3 also said Martinez is known as \u201cthe pervert\u201d at work and is around 60 years old although he tells people he is 35. Complainant 3 also said Martinez mentioned a previous sexual harassment case lodged against him which his lawyer took care of. The university investigator asked Martinez about a previous sexual harassment case during the investigation. He denied anything of the sort, even after he was shown an official Letter of Counseling and Letter of Warning concerning his sexual harassment of another individual who was not one of the six complainants in this case. He denied ever being told \u201cthere is no touching in the workplace\u201d and said he did not recall being told by the sexual harassment analyst not to engage in behaviors such as \u201ctickling, massages and hugging.\u201d Complainant 4, 5 and 6 said after they began to fully rebuff Martinez\u2019s advancements, he began completely ignoring them at work. Martinez, a senior nurse, would no longer offer either his expertise or help at work, and became hostile and aggressive and encouraged others to reprimand them. Complainant 5 stated that Martinez cornered her in an unconscious patient\u2019s room and slapped her butt. After a complaint against Martinez was filed by the complainants in this case, he continued working during the investigation. This made many of the complainants uncomfortable to the point of missing work to avoid him. \u201cThe fact that [he] is still working is preposterous,\u201d Complainant 4 told university investigators don\u2019t know that would have made the decision to come forward knowing what know now.\u201d Complainant 5, also upset with the way the case had been handled \u2014 and the fact she still had to work with Martinez \u2014 said will never come forward again.\u201d In response, Martinez told university investigators he believed that all of the individuals who came forward with allegations against him conspired together and \u201cfabricated\u201d the sexual harassment complaints. In addition to the six complainants, a number of other witnesses interviewed as part of this investigation, including other nurses, said Martinez had, at one point, made them feel uncomfortable, touched them inappropriately or acknowledged that they had witnessed him touching others inappropriately. \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 6/23 Ultimately, Reed, the aforementioned university investigator, and the Chancellor\u2019s Legal Fellow Sylvia E. Cunningham concluded Martinez created a hostile work environment for some of his colleagues, engaged in sexual harassment and made both the individuals he harassed uncomfortable as well as those who witnessed the harassment. As a result, Martinez resigned in lieu of intended termination. Conductor who engaged in misconduct with student returns to position Case No.: 170177 Respondent: Christian Baldini, symphony conductor Outcome: Returned to position after quarter-long suspension In place of attaching a case report, university officials sent The Aggie a link to The Sacramento Bee\u2019s article detailing the decision by Davis officials to place Christian Baldini, who still serves as conductor of the university\u2019s Symphony Orchestra, on unpaid administrative leave in late 2017. Baldini was found to have engaged in misconduct of a sexual nature directed toward an undergraduate student who subsequently left the university because of the incident. Baldini \u201cengaged in conduct that included touching this student\u2019s hands and shoulder, dancing with her alone (including touching her waist and spinning her, leading to her buttocks being held against [his] body), and kissing this student\u2019s cheek,\u201d according to the letter of censure which was sent to The Aggie by university officials in 2018. At this time, The Aggie reported that the letter was not placed in Baldini\u2019s academic review file. In a prepared statement sent to The Aggie via email in 2018, Baldini said that although \u201cnothing sexual was intended\u201d he deeply regretted \u201cthat over time this was perceived by [the] student in such a way.\u201d He also referenced his Argentinian heritage as justification for his actions. \u201cMy faults are failing to recognize that my behavior could have a reaction in her that was unintended,\u201d the statement read feel contrite and remorseful that one of my students would have felt this way by something did, and deeply apologize for any stress and pain this may have caused.\u201d Baldini was placed on unpaid academic leave during Winter Quarter 2018 and has since returned to his position. Employee found to be \u201cstalking\u201d student Case No.: 170436 Respondent: University employee, name redacted Outcome: Terminated from position \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 7/23 The complainant in this case is a student who moved into a dorm building in fall of 2017. The respondent in this case is a university employee who was lofting beds in student housing when he met the complainant. The complainant thanked him for lofting her bed, and he began to talk with her for half an hour, complimenting her smile. The complainant would see the respondent around her dorm building and in the dining commons and say hello. In October of 2017, she received a Facebook friend request from him and was unsure how he found her, as he did not know her last name. He also messaged her and told her she could talk to him at any time. In mid-October, the respondent began leaving post-it notes on the complainant\u2019s bedroom door in her dorm. She reflected on their previous interactions and became uncomfortable with his prior actions. She told university officials she felt freaked out because she knew he had access to her dorm room. The complainant reported his behavior to university officials and, in a meeting with his supervisors, the respondent said his behavior wasn\u2019t meant to be predatory, and \u201che was just friendly.\u201d In an interview related to the investigation, however, the respondent admitted he was not friends with any other students on Facebook and had not left notes for other students. Video evidence shows the respondent visited the residence hall where the complainant lives \u201cnumerous times\u201d \u2014 approximately seven of the 12 days during the two-and-a-half week period between move-in day and the day the respondent was ultimately placed on leave. \u201cRespondent acknowledged that he did not have work orders for projects in that building at that time,\u201d the report states, adding that there was no work-related reason why he would go to the upstairs floor of the residence hall the complainant lives on, yet he did on at least five occasions during this time frame. One of the witnesses interviewed by the university investigator said the respondent does occasionally check out young girls, and will sometimes follow them a short distance or start chatting with them and has made comments such as, \u201cshe\u2019s hot.\u201d This university investigation found the respondent\u2019s conduct met the definition of stalking, his conduct created an intimidating and offensive environment for the complainant, and he ultimately violated the university\u2019s sexual harassment policy. The investigation also concluded the respondent\u2019s conduct was sexual or romantic in nature. When asked how he would feel if his daughter were in the complainant\u2019s situation, the respondent said he would be upset. When asked how he would feel if his daughter were in the complainant\u2019s situation, the respondent said he would be upset. \u201cThat statement supports that he understood his behavior reasonably appeared romantic of sexual in motivation,\u201d the report states. Although the university investigator explicitly stated it did not seem the respondent\u2019s behavior was meant to hurt or frighten the complainant, because of his persistence in visiting her place of residence without any business being there, a \u201creasonable person\u201d in the complainant\u2019s position would fear for their safety and experience emotional distress. Ultimately, the respondent was terminated from his position as a Davis staff member. Volunteer coach assaulted student \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 8/23 Case No.: 150331 Respondent: Unnamed volunteer coach Outcome: Terminated from position This case, lodged by a Davis student against a volunteer coach for a club sports team, regards a series of incidents, including one in which the coach, the respondent in the case, had inappropriately touched the student, the complainant in the case, \u201cby attempting to put his hand in her pants without her consent after he insisted on staying the night in her apartment\u201d in May of 2014. The incident was brought to Delmendo on Nov. 1, 2015. As part of the university\u2019s investigation, 13 witnesses were interviewed over a three-month period. In May of 2014, the complainant went out drinking with members of her sports club. After consuming several beers, the complainant became \u201crelatively intoxicated,\u201d and she and the respondent went to her home, where he asked to be let in to use her bathroom. He ended up staying and talking with the complaint about her past relationships. He told her that she \u201cshouldn\u2019t be alone and he would stay over,\u201d at which point the complainant retrieved a sleeping bag and told him he could sleep on the floor beside her bed. The respondent said he couldn\u2019t sleep and said she should lay down beside him. Feeling intimidated and not knowing what do do, she joined him on the floor. \u201cSoon after she laid down next to [redacted], he began touching her,\u201d according to the case report. \u201cHe groped her chest and then he put his hand down her pants and touched her vagina. At that point [redacted] said she pushed him away, got up from the floor and said, \u2018Stop. Don\u2019t touch me.\u2019 [\u2026] He left when she left for class the next morning.\u201d There was an email exchange between the two soon after the incident. In one of the complainant\u2019s emails to the respondent, she stated: \u201cwithout my consent nor knowledge (you) decided to act upon that assumption feel upset and uneasy. What happened was highly inappropriate because you are my [redacted] teacher opened up because believed to be safe with you.\u201d The complainant decided to leave the club after what happened, and then later left Davis entirely. In response, the respondent denied being able to even recognize the complainant, even \u201cif she was in the room right now.\u201d He denied ever touching her genitals and claimed he did not remember going to her apartment. When shown the email exchange between the two of them, he said, \u201cWow do not recall having this conversation with her [\u2026] She\u2019s saying groped her don\u2019t do anything like that. Not one kid in the club would say groped them.\u201d Bruce H. Hupe, the investigations coordinator for this case, wrote in the report that \u201cemail exchanges with [redacted] the day after the alleged assault provides convincing evidence that what she alleges happened did in fact occur and serves to undermine his credibility.\u201d The university issued the respondent three violations of policy: his conduct \u201cunreasonably interfered\u201d with the complainant\u2019s education and \u201ccreated an intimidating, hostile, and offensive learning environment in violation of the University\u2019s Sexual Harassment policy in place at the time\u201d; his \u2018couch-surfing\u2019 at the complainant\u2019s home was \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 9/23 \u201cunusual and inappropriate,\u201d constituting a behavior that could be expected to \u201cdetract from the reputation of the University\u201d and the respondent was found to have sexually harassed the complainant. As a result of the investigation, the respondent was terminated from his position. Six undergraduate student interns issue complaints of misconduct Case No.: 160127 Respondent: Unnamed staff member Outcome: Resigned from his position This investigation, begun in May of 2016 and conducted by Ellis Buehler Makus LLP, regards six undergraduates students, all of whom were interns and all of whom filed complaints with the university alleging that the respondent in the case engaged in \u201cconduct of a sexual nature with student interns.\u201d Zee Syed, who prepared the university\u2019s report, affirmed that the respondent had engaged in \u201cconduct of a sexual nature that interns, faculty, and staff members found offensive. He made sexual jokes and innuendo, watched videos containing sexual content, and organized performances on campus that were sexual in nature.\u201d Syed also affirmed that the respondent\u2019s conduct violated university policies prohibiting sexual harassment, given that conduct included \u201cmaking sexual jokes and comments, watching videos of a sexual nature, and arranging performances at [redacted] Day that were laced with sexual innuendo. The conduct was offensive to reasonable people.\u201d As part of the investigation, 16 individuals were interviewed in May and June of 2016. According to one account, the source interviewed \u201cfound these [sexual] jokes embarrassing, but reluctantly participated in them because she did not know how to react.\u201d The source also said that the interns favored by the respondent \u201cwere also the ones who made sexual jokes most frequently.\u201d \u201cHe was looking at the interns bodies and evaluating them,\u201d one source said, adding that the respondent \u201coften prefaced comments by saying don\u2019t want to go to sexual harassment training again,\u2019 implying that he had been to training because of the comments he made in the past.\u201d An eighth account from a source who also recounted inappropriate comments made by the respondent said she feared that if she reported the conduct, the contract for her position would not be renewed. Ultimately, the university\u2019s investigation substantiated the allegation that the respondent had made and encouraged interns to make sexual comments and jokes. The university did not substantiate the claim made by the respondent that the allegations made against him were an attempt to get him in trouble because they had a personal relationship with \u201ca former intern who previously made a complaint against him.\u201d The respondent also allegedly put on \u201craunchy\u201d videos and movies for the interns, which contained \u201csexual content.\u201d The investigation substantiated the claim that the respondent played or allowed interns to play a video titled \u201c[Redacted] Can\u2019t Stop Thinking About Sex.\u201d One intern, who felt uncomfortable watching one of these videos, continued watching \u201cbecause it was the start of her internship and she did not feel comfortable making a scene.\u201d \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 10/23 The investigation also found that the respondent had, on one occasion, given the complainant\u2019s phone number out, leading to harassment separate incident involves a \u201csexually-laced performance\u201d that likely occurred at Picnic Day 2015, though the title of the event appears in the case documents as [Redacted] Day 2015. One intern said they saw the respondent ask another intern \u201cto find some male friend who would conduct a strip show during the [redacted] demonstration.\u201d According to the same account, \u201cThe men were reluctant to participate and [redacted] told them he would provide them with alcohol to boost their courage.\u201d Two additional allegations against the respondent are redacted in their entirety, as are six documents, included because they contained information relevant to the case. In the 64-page case document, pages 44 through 63 are entirely redacted \u2014 on page 64, the only non-redacted content is the conclusion which states, \u201cThis Report concludes the investigation,\u201d and Syed\u2019s signature. The respondent was ultimately found to have \u201cengaged in conduct that violated UCD\u2019s Sexual Violence and exual Harassment policies.\u201d Based on a on \u201cpreponderance of evidence,\u201d the respondent engaged in unwelcome and offensive conduct of a sexual nature that impacted learning and work environments. As a result of the investigation, the respondent resigned from his position. Faculty member accused of misconduct retaliated after rejection Case No.: 160131 Respondent: Unnamed faculty member Outcome: Nine-month monetary sanction, not reappointed The respondent in this case was found to have engaged in \u201cunwanted touching\u201d and told the complainant in this case he had \u201cdeveloped feelings for her.\u201d After the complainant rejected his advances, the respondent \u201ctreated her differently, including denigrating her to others.\u201d The investigation began in June of 2016 and ended that September. The case\u2019s complainant describes incidents that occured in June of 2015, including multiple embraces instigated by the respondent. At one work party, the respondent told the complainant he felt \u201creally good with her\u201d and, in response, she \u201cmanaged to get out of the situation by indicating she felt a paternal connection to him.\u201d About two weeks later, another hugging incident occurred. The complainant \u201cacted cold to stop the embrace.\u201d The respondent apologized via text. With the help of a second party, the complainant drafted a response in which she stated that she thought of him \u201cas a father-figure, and they needed to keep the relationship professional.\u201d The second party told the complainant to report the behavior, but she did not want to. The following Monday, the respondent told the complainant \u201che had feeling for her and wanted to treat her like a daughter, but couldn\u2019t help but see her as attractive [\u2026] [and] that she needed to be careful around him because he would have trouble controlling his emotions.\u201d This is when the witness first noticed the respondent \u201cwas treating her differently, and felt he was retaliating for her rejection of him.\u201d \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 11/23 the respondent told the complainant \u201che had feeling for her and wanted to treat her like a daughter, but couldn\u2019t help but see her as attractive [\u2026] [and] that she needed to be careful around him because he would have trouble controlling his emotions.\u201d The complainant found that this situation impacted the work environment, a lab, finding \u201cit stressful to be there.\u201d One outside source interviewed as part of the investigation said the respondent treated \u201cwomen differently in general, as though they are below him.\u201d \u201cIt seems like if a women questions him or does something he doesn\u2019t like, he will target them for poor treatment,\u201d the source said fourth source who, given her position, \u201cwas required by policy to report the behavior,\u201d was unhappy with how the department handled the case initially, as the lab became a hostile workplace fifth witness, who is unidentified but appears to be the respondent, denied that he shared romantic feelings, and said he never gave the complainant compliments on her appearance and said the complainant was resistant to criticism, which frustrated him. The respondent was found to be in violation of the Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence policy and the Faculty Code of Conduct. As a result of the investigation, the respondent received a nine-month monetary sanction and did not receive a reappointment. Supervisor terminated after sexually harassing employee Case No.: 160405 Respondent: Unnamed supervisor Outcome: Terminated from position The respondent in this case, a supervisor of the complainant, \u201cmade inappropriate comments of [a] sexual and flirtatious nature,\u201d including suggesting sexual favors in return for money, in October of 2016 and again that December, which were found to have violated the University\u2019s Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy. \u201cComplainant stated [it is] uncomfortable for her at work because she does not want to say anything in front of Respondent that could possibly open up to a \u2018joke\u2019 turned sexual \u2018insinuation,\u2019\u201d the case states. \u201cComplainant stated she hopes the complaint results in her not feeling uncomfortable at work in the future.\u201d \u201cComplainant stated she hopes the complaint results in her not feeling uncomfortable at work in the future.\u201d \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 12/23 The complainant made a report to the assistant manager about the second incident, which the assistant manager was required to report. The respondent completely denied either incidents occurred, according to the report, calling it \u201ca lie, a fabrication\u201d and claiming the complainant wanted to get him in trouble. He also said he does \u201cnot have time for the stuff that am being accused of saying.\u201d With regard to another incident where the respondent called another person in the workplace \u201cbaby girl,\u201d he said that he had taken measures to learn to not repeat such behaviors, such as taking cultural awareness classes and online sexual harassment training. He used this as reasoning for why he would not have done what he was alleged to have done by the complainant. The investigator ultimately concluded that \u201cRespondent engaged in sexual harassment in violation of University of California\u2019s Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy.\u201d As a result of the investigation, the respondent was terminated from his position. Employee sexually harassed, verbally assaulted by faculty member Case No.: 170024 Respondent: Unnamed faculty member Outcome: One-month suspension without pay The complainant in this case was touched inappropriately by the respondent in this case on multiple occasions, including a time in October of 2016, where he slapped her butt, and a second set of incidences between November and December of 2016, where he poked her in the ribs and in the stomach on more than one occasion. The university found that the respondent engaged in sexual harassment in violation of the policy. This includes \u201cunwelcome physical conduct [that] was sexual in nature,\u201d which interfered with the complainant\u2019s employment and \u201cwould be perceived as offensive or intimidating to a reasonable person.\u201d The complainant described verbal abuse from the respondent, including a time where \u201che grabbed a garbage can and told her that her research was trash.\u201d The respondent threatened her termination in front of the lab manager and students. He \u201cwould say that she looked like a 5 year old girl\u201d and \u201cdescribed the lab environment as \u2018hostile.\u2019\u201d On one occasion, when the complainant was bending over and reaching into a drawer, \u201cout of nowhere\u201d the respondent \u201chit her on the bottom [\u2026] pretty hard, enough to surprise her.\u201d The complainant recalls telling him to stop and \u201cdescribed the event as emotionally painful.\u201d She also \u201creported being \u2018quiet from her husband and the whole world,\u2019\u201d following the incident. Witnesses were present when this occurred and a complaint was then lodged with HDAPP. The complainant recalls telling him to stop and \u201cdescribed the event as emotionally painful.\u201d The respondent randomly poked the complainant\u2019s ribs on multiple occasions. After he did this, the complainant would tell him \u2018no\u2019 and, in her interview, she said she stopped working with him because this behavior persisted. \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 13/23 As a result of these incidents, the complainant \u201creported ongoing physical symptoms, including gastrointestinal issues, nervousness and sleeplessness,\u201d which were classified as potentially impeding or interfering with the complainant\u2019s employment. The respondent denied \u201cengaging in any verbal berating,\u201d denied or did not recall poking the complainant\u2019s ribs and denied hitting the complainant on the buttocks, stating he may have brushed against her. The investigator did not find this excuse to be supported. As a result of the investigation, the respondent received a one-month suspension without pay. Employee fearful of retaliation after rejecting advances from colleague Case No.: 170035 Respondent: Unnamed staff member externally contracted Outcome: Referred to external contractor for discipline This case regards a male employee at the Davis Medical Center who was \u201crepeatedly and inappropriately touched\u201d on his arm, back and shoulders, and had \u201cinappropriate comments of a sexual nature [made] toward him\u201d by a female respondent. According to the preponderance of the evidence, it was substantiated that the respondent in this case engaged in sexual harassment in violation of the Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment policy. It was supported that the respondent \u201cengaged in unwelcome physical conduct\u201d when he touched the complainant inappropriately and engaged in \u201cunwelcome verbal conduct,\u201d which included insinuating that the complainant \u201chad engaged in sexual conduct as an explanation for his \u2018good mood.\u2019\u201d It was concluded that this conduct was of a sexual nature, and that it \u201cwas sufficiently severe or pervasive to impede or interfere with [the complainant\u2019s] employment.\u201d The complainant described how pervasive the inappropriate touching was, including how the respondent would say tell him to \u201cwork his magic\u201d and how she would get extremely close to him, so close that \u201che could see the blackheads on her nose and smell her breath.\u201d Her breasts were described as rubbing on people because of how close she would get to them. The respondent also \u201copenly discussed details of her personal life\u201d and made a comment about the complainant\u2019s sex life. The complainant became concerned about \u201cpossible retaliation for not returning or showing [\u2026] affection.\u201d He also \u201cdescribed getting a \u2018bad\u2019 or \u2018weird sick\u2019 feeling in his stomach that he compared to being \u2018pulled over by the police\u2019 or \u2018panic\u2019 when he would see [the respondent].\u201d The complainant became concerned about \u201cpossible retaliation for not returning or showing [\u2026] affection.\u201d People referred to his harasser as \u201chis girl\u201d and would ask him where she was if she was not around him. The complainant initially wished to remain anonymous and not file a formal complaint. After the complainant reported \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 14/23 the behavior to his union representative, he felt that he was treated differently. The respondent \u201cstopped touching him, began giving him \u2018stank eyes,\u2019\u201d and \u201cstopped talking to him.\u201d The respondent, in her interview, asserted \u201cshe did not agree\u201d with the allegations against her,\u201d denied any inappropriate touching and alleged there was a conspiracy, with people \u201cin \u2018cahoots\u2019 to get her out.\u201d The respondent said that \u201cif she is \u2018guilty\u2019\u201d of anything it was \u201ctelling people to do their jobs\u201d and said this is \u201ccharacter assassination.\u201d Accounts from witnesses contradict the respondent\u2019s account. The investigator of this case found no motive for the complainant to lie about what he reported and found evidence to support the complainant\u2019s late disclosure of the incidents after he was unhappy with the response from management. As a result of this investigation, the respondent was referred to the external contractor for discipline. Employee pursued sexual relationship with undergraduate researcher \u201cagainst her wishes\u201d Case No.: 170047 Respondent: Unnamed staff member Outcome: One-week suspension without pay, no reappointment There are six allegations brought against one respondent in this case, three of which were substantiated in part and three of which were fully substantiated. It was partly substantiated that the respondent had made unwelcome and sexually suggestive comments in 2015 to an Undergraduate Researcher university investigator found this occurred once and was not a repeat incident. It was also partly substantiated that at a social event, the respondent \u201cstood uncomfortably close to A\u201d and \u201cput his hands on her waist without consent university investigator found the respondent did not persist when she told him to stop touching her. The next day, the respondent wanted to talk to alone did not want to be alone with Respondent and her \u2018stomach dropped,\u2019\u201d she said in her interview told Respondent that everything that went down at the party was really inappropriate and she was uncomfortable and did not want anything like that to happen again [\u2026] Respondent told he did not mean to make her uncomfortable and he was sorry.\u201d After this happened described worsening working conditions, where the respondent would \u201csingle her out\u201d and \u201cmake up rules that applied only to her.\u201d She described him as \u201cconstantly \u2018pissed off fifth allegation asserts that the respondent pursued an intimate relationship with B, a separate undergraduate researcher, \u201cagainst her wishes.\u201d This allegation is supported by evidence and was substantiated in part. The university substantiated the fact that the respondent suggested should \u201cleave her position in the laboratory due to their conflict.\u201d \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 15/23 recounted that she had attended a party, to which other people had been invited, but only the respondent attended. She recalled kissing him, but texted him after clarifying that she had no intention of having any further sexual contact because of their working relationship. \u201cDuring that conversation, Respondent said, \u2018you kissed me, so there must have been some sort of attraction,\u2019\u201d the report states. \u201cRespondent did not accept her saying \u2018no.\u2019 He continued to ask her out on a date told him she was not interested in dating him. He implied that they could have sex together, which she also refused. After the two had a normal conversation \u201cthought things would be fine and they would continue being friends.\u201d As time passed, however, \u201cthings got progressively \u2018weirder began avoiding the lab in order to avoid the respondent. When she did go into the lab, the respondent asked her why she would not date him \u2014 according to the interview, \u201chis voice was raised and he was very frustrated described it as a draining three-hour-long conversation.\u201d In this conversation recalled the respondent insinuating that she should leave the lab. \u201cRespondent told her that he did not know if he wanted to keep her because he was not getting what he wanted,\u201d the report states. \u201cIn her interview said she did not realize that this was \u2018textbook sexual harassment.\u2019 [\u2026] [He said] that it seemed like a one-way street where she was getting what she wanted, i.e. to stay in the lab and not sleep with him, but he was not getting what he wanted reported the respondent\u2019s conduct to a faculty member who told her that this was the third complaint he had received about the respondent in the timespan of one week. The university\u2019s investigation concluded that the respondent engaged in unwelcome sexual conduct and created a hostile work environment. As a result of the investigation, the respondent received a one-week suspension without pay, his appointment was ended and he was not reappointed. Supervisor exposed himself to employee Case No.: 170141 Respondent: Unnamed staff member Outcome: Terminated from position This case of a female employee filing an official complaint with her supervisor was brought to the attention of the Davis Harassment & Discrimination Assistance and Prevention Program. The male employer inappropriately touched her without her consent and exposed his penis in April of 2017. Although the respondent denies these allegations, all of these complaints levied by the female employee were substantiated through interviews with five different individuals and available video footage. \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 16/23 On April 10, the respondent asked the complainant in the case to \u201chang out\u201d in the designated supervisors\u2019 office during the middle of her shift. She complied and, during the meeting, the respondent made the complainant aware that he was her new supervisor \u2014 a fact substantiated by a university investigation. He told her if she needed time off, he could work it out. At this point in the conversation, the respondent touched her leg inappropriately. When the complainant attempted to leave, the respondent asked her why she was \u201cacting so shy\u201d and exposed himself. \u201cFollowing these incidents, complainant was visibly shaken, she missed work and her schedule was adjusted so she could work in another facility away from [the] Respondent because she was uncomfortable being around him and feared retaliation,\u201d the report states. Available video footage shows the complainant exiting the office before the respondent, appearing \u201cvisibly uncomfortable.\u201d The complainant in the case initially avoided explicitly naming the respondent, her supervisor, to avoid \u201cgetting him in trouble.\u201d She \u201ccited concerns about Respondent\u2019s financial well-being\u201d and \u201cdescribed fear of retaliation.\u201d \u201cShe is worried that if people find out she reported Respondent they will be angry with her because he has so many friends that work there,\u201d the case reports. \u201cAt the same time, she couldn\u2019t not say anything. She was too uncomfortable with the idea of being around Respondent. She was also worried about having him as her supervisor.\u201d \u201cShe is worried that if people find out she reported Respondent they will be angry with her because he has so many friends that work there,\u201d The complainant also addressed concerns about the respondent gaining access to her personal home address. University officials concluded the respondent engaged in unwelcome sexual conduct, created a hostile work environment for the complainant and violated sexual harassment policy, resulting in his termination from the university. Employee seeks mental health treatment after being sexually harassed by supervisor Case No.: 170183 Respondent: Unnamed staff member Outcome: Terminated from position This case, filed May 9, 2017, regards a female employee who filed an official complaint against her male supervisor after she sought out anxiety medication from her doctor in order to cope with her uncomfortable work environment. Three years before the male respondent in this case was hired as a supervisor, there was a complaint about him from another female employee who said he had \u201cbothered her\u201d and made her uncomfortable. He was subsequently moved to another area, but nothing ever came of it because, according to him, the woman \u201cpulled the case because she didn\u2019t want to pursue it.\u201d \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 17/23 The female complainant in this case alleged the respondent, her supervisor, began visiting her at her work station numerous times a week after promoting her. Over a two-month period, he began referring to her as \u201ccute girl\u201d at work instead of by her name, would make comments about her appearance such as, \u201cWhy do you always look so good?\u201d and \u201cYou\u2019re so cute\u201d and referred to employees he did not like as \u201cbitch\u201d and \u201cfucking bitch.\u201d On one occasion, the respondent said \u201cIf you want a job at Davis, it\u2019s called \u2018no blow job, no job\u2019\u201d and \u201cit\u2019s not who you know, it\u2019s who you blow\u201d to another male supervisor in front of the complainant. After that conversation, she thought he might be insinuating that she perform a sexual favor for him. After two months of this behavior, the complainant sought mental health help because she was having anxiety attacks at work, she could not sleep and her eating habits had changed. According to the report, she told her doctor that, at times, \u201cshe would get so emotional that her heart would be pounding, her hands would get sweaty and she had so much adrenaline she felt she was going to explode.\u201d She was also scared to be at work. The respondent had made it clear to the complainant who he did and did not like. On one occasion, when he saw her talking with someone he disliked, he got very angry and aggressive with her, demanding to know what they talked about. \u201c[In April], complainant lied to Respondent and told him she had a family emergency because he wanted to meet with her and she was really afraid of him and did not want to meet with him,\u201d the report states. \u201cThere were times she got so scared of [the] respondent that she started shaking.\u201d On one occasion, the respondent grabbed her shoulders \u2014 \u201cshe was hoping the interaction would end, but she did not feel she could tell her supervisor to leave \u2014 and she feared retaliation if she reported him. \u201cshe was hoping the interaction would end, but she did not feel she could tell her supervisor to leave \u2014 and she feared retaliation if she reported him. \u201cOn the one hand, she felt she should have told him to leave her alone. But she did not want to upset him,\u201d the report states. \u201cShe said she was worried if she told another supervisor, they would protect him. [\u2026] Complainant had not said something earlier because she felt Respondent had her job in his hands. She worried that the only way to get a job at Davis might be through him, and he had said he would do his best to get her in here. Eventually, though, she decided that her job was not that important and she \u2018just can\u2019t deal with it emotionally.\u2019\u201d While some of the 16 witnesses interviewed by the university investigator said he is a hard worker and professional at work, others corroborated what the complainant alleged, one said \u201che is a perv,\u201d another said they, too, were made uncomfortable by him and had asked not to be left alone with him, but she did not report his behavior because \u201cshe needed the job.\u201d While the respondent did acknowledge he made a comment about performing sexual favors to get promotions at the university, he denies much of what complainant alleged, claiming she might be making up these claims to get a promotion of her own. At a meeting with management and the union, union organizers said they wanted the respondent placed on leave, insinuating they knew of at least five complaints against the respondent. Following a university investigation, it was concluded the respondent in this case created an environment that was intimidating, offensive and hostile and engaged in unwanted sexual conduct. He was terminated by the university. Employee subjected to misconduct from co-worker from 2013\u201317 \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 18/23 Case No.: 170215 Respondent: Unnamed staff member Outcome: 15-day suspension without pay The complainant in this case reported her co-worker at Davis health after she was subjected to \u201cinappropriate jokes\u201d and \u201cinappropriate remarks of a sexual nature\u201d from 2013 to 2017. The respondent called the complainant \u201cpretty\u201d and \u201cgorgeous,\u201d made suggestive comments about her body and watched her in her home, accused her husband of cheating on her with another man and discussed his own sexual experiences in front of her. In 2017, the complainant made the university aware of her co-worker\u2019s harassment. The complainant had attempted to resolve the situation unsuccessfully in 2013 when she decided to meet with another employee and request sexual harassment training be given to the entire department. In-person sexual harassment was given to the entire department. The complainant hoped the comments from the respondent would stop, \u201cbut it continued and it got worse and worse as the years went by.\u201d The complainant hoped the comments from the respondent would stop, \u201cbut it continued and it got worse and worse as the years went by.\u201d In 2016, the complainant said the comments became more sexually suggestive. He alluded to the fact there might be cameras in her office watching her, and from then on she became paranoid of the possibility of hidden cameras. She became afraid to go to her car don\u2019t know if he told me this to intimidate me, harass me or bully me just know that couldn\u2019t protect myself against him and it made me afraid,\u201d the complainant said in the report just don\u2019t want to have to deal with that anymore.\u201d The report states the complainant feared reporting the respondent because \u201cshe understood that it is hard to prove sexual harassment cases because respondent\u2019s comments often occurred while they were alone don\u2019t understand why he tells me these things don\u2019t know what to do,\u201d the complainant said don\u2019t understand why feel this way wish was stronger but get paralyzed.\u201d At the time of the investigation, the respondent disclosed that a former manager of his made accusations against him four years earlier but nothing came of it. During the investigation, two witnesses said the respondent frequently pulled up photos of 18 to 19-year-old girls and commented on their looks. The university concluded the respondent accused created a hostile work environment for the complainant as well as those who overheard the comments he made to her. As a result of this investigation, the respondent was subject to a 15-day suspension without pay. Employee bombards other employee with texts messages, shows up outside of her home \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 19/23 Case No.: 170421 Respondent: Unnamed staff member Outcome: 10-day suspension without pay The complainant in this case reported the respondent in this case to in October of 2017 for continuous and unwanted flirtatious behavior occurring over a six-month period, the sending of unwanted text messages and gifts and requests to go out on a date. All of the allegations were substantiated by a university investigation. \u201cBetween Complainant\u2019s last message to Respondent and a March 2017 message where Complainant asked Respondent in writing to stop texting her, Respondent sent Complainant more than 100 unanswered text messages,\u201d the report states. \u201cHe kept messaging her until she blocked him on text and Facebook.\u201d \u201cHe kept messaging her until she blocked him on text and Facebook.\u201d The text messages sent by the respondent asked the complainant to go out to eat or get coffee, referenced the complainant\u2019s physical appearance and offered gifts or personal favors. The complainant had asked the respondent to stop messaging her. \u201cComplainant started her interview by saying that she didn\u2019t really want to be here,\u201d the report states. \u201cRespondent had done a lot of things that she thought were inappropriate, but she had just hoped it would blow over.\u201d The complainant in the case began to fear for her safety after the respondent pulled up to her in his car when she was walking and, on a different occasion, when she saw him outside of work circling the block. She feared she was being followed. Once, she watched footage from cameras at her house that showed a car resembling the respondent\u2019s pass by and brake in front of her house. The university\u2019s investigation concluded Respondent repeatedly flirted with the complainant over the timespan of approximately a year, and that the respondent sent unwanted text messages \u201ceven after Complainant sent Respondent a text reminding him that she wanted a strictly professional relationship and explicitly asking him to stop contacting her over text.\u201d The investigation also found the respondent gave unwanted gifts, asked the complainant out on a date and appeared at the complainant\u2019s house. Ultimately, the university found the respondent to have acted in a manner that could be qualified as stalking and in violation of the university\u2019s sexual harassment policy. The respondent was subject to a 10-day suspension without pay. Professor sexually harassed student employee in his lab Case No.: 170496 \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 20/23 Respondent: Unnamed faculty member Outcome: Four-month suspension without pay In November of 2017, a graduate student employee, \u201cWitness A,\u201d emailed Delmendo to relay allegations made by a former student employee who they supervised. The student, an undergraduate and the complainant in this case, had made a number of allegations against her boss, a faculty advisor and professor at the university. The professor, the respondent in this case, supervised the complainant, an undergraduate researcher in his lab at Davis. The complainant began working in the respondent\u2019s lab to fulfill her research requirement. The complainant and respondent had a friendly relationship, occasionally getting food and drinks together, and the complainant would dogsit for her boss. On more than one occasion, the respondent asked the complainant why she was so tense and if he made her uncomfortable. During her interview with a university official, the complainant said she was uncomfortable but didn\u2019t feel comfortable with confrontation, though she did tell him she was tense on a number of these situations. She told another student employee \u201cshe didn\u2019t know what to do because Respondent was her boss.\u201d \u201cshe didn\u2019t know what to do because Respondent was her boss.\u201d \u201cComplainant [\u2026] thought that Respondent saw her as a daughter, so she did not see it coming when \u2018things escalated and got creepy,\u2019\u201d the report states. He complimented her smile and started telling her to smile when he walked into the lab while she was working. \u201cWhile working together in the lab, Respondent would ask her to smile and touch her hair,\u201d the report states. \u201cRespondent offered to increase Complainant\u2019s pay [\u2026] in an effort to have her stay on an his employee. [\u2026] The Complainant noted that she doesn\u2019t want to ruin Respondent\u2019s life [and] doesn\u2019t want him to lose his job.\u201d During his interview, the respondent said \u201cmost of this comes from misunderstandings, misinterpretations, some small lies and some truth.\u201d He feels he\u2019s being wrongly portrayed as a sexual predator when, in reality, he said that \u201che felt compassion and misplaced parenthood.\u201d Witnesses interviewed as part of this investigation noticed the inappropriate relationship that had formed between the complainant and the respondent. Witness told university officials during this investigation they had warned the respondent that the rumors that were being spread about his relationship with the complainant could be \u201clife ruining\u201d and told him to go to therapy. \u201cShe told Respondent to get his priorities straight, everyone is upset partially because they care about him and the wellbeing of the lab,\u201d the report states. \u201cHe was putting himself in emotional and professional danger.\u201d Once chatter began to increase in the lab, respondent brought the graduate students and postdocs into his office and drew an elephant \u201cto represent the elephant in the room.\u201d He said he had no sexual feelings for the complainant, that he knows others in the lab have been avoiding her and she is a sensitive person and said \u201che felt under attack.\u201d \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 21/23 Witness G, who saw the complainant and respondent out getting drinks and cozying up to each other one night, said when she saw the other two, they were all embarrassed. Later, the respondent told the others in the lab not to trust what Witness was saying. The situation \u201cgot really bad\u201d around August of 2017. At this time, the respondent gave the complainant a notebook. In the book, he had written that his happiest moment was kissing her on the cheek on his birthday, although that had never happened. The book disturbed the complainant, and she didn\u2019t want to keep it but figured she might need it for proof as part of a process like this investigation. The complainant began changing her work hours to avoid her boss and avoided cafes and restaurants he frequented. In September, the complainant called Witness H, a former student employee, crying and confided in them. That same month, the respondent sent the complainant an email in which he asked her not to leave the lab and said their relationship could be strictly professional. \u201cBy the time you asked if you were making me uncomfortable felt threatened and totally shut down,\u201d the complainant wrote in an email university investigation substantiated that the respondent invaded the complainant\u2019s personal space, touched her on more than one occasion and put his hand under the back of her tank top and made comments about her, including calling her \u201cthe highlight of the lab.\u201d In response, the respondent said at the times these situations occurred, his memory was \u201ccloudy\u201d and he was medicated. The investigation found the respondent\u2019s behavior could be constituted as of a sexual nature, that his sexual conduct was unwelcome, that he created a hostile work environment and, ultimately, that the respondent violated sexual harassment policy. \u201cGiven the power differential between the parties and the fact that Respondent consistently asked Complainant if she was uncomfortable only after he already had started touching her, it is not surprising that Complainant would not speak out to tell him he was making her uncomfortable in the moment,\u201d the report states. The respondent was subject to a four-month suspension without pay. Three employees complain of unwanted sexual advances from co-worker Case No Respondent: Unnamed staff member Outcome: Two-week suspension without pay There are three complainants in this case: Complainant A, Complainant and Complainant C. All three allege the respondent in this case, a female Davis staff member, acted inappropriately toward them. Complainant charges the respondent with making unwelcome comments of a sexual nature to her and engaging in sexual advances. Complainant says the respondent made offensive statements and verbally harassed her. And Complainant says the respondent told her she could be her girlfriend or \u201cgirlfriend on the side.\u201d Complainant alleges the respondent made sexual advances in January of 2015 in person and over text messages. She reported these advances to her supervisors and said the situation had caused her so much distress that she fell \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 22/23 physically ill and missed work. Complainant said the respondent told her she was a closeted lesbian and needed therapy. After confronting the respondent about something work-related, the respondent said Complainant was a bad person because of her religion, which is \u201canti-gay.\u201d She also said the respondent \u201cused her size and voice to intimidate her.\u201d But Complainant stood her ground. She did not tell anyone what the respondent had said to her, but the respondent told other people. \u201cComplainant did not report the incident at the time because she did not want Respondent to lose her job,\u201d the report states. Complainant said in the fall of 2015, the respondent had put her arm around her while at work and said she could be her girlfriend. After Complainant reported the situation to her supervisor, her supervisors asked if she knew of any similar situations involving the respondent and said she was required to report these. Complainant knew about the situation involving the respondent and Complainant because the respondent had told her about it and she reported it to her supervisors. After reporting, the respondent told others Complainant was raising these concerns because she is homophobic. \u201cComplainant expressed she is certain that if a male employee was hitting on Respondent even after she made it clear that she was a lesbian and was not interested, Respondent would see it as an assault on her rights and would be trying to get the person fired,\u201d the report states. During her interview with a university investigator, the respondent said \u201cthis smells like homophobia don\u2019t know if she would have responded this way if a man had made those comments,\u201d the respondent said. \u201cMaybe it triggered something in her that she hadn\u2019t thought about with her sexuality; maybe the only thing she knew how to do was report and push me away.\u201d The investigation concluded the respondent created an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment for Complainant B. Her conduct toward Complainant violates the university\u2019s sexual harassment policy. But the evidence does not substantiate that the incident between the respondent and Complainant could be concluded as having violated the sexual harassment policy. As a result of these findings, the respondent was placed on a two-week suspension without pay. Written by: Hannah Holzer and Kenton Goldsby \u2014 [email protected] \ue809 2/13/25, 10:43 Documents reveal 19 substantiated cases of employee sexual misconduct at Davis between 2016\u201318 - The Aggie 23/23", "8329_102.pdf": "Michael O'Mahony Home \u2022 People \u2022 Michael O'Mahony Michael OMahony, Ph.D. Professor and Sensory Scientist Emeritus Food Science and Technology \uf879 (530) 756-5493 \[email protected] \uf6ffResearchGate 2/13/25, 10:43 Michael O'Mahony | Food Science and Technology 1/7 19XX-2024 Food Science (1977-2017) Food Science and Technology Professor O'Mahony retired in March of 2017. Degree Ph. D. University of Bristol, 1972 Research Professor O\u2019Mahony performed research in the senses and brain processing and how they relate to sensory and consumer testing. Topics like bias in fine discriminations between similar foods, bias when estimating the strength or liking for food flavors, vanishing tastes and smells, inventing a language for flavor, solving the problem of false preferences and designing a food that people will like, even though it doesn\u2019t yet exist. Professor O'Mahony conducted this research so that better methods could be developed for sensory and consumer testing. Selected Publications Wichchukit, S., O\u2019Mahony transfer of technology from engineering: Use of curves from signal detection theory to investigate information processing in the brain during sensory difference testing. Journal of Food Science, 2010, 75, R183-R193. M. Santosa, M. O\u2019Mahony. Sequential sensitivity analysis for same-different tests: Some further insights Journal of Sensory Studies, 2008, 23, 267-283. R. Ishii, C. Stampanoni, M. O\u2019Mahony comparison of serial monadic and attribute-by- attribute descriptive analysis protocols for trained judges. Food Quality and Preference, 2008, 19, 277-285. R. Ishii, H, Kawaguchi, M. O\u2019Mahony, B. Rousseau. Relating consumer and trained panels\u2019 discriminative sensitivities using vanilla ice cream as a medium Food Quality and Preference, 2007, 18, 89-96. H-J. Kim, S.Y. Jeon, K-O. Kim, M. O\u2019Mahony. Thurstonian models and variance I: Experimental confirmation of cognitive strategies for difference tests and effects of perceptual variance Journal of Sensory Studies, 2006, 21, 465-484. Nicolas, L. Marquilly, C., O\u2019Mahony, M. The 9-point hedonic scale: Are words and numbers compatible? Food Quality and Preference, 2010, 21, 1008-1015 Weiss, B.H., O\u2019Mahony, M., Wichchukit, S. Various paired preference tests: Experimenter effect on \u2018Take Away\u2019 choice. Journal of Sensory Studies, 2010, 25, 778-790. 2/13/25, 10:43 Michael O'Mahony | Food Science and Technology 2/7 O\u2019Mahony, M. The tetrad test: Looking back, looking forward. Journal of Sensory Studies, 2013, 28, 259-263. Awards and Honors Keys of the City of Veracruz, Mexico Extension of Knowledge Activities 107 - Food Sensory Science 117 - Design and Analysis for Food Sensory Science 217 - Advanced Food Sensory Science Short courses in United States of America, Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, Costa Rica, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Norway, Korea, China, Philippines, Thailand, Australia and New Zealand Seminars in United States of America, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Neitherlands, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Korea, China, Thailand, Philippines Davis Department of Food Science and Technology \uf3c51136 Robert Mondavi Institute North Building 595 Hilgard Lane Davis 95616 \uf879(530) 752-1465 Follow Us \uf09a \uf08c \ue61b 2/13/25, 10:43 Michael O'Mahony | Food Science and Technology 3/7 University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis 95616 | 530-752-1011 Privacy & Accessibility Principles of Community University of California Sitemap Last update: February 28, 2024 Copyright \u00a9 The Regents of the University of California, Davis campus. All rights reserved. This site is officially grown in SiteFarm. 2/13/25, 10:43 Michael O'Mahony | Food Science and Technology 4/7 2/13/25, 10:43 Michael O'Mahony | Food Science and Technology 5/7 2/13/25, 10:43 Michael O'Mahony | Food Science and Technology 6/7 2/13/25, 10:43 Michael O'Mahony | Food Science and Technology 7/7", "8329_103.pdf": "Confidential Investigation Report July 20, 2016 To: Maureen Stanton Vice Provost-Academic Affairs Wendi Delmendo Chief Compliance Officer Re: Michael O'Mahony 1. Introduction is a graduate student in the department. Michael O'Mahony was continued her professional relationship with O'Mahony and was his On April 2016, former academic advisor, in a public area of the was visiting with , when O'Mahony approached and joined their conversation, making a comment about the reason why his lab. had left On May 10, 2016, we were charged with investigating the allegation that O'Mahony made an unwelcome and demeaning comment of a sexual nature during that April conversation. We were provided a deadline of August 4 to complete this report. The University of California Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment policy requires a preponderance of the evidence standard. Preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence on one side outweighs, preponderates over, or is more than the evidence on the other side. Faculty disciplinary procedures require a clear and convincing evidence standard. Clear and convincing evidence means that the evidence is highly and substantially more likely to be true than not. II. Summary of Allegations and Findings Allegation 1: O'Mahony allegedly made an unwelcome and demeaning comment of a sexual nature to a graduate student on April 2016, in the presence of her former academic advisor Finding on Allegation 1: This allegation is substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, and is found to be a violation of the Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment policy, and of the Faculty Code of Conduct. Confidential Investigation Report O\u2019Mahony\u20147/20/16 Page 2 of 17 Allegation 2: Finding on Allegation 2: This allegation is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Allegation 3: Finding on Allegation 3: This allegation is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. III. Applicable Policies 015, The Faculty Code of Conduct Types of unacceptable conduct: 1. Failure to meet the responsibilities of instruction, including: a. Arbitrary denial of access to instruction; b. Significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course; c. Significant failure to adhere, without legitimate reason, to the rules of the faculty in the conduct of courses, to meet class, to keep office hours, or to hold examinations as scheduled . . . 2. Discrimination, including harassment, against a student . . . for reasons of . . . sex . . . physical or mental disability . . . or for other arbitrary or personal reasons. 3. Violation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines, applying to nondiscrimination against students on the basis of disability Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment a. Sexual Harassment is unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual natures when . . . ii. Hostile Environment: such conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it unreasonably denies, adversely limits, or interferes with a person\u2019s participation in or benefit from the education, employment, or other programs and services of the University and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find to be intimidating or offensive. b. Consideration is given to the totality of the circumstances in which the conduct occurred . . . Confidential Investigation Report Confidential information may not be released without the student's written consent specifying the records to be disclosed and those to whom the disclosure can be made... IV. Evidence Regarding the Allegations Witnesses Name Title Date Interviewed 5/25/16 Professor, 6/2/16 student 6/2/16 Professor Emerita, 6/2/16 Postdoctoral Scholar 6/8/16 Professor. 6/18/16 Michael O'Mahony Respondent 6/18/16 Attachments 1. 2. 3. 4 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 12. 13. Interview Summaries O'Mahony-7/20/16 his interactions with Page 3 of 17 Confidential Investigation Report O'Mahony were minimal, taking place primarily in faculty meetings. In those meetings, O'Mahony had a reputation for saying things that were politically incorrect. thought it was O'Mahony's attempt at humor, adding that the comments perhaps were considered acceptable many years ago or in a non-professional setting, but were not appropriate in faculty meetings. However, people generally just tolerated the comments and did not discuss them with O'Mahony. told first learned that O'Mahony made a \"crude sexual joke\" to she found out about the incident when she saw distressed\" and crying while speaking to O'Mahony made the comment to was related to but making sex tapes in the lab. from \"extremely was not present when reportedly told that the comment spoke briefly to about the allegation before referring the complaint to Academic Affairs. was also aware that O'Mahony tried to approach made the alleged comment in an attempt to talk to her about it. before she saw him at a ceremony away from understood that earlier the same day, O'Mahony approached where she was O'Mahony.2 . and that on two occasions after he was able to steer O'Mahony in the class was shaken by the earlier encounter with stated he has spoken to O'Mahony numerous times about similar allegations. In addition. he has written several letters to O'Mahony regarding his behavior, and is aware that O'Mahony has a long history of this behavior, dating back to at least the late 1980s. stated that O'Mahony's reaction to the conversations they've had is \"odd\" because he doesn't seem to recognize that he's done anything wrong, and displays no remorse or regret. O'Mahony's reaction to the latest conversation had with O'Mahony regarding this allegation was limited to a remark that it might cost him his job. added that O'Mahony's similar behavior is known to individuals on the leadership board, which consists of individuals who work in the industry, external to the University, and that he has been asked why the University continues to employ O'Mahony. O'Mahony-7/20/16 Page 4 of 17 Confidential Investigation Report 7 O'Mahony-7/20/16 She has never personally had an issue in her Page 5 of 17 Confidential Investigation Report interactions with O'Mahony, but has been told by others that they are uncomfortable with him. specifically recalled a time in the early 80s when a friend of hers asked to accompany her to \u0430 meeting with O'Mahony because she was uncomfortable with things he had said to her. She also recalled years later that another friend had said a similar thing to her. In addition, stated that they both work in and therefore, are part of the same professional community, and that there is talk about O\u2019Mahony's tendency to be \"verbally inappropriate\" with young Asian women. clarified that she understands his comments were sexual in nature. from building. was not present during the interaction between asked the next morning. said saw and O'Mahony, but learned about it on the phone in a public area of the was clearly upset when on the phone, then was in tears in the lab. to talk to her in her office, and made a comment the previous day that the reason too sexually active in the lab. also recalled told that O'Mahony had had to leave his lab was because she was reported O'Mahony made a more explicit comment related to finding men on Craigslist, but she did not recall the specifics of the additional comment. Although persuaded was hesitant to say anything because she didn't want to create a problem, to report the incident to 10 stated that for a week to 10 days following the interaction with O'Mahony, herself. She described as quiet and slightly depressed. told was not that she shouldn't have reported the incident because it might have been her overreacting due to lack of sleep. thought that O'Mahony had been put on leave. seemed to get back to normal after she learned from was concerned about situation, adding that she has never shared O'Mahony's reputation with finds O'Mahony's history of behavior concerning. that blaming herself for the but that stated she did not leave O'Mahony's lab because of any problems and that there was no animosity between them as a result, adding that she continued O'Mahony Regarding the April interaction, stated she did not want to be there discussing the matter and that she didn't think it was worth investigating. She described that she was under a lot of stress at that stated that these incidents were not reported to anyone because this type of behavior was more accepted at that time. 10 stated she felt strongly that this needed to be reported because a previous incident that allegedly occurred in September had gone unaddressed due to the unwillingness of witnesses to report their concerns O'Mahony-7/20/16 Page 6 of 17 Confidential Investigation Report time because O'Mahony's comment that he had to kick and that she did not react well to stated that O'Mahony jokingly told the out of his lab because she had sex in the lab. stated she tried to brush aside the comment initially, but she was still thinking about it the next morning. She stated the fact that she was operating on very little sleep contributed to her crying in the lab the next day when she spoke to fault and that she needed to talk to the reinforced to also advised that it wasn't her to avoid talking to O'Mahony. stated the comment has not affected her educational environment, and believed it was her fault that she didn't let O'Mahony apologize to her after it happened. O'Mahony-7/20/16 Page 7 of 17 Confidential Investigation Report described their relationship as \"good\" and \"healthy,\" but stated they are not close, adding that they would only meet occasionally. stated he has never had any problems or concerns with O'Mahony, and that he has been nice and helpful in the time has known him. O'Mahony-7/20/16 Page 8 of 17 Confidential Investigation Report O\u2019Mahony\u20147/20/16 Page 11 of 17 complimented a student with low self-esteem on her outfit one day, and told her he thought she was clever. He stated that although the student told a friend she thought O\u2019Mahony was hitting on her, she later wrote him a letter thanking him for the compliment. O\u2019Mahony stated that he was counseled to stop complimenting others on their appearance and that he no longer gives out such compliments. In 2012, O\u2019Mahony stated he was accused of harassing a female staff member who regularly helped him with a . He stated that one day she was wearing a V-neck sweater that he found unusual and was staring at. He realized someone might think he was looking at her breasts, and when he diverted his eyes, she caught his eyes. He then told her he was looking at her sweater, and she uncomfortably protested, asking him not to say anything. O\u2019Mahony stated that the information in the investigation report was fabricated, and although he could appeal the findings, he decided he didn\u2019t want to endure a faculty meeting that would be required. Finally, O\u2019Mahony recalled two incidents in a class he taught in 2007. The first involved him passing around pornographic cartoons. He stated he needed a 3D demo for the class and struggled to find any examples. He did find one slide that was harmless, which he pinned to the front of the packet, but he did pass around all of the slides, including those that were pornographic. O\u2019Mahony stated he didn\u2019t expect that the students would unpin the slides to look at the ones behind the slide he intended them to see. He also acknowledged making a comment in the class regarding lingua being the root word of cunnilingus. O\u2019Mahony stated it was an unintentional comment, and that his brain blanked out on providing a more acceptable example. Regarding the incident with O\u2019Mahony O\u2019Mahony described his relationship with as being friendly and jokey. In was in Davis visiting. O\u2019Mahony had dinner with one night, then saw him talking to in an open area of the building the next day. O\u2019Mahony chatted with and then told he was happy she was getting on well in the other lab. O\u2019Mahony stated he then made an ironic joke by saying he had been trying to get rid of her for a long time, that she was making love on the tabletops so they had to get rid of her. O\u2019Mahony recalled that commented, \u201cThat\u2019s his sense of humor.\u201d O\u2019Mahony stated he didn\u2019t think she was bothered by the joke and that would have told him if he thought had been bothered by the joke. O\u2019Mahony stated that later told O\u2019Mahony\u2019s that he might be in trouble for the comment and he should apologize. The passed the information to O\u2019Mahony, who tried on two occasions to contact to apologize but was unable to do so. O\u2019Mahony has not spoken to since the incident. 16 We determined it was not necessary to interview in order to reach a conclusion in this case. As noted in the interview summaries, O\u2019Mahony acknowledged making the comment, and claimed it did not significantly impact her educational environment. Confidential Investigation Report O\u2019Mahony\u20147/20/16 Page 12 of 17 V. Analysis Allegation 1: O\u2019Mahony allegedly made an unwelcome and demeaning comment of a sexual nature to a graduate student on April 2016, in the presence of her The parties both agree that O\u2019Mahony made a comment in front of who was visiting at the time, as a joke, regarding having sex in his lab. Whether or not this comment rises to the level of a violation of the Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment policy is the question. As a single incident, while the comment may be considered unprofessional and inappropriate, it is not clear it would be considered a violation of the Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment policy. claimed she knew it was a joke and it did not adversely affect her educational environment. While an argument could be made that was impacted more than she acknowledged as"} |
7,834 | Jesse Acosta | University of Texas – Tyler | [
"7834_101.pdf",
"7834_102.pdf"
] | {"7834_101.pdf": "818e72c09c81.html Tyler resigns after investigation By MCCOY, [email protected] Jun 26, 2015 Jesse Acosta 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler resigns after investigation | Local News | tylerpaper.com 1/3 June 26, 2015 at 3:03 pm CT) The University of Texas at Tyler\u2019s vice president of administration and chief business officer resigned after allegations of sexual harassment and other inappropriate conduct surfaced during an investigation, university officials confirmed. Jesse Acosta\u2019s resignation was effective June 25. According to an email sent to staff on Friday from President Rodney H. Mabry, Acosta, 58, had been placed on administrative leave on June 11 while System investigated the situation, stemming from allegations made by an anonymous caller on May 19, 2015. Acosta was named of Finance and in 2009. Public salary database records indicate Acosta was making $185,075 annually. When reached by telephone Friday, Acosta declined to comment. Mabry appointed David Dabney to serve as the interim vice president for administration and chief business officer. Dabney served as the director of financial services from 1998 to 2001. He most recently served as the chief financial officer and vice president of finance at the Univerisity of Toledo, until his retirement in 2013. Dabney has agreed to serve until a national search produces a permanent replacement. Vice President Sherri Whatley will lead the search committee and be assisted by a national search firm. The Tyler Morning Telegraph has obtained a copy of the investigation\u2019s summary. The following are excerpts from the summary. The full text is attached. \"On May 19, 2015 at 11:24 pm, an anonymous individual contacted the U.T. Tyler Ethics and Compliance Employee Hotline and alleged that Jesse Acosta, Vice President for Administration and Chief Business Officer at Tyler, was bullying, demeaning and sexually harassing women under his employ.\" The summary indicated investigators attempted to make contact with the complainant to get additional information, but the complainant never responded. However, according to the report, investigators interviewed 13 people and were able to substantiate the anonymous complainant's claims. 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler resigns after investigation | Local News | tylerpaper.com 2/3 \"The conduct of Mr. Acosta has been corroborated by witnesses in multiple departments, with job titles ranging from Assistant Vice President to Administrative Assistant. With such a wide cross section of individuals interviewed, U.T. System can be confident in the accuracy of the events depicted in this report,\" the investigation read. \"After thorough review, our office found that Mr. Acosta\u2019s general management style is aggressively dominant. Mr. Acosta has made numerous improper statements regarding women\u2019s appearance. There are credible allegations regarding instances of improper touching. Mr. Acosta has made improper statements regarding and national origin issues.\" Twitter: @TMT_Cory Investigation findings (.pdf) 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler resigns after investigation | Local News | tylerpaper.com 3/3", "7834_102.pdf": "by: Staff | [email protected] Posted: Jun 26, 2015 / 03:40 Updated: Jun 26, 2015 / 03:40 The Vice President for Administration & Chief Business Officer for The University of Texas at Tyler has resigned from his position effective Thursday, June 25. Jesse T. Acosta served as the of the college from September 2002-June 2015. According to Beverly Golden, Director of Marketing and Communications, the resignation is personnel issue and cannot be commented on by staff letter obtained by (myeasttex.com) sent out to Tyler staff indicates Acosta resigned following an investigation into sexual harassment claims. 29 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 1/32 Dear University Community, Vice President of Administration and Chief Business Officer, Mr. Jesse Acosta, has resigned his position at Tyler, effective June 25. This resignation comes after a System investigation found that he violated major tenets of the Tyler sexual harassment policy Tyler as an institution, and I, personally, take all policy violations seriously. This is especially the case regarding allegations of sexual harassment of any kind, including (but not limited to), creating a gender-based hostile work environment. After learning of the allegations against Mr. Acosta placed him on administrative leave while System investigated the situation. Upon the completion of this investigation, Mr. Acosta submitted his resignation. To ensure that the business operations of the University continue to operate smoothly have asked Mr. David Dabney to serve as the Interim Vice President for Administration & Chief Business Officer. Mr. Dabney has experience at Tyler, having served as Director of Financial Services from 1998 to 2001. He most recently served as the Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance at the University of Toledo. Mr. Dabney retired from that position in 2013. He has agreed to serve in our interim position until we complete a national search to find a permanent replacement. With Mr. Dabney\u2019s leadership and the continued contributions from all of the staff members in the departments reporting to the Vice President for Administration am confident the business of Tyler will move forward without interruption. We are selecting a search committee now, to be led by Vice President Sherri Whatley. That committee will be assisted by a national search firm. The Management Responsibilities Handbook for Department Heads and Budget Authorities defines sexual harassment as the following (examples include but are not limited to > Next > Cancel \u2715 Next story in > Cancel Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 2/32 \u2022 Physical contact of a sexual nature including touching, patting, hugging, or brushing against a person\u2019s body; \u2022 Explicit or implicit propositions or offers to engage in sexual activity; \u2022 Comments of a sexual nature including sexually explicit statements, questions, jokes or anecdotes; remarks of a sexual nature about a person\u2019s clothing or body; remarks about sexual activity; speculation about sexual experience; \u2022 Exposure to sexually oriented graffiti, pictures, posters, or materials; \u2022 Physical interference with or restriction of an individual\u2019s movement. (Information from myeasttex.com) Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 3/32 10 Presidents Day small appliance deals you shouldn\u2019t / 10 Hours Ago Presidents Day is almost here, which means retailers are rolling out markdowns on everything from coffee makers to countertop ice machines. The best smart deals this week / 11 Hours Ago This week, multiple retailers have great deals on smart TVs, each packed with streaming capabilities and advanced features > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 4/32 Culturelle vs. Align: Which is the best probiotic / 11 Hours Ago Probiotics are excellent for introducing good bacteria into your digestive system. Culturelle and Align are both popular probiotic brands. View All BestReviews > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 5/32 Top Stories Lubbock 3-year-old celebrates 3 years with new heart > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 6/32 Stock market today: Asian stocks mostly up Friday \u2026 Judge orders Trump administration to temporarily \u2026 Heavy rain pummels slide-prone Southern California \u2026 Plane carrying Secretary of State Rubio to Europe baker set to make over 400 conchas for the V-Day \u2026 The 40th annual St. Michael\u2019s Sausage Lovers Festival \u2026 Brief Warmup, Followed by Big Cooldown Northwest Texas is hosting their monthly breakfast \u2026 More Stories > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 7/32 Back-to-back hurricanes more likely to happen: Study Newsfeed Now 2 years ago Al-Qaida chief\u2019s \u2018pattern of life\u2019 was key to death Newsfeed Now 3 years ago > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 8/32 Bike tours raising awareness for bone marrow registry National 3 years ago 180 days in jail possible for ski pass fraud National 3 years ago > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 9/32 Watch: 4 mountain lions prowl neighborhood National 3 years ago Good Samaritan helps rescue kids from icy pond National 3 years ago > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 10/32 What\u2019s next in \u2018unprecedented \u2019 case of truck driver \u2026 Newsfeed Now 3 years ago Could new tech crack the JonBenet Ramsey case? News 3 years ago > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 11/32 View All Newsfeed Now Newsfeed Now: Biden unveils $1.75 trillion spending \u2026 Newsfeed Now 3 years ago Newsfeed Now: Democrats push to wrap up negotiations \u2026 Newsfeed Now 3 years ago > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 12/32 | EverythingLubbock.com Video More Videos > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 13/32 baker set to make over 400 conchas for the V-Day \u2026 Local News 49 mins ago LUBBOCK, Texas\u2014 For some, the Valentine\u2019s checklist will consist of chocolates, roses, and teddy bears for their significant other. However, another item that has become a popular sweet treat during the love holiday is a Mexican classic, a concha. Andrea Arredondo, owner of La Catrina, tells EverythingLubbock.com she has been baking ever since she can > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 14/32 Brief Warmup, Followed by Big Cooldown Weather for Lubbock and South Plains 1 hour ago Chief Meteorologist Jacob Riley has your Thursday evening weather update for February 13, 2025. Tonight: Partly cloudy. Low of 27\u00b0. Winds 8-12 MPH.Tomorrow: Partly cloudy. Breezy. High of 65\u00b0. Winds 18-22 MPH. TONIGHT: Although cold, tonight will not be as bone-chilling as last night! Low temperatures will range through the 20s by > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 15/32 Black History: The Chatman Hospital Local News 2 hours ago Near the corner of 23rd Street and Cedar Avenue in East Lubbock, the Chatman Hospital has stood tall for 80 years > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 16/32 businesses partner with \u201cAdopt a Grandparent\u201d \u2026 Local News 3 hours ago West Texas Training has teamed up with Lakeridge Nursing Home to launch a special program aimed at brightening the lives of senior residents this Valentine\u2019s Day. The \u201cAdopt a Grandparent\u201d initiative gives the community a chance to take a ticket off a tree featuring residents\u2019 names and favorite things or choose general donation items to help make their day > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 17/32 Lubbock native shares dog shows & business with family Local News 3 hours ago Michael Brantley and his Chow Chow, Desi, are back in Florida after competing in the Westminster Kennel Club dog show. The pair won Best of Breed for Desi\u2019s breed > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 18/32 Black father-son duo inspires LBK\u2019s medical community Black History Month 3 hours ago According to a report, an estimated 12% of the U.S. population is black or African American, but only 5.7% of doctors in the United States fall under the same category. Dr. Damon Hill and Dr. Joshua Hill of Hill Medical Associates not only fit that description but are exceptional cases > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 19/32 Lubbock woman reflects on growing up in the Hub City Local News 4 hours ago Mary Ann Lawson, a retired educator and longtime community activist who represented District 2 on the Lubbock School Board, was elected to the board in May 2024 > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 20/32 One arrested relating to death of supported living \u2026 Local News 3 hours ago Jercorye Bracey, 25, was arrested on Thursday in connection with the death of 36-year-old Dominick Balderas, according to the Lubbock Police Department > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 21/32 Lubbock sued over cheerleaders\u2019 burn injuries Local News 4 hours ago federal lawsuit was filed against the Lubbock Independent School District on Thursday morning regarding the Evans Middle School cheerleaders who suffered second and third-degree burns after performing \u201cbear crawls\u201d on a hot outdoor track as a punishment > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 22/32 One with serious injuries after crash west of Lubbock Local News 5 hours ago One person has serious injuries and another has minor injuries after a crash at 50th Street and Inler Avenue Thursday afternoon, according to the Lubbock Police Department > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 23/32 Man charged with murder in Clovis after 1 found dead Local News 8 hours ago 33-year-old Miguel Ortiz was charged with Murder on Wednesday in connection with the fatal shooting of 53-year-old Elvis Sierra, according to the Clovis Police Department > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 24/32 building in Lubbock hosts \u2018Top Off\u2019 ceremony Local News 8 hours ago The Lubbock County Sheriff\u2019s Office held a \u201cTop Off\u201d ceremony for the new Texas Anti-Gang Center on Thursday. The \u201cTop Off\u201d ceremony commemorated the moment the last steel beam of the Anti-Gang building was set into place > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 25/32 Lubbock Board approves $290M bond proposal Local News 4 hours ago LUBBOCK, Texas \u2014 The Lubbock Independent School District (LISD) Board of Trustees announced Thursday it unanimously approved a $290 million bond proposal set to appear on the May 3, 2025 ballot. The bond will not increase the district\u2019s tax rate under current law, a press release from said. The money would go toward school > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 26/32 Lubbock postal service worker accused of stealing \u2026 Local News 10 hours ago Note: The video above reflects top headlines from morning of February 13, 2025. LUBBOCK, Texas Lubbock man, Ernest Brawley, was indicted Wednesday on four counts of Theft of Mail by a United States Postal Service Employee. The indictment said Brawley \u201cdid embezzle, steal, abstract, and remove an article and thing\u2026 from a letter > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 27/32 View All Local News Man connected to deadly Clovis shooting convicted \u2026 Clovis 11 hours ago Note: The video above reflects top headlines from morning of February 13, 2025. CLOVIS, N.M. \u2014 On Thursday, Jessie Ruiz was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and possession of a firearm by a felon in connection to the 2023 deadly shooting of Ruben Mireles. According to a previous report from EverythingLubbock.com, officers with the Clovis Police Storms Close Out the Weekend Weather for Lubbock and South Plains 3 months ago athletes suffer burns after \u2018punishment\u2019 from \u2026 Local News 4 months ago Shock devices found at illicit racetrack in Levelland Local News 5 months ago Lubbock parents jailed after baby found severely \u2026 Lubbock 4 months ago > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 28/32 Brownfield family loses baby girl to serious disease Local News 4 months ago family hosts last ride for 22-year-old in fatal \u2026 Local News 4 months ago 10 Presidents Day small appliance deals you shouldn\u2019t \u2026 Holiday 10 hours ago Best Buy Presidents Day Sale: Apple, Samsung, Dyson \u2026 Holiday 12 hours ago Score Presidents Day deals right now on Amazon Holiday 3 days ago Best Valentine\u2019s Day gifts under $100 Holiday 6 days ago The best early Presidents Day deals to shop now Holiday 2 days ago Walmart\u2019s \u2018Flash Deals\u2019 are filled with hidden gems \u2026 Holiday 1 week ago View All BestReviews Picks > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 29/32 News, weather, sports for Lubbock and the South Plains News Weather Sports Contests About Us Find It Fast Weekly Features Schedule View All Newsfeed Now Back-to-back hurricanes more likely to happen: Study Newsfeed Now 2 years ago > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 30/32 Jobs Mission Applications Contact Us About Our Ads Report Public FIles Public File Nexstar Certification NewsNation Now Video Center Get News App Get Weather App Stay Connected Privacy Policy 11/18/2024 Terms Of Use Applications Public File Assistance Contact The Hill NewsNation BestReviews > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 31/32 Content Licensing Nexstar Digital Journalistic Integrity Sitemap Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information \u00a9 1998 - 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved > Next > Next story in > Next story in 2/13/25, 10:44 Tyler Resigns After Investigation 32/32"} |
8,270 | Nate Handrahan | Ohio State University | [
"8270_101.pdf",
"8270_102.pdf",
"8270_103.pdf",
"8270_104.pdf"
] | {"8270_101.pdf": "Buckeyes coach out for alleged harassment 10y Everything you need to know for the 2025 Clearwater Invitational: Players to watch, schedule, stats 17h - Erika LeFlouria College softball rankings: The top 25 teams after Week 1 2d Previewing the 2025 college softball season: Players to watch, key storylines and predictions 8d The 'underdog' Sooners are back for redemption 14h - D'Arcy Maine Judge denies slugger Osuna's injunction request 2h Women's flag football endorsed as emerging sport 1d Dept. of Ed: Title does not apply to athlete pay 1d - Paula Lavigne Holmoe retiring as after 20-plus years 2d Caps prospect Hutson upset BC, win Beanpot 3d Ex coach Tressel nominated as Ohio lt. gov. 4d Ex player Ciulla-Hall denied bid for 5th year 6d ll b b ll t 25 d Mar 13, 2015, 04:06 COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The head coach of the Ohio State women's hockey team sexually harassed players with repeated and inappropriate comments, according to an investigation that ended with the coach resigning under threat of firing. Ex-coach Nate Handrahan also violated university policy against whistleblower retaliation by intimidating and chastising team members after complaints were raised, according to the report. Associated Press women's hockey coach out 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State Buckeyes women's hockey coach Nate Handrahan out after harassment alleged 1/3 The investigation into Handrahan began in November after an anonymous complaint from someone identified as a \"faculty member or instructor\" passed on allegations of sexual harassment. The same complaint \"also alleged that the student-athletes do not come forward with their concerns about the behaviors Mr. Handrahan allegedly exhibits during team practices and meetings because they fear retaliation,\" the report said. Handrahan, 37, resigned Monday, the same day the university informed him he would be fired the next day, according to his personnel file performance review in May found that Handrahan \"meets expectations.\" He scored above average in \"academic success\" and \"student-athlete welfare,\" with room to improve in communication and budget management, according to his personnel file. He made $106,334, following a raise authorized by athletic director Gene Smith in August. The university said in a statement without addressing the report that it was launching an immediate search for a new coach. Handrahan did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Handrahan told investigators his comments were taken out of context but he could not explain to them how or why, according to the report. Handrahan frequently made sexual comments or innuendos about the female players and their boyfriends, according to interviews with 11 players, the report said. \"The witnesses explained Mr. Handrahan is overly curious about their personal lives and often they are not sure how he finds out about the details of the relationships with their boyfriends,\" according to the report. Players said Handrahan used sexually vulgar or explicit language during practices and at games, including explicit language during games often directed at female referees, the report said. Last year, the university fired marching band director Jonathan Waters after determining he knew about but failed to stop a \"sexualized culture\" in the band. Two Ohio State assistant cheerleading coaches were fired in 2013 after sexual harassment accusations from cheerleaders. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State Buckeyes women's hockey coach Nate Handrahan out after harassment alleged 2/3 Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State Buckeyes women's hockey coach Nate Handrahan out after harassment alleged 3/3", "8270_102.pdf": "\ue9290 ratings \u00b7 43K views \u00b7 13 pages Uploaded by Deadspin Ohio State University's report from its investigation into sexual harassment allegations by women's hockey coach Nate Handrahan, as released by Ohio State. Contains redactions due to privacy\u2026 Full description Nate Handrahan Report Save 0% 0% Embed Share Print Report Download as pdf or txt of 13 Ask Download now 1 Search document \ue966 Search Download free for 30 days 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 1/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 2/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 3/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 4/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 5/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 6/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 7/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 8/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 9/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 10/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 11/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 12/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 13/15 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 14/15 Share this document \ue990 \uea14 \ue992 \ue98d \ue9cf Reward Your Curiosity Everything you want to read. Anytime. Anywhere. Any device. No Commitment. Cancel anytime. Read free for 30 days About About Scribd Everand: Ebooks & Audiobooks SlideShare Join our team! Contact us Support Help Accessibility Purchase help AdChoices Legal Terms Privacy Copyright Cookie Preferences Do not sell or share my personal information Social Instagram Twitter Facebook Pinterest Get our free apps Documents Language: English Copyright \u00a9 2025 Scribd Inc. 2/13/25, 10:45 Nate Handrahan Report | Sexual Harassment | Harassment 15/15", "8270_103.pdf": "Power Rankings Standings Ohio State women's hockey coach resigns amid harassment complaints By Chris Peters Mar 11, 2015 at 2:13 pm \u2022 2 min read The women's hockey coach at Ohio State University has resigned amid disturbing allegations. (USATSI) The women's hockey coach at Ohio State University has resigned amid disturbing allegations. (USATSI) Ohio State University women\u2019s hockey coach Nate Handrahan has resigned his post amid allegations of inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, which included instances of alleged sexual harassment according to the Columbus Dispatch. Handrahan resigned in lieu of being fired by the university according to the report. The 37-year-old coach had spent four seasons with the Buckeys women\u2019s hockey program. More from the Dispatch: Ohio State began investigating Handrahan after an incident at an airport in North Dakota following the Buckeyes\u2019 series in Grand Forks. Witnesses said that Handrahan and assistant coach Carson Duggan missed the team bus to the airport before the flight back to Columbus and arrived at the airport smelling of alcohol and acting unprofessionally. Handrahan received a written reprimand by the university on Dec. 1 and apologized to News Scores Schedule Standings Teams Stats Expert Picks 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State women's hockey coach resigns amid harassment complaints - CBSSports.com 1/4 his team about his and other staff members\u2019 actions but in the course of the apology added that he wished the complaint would have \u201cstayed internal\u201d and not been taken to administrators, according to witnesses. Ohio State also received complaints about Handrahan for sexual harassment, unprofessional and intimidating conduct and retaliation. According to a report presented on Monday to Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and human resources director for athletics Kim Heaton, Handrahan made sexually explicit comments to \u201cmany\u201d players on the team. Among the allegations presented to Ohio State investigators by witnesses, Handrahan was described as a bully and that players were scared to raise complaints with the coach. Witnesses also expressed to investigators that Handrahan would tell his players to \"get horny for the puck\" in practice, which the players found inappropriate. According to the report, Handrahan denied making inappropriate or sexual comments when he met with university investigators and also referred to his coaching style as \u201cdemanding but not demeaning.\u201d Via the Dispatch, here is what Ohio State\u2019s review determined regarding the women's hockey coach: Handrahan \u201cengaged in a pattern of verbal conduct of a sexual nature that unreasonably interfered with the athletic experience of many students\u201d on the women\u2019s hockey team and found \u201csufficient evidence\u201d of a violation of the university\u2019s policies on sexual harassment, inappropriate conduct and retaliation. Handrahan, who previously coached women\u2019s hockey at Robert Morris University, had a record of 67-64-15 in his four years at Ohio State. 4 Nations Face-Off: Where to watch, rosters, schedule \u2022 4 Our Latest Stories News Scores Schedule Standings Teams Stats Expert Picks 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State women's hockey coach resigns amid harassment complaints - CBSSports.com 2/4 Quarter-Century team: Crosby, Ovechkin lead list \u2022 9 4 Nations Face-Off preview, predictions \u2022 8 Driver who struck Gaudreau Bros. seeks charges dropped \u2022 2 Ovechkin just 16 goals away from passing Gretzky \u2022 1 Star Power Index: Pastrnak piling up the points \u2022 5 More Pick'em Games Fantasy Sports Free Sports Betting Analysis March Madness Mobile Apps Company About Us Careers About Paramount Paramount Regulation Terms Of Use Privacy Policy Cookie Details Closed Captioning Cookie Policy Contact Us Help Customer Care Social Media YouTube TikTok Instagram Facebook Account Manage My Account Newsletters My Teams Wallet News Scores Schedule Standings Teams Stats Expert Picks 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State women's hockey coach resigns amid harassment complaints - CBSSports.com 3/4 Threads Flipboard Forgot Password \u00a9 2004-2025 Interactive Sports is a registered trademark of Broadcasting Inc. Commissioner.com is a registered trademark of Interactive Inc. The content on this site is for entertainment purposes only and Sports makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the information given or the outcome of any game or event. There is no gambling offered on this site. This site contains commercial content and Sports may be compensated for the links provided on this site. Images by Getty Images and Imagn News Scores Schedule Standings Teams Stats Expert Picks 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State women's hockey coach resigns amid harassment complaints - CBSSports.com 4/4", "8270_104.pdf": "Ohio State\u2019s women\u2019s hockey Ohio State\u2019s women\u2019s hockey coach Nate Handrahan out after coach Nate Handrahan out after sexual harassment alleged sexual harassment alleged 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State\u2019s women\u2019s hockey coach Nate Handrahan out after sexual harassment alleged \u2013 New York Daily News 1/4 Jay LaPrete Jay LaPrete Nate Handrahan Nate Handrahan 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State\u2019s women\u2019s hockey coach Nate Handrahan out after sexual harassment alleged \u2013 New York Daily News 2/4 By By | | [email protected] [email protected] UPDATED: UPDATED: April 9, 2018 at 5:52 April 9, 2018 at 5:52 COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) \u2014 The head coach of the Ohio State University COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) \u2014 The head coach of the Ohio State University women\u2019s hockey team sexually harassed players with repeated inappropriate women\u2019s hockey team sexually harassed players with repeated inappropriate comments, according to an investigation that ended with the coach resigning comments, according to an investigation that ended with the coach resigning under threat of firing. under threat of firing. Ex-coach Nate Handrahan also violated university policy against Ex-coach Nate Handrahan also violated university policy against whistleblower retaliation by intimidating and chastising team members after whistleblower retaliation by intimidating and chastising team members after complaints were raised, according to the report. complaints were raised, according to the report. The investigation into Handrahan began in November after an anonymous The investigation into Handrahan began in November after an anonymous complaint from someone identified as a \u201cfaculty member or instructor\u201d complaint from someone identified as a \u201cfaculty member or instructor\u201d passed on allegations of sexual harassment. passed on allegations of sexual harassment. The same complaint \u201calso alleged that the student-athletes do not come The same complaint \u201calso alleged that the student-athletes do not come forward with their concerns about the behaviors Mr. Handrahan allegedly forward with their concerns about the behaviors Mr. Handrahan allegedly exhibits during team practices and meetings because they fear retaliation,\u201d exhibits during team practices and meetings because they fear retaliation,\u201d the report said. the report said. Handrahan, 37, resigned Monday, the same day the university informed him Handrahan, 37, resigned Monday, the same day the university informed him he would be fired the next day, according to his personnel file. he would be fired the next day, according to his personnel file performance review in May found that Handrahan \u201cmeets expectations.\u201d He performance review in May found that Handrahan \u201cmeets expectations.\u201d He scored above average in \u201cacademic success\u201d and \u201cstudent-athlete welfare,\u201d scored above average in \u201cacademic success\u201d and \u201cstudent-athlete welfare,\u201d with room to improve in communication and budget management, according with room to improve in communication and budget management, according to his personnel file. He made $106,334, following a raise authorized by to his personnel file. He made $106,334, following a raise authorized by athletic director Gene Smith in August. athletic director Gene Smith in August. The university said in a statement without addressing the report that it was The university said in a statement without addressing the report that it was launching an immediate search for a new coach. launching an immediate search for a new coach. Handrahan did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Handrahan did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Handrahan told investigators his comments were taken out of context but he Handrahan told investigators his comments were taken out of context but he could not explain to them how or why, according to the report. could not explain to them how or why, according to the report. 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State\u2019s women\u2019s hockey coach Nate Handrahan out after sexual harassment alleged \u2013 New York Daily News 3/4 2015 2015 \ue907 \ue907March March \ue907 \ue90712 12 Originally Published: Originally Published: March 12, 2015 at 5:52 March 12, 2015 at 5:52 Handrahan frequently made sexual comments or innuendos about the Handrahan frequently made sexual comments or innuendos about the female players and their boyfriends, according to interviews with 11 players, female players and their boyfriends, according to interviews with 11 players, the report said. the report said. \u201cThe witnesses explained Mr. Handrahan is overly curious about their \u201cThe witnesses explained Mr. Handrahan is overly curious about their personal lives and often they are not sure how he finds out about the details personal lives and often they are not sure how he finds out about the details of the relationships with their boyfriends,\u201d according to the report. of the relationships with their boyfriends,\u201d according to the report. Players said Handrahan used sexually vulgar or explicit language during Players said Handrahan used sexually vulgar or explicit language during practices and at games, including explicit language during games often practices and at games, including explicit language during games often directed at female referees, the report said. directed at female referees, the report said. Last year, Last year, the university fired marching band director Jonathan Waters the university fired marching band director Jonathan Waters after determining he knew about but failed to stop a \u201csexualized culture\u201d in after determining he knew about but failed to stop a \u201csexualized culture\u201d in the band. the band. Two Ohio State assistant cheerleading coaches were fired in 2013 after sexual Two Ohio State assistant cheerleading coaches were fired in 2013 after sexual harassment accusations from cheerleaders. harassment accusations from cheerleaders. 2/13/25, 10:45 Ohio State\u2019s women\u2019s hockey coach Nate Handrahan out after sexual harassment alleged \u2013 New York Daily News 4/4"} |
7,445 | Todd Feeley | Montana State University | [
"7445_101.pdf"
] | {"7445_101.pdf": "troubled-professor/article_6376feeb-ab41-55bc-a370-227a6feb8599.html Was slow to act on removing troubled professor? By Gail Schontzler Chronicle Staff Writer Nov 13, 2016 Gail Schontzler It was just after the July 4 holiday when a woman student first complained of sexual harassment by a Department of Earth Sciences professor at Montana State University. By Halloween, a second woman had come forward, and MSU\u2019s Title office had completed a full-blown investigation. The investigation concluded the professor had violated federal Title law and university policy, by creating a hostile environment for female students and abusing his \u201cposition of power.\u201d Yet throughout the months of investigation and for weeks after, associate professor Todd Feeley was still teaching, using his office in Traphagen Hall and walking the halls, despite a history that left some students and faculty colleagues fearful. Gail Schontzler can be reached at 406-582-2633 or [email protected]. Privacy - Terms 2/13/25, 10:47 Was slow to act on removing troubled professor? | Montana State University | bozemandailychronicle.com 1/1"} |
7,365 | Douglas A. Hibbs Jr. | Harvard University | [
"7365_101.pdf",
"7365_102.pdf",
"7365_103.pdf",
"7365_104.pdf",
"7365_105.pdf",
"7365_106.pdf"
] | {"7365_101.pdf": "complaint.html By Fox Butterfield Feb. 6, 1985 See the article in its original context from February 6, 1985, Section B, Page 24 Buy Reprints New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine\u2014view over 150 years of New York Times journalism, as it originally appeared *Does not include Crossword-only or Cooking-only subscribers. About the Archive This is a digitized version of an article from The Times\u2019s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them. Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions tenured professor at Harvard University has resigned after a complaint of sexual harassment was made against him, the school disclosed today 2/13/25, 10:48 - The New York Times 1/4 Harvard officials said they believed it was the first time in the university's 348-year history that a professor had left the faculty after charges of sexual misconduct were made. The resignation was by Douglas A. Hibbs Jr., a professor of government with tenure appointment, which normally means a lifetime job. The complaint involved a woman who was a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, according to several Harvard professors and officials who asked not to be identified. Mr. Hibbs taught a seminar open to students from both schools. The resignation is at a time when sexual harassment has become a major issue at Harvard and other universities. Some women, both students and faculty members, have charged that their schools have tried to ignore it. Other professors have expressed concern that sexual intimidation has been too vaguely defined and efforts to combat it may interfere with academic freedom. 'Unwanted Sexual Behavior' The Harvard definition of sexual harassment, according to the university's handbook for students, is: ''Unwanted sexual behavior, such as physical contact or verbal comments or suggestions, which adversely affects the working or learning environment of an individual.'' Professor Hibbs was the third tenured member of Harvard's government department to be implicated in a sexual harassment complaint in the last six years, though Harvard did not make its action public in the previous two cases. The other professors were reprimanded and one lost his job as the department chairman, school officials have said. In a statement today, David M. Rosen, Harvard's spokesman, said Professor Hibbs had resigned ''following discussions and consultation'' after a person, whose name was not given by the university, had filed a complaint last December. The complaint ''contained an allegation of sexual harassment in May 1983'' by Mr. Hibbs, the statement said. Earlier Complaint Reported 2/13/25, 10:48 - The New York Times 2/4 In keeping with its privacy regulations, Harvard declined to disclose the identity of the person who lodged the charge. But several members of the government department and school officials said it had been a woman who was a student in the seminar at M.I.T. In addition, these sources reported that a woman who had been a junior member of Harvard's faculty and is now teaching at Columbia University had lodged an informal complaint with university officials of sexual harassment against Professor Hibbs. Under Harvard's rules, students and faculty members who feel they have been sexually harassed may take their complaints to a variety of university officials and may either pursue informal solutions or file a formal complaint. Telephone Is Disconnected Mr. Hibbs, who specialized in statistical analysis of the links between economic conditions and political development, could not be reached for comment. His home telephone has been disconnected and no one was at his house or office today. Mr. Hibbs, who is 40 years old, was made a professor at Harvard in 1978. He graduated from Southern Connecticut State College and received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin. He taught at M.I.T. for several years before coming to Harvard. Mr. Rosen said that Mr. Hibbs had been granted a medical leave of absence, but he declined to say when it would be over or when Mr. Hibbs would technically be off the faculty. Another Harvard official familiar with the case said it had been settled by Mr. Hibbs's signing three agreements covering the charges, two with the women involved, the third with the university. The agreements absolved Harvard of any legal responsibility for Mr. Hibbs's conduct, the official said. Resignation a Surprise 2/13/25, 10:48 - The New York Times 3/4 Mr. Hibbs' resignation came as a surprise to other members of the government department, several professors said. It was first disclosed to them Monday night by Michael Spence, the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, but he declined to reveal anything about the complaints against Mr. Hibbs, the professors said. One of the professors said there was widespread controversy in the department over the sexual harassment problem. In 1983, Henry Rosovsky, dean of the faculty at that time, expressed concern about the problem at a private meeting because of the two earlier cases, and he ordered the department to come up with a plan to prevent further incidents, the professor recalled. The department set up a system of counselors to provide the students guidance on what constituted sexual harassment and to make it easier for them to file complains. Amid the controversy in 1983 over sexual harassment reported in the government department, Harvard published a 100-page study on the problem, which found that 40 percent of women at the university asserted that they had been sexually harassed at the university. That high percentage caused further dispute, and last fall the University Health Services released another survey in which only 7 percent of the respondents said they had experienced the problem at the university version of this article appears in print on , Section B, Page 24 of the National edition with the headline 2/13/25, 10:48 - The New York Times 4/4", "7365_102.pdf": "The Crimson is a student-run nonprofit. Please support us by disabling AdBlock for our site. Harvard Deals with Sexual Harassment The Issue in Perspective By The Staff February 5, 1985 Harvard Quietly Resolves Anti- Palestinian Discrimination Complaint With Ed. Department Following Dining Hall Crowd Harvard College Won\u2019t Say It Tracked Wintersession Mo The announcement last night of Professor of Government Douglas A. Hibbs Jr.'s resignation comes 18 months after another case of alleged sexual harassment in the Government Department last catapulted the issue to the forefront of campus debase. That incident ultimately led to the revision of Faculty guidelines for handling sexual harassment claims. Reports in the fall of 1983 that then-Dean of the Faculty Henry Rosovsky had disciplined Professor of Government Jorge I. Dominguez for sexual misconduct Ignited a debate that grew in intensity through the academic year. The later release of official Harvard survey results which suggested widespread incidence of harassment on campus fanned the controversy. It did not subside until last May's Faculty decision adopting revisions to its then-existing system, established in 1978, for processing victims' complaints. Involved Junior Faculty Member Sections 2/13/25, 10:48 Harvard Deals with Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 1/8 In September of 1983, Rosovsky's reported censure of Dominguez received wide publicity. Dominguez, Harvard's leading expert in Latin American politics, was accused of harassing a junior faculty member in the Government Department. After finding merit in the assistant professor's formal grievance, Rosovsky reportedly removed Dominguez from his position as chairman of an interdisciplinary committee on Latin American studies. Dominguez declined at the time to comment on the charges of harassment. During his investigation of the complaint, Rosovsky also learned that Dominguez had made improper sexual advances toward a graduate student, sources told The Crimson. The newspaper obtained the text of a letter to the graduate student in which Rosovsky expressed regret about Dominguez's \"abuse of authority.\" Following published accounts of the professor's conduct, several students withdrew from his classes in protest. Dominguez was at least the third professor accused of sexual misconduct in recent years. In December 1979 according to published reports, Professor of Government Martin L. Kilson was reprimanded for making advances towards a female member of the Class of 1983. And in 1982, Rosovsky wrote a letter admonishing visiting professor and prominent poet Derek Walcott who allegedly harassed a female freshman in the spring of 1982. After widespread publicity about the case, the Administrative Board later changed the woman's grade in Walcott's course from a \"C\" to a \"pass.\" Unprecedented Level of Concern While each of the cases attracted attention, the Dominguez case generated an unprecedented level of concern among students and faculty. Most of all, the case focused serutiny on the problem of sexual harassment and the manner in which the University dealt with it. Rosovsky drew sharp criticism from some quarters, from both faculty and students, for his refusal to make public the details of his punitive action. They alleged that the dean's action fostered the appearance of tolerance for professors' misconduct. Sections 2/13/25, 10:48 Harvard Deals with Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 2/8 In October 1983, less than a month after the initial reports about Dominguez officials released the results of a University wide survey conducted the previous spring suggesting that that incident was merely the tip of a much larger iceberg. More than one all female respondents reported that they had experienced some form of sexual harassment at Harvard by individuals in positions of authority defined by the questionnaire, harassment en-compassed behavior ranging from unwanted sexually suggestive looks or gestures to attempted rape. Female junior faculty were the category of respondents reporting the most incidents of harassment. Forty-nine percent said they had experienced harassment; 17 percent cited explicit verbal or physical advances report released with the survey results provided detailed accounts of several students' experiences. Those accounts included the story of a graduate student who slept with her academic adviser when he threatened her to \"go to bed [with him] or else.\" One of the study's more dramatic finding was the fact that almost none of the self-reported victors sought recourse through the University. The overall survey results combined with the revelation about the Dominguez case, catalyzed a broad based movement calling for official scrutiny of the sexual harassment issue. In the wake of the Dominguez case, professors in the Government Department unanimously endorsed a resolution condemning sexual harassment and pledging to combat it. The faculty of the department also established its own committee on sexual harassment in September 1983. The four-member panel in December 1983 recommended the appointment of in house counselors to advise students and staff facing sexual pressures within the department. Following the lead of the Government faculty, the Undergraduate October 1983 unanimously voted to establish an ad hoc committee on sexual harassment. The council later joined forces with the Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS), calling for the appointment of a student faculty committee to examine the issue. As pressure for administrative action mounted Assistant Dean of the Faculty Phyllis Keller then Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education Sidney Verba Sections 2/13/25, 10:48 Harvard Deals with Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 3/8 '53 prepared a Faculty Policy statements and new procedural guidelines for acting on charges of harassment. Verbs and Keller presented their proposals in early February 1984, drawing mixed reviews in an emotionally charged open forum Debate centered on their recommendation that the Faculty establish a central office with the sole function of supervising the grievance process. Opponents of the plan argued that the creation of a special harassment office would blow the problem cut of proportion Advocates of the proposal said that only an official administrative arm could give weight and credibility to the new procedures. With the issue nearing resolution in the spring of 1984, more than 1000 students signed an petition backing the proposed central office. Despite that show of support, the Faculty ultimately scrapped plans to add a new branch to the University bureacracy. The policy adopted by the Faculty in May 1984 incorporated few major changes to the 1978 guidelines. While the new system placed added emphasis on informal channels for seeking advice and resolving conflicts, it mainly elaborated on existing procedures employing a network of counselors and investigators to pursue harassment complaints. Under the revised procedures, students and faculty may call matters involving sexual harassment to the attention of designated University officials. For undergraduates, these officers include senior tutors, senior advisors, masters, and Assistant Dean of the College Marlyn M. Lewis '70. These officials advise victims of their options and may help them pursue informal solutions. When formal complaints are filed, an investigating officer is assigned to study the case, which ultimately may be decided by the Dean of the Faculty, who officially has ultimate control over the handling of harassment allegations. Definition of Harassment According to the University-published \"Handbook for Students,\" sexual harassment is defined as \"unwanted sexual behavior, such as physical contact or verbal comments or suggestions, which adversely affects the working or learning environment of an individual.\" Sections 2/13/25, 10:48 Harvard Deals with Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 4/8 Federal district court rulings have found that sexual harassment constitutes discrimination under Title and Title VII, according to a November 1, 1982. Radcliffe Union of Students letter to Rosovsky. Colleges and universities--which fall under the jurisdiction of the laws because they receive various forms of federal aid--therefore must take all steps within their power to protect their students and faculty from harassment. University officers found guilty of misconduct may be required to leave Harvard, Nancy S. Reinhardt, assistant dean for student affairs at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS), said yesterday. In addition, students found to have been victimized by harassment can benefit from a variety of corrective measures. According to the handbook, grievance officers can arrange for students to change courses and instructors. The handbook also states, \"The Administrative Board considers students' petitions for changes of grading status (that is, from letter-graded to pass fail) and petitions for retroactive withdrawals from courses.\" Complaints Are Rarely Pursued Despite the existence of an elaborate grievance system, few students pursue formal complaints, officials involved in the grievance process said yesterday. Lewis said that no undergraduate has filed a formal grievance against a Harvard officer in the last six months. She added that about 20 student including one male, informally discussed potential harassment problems with her during the fall semester. Retnhardt, who handles graduate student complaints, said that she hear an average of one or two problems each month. But she said she knows of no format complaint filed by a graduate student this year. \"Most complaint can be resolved through informal discussion,\" she added. Keller, one of the officials designated as responsible for pursuing allegations by Faculty members, declined to speak to The Crimson yesterday. Nancy Maull, the other official specifically responsible for handling complaints by Faculty members, declined to comment as well. Both Lewis and Reinhardt emphasized that students can discuss sexual harassment issues on an informal basis without committing themselves to official action. Sections 2/13/25, 10:48 Harvard Deals with Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 5/8 Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter Nevertheless, Reinhardt said she feels some students may decide not to seek formal recourse because they are afraid of repercussions or loss of privacy. According to statistics released by the College last year, more than 84 undergraduates made informal allegations of sexual harassment by Harvard officers during the 1982-83 academic year. Not one submitted formal charge 1. Harvard University Dining Services Ends New \u2018Pub Night\u2019 Menu After Student Complaints 2. Harvard Researchers Discover Origin of Indo-European Language Family 3. Mass General Brigham Announces Mass Layoffs for Administrative Employees 4. Harvard Prohibits Use of Assistants in Virtual Meetings 5. Judge Dismisses Hate Crime Charges Against Harvard Graduate Students The Harvard Crimson's Guide To Your Summer Opportunities | 2025 Over 300+ courses at prestigious colleges and universities in the and are at your disposal Three Ways Collegiate Can Reduce Your Financial Stress With innovative financial tools combined with financial education, Collegiate empowers students to take control of their finances and build confidence in their money management skills. Sections 2/13/25, 10:48 Harvard Deals with Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 6/8 The Harvard Crimson The University Daily, Est. 1873 News Opinion Arts Blog Magazine Videos Sports General Diversity & Inclusion Privacy Policy Rights & Permissions Sitemap Advertising Newsletters Journalism Programs Corrections Build Community at Harvard: Summer 2025 Proctor Opportunities Serve as a proctor for Harvard Summer School (HSS) students, either in the Secondary School Program (SSP), General Program (GP), or Pre-College Program Successful Law School Essays | 2024 With an increasingly competitive Law School admissions process, it's important to understand what makes an applicant stand out Huckberry Holiday Guide Welcome to your one-stop gifting destination for men and women\u2014it's like your neighborhood holiday shop, but way cooler Siddharth's Essay Admit Expert is a premium admissions consulting company, helping candidates secure admission to top B-schools across the globe with significant scholarships. Sections 2/13/25, 10:48 Harvard Deals with Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 7/8 Copyright \u00a9 2025 The Harvard Crimson, Inc. Sections 2/13/25, 10:48 Harvard Deals with Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 8/8", "7365_103.pdf": "FEB. 6, 1985 tenured professor of government at Harvard University accused... CAMBRIDGE, Mass tenured professor of government at Harvard University accused of sexually harassing a student has quit, the school has announced. The school identified the professor as Douglas A. Hibbs Jr., 40, of Cambridge, who came to Harvard in 1978 and was awarded tenure later that year. 'Out of consideration for legitimate and compelling privacy interests of persons involved, the parties intend to make no further statements to the media about these events,' Harvard spokesman David Rosen said Tuesday, reading a statement. Rosen said the harassment complaint was filed in early December 1984 with the office of the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences. The complaint, he said, 'contained an allegation of sexual harassment in May 1983 by Professor Douglas A. Hibbs Jr.' 'Following discussions and consultation among concerned parties, Professor Hibbs sought and was granted a medical \uf09a \uf02f \uf003 2/13/25, 10:48 tenured professor of government at Harvard University accused Archives 1/6 leave of absence and tendered his resignation from the university to be effective at the end of the leave,' he said. Rosen would give no more details of the leave, but said the resignation was effective immediately. Hibbs received a bachelor's degree from Southern Connecticut State College and a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin. He was on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1970 to 1976. The Harvard Crimson Tuesday described Hibbs as specializing in statistical analysis of the links between economic conditions and political developments. He has investigated how economic slowdowns affect strikes and elections, the newspaper said. The Harvard faculty of arts and science has adopted a definition for sexual harassment, saying it may be described generally as unwanted sexual behavior, physical or suggested. Odd News // 7 hours ago Deer rescued from frozen river at New York park Feb. 13 (UPI) -- An animal rescue group on New York's Long Island came to the rescue of a deer that wandered out onto a frozen river and fell through the ice. Latest Headlines 2/13/25, 10:48 tenured professor of government at Harvard University accused Archives 2/6 Odd News // 7 hours ago Lottery ticket lost for months turns out to be $100,000 winner Feb. 13 (UPI) -- An Arkansas woman who misplaced her Powerball ticket for several months rediscovered the slip of paper just in time to discover it was worth $100,000. Odd News // 9 hours ago 104-year-old woman celebrates birthday by going to jail Feb. 13 New York woman celebrated her 104th birthday by crossing an item off her bucket list: visiting the local jail. Odd News // 9 hours ago Cat, sheep win 'Couple of the Year' award at Ukraine zoo Feb. 13 (UPI) -- The Odessa Zoo in Ukraine announced an unusual duo won its annual \"Couple of the Year\" contest: a cat and a sheep. Odd News // 10 hours ago Mule rescued from thick mud in Washington Feb. 13 (UPI) -- Animal rescuers and veterinarians teamed up in Washington to rescue a mule trapped in a knee-deep mud hole. 2/13/25, 10:48 tenured professor of government at Harvard University accused Archives 3/6 Odd News // 1 day ago 14-year-old 'human calculator' breaks 6 world records in one day Feb. 12 14-year-old \"human calculator\" from India put his mental math to the test and broke six Guinness World Records in a single day. Odd News // 1 day ago Michigan man tries wife's preferred lottery game, wins $500,000 Feb. 12 Michigan man took a cue from his wife and bought a scratch-off lottery ticket that earned him a $500,000 prize. Odd News // 1 day ago Miss. police seek escaped emu for 'felony fleeing and disorderly conduct' Feb. 12 (UPI) -- Police in Mississippi are asking residents to be on the lookout for an unusual suspect wanted for \"felony fleeing and disorderly conduct\" -- an emu. Odd News // 1 day ago Zoo holding auction for paintings made by penguins, giraffes Feb. 12 New York Zoo offered a sneak preview of some of the artwork that will be available at its upcoming gala auction: creations by animals including penguins, giraffes, sloths, capybaras and others. 2/13/25, 10:48 tenured professor of government at Harvard University accused Archives 4/6 Odd News // 1 day ago Opossum eats entire Costco chocolate cake in Nebraska yard Feb. 12 (UPI) -- An opossum was treated at a Nebraska animal hospital after wandering into a family's back yard and gorging itself on an entire chocolate mousse cake from Cosco. \uf082 \uf081 \uf16d \uf08c \uf0d3 Navy aircraft carrier collides with merchant vessel in Red Sea 104-year-old woman celebrates birthday by going to jail Trump cuts create vacuums of food, medical care for vulnerable populations Trump signs reciprocal tariffs order but delays imposing them bans gay pride flags in offices, staff cubicles, parking lots, storage areas and more Trending Stories Follow Us 2/13/25, 10:48 tenured professor of government at Harvard University accused Archives 5/6 About Contact Corrections Advertisements Copyright \u00a9 2025 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy 2/13/25, 10:48 tenured professor of government at Harvard University accused Archives 6/6", "7365_104.pdf": "About \u00b7 Map \u00b7 Browse Items \u00b7 Browse Collections \u00b7 Contact Us \u00b7 Tags February 28, 1985 \u00b7 The Harvard Crimson The Issue in Perspective After Government Professor Douglas A. Hibbs Jr.'s resignation over sexual harassment allegations, the author emphasizes that this incident highlights the broader issue of sex discrimination at Harvard University. Sexual harassment, a form of sex discrimination, is influenced by systemic imbalances in power, with men predominantly holding positions of authority. At Harvard, where only 5.8 percent of tenured faculty are women, nearly one-third of female students and staff have reported experiencing sexual harassment. The author argues that addressing this issue requires recognizing the power dynamics that foster harassment and ensuring equal representation of women in faculty roles. She advocates for educational efforts to demystify sexual harassment and better inform the community about reporting procedures. Additionally, student groups should provide support and legal counsel to harassment victims through initiatives like the Victim Advocate. Despite Harvard's actions in the Hibbs case, the high number of informal complaints suggests a need for more effective formal complaint procedures to support victims and address the root causes of harassment. Creator Pellegrini, Ann Publisher The Harvard Crimson Date 1985-02-28 Format Digital Local pbibn-the/ Tags Administrative Response, Student Publications Date Added July 12, 2024 Date Modifed January 7, 2025 2/13/25, 10:48 Take Back Harvard | The Issue in Perspective 1/2 Collection Harvard and Sexual Harassment \u2190 Previous Item \u00b7 Next Item \u2192 Website theme designed by the Scholars\u2019 Lab at the University of Virginia Library. 2/13/25, 10:48 Take Back Harvard | The Issue in Perspective 2/2", "7365_105.pdf": "On Monday announced that an internal investigation found that retired professor Walter Lewin had sexually harassed a female student who was taking an online course he was teaching. Worse still, the woman claimed she wasn\u2019t the only victim and offered the school information on other inappropriate interactions between Lewin and his students. The school said it would be \u201cindefinitely removing Lewin\u2019s online courses, in the interest of preventing any further inappropriate behavior.\u2019\u2019 Unfortunately, it seems like there will always be people in authority at colleges sexually harassing or assaulting their subordinates. And if you need proof of that, well, there\u2019s plenty Has Company Brief History of College Scandals By Doug Saffir December 9, 2014 3 minutes to read M.I.T. campus with students on grounds. 1 2/13/25, 10:49 Has Company Brief History of College Scandals 1/4 2011: Colby Professor Resigns After Allegedly Hiding Cameras in Women\u2019s Bathroom Philip Brown, a tenured economics professor at Colby College, resigned in February 2011 after allegedly videotaping a female student while she was in the bathroom on a school trip to China. Two other students on the trip found images of a partially-clothed female student on Brown\u2019s computer. Brown had not been charged with a crime when he left the school, but the college\u2019s president announced that they were prepared to fire him over the allegations. Brown reportedly told school officials that the allegations were true. 2011: The Penn. State Sex Abuse Scandal Jerry Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of 48 counts of sexual abuse after at least eight children came forward to accuse him of incidents of sexual misconduct dating back to 1994. Several other officials at Penn. State were implicated in the scandal for allegedly covering up Sandusky\u2019s actions. University President Graham Spanier resigned while Athletic Director Tim Curley and Head Football Coach Joe Paterno were fired. Spanier, Curley, and Penn. State Vice President Gary Schultz all faced criminal charges for their role in the cover up. In October 2012, Sandusky was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison. 2010: Columbia University Professor Charged with Incest David Epstein, a 46-year-old political science professor at Columbia, was charged on December 9, 2010 with one count of felony incest in the third degree after allegedly engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with his daughter. He would later plead guilty to attempted incest, a misdemeanor charge. His wife, who also taught in the political science department, is still a professor at Columbia. 1985: Harvard Professor Resigns Amid Sexual Harassment Complaint On February 5, 1985, Harvard professor Douglas A. Hibbs Jr. quit after a female student accused him of sexually harassing her while she was a student in a seminar that was open to students of both schools. The details of the allegations were never released, but the complaint filed in December 1985 referred to an allegedly inappropriate interaction from May of 1983. Hibbs Jr. became the third tenured professor in the government department to be accused of sexual harassment in just six years, and the first professor in the school\u2019s history to leave amid a sexual misconduct scandal. The other two 2/13/25, 10:49 Has Company Brief History of College Scandals 2/4 government professors accused around that time were reprimanded but could not be dismissed due to their tenure. 1983: Yale University Professor Allegedly Harasses Senior English Major It took 20 years for Naomi Wolf to name the man who she claimed touched her inappropriately during her senior year at Yale. She was an English student who had been given the chance to meet one-on-one with Professor Harold Bloom, a man she described in her account as \u201ca vortex of power and intellectual charisma.\u2019\u2019 But when the time came for them to sit down and discuss Wolf\u2019s poetry, Bloom allegedly wielded that power and charisma in an alarming and troubling way. After sharing a meal and a couple glasses of sherry, Wolf set her manuscript on the table. Bloom promptly ignored it, instead extending his hand and placing it on her inner thigh, then advancing on Wolf when she moved away from the table where they were seated. Wolf wrote that it \u201cwas not a sexual crisis\u2026 nor was it an emotional crisis,\u2019\u2019 but it created \u201ca moral crisis, shaking [her] confidence in the institution [she] was in.\u2019\u2019 Conversation This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com Most Popular In Related News Travelers can book a $25 flight during JetBlue\u2019s birthday sale 1 Vermont accused of illegally surveilling pregnant woman 2 Red Sox reportedly sign Alex Br 3-year, $120 million deal 3 2/13/25, 10:49 Has Company Brief History of College Scandals 3/4 Colleges around the cautiously navigate Trump's crackdown \u2018Persistent boundary violations were open, obvious, and readily observed by students and teachers\u2019 \u2018It Ends With Us\u2019 actor and director and his publicists sue The New York Times for libel 2/13/25, 10:49 Has Company Brief History of College Scandals 4/4", "7365_106.pdf": "| 3.6.2018 Jorge Dom\u00ednguez to Retire Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations The announcement comes one week after The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that 10 women accused Dom\u00ednguez of sexual harassment. by Marina N. Bolotnikova 2/13/25, 10:49 Jorge Dom\u00ednguez to retire | Harvard Magazine 1/6 Jorge Dom\u00ednguez for the study of Mexico Jorge Dom\u00ednguez, a member of the department of government in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), will retire from his position at the end of the semester, he wrote today to Jennifer Hochschild, chair of the department. The announcement comes one week after The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that 10 women accused Dom\u00ednguez of sexual harassment at various times across nearly 40 years dean Michael D. Smith announced on Sunday that Dom\u00ednguez\u2014who has been director of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and the University\u2019s first vice provost for international affairs\u2014would be placed on administrative leave indefinitely, \u201cpending a full and fair review of the facts and circumstances regarding allegations that have come to light.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:49 Jorge Dom\u00ednguez to retire | Harvard Magazine 2/6 am retiring from my job at Harvard at the end of this semester. It has been a privilege to serve the University,\u201d Dom\u00ednguez wrote am not teaching this semester have stepped down immediately from my role at the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies and my other very few remaining academic coordinating roles. You may inform others as you deem best want to be very clear that Dom\u00ednguez\u2019s forthcoming retirement does not change the full and fair process of review that is currently under way,\u201d Smith said in a statement today. \u201cHe remains on administrative leave until it is concluded.\u201d The rights and privileges normally provided to retired faculty members would take into account the outcome of this review. The women accusing Dom\u00ednguez ranged from undergraduates to faculty members in the government department; in 1983, Dom\u00ednguez had been found guilty of \u201cserious misconduct\u201d and formally disciplined for sexually harassing Terry Karl, then a junior professor. Over the weekend, a follow-up story in the Chronicle reported that eight additional accusers of Dom\u00ednguez had come forward. The earliest incident, in 1979, involved Charna Sherman \u201980, then an undergraduate government concentrator, who reported that Dom\u00ednguez had groped and kissed her. Some of the reported incidents occurred in private, others in front of colleagues in the department; Dom\u00ednguez continued to receive promotions throughout the period. By the time members of received Smith\u2019s email on Sunday, the government department has pulled undergraduates and graduate students into meetings about the revelations, where many of those who spoke called for Dom\u00ednguez\u2019s removal. Government graduate students sent an open letter to the department Tuesday denouncing its response to the allegations. \u201cWe went into the meeting hoping for answers. We left disappointed, disillusioned, and, for many of us, angry,\u201d they wrote. \u201cThe meeting communicated a message of equivocation, powerlessness, and an unwillingness to commit to addressing this issue or instituting any significant changes within the Department.\u201d \u201cDue to years of apparent negligence, the University and Government Department have burdened female students with impossible choices and unacceptably onerous responsibilities,\u201d they continued. The letter demands that the department take steps to address sexual harassment and gender 2/13/25, 10:49 Jorge Dom\u00ednguez to retire | Harvard Magazine 3/6 inequality, including \u201censur[ing] that Jorge Dominguez will no longer be a member of the Government Department,\u201d communicating with newly admitted students about the allegations and how the department will address them, and conducting internal and external reviews of gender disparities and sexual harassment in the department. Tuesday afternoon, the government department announced it would form a committee to \u201caddress concerns about inappropriate power dynamics, gendered interactions, disruptive fear or anxiety, and other constraints on genuine discourse, learning, and free exchange of ideas.\u201d \u201cWe recognize that the combination of the 1980s case, the pattern of allegations spanning decades, the failure of the pattern to come to light, and the important role in your education of effective and professional faculty mentors causes you great concern and has undermined your trust in the department,\u201d the letter to undergraduate concentrators from department chair Jennifer Hochschild, director of undergraduate studies Cheryl Welch, and chair of the faculty concentration committee Danielle Allen reads. Last Friday, in a message to the University community, Provost Alan Garber wrote: \u201cThe work we do as an academic community brings together people of different ages and backgrounds. Faculty, staff, and students work side by side in settings that vary widely, from 24/7 labs to residential communities. Within this complexity, working conditions and the frequent power asymmetries in working relationships can make it hard for people to know when and how to speak up. And worries that speaking up might have negative repercussions within one\u2019s community or field, in the years to come, can also prevent individuals from making a formal complaint, or speaking at all.\u201d His note encouraged prospective complainants to bring issues forward for formal investigation within University processes; many of the women cited in the Chronicle stories had not previously done so has disclosed little about how the investigation of Dom\u00ednguez will proceed. Tenured faculty members can be removed by the Harvard Corporation for \u201cgrave misconduct or neglect of duty,\u201d though this is exceedingly rare, and hasn\u2019t happened in recent memory. In 2011, former psychology professor Marc Hauser resigned from Harvard after being found guilty of academic misconduct. In 1985, government professor Douglas Hibbs resigned over charges of sexual harassment. Dom\u00ednguez\u2019s decision to retire 2/13/25, 10:49 Jorge Dom\u00ednguez to retire | Harvard Magazine 4/6 presumably moots his dismissal but, as noted, neither terminates investigation of the claims raised in the Chronicle story, or others, if brought forward for investigation, nor exhausts decisions on the terms of his retirement benefits. University President Drew Faust, at Tuesday evening\u2019s meeting, said, \u201cThis has been a difficult moment for this community, and want to start by acknowledging the real sense of hurt, disappointment and upset that has been expressed about the situation and about Harvard\u2019s response\u2014articulated by students, faculty, other members of the extended community, and in an editorial in today\u2019s Crimson central commitment of my presidency has been to broaden access at Harvard and to ensure that everyone here fully belongs. This situation, and others, underscores that we have much more to do. But let me repeat what Provost Garber, Dean Smith and have emphasized: sexual harassment has no place at Harvard and the community can rightly expect that Harvard will do all that it can to address this serious and enduring problem.\u201d \u201cWe need to acknowledge and work to address the cultural and structural realities that permit sexual harassment to occur,\u201d she continued. \u201cWe need to acknowledge the profound influence members of the faculty have over junior faculty and students. Real consequences flow from that reality\u2014the difficult place students and junior faculty find themselves in when a mentor crosses boundaries and the reluctance they understandably experience to come forward when concerns arise. All of us in this room share a responsibility to act in ways that acknowledge this imbalance of power.\u201d Read more articles by Marina N. Bolotnikova 2/13/25, 10:49 Jorge Dom\u00ednguez to retire | Harvard Magazine 5/6 2/13/25, 10:49 Jorge Dom\u00ednguez to retire | Harvard Magazine 6/6"} |
7,600 | J. Gilbert Leal | Texas State Technical College | [] | {} |
7,360 | Daniel E. Shaffer | Harrisburg Area Community College – Lancaster Campus | [
"7360_101.pdf"
] | {"7360_101.pdf": "with-stalking/article_d4173d0d-d821-5e87-8646-6f0742afa0aa.html Former Harrisburg Area Community College professor charged with stalking Staff Writer Aug 29, 2009 former adjunct professor at Harrisburg Area Community College's Lancaster campus has been arrested and charged with stalking and harassing a former student. Daniel E. Shaffer, 40, who taught sociology at three campuses, was arrested Friday morning in a room he rented at 1016 Woods Ave. Shaffer was charged on a felony stalking and harassment warrant issued by University of Delaware police. He has been extradited to Delaware and as of Friday was being held at Young Correctional Institution in lieu of $6,000 bail. Shaffer, who is no longer a faculty member, had a brief relationship with one of his female students at HACC's Harrisburg campus in 2006, according to state Trooper Richard Drum of the Eastern District U.S. Marshal Fugitive Task Force, which made the arrest. Drum, citing a police affidavit for the arrest warrant, said judging by text messages, phone calls and e-mails Shaffer sent to the woman, the three- month relationship in 2006 had been sexual. \"He was told, 'Hey, knock it off!' \" Drum said. But Shaffer persisted, even after the woman transferred to the University of Delaware. \"Some of the e-mails had led her to believe that he was coming down there to do something,\" said Drum. \"She got to the point where she feared for her own safety.\" University police even had to provide a security detail at the woman's graduation ceremonies, he said. 2/13/25, 10:49 Former Harrisburg Area Community College professor charged with stalking | News | lancasteronline.com 1/2 [ Shaffer, who is not married, last taught at HACC's Lancaster campus last fall, according to spokeswoman Pam Saylor. He continued teaching at another campus as recently as May. Shaffer also faces two misdemeanor charges in Harrisburg stemming from the case, Drum said. The task force arrested two other fugitives Friday. \u2022 Shnequa Gordon, 23, of Wilkes-Barre, was arrested at an apartment in the 300 block of N. Duke St. on an arson charge issued by Wilkes-Barre police. \u2022 Steven Delgado-Gonzalez, 22, was arrested at his residence in the 500 block of N. Lime St. He was wanted by New York City police on a felony criminal mischief charge and a felony criminal trespass charge pending since 2006. The task force is made up of officers from the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office, city police, state police and state parole agents. E-mail: [email protected] 2/13/25, 10:49 Former Harrisburg Area Community College professor charged with stalking | News | lancasteronline.com 2/2"} |
8,353 | Michael Siede | Appalachian State University | [] | {} |
7,271 | Craig VanderPloeg | Central New Mexico Community College | [
"7271_101.pdf"
] | {"7271_101.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll Mar 18, 2019 No. 18-CV-0118 (D.N.M. Mar. 18, 2019) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Rethink the way you litigate with CoCounsel for research, discovery, depositions, and so much more. Try CoCounsel free No. 18-CV-0118 03-18-2019 AUBERT, Plaintiff, v COULTAS-KAY, Individually and officially CRANDALL, individually and officially MONTOYA, individually and officially GARCIA, individually and officially WINOGRAD, officially, and VANDERPLOEG, individually, Defendants. Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/26 1 2 comes before the Court upon Defendants Central New Mexico Community College (\"CNM\"), Randolph Crandall (\"Crandall\"), Karen Montoya (\"Montoya\"), Rudy Garcia (\"Garcia\"), and Katharine Winograd (\"Winograd\"), collectively the Defendants,\" Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and for Qualified Immunity (Doc. 44, filed 7/26/18). Having reviewed the parties' briefs (Docs. 44, 49, 53) and the applicable law, the Court CNM's Motion to Dismiss Count 1 for Failure to State a Claim CNM's Motion to Dismiss Count 2 for Failure to State a Claim, *2 and the individual Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Count 2 for Qualified Immunity. 1 2 1 Defendant Craig Vanderploeg is not part of the collective Defendants\" who have made the present motion Plaintiff Laura Aubert (\"Plaintiff\") has brought suit based on alleged sexual harassment and assault by Defendant Craig Vanderploeg, who was employed as a tutor by at one of its educational learning centers. The Court previously granted Plaintiff's Motion to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 39), and Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on July 19, 2018. Doc. 42. Plaintiff asserts two counts against the collective Defendants, and several counts against Defendant Vanderploeg (who is not included in the collective group known as Defendants\"). After Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (\"FAC\"), the Court permitted Defendants to refile an Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and for Qualified Immunity, which is presently in front of the Court. Doc. 44. 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/26 In Count 1, Plaintiff alleges violation by of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 (\"Title IX\"). Doc. 42 at 11. In Count 2, Plaintiff alleges violation by all Defendants of her civil rights pursuant to Title and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 42 at 17. She names Kristen Coultas-Kay, Randolph Crandall, Karen Montoya, and Rudy Garcia in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff names Katharine Winograd in her official capacity only. Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any of the Defendants, that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that the official capacity claims should be dismissed. For the following reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a claim pursuant to Title and \u00a7 1983 against Defendant Central New Mexico Community College in Counts 1 and 2, and that the claims against individual Defendants in Count 2 should be dismissed for qualified immunity. *3 3 In reviewing a Motion to Dismiss, the Court construes as true the facts, but not the legal conclusions, presented in the plaintiff's complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (discussed infra). Thus construed, the First Amended Complaint presents the following events. Plaintiff was a student at Central New Mexico Community College when she began to work with a tutor (Defendant Craig Vanderploeg, hereinafter \"Tutor\") at the Student Resource Center (hereinafter the \"Learning Center\") in February 2015. Plaintiff sensed that Tutor \"wanted to be more than friends\" (Doc. 42, \u00b6 16), and she advised him that she was not interested. Tutor continued to pursue Plaintiff, which made Plaintiff uncomfortable. Tutor informed Plaintiff that he would not help her anymore if she refused his advances. Plaintiff felt she was under Tutor's increasing control. On two occasions, Plaintiff had sexual intercourse with Tutor at his home. At some point, Tutor told Plaintiff that he had been approached by one of the Learning Center supervisors, Defendant Randolph Crandall (\"Crandall\"), about his relationship with Plaintiff. Tutor told Plaintiff that he lied and said they were friends. Crandall told Tutor to circulate and not spend all his time with Plaintiff. Tutor told Plaintiff their relationship was 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/26 not against the rules. Plaintiff realized she could not trust Tutor after he told her about the lie to Crandall. Approximately a week later, likely in early April, Plaintiff went to the Learning Center, which was crowded and noisy. She met with Tutor, and Tutor led her to a cubicle so they would have \"more room and time to focus on tutoring.\" Doc. 42, \u00b6 27. While Plaintiff was doing her work, Tutor grabbed her breasts, forced her hand over his crotch, and whispered that she was \"making him hard.\" Doc. 42, \u00b6 27. Plaintiff pushed Tutor away, as she was shocked and frightened. She told him that his conduct was not acceptable and that she wanted him to stop making sexual advances toward her. She gathered her belongings and Tutor became angry. Plaintiff began to cry. *4 Tutor told Plaintiff that if she did not have sexual intercourse with him, he would make sure she failed her math course. 4 As Plaintiff left the Learning Center in tears, Crandall called out to her to sign out, but she was too upset to do so. She saw Crandall call Tutor over, but Plaintiff does not know what was said. Over the following several days, Plaintiff received more than one hundred phone calls from Tutor, who even left a message saying that he had her address and he would go to her home if she continued to ignore him. Around April 6, 2015, four days after the cubicle incident, Plaintiff went to the Learning Center. Plaintiff searched for Crandall, but she could not find him. Plaintiff found Defendant Kristen Coultas-Kay (\"Coultas-Kay'), another Learning Center supervisor. Plaintiff told Coultas-Kay of being violated by Tutor the previous week at the Learning Center, and of his ongoing harassment. Specifically, Plaintiff told Coultas-Kay that Tutor had grabbed her breasts, forced her hand over his crotch, and whispered that she was making him hard in the cubicle. Plaintiff also stated that she had engaged in sexual intercourse with Tutor, and that Tutor had told Plaintiff he could make sure she failed math if she did not continue to have sex with him. Plaintiff told Coultas-Kay that Tutor called her over one hundred times in the few days since the cubicle incident. Plaintiff told Coultas-Kay she wanted to talk to Crandall after he returned to the office. Coultas-Kay left a telephone message for Crandall while Plaintiff 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/26 waited. Coultas-Kay assured Plaintiff that Crandall would call her later that day. Two days later, Plaintiff had not heard from Crandall or anyone about her report of Tutor's misconduct. Plaintiff returned to the Learning Center again, where Coultas-Kay told Plaintiff that Crandall was aware of the situation, as she had spoken with him after the meeting with Plaintiff. *5 5 For approximately a month and a half, Plaintiff did not hear anything about her complaint. Tutor continued to work in the Learning Center and Plaintiff purposefully avoided him so she could continue to obtain tutoring. Plaintiff had high stress and anxiety levels during this time. Tutor continued to text Plaintiff about wanting to see her and have sex with her. In May 2015, Plaintiff learned from her house-sitter that Tutor had come to her apartment looking for her when she was not there. On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff called Human Resources to \"report the Tutor's conduct and her concerns.\" Doc. 42, \u00b6 41. Plaintiff left a voicemail and did not receive a call back. On the same day, Plaintiff emailed the Dean of Students, Defendant Dean Rudy Garcia (\"Dean Garcia\"), via cnm.edu on her phone, \"stating that she had been subjected to sexual misconduct by a tutor.\" Doc. 42, \u00b6 42. Plaintiff requested to be contacted, but she was not. On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff went to see Dean Garcia. He advised that he had not received her email. Dean Garcia told Plaintiff that she would have to file a report with campus security before any action could be taken. Campus security was dispatched to take an incident report. On June 9, 2015 consultant Defendant Karen Montoya (\"Montoya\") met with Plaintiff and Plaintiff's friend. Plaintiff informed Montoya about \"the whole story, including her report to Ms. Coultas-Kay.\" Doc. 42, \u00b6 44. Plaintiff gave Montoya copies of the handwritten notes from Tutor, copies of her own journal entries, and copies of the emails to and the Dean of Students. Plaintiff asked Montoya if she would provide Plaintiff with a copy of her notes for Plaintiff's review after the meeting, but Montoya never gave Plaintiff the notes. Tutor resigned on June 11, 2015, soon after receiving a Pre-Termination Notice that referenced an \"ongoing pattern of questionable conduct and extremely poor judgment.\" Doc. 42, \u00b6\u00b6 47-49. In late June, Plaintiff found 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/26 out about Tutor's resignation. After he resigned *6 treated Plaintiff's complaint as moot and failed to make findings and conclusions. Plaintiff sent Dean Garcia a letter of complaint on July 11, 2015. Plaintiff emailed President Katharine Winograd on August 8, 2015, addressing her ongoing concerns about Tutor's conduct, his future employment in education, her safety and that of other students, her need for additional tutoring to pass math and graduate, and her emotional distress. On July 20, 2015, the director of Disability Resource Center, Mark Cornett, wrote to Plaintiff that he would work with Human Resources to make sure that Tutor did not receive a positive employment reference. 6 Someone advised Plaintiff to obtain tutoring in another location than the tutoring center did not provide Plaintiff with adequate counseling resources or tutoring resources. Plaintiff received an incomplete in her math course, but she completed the class the next semester without help or assistance from CNM. Plaintiff graduated from in December 2015 and attends full time. She sees Tutor in campus at UNM, where he is employed. At the time relevant to Plaintiff's allegations did not have Title policies or grievance procedures, or a Title coordinator I. Legal Standard: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the district court may dismiss a claim upon a defendant's challenge that the plaintiff either has failed to assert a cognizable legal theory as a matter of law or has failed to sufficiently allege plausible facts in support of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court of the United States has established a two-part examination of the factual sufficiency of a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 551 (2007). First, the court must accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but the court is not bound to accept as true a legal *7 conclusion that is \"couched as a factual allegation.\" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). After distinguishing between factual assertions and legal conclusions, the 7 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/26 court then determines whether the factual allegations, when taken as true, \"plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.\" Id. at 679. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, \"a complaint must plead facts sufficient to state a 'claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'\" Sylvia v. Wisler, 875 F.3d 1307, 1313 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (citation and quotation marks omitted claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The court must construe reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). As the Tenth Circuit has explained, \"we look to the elements of the particular cause of action, keeping in mind that the Rule 12(b)(6) standard doesn't require a plaintiff to set forth a prima facie case for each element.\" George v. Urban Settlement Servs., 833 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Still, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that rise above speculation or mere conclusions, as \"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.\" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Supreme Court has noted that this examination is \"a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.\" Id. at 679. II. Analysis: Plaintiff's claim against for violation of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Count 1) A. Law on Title Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits universities that receive federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of gender. See 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a). The Tenth *8 Circuit has explained that \" [s]exual harassment is a form of discrimination on the basis of sex and is actionable under Title IX.\" Escue v. Northern Okla. College, 450 F.3d 1146, 1152 (10th Cir. 2006). Title \"is enforceable through an implied private right of action for which money damages are available.\" Murrell v. School Dist. No. 1, 186 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 1999 school is not vicariously liable to its 8 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/26 students for all sexual harassment, as under Title IX, \"a student may hold a school liable 'only for its own misconduct.'\" Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 640 (1999). To impose liability upon a school pursuant to Title IX, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the school \"(1) has actual knowledge of, and (2) is deliberately indifferent to, (3) harassment that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive as to (4) deprive access to the educational benefits or opportunities provided by the school.\" Rost v. Steamboat Springs RE-2 Sch. Dist., 511 F.3d 1114, 1119 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Murrell, 186 F.3d at 1246). Regarding the first element, the school can obtain actual knowledge only through an \"appropriate person.\" Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290 (1998). An appropriate person \"is, at a minimum, an official of the [university] with authority to take corrective action [on behalf of the university] to end the discrimination.\" Ross v. Univ. of Tulsa, 859 F.3d 1280, 1283 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290). Regarding the second element, a university is considered \"deliberately indifferent\" after receiving actual notice \"only where the [university's] response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.\" Id. at 1287 (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 648). The Circuit has explained that \"[t]he Supreme Court has noted that administrators need not 'engage in particular disciplinary action' under Title IX, but only respond in a manner that is not clearly unreasonable.\" Rost, 511 F.3d at 1123 (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 648-49). B. Plaintiff has plausibly pleaded the actual notice requirement. *9 9 Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not plausibly pleaded the actual notice requirement. Doc. 44 at 12. In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff puts forward several grounds that she argues make Coultas-Kay and Crandall appropriate persons to obtain actual notice under Title IX. She asserts that Coultas-Kay and Crandall \"[a]t a minimum, both had the supervisory authority to initiate an investigation and take immediate action to suspend their subordinate Tutor from further tutoring.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 83. She also states that the Code of Conduct and Workplace Behavior \"imposes a duty on teachers to convey reports of sexual harassment to 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/26 school principals.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6\u00b6 84-85. For the reasons described below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that Coultas-Kay and Crandall are \"appropriate persons\" because they \"both had the supervisory authority\" including to \"take immediate action to suspend their subordinate Tutor from further tutoring.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 83. Thus, the Court does not address the other grounds argued by Plaintiff.2 2 The Tenth Circuit has, however, commented on both arguments. See Ross v. Univ. of Tulsa, 859 F.3d 1280, 1290 (10th Cir. 2017) (\"And merely passing on a report of sexual harassment to someone authorized to take corrective action is not itself corrective action.\"); id. (\"For example, consider a school where every employee receiving a report of sexual harassment must convey the report to the principal. If one employee fails to convey a report to the principal, that failure could be attributed to the school as a whole. This type of vicarious liability is precisely what the Supreme Court sought to avoid through the deliberate-indifference standard.\"). While the parties have briefed these arguments, it is not necessary for the Court to rule on whether these assertions constitute grounds for stating a claim under Title because Plaintiff has otherwise met the standard. At this stage, Plaintiff is required to \"plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Plaintiff alleges that \"Ms. Coultas-Kay's title was Learning Center Supervisor, at the Assistance Centers for Education. She took Ms. Aubert's report of her Tutor's misconduct in her capacity as the Tutor's supervisor, and assured Ms. Aubert that her report would be acted on appropriately, in her capacity as a authority.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 78. Plaintiff also alleges that \"Mr. Crandall had the same job title as Ms. Coultas-Kay. He *10 was a Learning Center Supervisor.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 83. Plaintiff further alleges that \"[b]oth Mr. Crandall and Ms. Coultas-Kay had supervisory authority over the Tutor.\" Id. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that in this case such authority included, \"at a minimum,\" the authority to \"take immediate action to suspend their subordinate Tutor from further tutoring.\" Id. She pleads they were individuals \"with authority to address the Tutor's conduct.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 86. Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff claims that Coultas-Kay and Crandall possessed supervisory authority over Tutor such that they could have taken corrective action sufficient to satisfy 10 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/26 186 F.3d at 1247. the Title requirement for being appropriate persons to receive actual notice of Tutor's sexual harassment. See Ross, 859 F.3d at 1283 (\"An appropriate person 'is, at a minimum, an official of the [university] with authority to take corrective action [on behalf of the university] to end the discrimination.'\" (quoting Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290)). The Court disagrees with Defendants' contention that \"two supervisors in a tutoring center could not plausibly be considered school officials or have the authority to discipline or suspend another employee.\" Doc. 44 at 13. As the Tenth Circuit explained in Murrell, We decline simply to name job titles that would or would not adequately satisfy this requirement. School districts contain a number of layers below the school board: superintendents, principals, vice-principals, and teachers and coaches, not to mention specialized counselors such as Title coordinators. Different school districts may assign different duties to these positions or even reject the traditional hierarchical structure altogether. Because officials' roles vary among school districts, deciding who exercises substantial control for the purposes of Title liability is necessarily a fact-based inquiry. Considering this guidance from the Circuit, the Court is not convinced that two supervisors could not plausibly have the authority to discipline or suspend a non-supervisory tutor employee in the Learning Center upon receiving a complaint of sexual harassment from a student. Plaintiff *11 points out, \"[i]t can also be reasonably inferred that as his supervisors, they had power to take some action against him which would have ended his sexual harassment of Plaintiff, even if they could not have fired him outright, which Plaintiff does not know and has not pled.\" Doc. 49 at 11. It is a plausible and non-conclusory allegation that as supervisors in the Learning Center, Coultas-Kay and Crandall had some authority from the school to discipline or monitor Tutor in a way that would have minimized, if not eliminated, Tutor's sexual harassment of Plaintiff. The Court considers more than the label of \"supervisor\" in these job titles. The allegation that 11 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/26 Coultas-Kay had some authority to take corrective action is supported by Plaintiff's factual allegations that Coultas-Kay took the report from Plaintiff, that Coultas-Kay assured Plaintiff that the report would be acted on appropriately, that Coultas-Kay made this assurance as a employee, and that Coultas-Kay assured Plaintiff that Crandall was also aware of the report and that Plaintiff \"did not have to do anything else.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6\u00b6 78, 80. Plaintiff alleges that Crandall had the same position as Coultas-Kay, that Coultas-Kay reported Plaintiff's complaint to Crandall, and that prior to Coultas-Kay's report, Crandall had already instructed Tutor to circulate with students other than Plaintiff. Doc. 42, \u00b6\u00b6 32, 34. Under Tenth Circuit law, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged facts to support the legal position that Coultas-Kay and Crandall had \"at a minimum, . . . authority to take corrective action [on behalf of the university] to end the discrimination.\" Ross, 859 F.3d at 1283 (quoting Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290). The Court disagrees with Defendants that it is implausible that two employees in the Learning Center with the title \"supervisor\" could not, as a matter of law, meet the definition of an appropriate person with authority on behalf of the institution to take corrective action against *12 sexual discrimination. For these same reasons, the Court rejects Defendants' contention that Plaintiff has only pleaded the theory of respondeat superior grounded in negligence. 12 3 4 3 Defendants cite to the ruling in Ross that the security officers, as a matter of law, were not appropriate persons. Doc. 44 at 10. As Plaintiff points out, Ross was a ruling on summary judgment. Doc. 49 at 14. 4 For reasons explained below, it is not necessary for the Court to address whether Plaintiff has adequately pleaded Title claims involving the conduct of Montoya and Garcia because Plaintiff has otherwise stated a Title claim to survive the Motion to Dismiss. The parties agree that Defendant's meeting with Dean Garcia on May 26, 2015, established actual notice of sexual harassment. Doc. 49, at 13; Doc. 44 at 14. C. Plaintiff has plausibly pleaded the deliberate indifference requirement. 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/26 *13 Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 31. Plaintiff alleges that when she went back to the Learning Center, Coultas-Kay told her that she had informed Crandall. Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 34. Plaintiff alleges that \"[t]here is no indication that Ms. Coultas-Kay and/or Mr. Crandall took any action at all.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 42. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that prior to her complaint to Dean Garcia on May 26, 2015, As Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Coultas-Kay and Crandall are appropriate persons to receive actual notice under Title IX, the Court now turns to whether Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that CNM's response amounted to deliberate indifference university is considered \"deliberately indifferent\" after receiving actual notice \"only where the [university's] response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.\" Ross, 859 F.3d at 1287 (quoting Davis, 526 U.S. at 648). The university's response is deliberately indifferent when it, \"at a minimum, cause[s] students to undergo harassment or make them liable or vulnerable to it.\" Davis, 526 U.S. at 645 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Tenth Circuit has stated that \"[s]chool administrators need not engage in particular disciplinary action, and victims do not have a right to seek particular remedial demands.\" Escue, 450 F.3d at 1155. Still, the Circuit has noted that a \"minimalist response is not within the contemplation of a reasonable response[.]\" Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiff alleges as follows: Crying, she told Ms. Coultas-Kay of being violated by the Tutor the previous Thursday, and of his ongoing harassment and threats. Specifically, Ms. Aubert told Defendant Coultas-Kay that Defendant Vanderploeg had grabbed her breasts, forced her hand over his crotch, and whispered that she was making him hard, in the tutoring center cubicle; that Defendant Vanderploeg had had sexual intercourse with her, and had told her he could make sure she failed math if she did not continue to have sex with him; that Defendant Vanderploeg had told her he would not help 13 her if she refused his advances; and that Defendant Vanderploeg had called her over 100 times since he had assaulted her. 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/26 Tutor \"continued to have access to Ms. Aubert's file. He continued to call and text her about sex. He showed up at her apartment, having obtained her address from her file.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 88. Plaintiff asserts that was deliberately indifferent to the Tutor's misconduct by failing to take timely and reasonable measures to end the substantial risk of ongoing harassment created by the Tutor's harassment of Ms. Aubert, evident to no later than Ms. Aubert's report to Ms. Coultas-Kay and Mr. Crandell.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 102. Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded deliberate indifference by alleging that, after receiving the report of Tutor's sexual harassment against Plaintiff on or about April 6, 2015, Coultas-Kay and Crandall took no action other than Coultas-Kay informing Crandall about the cubicle incident. The known circumstances to Coultas-Kay and Crandall, as alleged by Plaintiff, were allegations of sexual harassment that included sexual assault at the Learning Center and threats by Tutor that he would cause Plaintiff to fail her math course if she did not continue to have sex with him. Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 31. Plaintiff's allegation that Coultas-Kay told Crandall and then neither took further action to end the discrimination supports an inference that Coultas- Kay and Crandall were deliberately indifferent and not merely negligent. The known circumstances, as Plaintiff has alleged she described them to Coultas-Kay and taken as true, involved ongoing sexual harassment, such that Plaintiff's allegation that Coultas-Kay and Crandall failed to take any corrective action to end or address the discrimination could plausibly constitute a clearly unreasonable response. *14 14 Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment in the time between her report to Coultas-Kay on April 6, 2015, and the report to Dean Garcia and campus police on May 26, 2015. Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 88. Thus, even if the school did initiate an investigation after Dean Garcia met with Plaintiff on May 26, 2015, such measures were not timely to prevent the harassment that occurred prior to that meeting. See Escue, 450 F.3d at 1155. Plaintiff has thus adequately pleaded that university's lack of response to her report on April 6, 2015, caused her to undergo further harassment. See Davis, 526 U.S. at 645. 5 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/26 5 The Tenth Circuit is considering the issue of whether a plaintiff is required to show that he or she was subjected to actual further sexual harassment after his or her report of sexual harassment was made to an appropriate person, or whether it is sufficient for a plaintiff to plead or prove that he or she was only made vulnerable or liable to ongoing harassment. See Weckhorst v. Kansas State Univ., 241 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (D. Kan. 2017), appeal docketed, Nos. 17-3208 & 17-3208 (10th Cir. Sept. 26, 2017). The Court does not anticipate that the resolution at the Circuit will affect the Court's ruling on deliberate indifference under the Title claim at this stage because Plaintiff has plausibly pleaded that she was subjected to actual sexual harassment after she made her report to Coultas-Kay on or about April 6, 2015. The parties have referenced the pending appeal in front of the Tenth Circuit in their briefs (see Doc. 53 at 6-7, Doc. 49 at 17) but have not requested supplemental briefing or a stay at this time. To the extent that the parties wish to address Weckhorst, whenever it is handed down, the parties may move the Court for such an opportunity, if and when appropriate. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff has not alleged that the harassment continued on campus after her report to Coultas-Kay, or that Plaintiff reported the off-campus harassment to officials. Doc. 53 at 5. The Tenth Circuit has explained that when some part of the sexual harassment takes place off campus, \"there must be some nexus between the out-of- school conduct and the school\" to impose liability under Title IX. Rost, 511 F.3d at 1121 n.1. Plaintiff's factual allegations that Tutor accessed her personal information from her school file (Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 74), that he threatened to cause her to fail math class if she did not continue to have a sexual relationship with him (Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 31), that he threatened to withhold tutoring services from her if she refused him (Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 71), and that the harassment occurred while she was enrolled as a student and receiving tutoring from an employee at the Learning Center/Student Resource *15 Center (Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6\u00b6 7, 9-12) plausibly supports a nexus such that the school \"exercise[d] substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occur[red].\" Davis, 526 U.S. at 645. 15 Finally, Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege the third and fourth elements of the Title claim, and she has adequately pleaded them. See Doc. 44 at 1 n.1; Rost, 511 F.3d at 1119 (\"(3) harassment that 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/26 is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive as to (4) deprive access to the educational benefits or opportunities provided by the school.\"); see, e.g., Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6\u00b6 71, 72, 74, 77, 103. Considered in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly pleaded facts to support a reasonable inference that received actual knowledge of Tutor's sexual harassment. Plaintiff has also plausibly pleaded sufficient facts to support her claim that Coultas-Kay and Crandall were deliberately indifferent to her report. Plaintiff has therefore stated a claim under Title IX. III. Analysis: Plaintiff's claim against Defendants for violation of Equal Protection and Title (Count 2) The Fourteenth Amendment states that \"[n]o state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\" U.S. Const. amend. XIV, \u00a7 1. Section 1983 provides that a person acting under color of state law who \"subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.\" 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983. The Tenth Circuit has explained that \"[s]exual harassment by a state actor may violate the equal protection clause.\" Rost, 511 F.3d at 1124. A. Section 1983 claim against for violation of Title *16 16 The parties agree that Plaintiff can bring a \u00a7 1983 claim against for violation of Equal Protection simultaneously to bringing a Title claim, but the parties dispute whether Plaintiff can bring a \u00a7 1983 suit based on a violation of Title IX. The parties both point to the Supreme Court's ruling in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Communities, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not intend for Title to preclude a plaintiff's option of bringing a concurrent or parallel \u00a71983 constitutional lawsuit. 555 U.S. 246, 255-56 (2009). Plaintiff now argues that, through a door left open in Fitzgerald, she can use \u00a71983 as a mechanism to assert her statutory rights granted under Title IX. See id. at 252 (discussing the standards for \"those 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/26 cases in which the \u00a7 1983 claim is based on a statutory right,\" which requires the court to discern congressional intent from the statute). The Court agrees with Defendant that allowing Plaintiff to assert a \u00a7 1983 claim based on a violation of Title would be duplicative because, although Title does not expressly provide for a private remedy, the Supreme Court has long \"recognized an implied private right of action\" under Title IX. Fitzgerald, 555 U.S. at 255. Plaintiff claims Fitzgerald allows her argument, but the Fitzgerald Court noted several times that its ruling was applicable to constitutional suits brought under \u00a7 1983. See, e.g., id. at 256 (\"Mindful that we should not lightly conclude that Congress intended to preclude reliance on \u00a7 1983 as a remedy for a substantial equal protection claim, we see no basis for doing so here.\" (emphasis added)). In holding \"that \u00a7 1983 suits based on the Equal Protection Clause remain available to plaintiffs alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools[,]\" the Court never mentioned allowing Title to underlie a statutory \u00a7 1983 claim alongside an independent Title claim. Id. at 258 (emphasis added). To allow Plaintiff to do so now would expand the Supreme Court's ruling in Fitzgerald past allowing a concurrent \u00a7 1983 Equal Protection claim, which would be inconsistent with a plain reading of *17 Fitzgerald. Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a claim for a statutory violation of Title under \u00a7 1983. 17 6 6 The parties have not provided any case law on this issue other than Fitzgerald, and this Court has not located any binding case law to offer further guidance, but this ruling is in accordance with those of other district courts. See, e.g v. Twin Valley Sch. Dist., No. 15-5733, 2016 U.S. Dist 190850, at *33 (E.D. Pa. June 14, 2016) (\"Plaintiffs' claims under \u00a7 1983 cannot proceed because \u00a7 1983 does not offer a route to recovery for a violation of Title IX.\"); Doe v. Town of Stoughton, 917 F. Supp. 2d 160, 165-66 (D. Mass. 2013) (\"However, the Court in Fitzgerald never directly considered the statutory \u00a7 1983claim, and the language is quite deliberate.\"). B. Section 1983 claim against for violation of Equal Protection In Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court compared the two standards for \u00a7 1983 municipal liability and Title liability: 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 16/26 555 U.S. at 257-58 (citations omitted). The Tenth Circuit provided guidance in Rost v. Steamboat Springs RE-2 School District, in which the Circuit stated, 511 F.3d at 1124-25. The Tenth Circuit in Rost addressed the proper test for when, in a \u00a7 1983 claim, a plaintiff asserts that the school \"had a custom of acquiescing\" to sexual harassment, but the plaintiff \"does not contend that the district had an official policy or that a decision was made by an official with final policymaking authority.\" Id. at 1125. The Tenth Circuit described this *18 position as one of municipal liability based on \"the custom of failure to receive, investigate, or act on complaints of constitutional violations.\" Id. In this situation, Id.(citation omitted). Even where particular activities and particular defendants are subject to both Title and the Equal Protection Clause, the standards for establishing liability may not be wholly congruent. For example, a Title plaintiff can establish school district liability by showing that a single school administrator with authority to take corrective action responded to harassment with deliberate indifference plaintiff stating a similar claim via \u00a7 1983 for violation of the Equal Protection Clause by a school district or other municipal entity must show that the harassment was the result of municipal custom, policy, or practice school district's liability for sexual harassment under the Equal Protection clause is analyzed under a municipal liability framework claim of municipal liability for sexual harassment requires that the state employee's discriminatory conduct be representative of an official policy or custom of the institution, or are taken by an official with final policymaking authority. In the absence of an official policy, a municipality may be still be liable for the widespread and persistent practice of sexual harassment which constitutes a custom. 18 a plaintiff must prove (1) a continuing, widespread, and persistent pattern of misconduct by the state; (2) deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the conduct by policy-making officials after notice of the conduct; and (3) a resulting injury to the plaintiff. 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 17/26 Plaintiff again references the lack of Title policies, this time as evidence supporting her constitutional claim. Plaintiff argues that the lack of Title policies shows a \"policy and/or custom of not reasonably investigating and ending teacher on student sexual harassment.\" Doc. 42, \u00b6 113. Plaintiff argues that CNM's \"lack of Title policies and a Title coordinator is analogous to the adoption of sexual harassment policies that are indifferent to the risk of sexual harassment.\" Doc. 49 at 20. She states that the lack of Title policies and a coordinator \"constituted a policy against having clear policies and procedures for handling teacher-on-student sexual harassment, including against providing clear guidance to students about how to, and to whom to, report misconduct, and clear guidance to employees, such as Defendant Coultas-Kay and Crandall, about what to do with such complaints.\" Doc. 49 at 21. Plaintiff therefore appears to argue that an official policy and a custom were in place, so the Court will address both standards. Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege facts to show that a lack of Title policies amounts to the adoption of an official policy that is indifferent to the risk of sexual harassment. See Murrell, 186 F.3d at 1249 (providing this standard). Plaintiff has not pointed to any facts showing that the lack of Title procedures involved a \"policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by [a municipality's] officers.\" Id. at 1249. Furthermore, Plaintiff's own facts also allege that CNM's policy is that an investigation cannot commence until campus security takes a formal incident report (Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 95), which does amount to a clear *19 policy of investigating sexual harassment reports. Plaintiff claims this policy is \"not reasonable\" (Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 95), but this policy is not plausibly indifferent to the resolution of sexual harassment complaints because it requires the initiation of an investigation itself. Plaintiff's own complaint was investigated, and Tutor resigned after she made her report to campus security. Plaintiff has not adequately pleaded an \"official policy,\" as she has mostly pleaded the absence of one. 19 Alternatively, in the absence of an official policy, a plaintiff may allege municipal liability for sexual harassment by showing it was so \"widespread and pervasive so as to constitute a 'custom.'\" Id. at 1250. Taking Plaintiff's allegations, including the lack of Title policies, as true, Plaintiff has 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 18/26 alleged facts sufficient to plead under \u00a7 1983 that there was a custom of failing to investigate sexual harassment and assault complaints. While the lack of Title policies alone is insufficient to plead a \u00a7 1983 claim (see discussion above), the allegations of the lack of Title policies and the failure of the institution to respond to Plaintiff's complaints in several instances support Plaintiff's argument about a custom. Plaintiff relies on her factual allegations that Coultas-Kay and Crandall failed to take any action in response to her complaint to Coultas-Kay, as discussed above. Plaintiff also points to the unacknowledged voicemail to Human Resources on May 20, 2015 (Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 41) and the unacknowledged email to the Dean of Students on the same day (Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 42). Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that \"[o]n information and belief, Tutor has a past history of engaging in inappropriate, predatory conduct with female students at CNM, with CNM's knowledge and acquiescence.\" Doc. 42, \u00b6 51. Plaintiff also points to the Pre-Termination Notice that Tutor received prior to his resignation on June 11, 2015, which she claims referenced Tutor's \"ongoing pattern of questionable conduct and extremely poor judgment.\" Doc. 42, FAC, \u00b6 49. *20 Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff argues that \"the fact that these requests for assistance were ignored was indicative of CNM's policy of not having a coordinated way of responding to teacher-on-student sexual harassment.\" Doc. 49 at 22. 20 Plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient to state a claim for a violation of Equal Protection under \u00a7 1983 based on a widespread institutional custom of failing to investigate or respond to sexual harassment complaints. See Rost, 511 F.3d at 1124-25. Plaintiff pleads factual allegations about several instances in which she claims her complaints were not acknowledged or addressed by individuals at the institution, including the Dean of Students. Additionally, the alleged lack of Title policies permits a reasonable inference that there was widespread confusion about the institution's procedures for handling sexual harassment reports, as well as deliberate indifference or tacit authorization by policy makers regarding the failure to address such reports. The factual allegations about several institutional failures to respond by the named individual defendants, in combination with the alleged lack of Title policies, support a reasonable inference in Plaintiff's favor that there could have been systemic failures by the institution and its policy makers to 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 19/26 reasonably investigate complaints of sexual harassment. Plaintiff has stated a claim for violation of Equal Protection under \u00a7 1983 against Defendant CNM. C. Qualified immunity Defendants have also asserted the defense of qualified immunity, which \"is designed to shield public officials from liability and ensure that erroneous suits do not even go to trial.\" Albright v. Rodriquez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and citations omitted). \"In resolving a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, a court must consider whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right, and whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.\" *21 Estate of Lockett v. Fallin, 841 F.3d 1098, 1107 (10th Cir. 2016); see Doe v. Woodard, No. 18-1066, 2019 U.S. App 112, at *9 (10th Cir. Jan. 3, 2019) (\"Individual defendants named in a \u00a7 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.\"). The trial court \"has discretion to determine which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.\" Martinez v. Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082, 1088 (10th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 21 This qualified immunity analysis hinges on the \"clearly established\" prong, as the Court has already found that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to plead a constitutional violation against CNM. See discussion above state actor's conduct \"violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, the contours of a right are sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.\" Estate of Lockett, 841 F.3d at 1107. The plaintiff must show there is a \"Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.\" Klen v. City of Loveland, 661 F.3d 498, 511 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted). Qualified immunity \"do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate[]\" for a right to be 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 20/26 clearly established. Estate of Lockett, 841 F.3d at 1107 (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015)). Plaintiff only points to the ruling in Murrell, in which the Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of qualified immunity to two high school teachers and the school principal who had been shown to have actual knowledge of sexual abuse by one student against another student. See Murrell v. School Dist. No. 1, 186 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 1999). The victim in Murrell was a minor student *22 who was repeatedly sexually assaulted on school property by another student, and the assailant was a student who was also appointed a position as a \"janitor's assistant,\" through which he gained access to various parts of the school. Id. at 1243-44. The teachers told the victim to not tell her mother about the sexual assaults and to forget that the sexual assaults happened, and the principal failed to investigate or do anything to stop further abuse from occurring, which satisfied the deliberate indifference standard. 186 F.3d at 1243-44, 1251-52. In reversing the district court's ruling that granted qualified immunity, the Tenth Circuit stated that \"it has been clearly established since at least 1992 that a person who exercises the state's supervisory authority may be held liable for consciously acquiescing in sexually harassing conduct by a non-state actor over whom the state actor has authority.\" Id. at 1251. The Circuit also stated, \"Applying this test, the fact that we have said other supervisory municipal employees may be held liable under the Fourteenth Amendment for deliberate indifference to the discriminatory conduct of third parties was sufficient to make apparent the unlawfulness of such deliberate indifference by a school employee exercising supervisory authority over students.\" Id. 22 The parties agree that Murrell was the law in the spring of 2015, but the issue is whether the ruling from Murrell states the applicable rule in Plaintiff's case. Plaintiff argues that Murrell clearly established the law \"sufficient to make apparent that a school employee exercising supervisory authority over a school teacher, Defendant Vanderploeg, could be liable for deliberate indifference to that teacher's discriminatory conduct.\" Doc. 49 at 16. Defendants maintain that \"[n]one of the defendants would have any reason to believe that they would be held to a standard enunciated in the context of student-on-student harassment in a high school.\" Doc. 53 at 10. 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 21/26 distinguishing fact in Murrell is that the state actors were high school representatives with supervisory authority over the assailant who was a student, and Plaintiff's case is in the *23 context of an alleged assailant who was a tutor employee on a college campus. The Circuit found that the teachers and principals described in Murrell had obvious disciplinary authority over students, as the principal was the highest-ranking administrator and the teachers could have taken appropriate measures to halt the abuse by the student. 186 F.3d at 1247-48 (specifying that under Davis, a school official with authority over students can \"halt known abuse, perhaps by measures such as transferring the harassing student to a different class, suspending him, curtailing his privileges, or providing additional supervision\"). Although the assailant in Murrell was also \"appointed\" as a \"janitor's assistant,\" this fact would not make him an employee in the same sense as Plaintiff has alleged Tutor was, and as Plaintiff has not alleged Tutor was a student. Plaintiff has alleged Coultas- Kay and Crandall had supervisory authority to take corrective measures, such as to suspend Tutor (Doc. 42, \u00b6\u00b6 83, 86), but the disciplinary scheme between Coultas-Kay and Crandall with Tutor, a non-student employee, is not clearly analogous to that of high school teachers and principals to a student. The same is truer of Dean Garcia as Dean of Students and Montoya in Human Resources. The Tenth Circuit does not require that \"the very action in question has previously been held unlawful[,]\" 186 F.3d at 1251, but the context Plaintiff presents involves a different supervisory structure between adults who are college employees, yet not equally so, than the high school student-teacher dynamic outlined in Murrell. 23 Another distinguishing fact from Murrell is the allegation of extensive cover- up by the school officials of the sexual abuse, which Plaintiff has not gone so far as to allege here. The Circuit's ruling that the principal's actions, in refusing to investigate the matter, refusing to return the mother's calls, and suggesting the victim consented despite knowing the assailant admitted to the assaults, were deliberately indifferent does not make apparent the unlawfulness of Coultas-Kay and Crandall's conduct in this case. The two high school teachers in Murrell were also alleged *24 to not only have refused to remedy the harassment, but also to have concealed it, which Plaintiff has not alleged Coultas-Kay and Crandall did in her case. The allegations 24 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 22/26 comprising the claim of deliberate indifference in Murrell were so distinct from the conduct alleged here such that Coultas-Kay and Crandall's conduct was not obviously unreasonable based on the ruling in Murrell. Again, the same is true of a Human Resources representative in Montoya's position and an official in Dean Garcia's position as Dean of Students because Murrell does not clearly establish that their failures to acknowledge Plaintiff's email or phone call violated Plaintiff's rights. The Court agrees with Defendants that the rule from Murrell does not clearly establish Plaintiff's right \"beyond debate,\" to the extent that the every reasonable supervisor in a university educational program outside the traditional teacher-student dynamic would have known it was a violation of the law to fail to act on a complaint of sexual harassment made by an adult student against a tutor employee. See Doe v. Woodard, No. 18-1066, 2019 U.S. App 112, at *9 (10th Cir. Jan. 3, 2019) (\"Individual defendants named in a \u00a7 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.\"). Plaintiff has not shown that the ruling in Murrell defined the \"contours\" her right so clearly \"that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.\" Estate of Lockett, 841 F.3d at 1107. Defendants Coultas-Kay, Crandall, Garcia, and Montoya are entitled to qualified immunity in the suits against them in their individual capacities under \u00a7 1983. D. Official capacity claims against Defendants Defendants Coultas-Kay, Crandall, Montoya, Garcia, and Winograd have also moved to have the \u00a7 1983 claims against them in their official capacities dismissed on the grounds that those claims are duplicative of the claim against the school. Doc. 53 at 9. Defendants note that *25 the Supreme Court has explained that \"an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.\" Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). In Graham, the Supreme Court explained that under Monell, \"there is no longer a need to bring official-capacity actions against local government officials\" when the government entity can be sued directly for damages and injunctive or declaratory relief. 473 U.S. at 167 n.14. These official capacity claims are redundant with the claims against CNM, and tthe 25 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 23/26 official capacity claims against Defendants Coultas-Kay, Crandall, Montoya, Garcia, and Winograd are therefore properly dismissed. E. Title claims against individual Defendants To the extent that Plaintiff has attempted to state a claim for a violation of Title in Count 2 against the individual defendants\u2014namely, Coultas-Kay, Crandall, Montoya, Garcia, and Winograd\u2014Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. The Supreme Court has ruled that Title does not provide for a private cause of action against individuals, as it creates a right enforceable against educational institutions only. See Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246, 257 (2009) (\"Title reaches institutions and programs that receive federal funds . . . but it has consistently been interpreted as not authorizing suit against school officials, teachers, and other individuals.\"). F. Punitive damages and pre-judgment interest The parties' arguments about punitive damages and pre-judgment interest are premature at this stage on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court declines to rule on these damages issues at this time, and the parties may raise their arguments again at a more appropriate procedural stage Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint *26 and for Qualified Immunity (Doc. 44, filed 7/26/18) is and PART, as follows: 26 1. Defendant CNM's Motion to Dismiss Count 1 (Title IX) for failure to state a claim is DENIED. 2. Defendant CNM's Motion to Dismiss Count 2 - Section 1983 based on Equal Protection - for failure to state a claim is DENIED. 3. In their individual capacities, Defendants Coultas-Kay, Crandall, 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 24/26 Montoya, and Garcia's Motions to Dismiss Count 2 (Section 1983) for qualified immunity are GRANTED. 4. In their official capacities, Defendants Coultas-Kay, Crandall, Montoya, Garcia, and Winograd's Motions to Dismiss Count 2 (Section 1983) are ORDERED. /s/_________ About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 25/26 \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/13/25, 10:50 Aubert v. Cent. N.M. Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-0118 | Casetext Search + Citator 26/26"} |
7,549 | John Heineke | Santa Clara University | [
"7549_101.pdf",
"7549_102.pdf",
"7549_103.pdf",
"7549_104.pdf",
"7549_105.pdf",
"7549_106.pdf",
"7549_107.pdf"
] | {"7549_102.pdf": "M. HEINEKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v DOE, Defendants-Appellees. No. 18-16348 D.C. No. 5:17-cv-05285 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 7, 2020 San Francisco, California Filed July 20, 2020 Before: Richard A. Paez and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges, and Lynn S. Adelman,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Paez * The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation. 2 SUMMARY** Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court\u2019s dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and of state law arising from the suspension and termination of plaintiff\u2019s employment. Santa Clara University terminated plaintiff\u2019s employment as an economics professor after concluding that plaintiff had sexually harassed his former student. The panel stated that it could not conclude, on the basis of plaintiff\u2019s allegations, that Santa Clara University was a state actor. The panel held that the University, as a private university, does not become a state actor merely by virtue of being required by generally applicable civil rights laws to ameliorate sex (or any other form of) discrimination. The panel further held that receipt of federal and state funds conditioned on compliance with anti-discrimination laws is insufficient to convert private conduct into state action. The panel addressed plaintiff\u2019s other claims in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader 3 Samuel Kornhauser (argued), Law Offices of Samuel Kornhauser, San Francisco, California, for Plaintiff- Appellant. Don Willenburg (argued), Gordon & Rees LLP, Oakland, California; Marcie Isom Fitzsimmons and Sara A. Moore, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Francisco, California; for Defendants-Appellees PAEZ, Circuit Judge: Defendant Santa Clara University (\u201cSCU\u201d) suspended and later terminated the employment of Plaintiff John Heineke (\u201cHeineke\u201d), a tenured economics professor, after concluding that he had sexually harassed his former student, Jane Doe. Heineke sued and Doe in federal court under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also alleged state tort and contract law claims. The district court dismissed the constitutional claims, denied leave to amend to add a federal statutory claim, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and declined to order to reinstate Heineke to his tenured professorship. We affirm the dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment claims. We address the denial of leave to amend, decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and denial of the mandatory injunction in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. 4 I. John Heineke taught Jane Doe in his economics course at Santa Clara University. The two met on several occasions to discuss course materials. After Doe earned an \u201cA\u201d in the class, Heineke offered her a position as a teaching assistant for the following school year, which she accepted few days before the class and Doe\u2019s teaching assistant obligations were to begin, Doe sent Heineke an email stating feel when somebody touch[es] my body, kiss[es] me in the face and mouth, tell[s] me some sex joke, aka sexual harassment.\u201d In response to Doe\u2019s email, Heineke wrote that he was \u201cstunned\u201d and \u201cdevastated\u201d by the accusation, and then asked if she would still be his teaching assistant. Doe complained to about the alleged harassment but ultimately did not pursue the complaint. Subsequently, another student filed a complaint against Heineke for unrelated incidents of alleged sexual harassment hired a third-party investigator to investigate the allegations, which the investigator ultimately concluded were not supported by the evidence. While investigating the other student\u2019s allegations, however, the investigator learned of Doe\u2019s prior complaint and opened a formal investigation into it. After interviewing Doe and witnesses, the investigator issued a lengthy report, which concluded that Heineke more likely than not had sexually harassed Doe. Heineke appealed the finding to the provost, who affirmed the determination, concluded that Heineke\u2019s conduct violated SCU\u2019s harassment policy, and issued a sanction of termination. Heineke then appealed to SCU\u2019s president, who upheld the termination, and later to SCU\u2019s Faculty Judicial Board, which held a hearing at which Heineke was represented by counsel. The Faculty Judicial 5 Board issued a unanimous decision affirming the termination of Heineke\u2019s employment. While the campus proceedings were ongoing, Heineke sued and Doe in federal court. The operative complaint alleges Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983, as well as claims for wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and defamation. The district court granted Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the constitutional claims on the ground that SCU\u2019s conduct was not subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed the suit without prejudice to refiling the state law claims in state court.1 II. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1291, 1292(a)(1). We review de novo a district court\u2019s grant of a motion to dismiss, as well as its determination that a party is not a state actor. Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 811\u201312 (9th Cir. 2010). \u201c[W]e accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 1 Simultaneous to his appeal, Heineke filed a complaint and petition for a writ of mandamus in Santa Clara County Superior Court, seeking an order directing to reinstate his employment and Doe request that we take judicial notice of the complaint and petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Dkt. 21. We grant the request. 6 party.\u201d Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). III. On appeal, Heineke argues that the district court erred in dismissing his constitutional claim for failure to allege state action. As a private university is not ordinarily obligated to comply with constitutional due process requirements. Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999). Heineke argues, however, that has become a state actor by virtue of the federal government and State of California \u201ccoerc[ing into \u201cenforc[ing] both federal and state anti- discrimination . . . laws as a condition of obtaining federal grant funds\u201d such that has become \u201c\u2018a partner\u2019 with the government in enforcing these laws.\u201d We disagree. Heineke fails to allege sufficient facts to show that is a state actor for purposes of \u00a7 1983. A. \u201cTo state a claim for relief in an action brought under \u00a7 1983, [plaintiffs] must establish that they were deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.\u201d Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49\u201350 (1999). Section 1983 \u201cexcludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrong.\u201d Sutton, 192 F.3d at 835 (citation omitted). We begin \u201cwith the presumption that private conduct does not constitute governmental action.\u201d Id. That presumption may be overcome in limited circumstances, such as where the state \u201chas exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement\u201d that the 7 challenged action must be considered that of the state, Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982), or where \u201cthe state knowingly accepts the benefits derived from unconstitutional behavior.\u201d Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1486 (9th Cir. 1995)).2 B. We begin with the allegations in the operative complaint, which we accept as true. The complaint alleges, in relevant part: Defendant Santa Clara University . . . is a purported \u201cprivate\u201d university which acts as a \u201cstate actor\u201d on behalf of the federal government and on behalf of the State of California in that is funded, in large part, by federal grants and contracts . . . which all require, as a condition of such fundings, that have an Affirmative Action Plan in place and that certify, as a condition of funding, that it does not discriminate on the basis of age, gender, religion, etc., and that is subject to oversight and de-funding and penalty for failure to implement or comply with such federal anti-discrimination laws . . . . These federal funding requirements and restrictions and penalties are designed to and, in fact, do 2 Because Heineke relies only on \u201cgovernmental compulsion\u201d and \u201cjoint action\u201d theories to advance his state action argument, we do not consider the \u201cpublic function\u201d or \u201cgovernmental nexus\u201d tests. See Sutton, 192 F.3d at 835\u201336. 8 require to act in fact and in reality as an enforcement arm of the federal government to carry out enforcement of these federal and state anti-discrimination laws by coercing and/or by obtaining SCU\u2019s cooperation in enforcing . . . Title IX\u2019s provisions against gender discrimination, and California\u2019s laws against sexual harassment in the workplace . . . which has done by enacting an anti- sexual harassment policy . . . to carry out the federal and state governments\u2019 enforcement policies. SCU, as a state actor, has violated . . . [Heineke\u2019s] right to equal protection of the laws [under] 29 U.S.C. \u00a71983 [sic]. Heineke also alleges that is \u201cheavily funded by the federal government\u201d and the State of California. In total, the complaint boils down to three allegations that purportedly support the state action theory: (1 receives federal and state funds, (2) which are conditioned on compliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws and regulations, including enacting an affirmative action plan and a sexual harassment policy, (3) such that may lose government funds should it fail to comply with the law. We cannot conclude, on the basis of these allegations, that is a state actor.3 Receipt of government funds is 3 Although Heineke claims that acted as both a federal and state actor, he has pleaded only violations of the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983. Only state actors, not federal entities, are subject to the Fourteenth Amendment; accordingly, private entities may be subjected to \u00a7 1983 liability only under a state action theory. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 238 n.16 (1979). Thus, Heineke\u2019s claim that the federal government compelled the challenged conduct cannot support his claim that is a state actor under the Fourteenth 9 insufficient to convert a private university into a state actor, even where \u201cvirtually all of the school\u2019s income [i]s derived from government funding.\u201d Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 840 (1982). Nor is compliance with generally applicable laws sufficient to convert private conduct into state action. See, e.g., Sutton, 192 F.3d at 841 (\u201c[G]overnmental compulsion in the form of a generally applicable law, without more, is [not] sufficient to deem a private entity a governmental actor.\u201d); Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350 (1974) (\u201cThe mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u201d); Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 833, 841\u201342, 848 (finding no state action where state regulation required school to draft rules for dismissing employees and comply with \u201can equal employment opportunity requirement\u201d); Kitchens, 825 F.2d at 1339\u201340 (same, where federal law conditioned receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory and regulatory program requirements). That a private actor\u2019s conduct is subject to penalties, such as loss of funding, is also insufficient to Amendment. The Tenth Circuit recently reached a similar conclusion. See Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 952 F.3d 1182, 1187\u201388 (10th Cir. 2020) (holding that the plaintiff\u2019s reliance \u201csolely on evidence of the federal government\u2019s involvement in [a private university\u2019s] affairs\u201d\u2014such as the university\u2019s compliance with Title and Department of Education guidance\u2014\u201chas no bearing on whether the school is a state actor under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is concerned only with the actions of state governments\u201d). To the extent that Heineke sought to allege a federal action claim by his repeated references to the federal government throughout the operative complaint, his allegations are insufficient to show federal action for the same reasons he fails to allege state action. See Kitchens v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 1337, 1340 (9th Cir. 1987) (\u201cThe standards utilized to find federal action for purposes of the Fifth Amendment are identical to those employed to detect state action subject to the strictures of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u201d) (citation omitted). 10 convert private action into that of the state. See, e.g., Blum, 457 U.S. at 1010 (\u201c[P]enalties imposed for violating the regulations add nothing to respondents\u2019 claim of state action.\u201d); Kitchens, 825 F.2d at 1339\u201340. Heineke does not allege that the state government commanded a particular result in, or otherwise participated in, his specific case. See, e.g., Blum, 457 U.S. at 1010 (finding no state action where government regulations did \u201cnot dictate the decision to discharge or transfer in a particular case\u201d) (emphasis added); Sutton, 192 F.3d at 843; Pinhas v. Summit Health, Ltd., 894 F.2d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 1989). In short, SCU, as a private university, does not become a state actor merely by virtue of being required by generally applicable civil rights laws to ameliorate sex (or any other form of) discrimination in educational activities as a condition of receiving state funding. Our sister circuits have reached similar conclusions. For instance, the Second Circuit concluded that a private college\u2019s termination of a professor under its sexual harassment policy, which had been formulated at the \u201curging\u201d of the state human rights commission, was not state action because the commission \u201chad no involvement in [the professor\u2019s particular] case.\u201d Logan v. Bennington College Corp., 72 F.3d 1017, 1027\u201328 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Farapusi v. Case W. Reserve Univ., 711 Fed. App\u2019x 269, 275\u201376 (6th Cir. 2017) (finding no state action where student suspended for sexual harassment alleged that private university \u201cacted under the color of state law by enforcing Title IX\u201d). We note that dozens of district courts have addressed the very same question presented here, namely whether compliance with Title IX, related Department of Education guidance, or state anti-discrimination laws and regulations are sufficient to transform private schools into state actors 11 As far as we are aware, not one has recognized such a claim. See Doe v. Washington Univ., 434 F. Supp. 3d 735, 749\u201350 (E.D. Mo. 2020) (collecting cases); Doe v. Case W. Reserve Univ., No. 1:17 414, 2017 3840418, at *10 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2017) (same).4 In sum, we conclude that receipt of federal and state funds conditioned on compliance with anti-discrimination laws is insufficient to convert private conduct into state action. Indeed, to accept Heineke\u2019s argument would upend our nation\u2019s civil rights laws: As we reasoned in Sutton, doing so would \u201cconvert every employer\u2014whether it has one employee or 1,000 employees\u2014into a governmental actor every time it complies with a presumptively valid, generally applicable law.\u201d Sutton, 192 F.3d at 838. This we decline to do. IV. Because SCU\u2019s alleged conduct is not sufficient to show state action, we affirm the district court\u2019s dismissal of 4 See also, e.g., Doe v. Harvard Univ., No. 1:18-cv-12150-IT, 2020 2769945, at *8 (D. Mass. May 28, 2020); Vengalattore v. Cornell Univ., 3:18-cv-1124 (GLS/TWD), 2020 2104706, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. May 1, 2020); Doe v. Transylvania Univ., No. 5:20-145-DCR, 2020 1860696, at *8 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 13, 2020); Doe v. Oberlin College, No. 1:20 669, 2020 1696979, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 7, 2020); Woytowicz v. George Washington Univ., 327 F. Supp. 3d 105, 116\u201320 (D.D.C. 2018); Rossley v. Drake Univ., No. 4:17-cv-00058-RGE-SBJ, 2017 5634151, at *3 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 6, 2017); Tsuruta v. Augustana Univ., No. 4:15-CV-04150-KES, 2015 5838602, at *2\u2013 3 (D.S.D. Oct. 7, 2015); Doe v. Washington & Lee Univ., No. 6:14-CV- 00052, 2015 4647996, at *9 (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2015). 12 Heineke\u2019s \u00a7 1983 constitutional claims for failure to state a claim for relief.5 AFFIRMED. 5 Heineke\u2019s contention that it is inappropriate to dismiss his \u00a7 1983 constitutional claims at the motion to dismiss stage, is unpersuasive. We have accepted his allegations as true. Because he has failed to plead any allegations sufficient to support his argument that acted under color of state law, however, his \u00a7 1983 claims must fail as a matter of law. The district court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss.", "7549_103.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ. California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division Apr 27, 2023 No. A165818 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2023) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Take care of legal research in a matter of minutes with CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free A165818 A165842 04-27-2023 Plaintiff and Appellant, v UNIVERSITY, Defendant and Respondent Plaintiff and Appellant, v et al., Defendants and Respondents. WHITMAN, J. Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/52 Order Filed Date 5/18/23 Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. 18CV332285, 18CV333011 COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 23, 2023, be modified as follows: 1. On page 2, line 4, replace the words \"the FJB\" with the word \"SCU\" so that the sentence reads: In the mandamus action, Heineke contends did not provide him with a fair hearing and failed to adhere to its own procedures governing the hearing process and that there is not substantial evidence to support SCU's or the trial court's findings of fact. *2 2 2. On page 2, line 14, replace the words \"the FJB\" with the word \"SCU\" so that the sentence reads: Further, we find there was substantial evidence to support the findings of both and the trial court. 3. On page 46, line 2 of footnote 36, replace the words \"the FJB's finding\" with the words \"SCU's finding\" so that the sentence reads: Our reasoning should not be misconstrued as a conclusion that the judgment in the mandamus proceeding gives SCU's finding of harassment, as affirmed herein, issue-preclusive effect in the civil action. There is no change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied. *3 3 WHITMAN, J. [*] Following a series of decisions, culminating in an administrative hearing before the faculty judicial board (FJB) at Santa Clara University (SCU), the upheld the finding that Professor John Heineke had sexually harassed a 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/52 student (Jane Doe) in 2015 terminated Heineke's tenure and fired him. Heineke filed a petition for administrative mandamus review of the decision and a civil action against and Doe. In the mandamus proceeding, the superior court found that Heineke was not entitled to writ relief. In the civil action, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, disposing of the entire case. *4 4 In these consolidated appeals, Heineke challenges both decisions. In the mandamus action, Heineke contends did not provide him with a fair hearing and failed to adhere to its own procedures governing the hearing process and that there is not substantial evidence to support the or the trial court's findings of fact. In the civil action, Heineke contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance to allow additional discovery and briefing and granting summary judgment. Although SCU's faculty handbook could more clearly set forth the procedural steps for adjudicating student-teacher sexual harassment cases and it is not clear that scrupulously adhered to the letter of its provisions, we conclude that Heineke has not shown he was deprived of a fair hearing or that prejudicially deviated from handbook procedure. Further, we find there was substantial evidence to support the findings of both the and the trial court. In the civil action, we find that the trial court did not err, procedurally or substantively, except as to one count of the defamation cause of action against Doe (for republishing her accusations to an unnamed witness, outside of the litigation context). We thus affirm the order granting summary judgment as to but reverse as to Doe, solely as to the defamation cause of action 1. Doe's Sexual Harassment Allegations and Complaint Heineke became a tenured professor of economics at SCU, a private institution, in 1972. His employment was subject to the faculty handbook, a part of his employment contract with SCU. In 2015, Jane Doe, a Chinese national and student, enrolled in \"Econ 3400,\" a required graduate course taught by Heineke. During the winter 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/52 quarter, at her request, she repeatedly met with Heineke in his office, *5 outside regular office hours, for help with the course material. Doe earned an \"A\" grade and accepted an offer to serve as Heineke's teaching assistant (TA) for the same course in fall 2015. During the spring term (April-June 2015), Doe and Heineke had lunch at off-campus restaurants four times, twice at restaurants she chose. 5 During the winter and spring 2015 terms, Doe sent Heineke many friendly, complimentary emails requesting and thanking him for help with the class and other matters, and for the opportunity. She called him a \"very great and responsible professor\" who had provided \"kind help,\" referred to him as \"sweet\" and as a \"friend,\" and used many smiley-face emoji. While the nature and extent of Heineke's physical contact with Doe in winter and spring 2015 is hotly disputed, he admits having tried to \"mentor\" her in European/American culture, including once demonstrating the French style of greeting by pressing cheeks and kissing the air and hugging her several times. He claimed this contact was brief, nonsexual, and at her request; as set forth below, Doe described the contact as extreme, extensive, and nonconsensual. On June 17, Doe emailed Heineke to cancel a lunch. He expressed disappointment, as he had \"made many changes\" to the Econ 3400 materials that he wanted her to review while he was in Europe for the next several weeks. Doe apologized, writing that she had not realized he wanted to \"discuss the thing\" and had thought \"it was just a casual lunch with a friend.\" On July 12, Heineke emailed Doe that he would like to meet soon if she had \"had a chance to look at the materials for the course.\" She replied that she had not and proposed meeting after August 11. He replied that he was \"disappointed,\" as he would \"have everything finished by then,\" and had been *6 \"hoping to have much more interaction with you as my assistant, [e]specially . . . about additions and changes in the course.\" 6 Doe responded that she was unavailable during summer break, as she had said before. She offered to confer by email in late July, adding believe [past TAs] cannot just go to your office at any time you want during summer 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/52 break. What if they are on a vacation don't think you treat me equally as your other assistants.\" Heineke acknowledged \"treating [her] different[ly]\" because he believed her to be \"exceptionally talented academically\" and had planned to give her \"far more responsibility than other TAs\" so that he could \"recommend [her] at a level [he] had . . . seldom [done].\" Nonetheless, in view of Doe's schedule, he proposed \"redefining [her] position as that of a regular TA\" reducing the time commitment, and putting off any meeting until September. Doe responded, \"Every person deserves to be treated equally regardless of his/her race, sex, age, religion.\" Asked \"how much responsibility\" she would like, she replied want to be a normal TA, doing all a TA's responsibilities.\" Heineke assented and, while noting that past TAs who \"now have superb jobs\" had benefitted from more intensive involvement including regular meetings, offered to \"make it work with the least amount of time on your part as possible.\" Despite the apparent agreement to defer a meeting until September, Heineke started emailing Doe in late July to see if she was available to discuss the materials sooner. She reminded him she would \"not be around until beginning of the fall quarter.\" He emailed again in August and early September, asking her to review materials and eventually suggesting the need to meet was urgent. He then inquired as to her status on September 4, and again on September 5, asking her if she had received the materials. On *7 September 7, he wrote ECON3400 AVAILABLE?\" 7 About 50 minutes later, Doe replied she was \"in a very intense program now,\" did not \"even have time to sleep and eat,\" and was, as she had said, unavailable until \"after the summer break feel when somebody touch my body, kiss me in the face and mouth, tell me some sex joke, aka sexual harassment.\" Six hours later, Heineke sent a long response (quoted at length in the margin ) expressing his disbelief, shock, and devastation, and suggesting his *8 \"gestures of friendship\" had been misinterpreted by Doe due to cultural differences. He disclaimed any interest in Doe, other than her academic 1 8 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/52 ability and role as a and asked again regarding her availability \"to discuss the course.\" 1 am stunned by your remark still cannot believe what you wrote and find it extremely difficult to even answer your email am devastated have been using student TAs for 30+ years and have had anything except warm and friendly relations with them, all of them-male and female alike help them find jobs, write recommendations and often they remain friends a great many years later. The friendly gestures made toward you do with my sisters, my sister-in-laws. my father-[in]-law!, my brother-in- laws! and friends here at the university and in Europe did not realize the extent of the cultural divide between US/European and Chinese customs have had many Chinese assistants, many of whom stay in contact with me, and have never heard anything like this before. To make it clear have no interest whatsoever in you for your academic ability and your willingness to spend enough time to be an excellent TA. Rest assured our relationship will be as formal as is possible from now on will no longer try to mentor you on U.S. culture. All want from you is a highly effective interaction with students else. How you could think otherwise is deeply troubling remain in shock-After all am old enough to be your grandfather am deeply sorry for the way you have misinterpreted my gestures of friendship. [\u00b6] My primary concern with you has been that, unlike any assistant have ever had, you do not answer emails and do not follow through on things that have asked every assistant to do, like reading and critiquing the course materials for the coming quarter .... Perhaps wasn't clear enough about my expectations or did not properly understand your summer commitments. If so apologize wish you had reminded me of your intensive course, which now vaguely recollect. [\u00b6] In the past[,] many assistants have provided excellent ideas for homework problems and suggestions about rewording of class materials that will make them easier for students to understand need someone can be in regular contact with-someone who answers email. [\u00b6] So going forward, when are you free to discuss the course? . . . [\u00b6] Please let me know your availability ASAP.\" The next day (September 8), Heineke emailed to ask if Doe \"would still like to be [his] TA\" He said he still believed her to be \"eminently qualified\" but suggested, \"Do what you feel is best for you, but please let me know as soon as you can as it might take some time to find a replacement.\" 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/52 On September 9, Doe wrote, \"oh really? this is your country's culture? You put your hands inside my clothes and touch my body, my skin for long long time, you put your hands into the back pocket of my jeans squeezing my butt, you hug me in such a way can feel your penis while kissing me in the mouth!!!! you ask me to sit with you in the same chair . . . You insisted me having lunch with you nearly every single day in the name of 'discussing class' but doing nothing except touching me!!!!! . . . You asked me many disgusting topic like 'did you get hurt when you first have sex STUDENTS???? [\u00b6] You really think people from China are ignorant enough to believe all of those are 'cultural difference' &'mentor on U.S. culture'??!!!\" \"Maybe am not a master of other culture but COUNTRY.\" An hour later, Heineke replied that he was \"devastated\" and denied having done any \"of the horrible things\" Doe described do not understand *9 how you could possibly say what you have....In my 30+ years of teaching have not [had] even one complaint am very very sad. [\u00b6] Would you like to stop by to talk? Would that help?\" 9 On September 11, Heineke wrote, \"Your words haunt me. Is there anything can do to regain your trust? You are a wonderful student want you to [Econ] 3400 if you can, and most of all would like to think of you as a friend when you leave the program. Can we talk next week?\" On September 13, and 15, he sent additional urgent inquiries, of which the latter read, \"Please let me know if you are going to be my want you to do it very badly because of your qualifications. Please say yes. You will not be sorry, and will learn a lot.\" Doe did not reply. On September 21, she emailed SCU's equal employment opportunity office to report that Heineke \"sexual[ly] harassed [her] for half [a] year. [\u00b6] . . . When asked questions (even some real small ones . . .) he never replied [to] me by email but insisted [I] go to his office\"; when she did so, \"he always opened a heater before my coming and asked me to take off my outwear. At first he just gave me a little hug and touched my face. [\u00b6] But things got worse and worse.\"Noting that she had accepted Heineke's offer to be his because she considered it \"a good opportunity to learn,\" Doe 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/52 repeated the allegations in her September 9 email. She rejected Heineke's reference to \"cultural differences\" and his claim that he behaves similarly with family and friends, adding that his eventual denial left her \"very very devastated felt disgust[] even think[ing] of his face Director of Equal Opportunity and Title Coordinator Belinda Guthrie met with Doe about her claim, but Doe did not respond to Guthrie's post-meeting requests for more information and did not pursue her claim. Guthrie did not initiate an investigation or advise Heineke of the complaint. *10 Heineke did not tell anyone at of the emails and deleted them from his account because, he said, they \"bothered [him] immensely.\" 10 2. The 2017 Investigations Fifteen months later, in January 2017, another female student from China (Student A) complained to Guthrie's office that Heineke had sexually harassed her. Guthrie hired Michael Henry, an investigator with the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management Group (NCHERM), to investigate Student A's claim. According to Henry, Student said in a March 2017 interview that after she submitted her complaint, a mutual friend had put her in touch with a former student (whose name Student did not know) who also claimed harassment by Heineke. At Henry's request, Student texted the former student, who proved to be Doe; she agreed to speak with Henry. 2 2 had on retainer to provide sexual-harassment and other training, and Guthrie worked as a consultant for the firm. On the same day, Henry interviewed Heineke about Student A's allegations. Henry asked Heineke, \"Has this ever occurred before?\" or \"Has anything like this ever come up before?\" Heineke said no and did not disclose Doe's accusations. Later that month, Henry interviewed Doe at length; she gave an account consistent with her September 2015 emails. In April 2017, Henry sent Guthrie a memorandum summarizing Doe's accusations, characterizing them as credible and partially corroborated by other witnesses, and noting 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/52 that he had not yet discussed her allegations with Heineke. Guthrie authorized a separate investigation of Doe's claim. In May 2017, Henry reinterviewed Heineke and seven other witnesses about Doe's accusations. Before disclosing Doe's allegations, Henry again *11 asked Heineke whether \"anything like this\" had ever happened to him before, which Heineke again denied.. 11 In May 2017, Henry issued a report concluding that Heineke had not sexually harassed Student A. In June 2017, Henry issued a 54-page report on his investigation, \"conducted pursuant to [SCU]'s . . . [harassment] policy\" (appendix to the faculty handbook, discussed below), finding it more likely than not that Heineke had harassed Doe. The report described Henry's interviews of Heineke, Doe, and seven unnamed acquaintances of Doe and attached copies of emails between Doe and Heineke from 2015, including the above-quoted emails of September 7-15, which Doe had provided. 3. Faculty Handbook Provisions Because the investigation and ensuing hearing process are governed by the faculty handbook, and Heineke asserts did not follow its provisions, we pause to set forth relevant provisions of the handbook. Three sections are relevant: (a) section 3.9, which defines a procedure for determining whether a tenured faculty member should be terminated for \"misconduct\"; (b) appendix (the unlawful sexual harassment policy), which provides a procedure for investigation and adjudication of sexual harassment claims between any two members of the university community; and (c) section 3.10.2, which governs the jurisdiction and procedures of the in many types of cases, including both \"misconduct\" cases and designated sexual harassment cases. As our summary of these procedures discloses, although the conduct alleged in this case plainly constitutes both \"misconduct\" and \"sexual harassment\" and was thus potentially subject to both procedural schemes, the handbook does not set forth any guidance on which of the two procedures to use in such a case. *12 12 a. Misconduct Provisions (Section 3.9) 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/52 The faculty handbook, subsection 3.9.1, defines \"misconduct\" as \"behavior inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of academic integrity and professional conduct for members of a university faculty, including norms articulated in this handbook.\" Subsection 3.9.2.2 provides, \"When, in the judgment of the Provost, reason exists to dismiss and terminate the tenure of a tenured faculty member, either for misconduct or for cause, the Provost shall first discuss the matter privately with the faculty member, giving the reason(s) for the Provost's judgment.\" By mutual consent, the matter may be decided by the in the first instance; absent such an agreement, and if the matter is not settled or dropped, the provost decides whether to issue a termination notice. Such a notice must state the reason for termination and an effective date which is, \"[e]xcept in the case of gross misconduct,\" at least one year from the date of notice. The faculty member is \"entitled to prompt reconsideration\" of the provost's decision \"by the [F]B],\" which \"shall follow the procedures described in 3.10.2.3\" (also referred to as guidelines, discussed below). b. Policy on Unlawful Harassment and Unlawful Discrimination (Appendix F) Appendix of the faculty handbook is the harassment policy, which defines \"harassment\" and SCU's procedures for handling complaints. It details a different set of procedures than section 3.9 (misconduct) for a different (but, as in this case, potentially overlapping) set of cases-namely, for investigating, hearing, deciding and appealing a claim of harassment between members of the university community. For example, while subsection 3.9.2.2 is silent as to how the provost is expected to evaluate potential misconduct or to reach a \"judgment\" that misconduct has occurred, *13 appendix provides that the director of affirmative action (director) initially evaluates the claim, determines whether to pursue an informal resolution, and, failing settlement, must pursue a formal resolution, including an investigation. The investigator must \"report in writing to the appropriate university officer\" (who is, in a case in which the complainant is a student and the respondent a faculty member, the provost).The report must set forth the investigator's \"evidentiary findings of the occurrence or the nonoccurrence of the alleged conduct and the 13 3 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/52 investigator's legal conclusion as to whether the conduct that occurred amounted to unlawful harassment.\" 3 While the policy assigns several functions to a \"director of affirmative action,\" Belinda Guthrie, whose title was director of equal opportunity and title coordinator, performed those functions in this case. Heineke did not object to this discrepancy. Upon receiving a report, the provost will \"decide upon the resolution, including, if appropriate, . . . corrective action\" and \"will inform the complainant and respondent(s) in writing of the evidentiary findings of the investigator and the resolution of the matter, including any remedy or corrective action.\" Next, section provides, \"either the complainant or the respondent may appeal the evidentiary findings of the investigator, the remedy or corrective action, if any, ordered by the [provost], or both.\" 4 4 The identity of the \"appropriate university officer\" to receive an investigator's report in a given case-and, later, of the \"appropriate appellate decisionmaker\" for any appeal-depends on \"the role of the parties in the university community.\" For clarity and brevity, at each stage we refer to the \"appropriate university officer\" and \"appropriate appellate decisionmaker\" by the title of the officer designated to fulfill that role in a case, like this, in which the complainant is a student and the respondent is a faculty member. In a student/faculty member case, the \"appropriate appellate decision maker\" is SCU's president. Before deciding an appeal, the president \"may consult with any person who participated in the formal resolution process, *14 including the complainant and respondent,\" and \"shall consult\" with the \"Dean of Student Life and a member of the [F]B] selected by the [p]resident.\" \"If a person appeals an investigator's evidentiary findings, the [president] shall affirm [them] unless it concludes that those findings were clearly erroneous.\" The selected remedy must be affirmed unless it is \"arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.\" \"In either case, [the president's] decision shall be final.\" 14 5 5 While appendix provides for involvement in some types of cases, a complaint like this one-by a student against a respondent who was a faculty member-would not qualify. Rather, pursuant to appendix F, the provost would receive the investigator's report and factual findings and then make 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/52 the initial decision as to remedy, which could be appealed to the president, whose decision would be final. c Jurisdiction and Procedures (Section 3.10.2) Section 3.10.2 of the faculty handbook governs jurisdiction and procedures. Subsections 3.10.2.2 and 3.10.2.3 confer jurisdiction on the in 10 types of cases, which include \"cases of sanction for misconduct, as provided in [section] 3.9\" and \"cases designated in the [harassment policy].\" As we have explained, no party invoked the FJB's jurisdiction to decide a \"misconduct\" allegation in the first instance, or upon \"reconsideration\" of a decision by the provost; nor was this a type of case \"designated\" under appendix of the handbook to be heard by the FJB. Rather, after the investigator, the provost, and the president had determined that harassment did more likely than not occur informed Heineke that he could petition the for review of the president's decision. Notwithstanding the lack of authority in the handbook for review, the parties proceeded before the FJB. Before the hearing, the parties appeared to agree that the hearing would be evidentiary in nature and that the FJB's decision would be final; *15 but they did not discuss whether the had become involved pursuant to section 3.9 or appendix of the handbook. As this distinction bears on Heineke's fair process claim, we also address procedures. 15 Once the jurisdiction of the is invoked, the \"establish[es] a hearing committee of five of its own members,\" none of whom has \"a conflict of interest in the matter.\" The must \"proceed according to the following guidelines (numbered 1-13).\" 6 7 6 Because in this case the acted only through the hearing committee, we also refer to the committee, for brevity, as \"the FJB.\" 7 The guidelines are one of two separate, numbered lists in subsection 3.10.2.3. The guidelines provide for certain fundamental rights, including the right of each party to present evidence and argument to the FJB; to be represented by counsel at their own expense; to obtain necessary evidence and witnesses (and, to the extent the university is able, to have it secure the cooperation of such witnesses); and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who do 8 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/52 appear. The guidelines further provide that the \"will not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence\" and may admit any evidence it finds probative; and that it will base its findings \"solely on evidence received.\" 8 Subsection 3.10.2.3 of the guidelines define the \"parties\" to a proceeding to include \"a faculty member whose matter is before the hearing committee,\" \"any person who has made an allegation of sexual harassment . . . under consideration,\" and \"the university.\" Importantly, guideline 12 states: \"The burden of persuasion in matters before the hearing committee shall be satisfied only by a preponderance of the evidence. In cases governed by 3.9 (misconduct and diminished fitness) the burden rests upon the University. In all other cases, the burden rests upon the party invoking the jurisdiction of the [F]B].\" *16 16 The 13 guidelines are followed by seven numbered \"items\" that describe \"[t]he nature and effect of decisions of the hearing committee\" in seven types of cases. Item 2 states, \"Except as provided in item 6 below, in cases of dismissal and termination of tenure of a tenured faculty member for misconduct or cause (3.9), . . . should the hearing committee decide that cause for dismissal and termination of tenure exists, the faculty member shall be dismissed and tenure terminated . . . [,] and the faculty member shall have no further right of review.\" If the committee finds cause for only a lesser sanction, or no sanction, the provost may, for reasons they find \"compelling,\" appeal to the board of trustees, whose decision \"shall be final.\" However, item 6 (the identified exception to item 2) states: \"In any case heard by the hearing committee pursuant to the [harassment policy], including any case involving dismissal and termination of tenure of a tenured faculty member,\" \"the effect of the hearing committee's decision shall be as provided in the last paragraph of section of the [harassment policy].\" As noted, the last paragraph of section III.Fc states that the decision \"shall be final.\" In summary, under the misconduct procedures, the provost may find reason to terminate a professor's tenure \"for misconduct.\" The provost discusses the matter privately with the professor and then issues a dismissal notice, which the professor can immediately petition the to reconsider under 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/52 its guidelines, with the burden of persuasion on the university. The is to determine if cause exists for dismissal and termination of tenure. If the finds cause only for a lesser sanction, or for no sanction may for \"compelling\" reasons appeal that decision; if, however, the decides that cause for termination exists, its decision is final. *17 17 Under the harassment policy, an investigator makes to the provost a written report as to whether the respondent committed harassment. The provost determines whether to take corrective action or impose any remedy. Either the complainant or respondent can appeal the investigator's findings, the provost's remedy, or both, to the president, whose decision \"shall be final.\" In a case such as this, where the complainant was a student and respondent an instructor at the time of the alleged harassment, the Harassment policy does not provide for involvement. 4. SCU's Internal Review of Henry's Report and its Decision Turning back to the history of this case, consistent with appendix F, Guthrie sent a copy of Henry's investigative report to the provost, Dennis Jacobs, and to Doe and Heineke. Heineke sought to provide, and agreed to accept, a written response to Henry's report, and Heineke indicated that additional, relevant emails that he had previously deleted from his account might exist and urged to consider them. SCU's information technology department retrieved and Henry reviewed additional emails between Heineke and Doe, mostly from the winter and spring of 2015. Henry prepared a 50-page supplemental analysis responding to Heineke's criticisms of his initial report and analyzing the recovered emails. He acknowledged the friendly tone of Doe's emails in the first half of 2015, but concluded this did not shift the preponderance of the evidence to favor Heineke. On August 14, Provost Jacobs met privately with Heineke to discuss the matter, a step provided for by the misconduct provisions but not appendix of the handbook. He also accepted Heineke's lengthy written response to Henry's addendum. *18 9 18 9 At the hearing, asked why he met privately with Heineke, Jacobs referred to the faculty handbook, paraphrasing section 3.9 of the faculty 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/52 handbook. By contrast, the harassment policy does not authorize a decisionmaker to meet, ex parte, with one of the parties. On August 20, Jacobs issued his decision, finding \"it is more likely than not\" that Heineke violated the harassment policy. He found that \"the preponderance of the evidence supported the finding of sexual harassment,\" quoting the harassment policy's definition thereof. He also noted his \"acceptance of the findings of the investigation\"; found that Heineke's acts amount to \"gross misconduct\" (the standard in the misconduct policy governing terminations in less than one year); and imposed a dismissal and termination of tenure effective in two weeks. Finally, paraphrasing appendix F, he advised: \"either the complainant or the respondent may appeal the evidentiary findings of the investigator, the remedy or corrective action, if any, ordered by the provost, or both,\" and that SCU's president \"is the designated person [to] handle an appeal.\" 10 10 The provost's \"finding\" that misconduct occurred is consistent with section 3.9 of the faculty handbook, which requires that the provost form a \"judgment\" as to whether a faculty member engaged in \"misconduct.\" By contrast, the harassment policy limits the role of the provost to choosing a remedy based on the investigator's findings. When asked at the hearing why he took the steps he did, Jacobs paraphrased obligations found in both policies. Heineke appealed to SCU's president, Fr. Michael Engh. As provided in appendix of the handbook, Engh consulted with Doe, Heineke, the dean of students, and a member of the FJB, Professor Lawrence Nelson. Engh ruled, \"ln accordance with [the harassment policy have reviewed your appeal affirm the evidentiary findings . . . [and] remedy of termination ....\" *19 11 19 11 Heineke also filed a federal action for injunctive relief to restrain from suspending and terminating him. Jacobs emailed Heineke, stating, \"Pursuant to Sect. 3.10.2.3 . . . you have 30 days . . . to bring a petition to the [F]B].\" Jacobs's email did not identify any provision of the handbook authorizing Heineke to petition the to review a decision of the president and, as noted above, we are aware of none (see ante at p. 12 &fn. 6). 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/52 5. Prehearing Communications Regarding Appeals Procedure Heineke petitioned for review, asserting that his \"appeal should be heard and decided by the hearing committee of the [F]B],\" citing to harassment policy section F.1. The appointed a five-member hearing committee. It included Professor Greg Corning, who handled prehearing communications, and Professor Nelson. 12 12 Heineke's attorney cited policy 311, section F.1. Policy 311 was the title of the harassment policy posted on SCU's human resources webpage, substantially identical to the version in appendix of the faculty handbook. In December 2017, Corning sought counsel's \"view on a possible conflict of interest\" for Professor Lawrence Nelson-who before the hearing committee was selected, had provided Fr. Engh \"general advice\" about \"fair appellate procedure\"; Corning asked whether Nelson should recuse. The consultation concerned Engh's review of Jacobs's ruling (not the hearing) and did \"not concern[] the specific facts of this case.\" Heineke's counsel responded, \"Professor Heineke waives any conflict of interest and does not object to Professor Lawrence Nelson being on the hearing committee.\" Corning also inquired regarding an \"apparent incongruity\" between subsection 3.10.2.3 of the faculty handbook and the harassment policy regarding the \"effect\" of the hearing committee's decision in this case. The inquiry reflected the FJB's assumption that this case was being heard pursuant to appendix responded, explaining why the FJB's decision *20 would be final pursuant to appendix F.Heineke objected that guidelines provide that in section 3.9 misconduct proceedings, the provost-but not a professor-may appeal the FJB's decision to the board of trustees (a sort of \"heads win, tails you lose\" provision). To avoid that unjust provision, he argued, the should treat this case as a \"sexual harassment case\" being heard pursuant to appendix (at least for purposes of finality), so the decision would be final as to both parties. 20 In March 2018, a week before the hearing, Corning wrote that the hearing committee would \"hear the case under the rules laid out in the faculty handbook and [harassment policy]; it will not consider any objections to, or any form of collateral attack on, these rules. [\u00b6] Per section 3.10.2.3 . . ., the 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 16/52 committee will decide whether the petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not violate the [harassment policy].\" Although the burden of persuasion was placed upon Heineke, he did not object or ask the to reconsider its stance. 6. The Hearing The conducted a three-day hearing at which Guthrie, Henry, Jacobs, Doe, and Heineke testified. Heineke denied Doe's accusations except to admit having demonstrated, at her request, the French method of greeting by pressing cheeks and, when invited by Doe, engaging in platonic hugs. When asked why he kept urging her to be his even after she fabricated accusations of gross sexual harassment, he said classes were starting in days and he \"had no one to go to.\" On cross-examination, he admitted to finding a replacement in about two weeks. Doe repeated her allegations of September 2015. She denied having asked Heineke to show her \"how to hug the American way\" or \"kiss the French way.\" On cross-examination, she testified that she sent friendly emails and *21 continued to visit Heineke's office because she desired a good grade and had questions only he could answer and that, later, Heineke had offered help with another course in which she had trouble and a job that would look good on her resume. As for her initial failure to answer Heineke's increasingly urgent emails as the fall term drew near, and her eventual reply both stating that she was too busy and accusing Heineke of sexual harassment, Doe testified that she felt \"conflicted\" and \"struggling.\" She wanted to be a TA, but had felt great when freed from the harassment over the summer; when Heineke began sending her multiple emails, she felt that her \"nightmare [was] coming back.\" 21 In addition, Henry was examined and cross-examined as to the process of investigating Doe's claim and preparing his report. For the FJB's consideration, both Heineke and submitted, inter alia, copies of Henry's April 2017 memorandum, June 2017 report, and August 2017 addendum, including the attached emails; Heineke also submitted copies of his July 2017 written critiques of the initial report and his August 2017 response to the addendum.13 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 17/52 13 Heineke submitted 52 written exhibits, including several declarations submitted 32 (albeit with significant overlap between the two sets), and both parties submitted post-hearing briefs. 7. The FJB's Decision and Heineke's Termination The affirmed SCU's finding of harassment and its decision to dismiss Heineke. It began by summarizing its view of the burden of persuasion: \"The Faculty Handbook . . . place[s] the burden of persuasion on the party 'invoking the Board's jurisdiction,' which in this case, is Professor Heineke. Section 3.10.2.2(12) . . . further specifies that this burden 'shall be satisfied only by a preponderance of the evidence.'\" Thus, the hearing *22 committee's \"task is to . . . determine whether Professor Heineke has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not violate the [harassment policy].\" Later in the decision, it observed that \"if we were to find Doe and Heineke equally credible, or if we could not determine . . . who was telling the truth, we would be compelled to uphold the provost's finding with respect to liability.\" 22 The decision summarized Doe's testimony, finding her to be \"articulate, forthright, and confident\" and \"not . . . difficult to believe,\" and Heineke's denials of nearly all of Doe's allegations. The then found Doe's testimony to be \"compelling and credible\" and more convincing than Heineke's testimony, much of which it doubted. By way of example, the cited Heineke's statements and conduct following Doe's purportedly false accusations: \"We found it doubtful . . . that a professor confronted with a student making allegations of gross sexual misconduct [that were] completely fabricated [and came] as a total shock . . . would in the immediate aftermath of such allegations continue to urge that student to serve as a [TA].\" In addition, \"[f]or a professor of Heineke's experience and stature,\" his claim that he had little choice but to encourage Doe to stay on as because he could not find a replacement \"beggars credulity.\" The \"more obvious explanation\" is that Heineke's conduct was not fabricated by Doe, only that he \"interpreted [it] very differently.\" The acknowledged two potential sources of ambiguity. First, \"over the course of the several months [when Doe] says she was suffering sexual harassment . . . she found disgusting and upsetting, she nevertheless 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 18/52 repeatedly sent friendly, convivial e-mail messages to [Heineke], many of which contained 'smiley face' emojis, others of which . . . suggest[ed] meetings . . . in his office, or . . . for lunch at restaurants off-campus.\" Although the *23 tenor of her emails was surprisingly \"affectionate,\" the credited Doe's explanation that she \"wanted to maintain a good relationship with her professor\" and \"hoped to secure a [TA] position despite the harassment.\" Thus, in the FJB's view, the emails did not tip the balance in Heineke's favor. 23 Second, the addressed Heineke's assertion that Doe was impeached by a prior statement that, as reported by Henry, she felt an \"erection\" when Heineke (who for medical reasons was incapable of an erection) hugged her. As Doe denied using the word \"erection\" and Heineke could not prove otherwise, the concluded \"that likely Henry, not Doe, . . . introduced the term 'erection' into this matter\" by inaccurately paraphrasing her interview statement. The also rejected Heineke's procedural objections. It disagreed that Guthrie's failure to disclose her paid work for Henry's employer was a material conflict of interest. While it \"would have been better for Guthrie to have hired a firm with which she had no professional association\" or to have disclosed the relationship, the denied that this presented \"a genuine problem\" because it \"heard from [Doe] and Heineke directly, and did not rely substantially on Henry, his findings, or [his] conclusions.\" The also rejected Heineke's claim that or Guthrie \"had [a] pre-existing bias against him.\" Two of the five committee members, while \"firmly in accord\" with the decision, wrote separately to voice \"concern with certain aspects of the process\" involving an \"element of unfairness, or backwardness.\" Specifically, Heineke was unable to confront or question his accusers while Henry and Jacobs made the findings under review; thus \"he has enjoyed those rights. . . only after he has lost the presumption of innocence, and must instead prove that he did not do what [SCU] concluded he did.\" Because the concurring *24 members did not believe this yielded a \"clearly wrongful\" outcome, they nonetheless voted to affirm \"pursuant to the standards we are duty-bound to apply.\" 24 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 19/52 Heineke then objected to the FJB's decision as \"fundamentally flawed\" as \"premised on an incorrect burden of persuasion (proof),\" contrary to sections 3.9 (misconduct) and 3.10.2.3 guidelines) which place the burden on SCU. Corning responded that the had clearly stated where the burden would lie before the hearing, without objection by Heineke, and in any event that the harassment policy placed \"the burden . . . upon the party invoking the jurisdiction of the FJB.\" In May 2018 terminated Heineke. 8. Civil Litigation In July 2018, Heineke filed an administrative mandamus petition,followed by a civil action against and Doe for damages and injunctive relief. In the latter action, he asserted three causes of action against SCU, only: wrongful termination in violation of the public policy against age discrimination stated in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, \u00a7 2940, subd. (a)), denial of a state constitutional right to due process (Cal. Const., art. I, \u00a7 7), and breach of contract. Against both and Doe, he alleged a cause of action for defamation. And against Doe, alone, he claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress. a. The Administrative Mandamus Proceeding The trial court heard argument on the petition in August 2019. Heineke urged the court to review his and Doe's video recorded testimony. After doing so, the court issued an order in January 2020 denying the petition. The court assessed de novo whether the afforded Heineke a fair trial. (Doe v. Regents of the University of Calif. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1072-1073.) *25 As for whether the evidence supported its factual findings, although the appropriate standard of review depended on the whether the right at issue was \"fundamental Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1056-1062 (JKH)), the trial court sidestepped this issue by assessing the evidence using its independent judgment (the standard less deferential to the and more favorable to Heineke) and concluded the evidence sufficed under either standard. 25 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 20/52 Although Heineke's \"particular legal claims . . . concerning the failure of to have proceeded in a manner required by law or to have conducted a fair trial\" were less than clear, the court pledged to \"address the arguments it can discern,\" starting with Heineke's claim that the erred by placing the burden of persuasion on him. That claim, it found, was limited to an assertion that the proceeding had been governed by section 3.9 \"without explaining why.\" The trial court rejected this argument: after alluding to a possible forfeiture due to Heineke's failure to object until after the hearing, the trial court ruled that it agreed with the FJB's conclusion as to who bore the burden of proof under the handbook's provisions. The court also rejected Heineke's claims of bias (for failure to cite any evidence of bias) and that he was unfairly prevented from examining the unnamed witnesses quoted in Henry's report (as the disclaimed substantial reliance on the report). Independently weighing the evidence, the court concluded that Heineke had not \"carried his burden of showing that the weight of the evidence overcomes the [F]B]'s decision.\" It found \"spot on\" the FJB's conclusion Heineke's explanations were not credible. It \"independently agree[d]\" with the that Doe's reasons for maintaining friendly relations with Heineke in the face of harassment were plausible. Accordingly, the trial court denied *26 Heineke's demand for writ relief. After entry of judgment, Heineke timely appealed. 26 b. The Civil Action Heineke filed his civil complaint in August 2018. In May 2019, the civil case was temporarily stayed pending resolution of the mandamus proceeding. Discovery motion practice commenced in November 2019. In February 2021, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment set for hearing on June 17. The motion relied on declarations by Henry, Guthrie, and Vice-Provost Ed Ryan (who described curriculum changes and hiring of new instructors after Heineke's dismissal). On June 1, Heineke filed an ex parte application for continuance pursuant to section 437c, subdivision (h) to permit further discovery, which was opposed. On June 3-4, Heineke filed his opposition to the motion for 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 21/52 summary judgment. On June 8, the court denied the application, finding Heineke did not \"adequately explain why the request to continue was not made earlier or specify the exact evidence he believes additional discovery [will] produce or articulate how that evidence will assist him in opposing the pending motion.\" On June 9 and 10, Heineke filed various errata. On the hearing date, the court sua sponte issued an order continuing the hearing to July 8. The order did not authorize further briefing but, on June 24, Heineke further \"updated\" his opposition which defendants moved to strike. On July 2 Heineke renewed his request for continuance. On July 8, the court heard argument on both the request for continuance, which it denied, and the merits of the motion for summary judgment, which it took under submission. Ultimately, the court declined to *27 consider Heineke's June 24 updates and granted summary judgment. After entry of judgment, Heineke timely appealed. 27 I. Administrative Mandamus Appeal (A165818) The Code of Civil Procedure permits a superior court to review \"any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer.\" (Code Civ. Proc., \u00a7 1094.5, subd. (a).) 14 15 14 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 15 No party disputes that the FJB's decision was subject to such review. (See Anton v. San Antonio Community Hospital (1977) 19 Cal.3d 802, 816 (Anton), superseded in other part by statute as noted in Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals (2014) 58 Cal.4th 655, 678, fn. 11 [section 1094.5 applies to private entities' adjudications if required by law]; Teacher v. California Western School of Law (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 111, 116, 127-128 (Teacher) [citing authorities assuming that common law fair process doctrine compels private colleges to hold hearings before sanctioning students for misconduct, and that section 1094.5 authorizes review of such hearings].) 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 22/52 writ may issue upon a showing that the respondent \"proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction,\" failed to provide \"a fair trial\" (i.e., a fair hearing), or committed a \"prejudicial abuse of discretion,\" which occurs if it \"has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.\" (\u00a7 1094.5, subd. (b).) Heineke does not contend that the lacked jurisdiction or that its findings do not support its decision. We review de novo whether provided a fair trial or prejudicially failed to proceed in a manner required by law (Doe v. Regents of University of California, supra, *28 5 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1072-1073; Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, 554), and we review for substantial evidence whether the evidence supports the challenged factual findings (JKH, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 1058). This case involves only one challenged finding, namely, that Heineke did sexually harass Doe. *29 28 16 29 16 Typically, before reviewing whether the findings in an administrative mandamus appeal are supported by the evidence, we must determine whose findings to review-those of the administrative agency or of the trial court. The answer turns on whether the right at issue is considered \"fundamental,\" and thus, what standard of review the trial court employed. (See JKH, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 1058 [if right is \"fundamental,\" trial court exercises independent judgment to assess whether weight of evidence in administrative record supports agency's findings, and appellate court reviews trial court's findings for substantial evidence; otherwise, trial court reviews administrative record to determine if substantial evidence supports agency's findings, and appellate court performs identical review of agency's findings].) Here, the trial court declined to decide if Heineke's right to tenure at a private university was \"fundamental,\" instead concluding that, whether it assessed the evidence under the substantial evidence or independent judgment standard, the outcome was the same. Further and the trial court made the same critical factual finding on the same record, and whether a given record contains substantial evidence to support a finding is a question of law. (Smith v. Selma Community Hospital (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1516.) Accordingly, whether or not Heineke's right was \"fundamental,\" we need only determine whether the finding that he committed sexual harassment was supported by substantial evidence in the record before the FJB. Heineke, citing Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4th 805, 824, suggests that the trial court used the \"wrong burden of 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 23/52 proof.\" He misunderstands Fukuda and the proceedings below, which have nothing to do with one another. Fukuda concerned an error in allocating the burden of persuasion in the trial court, not before the administrative agency. In Fukuda, the Supreme Court clarified that, even when a trial court uses independent judgment to review administrative findings, it still must \"afford a strong presumption of correctness concerning the administrative findings, and the party challenging [them] bears the burden of convincing the court that [they] are contrary to the weight of the evidence.\" (Id. at p. 817.) Here, the trial court properly placed the burden of persuasion in this administrative mandamus proceeding on Heineke, as the petitioner, to show that SCU's findings were against the weight of the evidence. That is what Fukuda unambiguously requires, whether the court reviews the administrative findings for substantial evidence or using its independent judgment. (Ibid.) While Heineke has a colorable argument that the erred in allocating the burden of persuasion, the trial court plainly did not. A. Procedural Issues (Failure to Provide a Fair Trial and Prejudicial Failure to Proceed in Manner Required by Law) Heineke identifies a number of purported procedural defects without specifying whether they rendered his hearing \"unfair\" or constituted a \"failure to proceed in the manner required by law\" (i.e., to abide by handbook procedure). (\u00a7 1094.5, subd. (b).) Nor do his cited legal authorities clarify his position. 17 18 17 concedes it had to follow the Faculty Handbook in adjudicating this matter. (Cf. Teacher, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 116 [While the \"contours of the common law right to 'fair process' [citation] in private university student disciplinary settings [are] both unsettled and evolving,\" \"one component of the right to fair process is well established . . .: 'Where student discipline is at issue, [a] university must comply with its own policies and procedures.' \"].) 18 As the \"fair trial\" and \"failure to proceed as required by law\" claims involve similar legal concepts and common factual issues, we consider them, to the extent Heineke has raised them, together. Importantly, the \"fair trial\" prong of section 1094.5, subdivision (a) does not appear to be subject to a prejudice requirement. 1. Allocation of Burden of Persuasion 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 24/52 Primarily, Heineke contends the wrongly placed the burden of persuasion on him. As we have noted, however, other than claiming the Handbook provisions required the burden of proof to be placed on SCU, Heineke has not provided reasoned argument or relevant authority to *30 support any \"unfair trial\" claim. We decline to develop his arguments for him, and deem that contention forfeited. (See, e.g., Sviridov v. City of San Diego (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 514, 521 (Sviridov) [\" '\" 'When an appellant [asserts a point] but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as [forfeited].'\" [Citation.] \"We are not bound to develop appellants' arguments for them.\" '\" (Fn. omitted.)].) 30 19 19 In our view, the leading authority on this issue in the \"fair trial\" context is Anton, supra, 19 Cal.3d 802. Anton involved a doctor's claim that a private hospital violated his common law right to fair process by placing the burden on him to show that charges supporting a suspension of privileges were unfounded. (Id. at pp. 828-830 hospital bylaw made it\" 'incumbent on the person who requested the hearing [to review the charges] to initially come forward with evidence in support of his position,\" and stated,\" 'after all evidence has been submitted by both sides, the [review committee] shall rule against the person who requested the hearing unless it finds that said person has proved, by clear and convincing proof, that the action of the committee or body whose decision prompted the hearing was arbitrary, unreasonable, or not sustained by the evidence.'\" (Id. at p. 828.) The Supreme Court held that the bylaw placing the burden of proof on the doctor did not violate the fair procedure doctrine, which is satisfied by any process giving a party a \"fair opportunity\" to \"present [their] position,\" and observed that the bylaws in that case contemplated a substantial evidentiary showing by the hospital. (Anton, supra, 19 Cal.3d at pp. 829-830 & fn. 28.) Under Anton, a private entity may impose the burden of persuasion on a person facing expulsion so long as its rules do not enable it to level charges unsupported by substantial evidence and rely solely on the burden to prevail. (Ibid.) Heineke challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the and trial court's decisions, but he does not argue the faculty handbook's provisions failed to require a substantial showing by SCU, depriving him of a fair trial. And, as discussed in section I.B, post provided ample evidence to the in support of its contention that Heineke should be terminated, evidence we find qualified as \"substantial.\" The rule of Anton compels us to reject Heineke's argument that allocating the burden of persuasion to him rendered the trial unfair. 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 25/52 Turning to whether the allocation of the burden entailed a failure \"to proceed in the manner required by law\" (\u00a7 1094.5, subd. (b))-that is, a *31 prejudicial failure to comply with the faculty handbook-we find that the did not commit error by proceeding as if this was a \"sexual harassment\" case under appendix F; and even if there was some erroneous application of the handbook provisions, Heineke has not demonstrated any resulting prejudice. 31 First, we address Heineke's contention that, as he was a faculty member whose tenure tried to revoke for \"misconduct,\" this \"was clearly a case of dismissal of a tenured faculty member under \u00a7 3.9.2.2 for 'misconduct or cause'\" and Doe's allegations should have been resolved under, and solely under, the \"misconduct\" provisions. He is incorrect. Heineke does not cite to any handbook provisions supporting his position. Further, section 3.10.2.3, item 6, which governs the effect of decisions-which Heineke himself invoked to argue that the decision should be final- acknowledges that an hearing committee can adjudicate cases \"pursuant to the policy on unlawful harassment and unlawful discrimination, including any case involving dismissal and termination of tenure of a tenured faculty member ....\" 20 20 Heineke contends that section 3.9 of the faculty handbook applies more \"exactly\" to this case because it governs only termination of tenured faculty for misconduct, while the harassment policy prohibits non-\"terminable\" conduct and applies to the entire university community, not just tenured faculty. While we agree that where two contractual provisions conflict, the specific provision controls, California Union Square L.P. v. Saks & Co (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 136, 143, this canon of construction could equally or more plausibly lead us to conclude that appendix more \"exactly\" fits a sexual harassment case than section 3.9, which broadly applies to any form of misconduct by a tenured faculty member, including academic misconduct, and also to \"diminished fitness.\" As sexual harassment plainly qualifies as \"misconduct,\" and the faculty handbook provides no guidance as to which set of procedures to use, some *32 confusion may have been inevitable, but to the extent there was any error, we find it did not prejudice Heineke. 32 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 26/52 First, as far as process, Heineke received many of the benefits of both sets of procedures. First undertook an investigation of Doe's 2015 harassment complaint, as contemplated by the harassment policy, and an investigator made a full written report, which was presented to the designated \"appropriate university officer\"-that is, Provost Jacobs. Then, Jacobs discussed the matter privately with Heineke, as required by section 3.9 of the faculty handbook but not contemplated in appendix F, and he made a finding or \"judgment\" as to whether Heineke harassed Doe, also in accord with section 3.9 (but not provided for by the harassment policy). Jacobs also determined whether there was \"gross misconduct,\" as required by section 3.9 for a termination of tenure to take effect within less than one year (which he would not have had to do under appendix F). 21 21 In his reply brief, Heineke alludes to an argument he made, in passing, to the FJB-that because Doe did not pursue her 2015 complaint and began its 2017 investigation when she was no longer a student, there was no \"claim\" or \"complainant\" under the harassment policy. While this might suggest that deviated from appendix in some way, Heineke did not raise this theory in his opening brief or develop it adequately in his reply; nor did he ever attempt to connect it to the burden of persuasion issue. (Sviridov, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 521 [failure to support a point with reasoned argument and citations to authority may result in forfeiture]; accord, Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 100 [argument forfeited by not asserting it until reply brief and failing to develop it].) Consistent with appendix F, Jacobs then identified the president as the appropriate appellate decisionmaker to hear any appeal. After the president *33 heard Heineke's appeal pursuant to the harassment policy, the provost invited Heineke to appeal the president's decision to the FJB-a step unauthorized by appendix but one Heineke could have requested had the matter been adjudicated as \"misconduct\" under section 3.9 of the faculty handbook. Thus, Heineke received the benefit of yet another layer of process (essentially, a de novo evidentiary hearing). (See ante at p. 12 &fn. 6, p. 17.) Heineke has not shown he was deprived of any procedural protections or entitled to any additional process. 22 33 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 27/52 22 Section 3.9 of the faculty handbook \"misconduct\" provisions allow for reconsideration by the FJB, whose decision would be final, but not interim appellate review by the president. Nor has Heineke shown he was unfairly surprised by the procedural sequence followed by SCU. Once the parties agreed to further review by the FJB, the guidelines plainly became applicable and, to the extent there was a dispute regarding the burden of persuasion, it was aired prior to the hearing, without objection by Heineke. The parties also seemed to agree that Heineke's appeal \"should be heard and decided\" pursuant to the harassment policy, bringing appendix into play. 23 23 Given (1) Corning's admonition that the would not consider objections to or collateral attacks on the rules laid out in the faculty handbook and harassment policy, (2) the trial court's failure to hold that Heineke forfeited or failed to exhaust administrative remedies on the burden-of-persuasion issue, and (3) SCU's failure to make such an argument on appeal, we do not conclude Heineke forfeited the issue. Even if Heineke had identified a handbook provision requiring the to proceed under section 3.9 rather than appendix F, so that it erred in allocating the burden of persuasion to him, prejudice would not be presumed. (In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 712, 736; Buzgheia v. Leasco Sierra Grove (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 374, 393.) Heineke has neither identified the applicable legal standard for prejudice in this context nor explained how that standard is satisfied here. For that reason alone, we must *34 also affirm the judgment on the alternative ground that Heineke has not shown, as an appellant must, that any error was prejudicial. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 378-379 [\" 'The burden is on the appellant to show prejudice.' [Citation.] . . . Appellant does not discuss the issue of prejudice. Accordingly, appellant has failed to carry his burden of showing that the alleged abuse of discretion prejudiced him.\"], citing Cal. Const., art VI, \u00a7 13 and Code Civ. Proc., \u00a7 475; see also Sviridov, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 521 [failure to support argument with reasoned argument and citations to authority results in forfeiture].) 34 Were we to disregard Heineke's forfeiture of the issue of prejudice, we would conclude there was none. Where the asserted error is a failure to 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 28/52 proceed in the manner required by law, in violation of section 1094.5, we ask whether \"a different result would have been probable if such error . . . had not occurred or existed\" (\u00a7 475)-or more broadly whether the error resulted in a \"miscarriage of justice\" (Cal. Const., art. VI, \u00a7 13; see also York v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1189-1190 [where zoning administrator failed to realize he had authority to grant a permit request in part (rather than simply approve or reject) and, thus, failed to proceed in the manner required by law, such error was reversible only if \"it is reasonably probable the appellant would have obtained a more favorable result absent the error\"]; accord, e.g., Molina v. Board of Administration, etc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 53, 61, fn. 9, citing \u00a7 475). As we have noted, the did not clearly state that it would have ruled in SCU's favor even had borne the burden of persuasion. However, we *35 have little hesitation in concluding that it is far more likely than not that it would have ruled in SCU's favor, regardless, given its emphatic credibility findings and implicit conclusion that the testimony was not in equipoise, to wit: \"If we were to find Doe and Heineke equally credible, or if we could not determine either way who was telling the truth, we would be compelled to uphold the provost's finding with respect to liability. [\u00b6] In fact, [we] found [Doe]'s testimony compelling and credible. Professor Heineke's testimony did not persuade us that it was more likely than not that she was lying. We doubted the credibility of much of Professor Heineke's testimony.\" (Italics added.) The rhetorical device \"in fact\" signals that the was \"able to determine . . . who was telling the truth\" and that the evidence was not in equipoise-it favored Doe. 24 35 24 Indeed, because Heineke had not disputed the FJB's prehearing statement that it would place the burden on him (see ante, p. 18), the had no reason to do so. Further, while we agree with the that there were some \"uncertainties in the factual background\" which prevent a \"perfectly clear picture of what transpired,\" its opinion, read as a whole, makes clear that this was not a \"tie\"-the only circumstance under which the allocation of the burden of persuasion could result in prejudice. (Medina v. California (1992) 505 U.S. 437, 449; accord, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. 25 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 29/52 (2021) ___ U.S. ___, ___ [141 S.Ct. 1951, 1963] [\"burden of persuasion will have bite only when the court finds the evidence in equipoise-a situation that should rarely arise\"].) At oral argument, *36 Heineke likened this case to Fukuda v. City of Angels, supra, 20 Cal.4th 805 (a case he cited for a different purpose in his brief; see fn. 17, ante). In Fukuda, the trial court erroneously imposed the burden of persuasion in court on the administrative agency to prove its findings were correct. (Id. at pp. 808, 817.) The Supreme Court held that it could not find this error harmless because \"the trial court relied repeatedly upon the [agency]'s failure to [bear] its burden of proof\" and \"stressed that, with regard to [a crucial factual issue], the evidence was 'evenly balanced, and the party having the burden of proof loses.'\" (Id. at p. 824.) Fukuda was thus the rare case in which the allocation of the burden of persuasion affected the outcome-that is, a case in which the reviewing court concluded that the factfinder found the evidence \"evenly balanced,\" a conclusion we cannot reach here. Thus, the allocation of the burden, if erroneous, did not prejudice Heineke. 36 26 25 In addition to the passage quoted in the preceding paragraph, the described Doe as \"articulate, forthright, and confident\" and \"not . . . difficult to believe.\" As for Heineke, it described his conduct as difficult to square with his claims of innocence-namely, that immediately after being \"confronted with a student making allegations of gross sexual misconduct [that were] completely fabricated [and came] as a total shock,\" he nonetheless \"continue[d] to urge that student to serve as a [TA]\"-and found that his explanation that he could not quickly find a replacement \"beggars credulity.\" 26 As such, there is no basis to conclude that the allocation of the burden of persuasion resulted in any \"miscarriage of justice.\" We do note, however, that even the (nonlawyer members who concurred in the majority opinion to express their concern regarding the allocation of the burden of persuasion concluded that the procedural sequence did not yield a \"clearly wrongful\" outcome. We agree. 2. Other Procedural Defects Heineke's other process-related complaints are likewise unavailing. He claims that Nelson had a \"conflict of interest\" requiring recusal because he provided Engh with general advice concerning appellate procedure before 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 30/52 Engh considered Heineke's appeal. However, after having been advised of this, Heineke affirmatively disclaimed any objection to Nelson's service on the hearing committee. Now, Heineke contends that his waiver was neither \"knowing\" nor waivable. However, he has not identified (1) facts giving rise to a \"conflict,\" (2) any material omission in SCU's disclosure or (3) authority or a faculty handbook provision barring express waivers of known, potential *37 conflicts. (See Sierra Watch v. County of Placer, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 100 [undeveloped argument asserted in reply brief is forfeited]; Sviridov v. City of San Diego, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 521 [point unsupported by reasoned argument or citation to authority is forfeited].) 37 Heineke also argues that Nelson exhibited bias when he limited Heineke's cross-examination of Doe. Heineke has not, however, pointed to specific evidence demonstrating actual bias or a particular combination of circumstances creating an unacceptable risk of bias. (Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 731, 741.) He relies upon adverse rulings, in which the chair properly restrained inquiry into matters that were attorney/client privileged, beyond the witness's personal knowledge, or irrelevant. It is well established that adverse rulings alone, even erroneous ones, cannot establish judicial bias (Brown v. American Bicycle Group (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 665, 673674), particularly in the administrative context (Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1027) and even more so in administrative cases involving a common law right to fair process, not a constitutional right to due process (Natarajan v. Dignity Health (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 383, 390, affd. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1095). Equally unavailing are Heineke's contentions that SCU's cooperation with Doe, such as their joint representation before the FJB, prejudiced his right to fair process or violated Handbook provisions. If sharing counsel created a potential conflict, Heineke does not explain how it affected his interests. (See, e.g., Moreci v. Scaffold Solutions, Inc. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 425, 435-444.) Nor do we agree that precluding Heineke from examining Doe and Guthrie as to the nature of the attorney-client relationship was unfair, prejudicial, or inconsistent with Handbook provisions. The chair's restrictions *38 prevented undue intrusion into the attorney-client relationship and did not 38 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 31/52 prevent Heineke from conveying his view that joint representation undermined Doe's credibility. Finally, Heineke objects that he was prevented from examining Engh or the seven unnamed witnesses interviewed by Henry. Heineke does not explain the relevance of Engh's testimony. Engh was not a percipient witness to the harassment or the investigation, and therefore, not a \"necessary witness\" under section 3.10.2.3 (which might otherwise have had a duty to procure). As for Doe's acquaintances, we agree with the trial court that neither the common law right to fair process nor the faculty handbook mandates a right to cross-examine all witnesses, however peripheral. (See, e.g., Teacher, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at pp. 131-134 [provision giving accused a \"right to cross-examine witnesses,\" including \"any person who makes a statement to those investigating the alleged misconduct on which the [p]anel relies in reaching its determination,\" is subject to \"reasonable restrictions\" such as \"exceptions based on materiality\"]; Doe v. Allee (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1069 (Allee) [when \"the credibility of witnesses . . . is central to the adjudication of the allegation, fundamental fairness requires, at a minimum, that the university provide a mechanism by which the accused may crossexamine those witnesses\" (italics added)].) Here, the relied primarily on its direct assessment of Heineke's and Doe's credibility and disclaimed substantial reliance \"on Henry, his findings, or [his] conclusions.\" Fairness did not require that Heineke be able to cross-examine every individual quoted in Henry's report. 3. Substantial Evidence. Heineke contends that no substantial evidence supports the finding that he harassed Doe. As explained (see p. 26 &fn. 17, ante), we must determine if the administrative record contains substantial evidence to support the *39 finding. (JKH, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 1058.) \"Substantial evidence\" means relevant, credible evidence of \"solid value\" that \"a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\" (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Bd. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575, 584-585.) For the evidence in support of a finding to qualify as \"substantial,\" it need not amount to a preponderance. (Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1015.) In assessing whether a record contains such 39 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 32/52 evidence, we do not isolate and consider only that which favors the finding; rather, we\" 'consider all relevant evidence in the administrative record including evidence that fairly detracts from'\" the finding. (California Youth Authority, supra, at p. 585.) But we do not reweigh the evidence (id. at p. 584) or \"redetermine the credibility of witnesses IHG-2 Properties Trust v. City of Anaheim (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 188, 202-203 (HPT).) The record contains substantial evidence to support the finding of harassment. Doe's detailed accounts in her testimony to the and in her 2015 emails to Heineke (and, indeed, his responses), if believed, plainly constitute such evidence. Although we agree with the that the evidence did not definitively weigh in favor of one party, we decline Heineke's invitation to re-weigh the evidence and re-assess credibility, a role reserved to the trier of fact, below. (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 584; HPT, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at pp. 202203.) II. Civil Action Appeal (A165842) As to summary judgment, we review the trial court's ruling de novo. (Marshall v. County of San Diego (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1107.) Summary judgment is proper \"if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\" (\u00a7 437c, subd. (c defendant may make *40 this showing by demonstrating that the plaintiff cannot establish one or more elements of all of his causes of action.\" (Marshall, supra, at p. 1107.) \"We liberally construe the evidence in support of the plaintiff opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in his favor.\" (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.) 40 Heineke's related request under section 437c, subdivision (h) to continue the hearing to permit further discovery, is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, 639-640.) Because our analysis of the request for continuance requires familiarity with the legal and factual issues presented by the motion for summary judgment, we address the merits, first.27 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 33/52 27 Heineke also contends that the court erred in refusing to consider the \"updated\" opposition papers he filed after the court continued the summary judgment hearing. While we do not think the court's order continuing the hearing can fairly be read to implicitly authorize further briefing, it is immaterial, as nothing in Heineke's June 24 \"updated\" opposition papers affects our substantive analysis. A. The Court Did Not Err as to the Causes of Action Against The trial court concluded that Heineke established no genuine factual dispute material to any of the three causes of action he asserted solely against SCU: wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy against age discrimination, denial of due process, and breach of contract. For reasons we explain below, we agree. 1. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy Heineke alleged wrongfully discharged him by failing to provide a full and fair investigation in accordance with its own policies and procedures, and because did not meet its burden to prove Doe's \"fabricated\" harassment claims. In the same cause of action, he alleges this - and SCU's *41 decision to replace him with a younger adjunct professor - violated his right to be free of age discrimination. 41 28 28 While the complaint is ambiguous, the parties appear to assume this section of the complaint alleges both a statutory cause of action for age discrimination under (Gov. Code, \u00a7 12965, subd. (c)(3)) and a common law cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy against age discrimination. (See Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 894-896.) In any event, neither party suggests that the burden-shifting analysis of a pretext claim differs for the two causes of action. (See Nelson v. United Technologies (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 597, 613-615 & fn. 4 [explaining burden-shifting analysis and stating that analyses of statutory and common law causes of action for wrongful termination were the same].) In support of summary judgment argued that Heineke had no evidence that his termination was based on his age or that SCU's stated reason for terminating him (i.e., its conclusion he committed sexual harassment) was pretextual. It cited precedent requiring a plaintiff opposing summary 29 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 34/52 judgment to present \"specific, substantial evidence of pretext\" (Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33, 46), meaning the decision was not just \"wrong, mistaken, or unwise,\" but that it was so implausible, internally inconsistent, or self-contradictory that a reasonable fact finder could find it \"unworthy of credence\" (Horn v. Cushman &Wakefield Western, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 798, 807). 29 also contended, and the court held, that Heineke failed to offer evidence creating a genuine dispute material to whether he was replaced by significantly younger workers, an asserted element of a prima facie case for age discrimination. As we conclude Heineke failed to provide substantial evidence of pretext or discriminatory animus, we need not decide whether he made out a prima facie case. In opposition, Heineke mainly argued that evidence controverting the truth of Doe's sexual assault allegations created triable issues as to SCU's *42 stated nondiscriminatory reason for termination. He also asserted had a policy of discrimination against older tenured faculty and that the outcome of Henry's investigation was \"predetermined.\" 42 30 30 He also claimed that changed its reason for firing [him] from sexual harassment to its proven lie that it fired him due to downsizing ('eliminating' his courses firing him.\" As there is no evidence whatsoever that ever claimed that it terminated Heineke because it planned to eliminate his courses, this cannot be evidence of pretext. The trial court concluded that had made a prima facie showing of a legitimate basis for termination under the faculty handbook for sexual harassment. Heineke had admitted he had no \"objective evidence\" he was discriminated against or terminated due to his age, and thus failed to create a triable factual dispute as to pretext. The trial court also found that the veracity of Doe's allegations is immaterial to the dispositive question of whether genuinely believed, after conducting an investigation, that Heineke had harassed Doe. We agree. (Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Internat., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93, 109 (Cotran).) Indeed,\" '[w]hile an employer's judgment or course of action may seem poor or erroneous to outsiders, the relevant question is . . . whether the given reason was a pretext for illegal discrimination.'\" (Arteaga v. Brink's, 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 35/52 Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 327, 344.) To establish pretext, an employee must show\"' \"such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them 'unworthy of credence,' . . . and hence infer 'that the employer did not act for the [the asserted] non-discriminatory reasons.'\" '\" (Id. at p. 343.) Alternatively, an employee may defeat summary *43 judgment by offering affirmative evidence of discriminatory animus. (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 861 (Serri).) 43 Heineke made neither of these showings. His claim that had a \"policy\" of discriminating against older faculty is entirely unsupported by evidence. He relied, first, on his own testimony that he overheard faculty (not administrators) say an older professor ought to retire because students were ridiculing him for \"having a difficult time in his classes.\" However, he testified this conversation was \"not serious,\" he could not identify the older faculty member, and could not recall any details. Second, Heineke mentioned a lawsuit assertedly alleging age discrimination filed against approximately 20 years prior by another professor who had \"mentioned\" to Heineke that \"derogatory comment[s] about [people's] age\" were \"common\" at SCU. Heineke did not provide any evidence regarding the other lawsuit or demonstrate any nexus with the events or issues in this case. Third, Heineke opined (without any support) that \"the data would show\" that preferred to hire adjuncts over more tenure track faculty. Lastly, Heineke cited his receipt of what appear to be periodic, routine communications regarding the availability of phased retirement; whether these said anything about university policy, however, he admittedly \"ha[d] no idea.\" These conclusory, speculative opinions, which are based upon hearsay, are not *44 evidence of a policy of discrimination and thus do not create a material factual dispute that age-based animus contributed to SCU's decision to terminate him. 31 32 44 31 Heineke's opposition memo asserted that \"was forced to reinstate\" that professor and cited in support of this assertion his abovedescribed deposition testimony and a composite \"exhibit\" of portions of documents which do not establish that this prior lawsuit involved age discrimination 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 36/52 claims or that the plaintiff prevailed on his claims; he also submitted his own testimony to the that it should \"google\" for confirmation. 32 Heineke also asserted, below and on appeal, that President Engh \"told him to his face that he should retire,\" but the exhibit he cited says no such thing. Heineke also asserts that Henry and the decisionmakers were from the beginning determined to terminate him, despite knowing he had not committed harassment. In support of this assertion, he cites evidence that had Henry's employer \"on retainer\" to offer sexual- harassment and other training; however, he fails to explain how this business relationship led Henry to fabricate his factual findings. Heineke also critiques Henry's methods of investigation and analysis, specifically, that the initial finding was based upon incomplete email evidence. However, in response to Heineke's objection, Henry promptly reviewed and analyzed the additional emails procured by SCU's department, acknowledged that they offered some support to Heineke's position, and then affirmed his prior conclusions. Further, Heineke does not explain how any defects in Henry's report could show that the decision of the FJB, which conducted its own, independent review of the evidence, including the testimony of numerous witnesses, was \"predetermined.\" In sum, Heineke's \"evidence\" of pretext consisted of speculation, hearsay, and conclusory argument. \"It is not sufficient for an employee to . . . simply deny the credibility of the employer's witnesses or to speculate as to discriminatory motive. [Citations.] Rather it is incumbent upon the employee to produce 'substantial responsive evidence' demonstrating the existence of a material triable controversy as to pretext or discriminatory animus ....\" (Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 862.) We agree with the trial court that Heineke did not produce such evidence. *45 45 2. Denial of Due Process (Cal. Const., Art. I, \u00a7 7) Heineke asserted a cause of action for denial of a state constitutional right to due process, claiming that public funding made a state actor and he had a \"property interest\" in his tenured position sought summary adjudication on the grounds it is not a state actor subject to the due process clause. In opposition, Heineke cited Allee, supra, 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 37/52 30 Cal.App.5th at pages 1063-1064. As the trial court reasoned, however, Allee involved a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus in which the petitioner (a student, not an employee) claimed a denial of the common law right to fair process (not the constitutional right to due process). (Id. at pp. 1039, 1058, 1061, fn. 30.) The court held that was entitled to summary adjudication as a private actor not subject to the due process clause. On appeal, Heineke implicitly concedes is not a state actor, contending only that if a contract with a private university calls for a fair hearing before dismissal, failure to provide such a hearing violates the \"right to due process / right to fair hearing.\" Essentially, he pivots to a \"fair process\" claim. We agree that Allee and similar, recent authorities could be read to entitle Heineke to fair process. (Teacher, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at pp. 127128 [collecting recent authorities assuming that fair process doctrine applies to student discipline at private colleges]; Allee, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1061 [\"For practical purposes, common law requirements for a fair disciplinary hearing at a private university mirror the due process protections at public universities.\"].) However, as correctly observes on appeal, Heineke's complaint did not plead a cause of action for denial of a common law right to fair process, as opposed to a constitutional right to due process. (See, e.g., Vulk v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 243, 255 *46 [\" 'a defendant moving for summary judgment need address only the issues raised by the complaint' \"].) He cannot now, on appeal from a summary judgment, seek to amend his complaint to plead a new cause of action. As such, summary adjudication of this cause of action was proper. 46 33 33 Heineke asserts in a footnote that he pleaded a fair process claim. The footnote quotes two passages from his complaint's purported \"first cause of action,\" titled \"Injunctive Relief.\" Injunctive relief is a remedy, not a cause of action. (See, e.g., Shell Oil Co. v. Richter (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 164, 168.) And that cause of action merely sought to stay Heineke's termination, pending the resolution of his civil action in the superior court. In any event, nowhere does Heineke's complaint mention the common law doctrine of fair process (or fair procedure, as it is sometimes called). (Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1060, 1066-1069.) 3. Breach of Contract 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 38/52 Heineke's complaint alleged that, \"as a tenured professor, . . . he can only be terminated for extraordinary cause,\" and that SCU's termination of his employment \"constituted a breach of the contract.\"34 34 Heineke also alleged a \"cause of action\" for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is well established that a breach of an express term cannot also constitute a breach of the covenant. (Smith v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1637, 1644.) In opposing summary judgment, Heineke did not identify conduct that breached the implied covenant and that was distinct from the conduct allegedly violating an express term, and he conceded that the two causes of action were indistinguishable sought summary adjudication on the grounds that it had complied with faculty handbook terms permitting termination for \"misconduct, which includes sexual harassment.\" The court accepted SCU's prima facie showing *47 of compliance and held that Heineke offered no evidence of any breach. Rejecting his contention that subsection 3.9.2.2 of the handbook barred from terminating him\" 'unless he actually sexually harassed Jane Doe,'\" the court observed that subsection 3.9.2.2 in fact authorizes termination\" '[w]hen, in the judgment of the Provost, reason exists to dismiss and terminate the tenure of a tenured faculty [member] . . . for misconduct'\" (italics added by trial court offered evidence \"that Provost Jacobs, in his own judgment, found reasons existed to dismiss [Heineke].\" 35 47 35 While we conclude in the mandamus appeal that in fact proceeded primarily under the harassment policy (see pp. 9-18, 29-31, ante), here in the civil case, on this motion for summary judgment, Heineke and the trial court evidently assumed that had proceeded under section 3.9 of the handbook's misconduct provisions, or that at a minimum section 3.9 limited SCU's power to terminate a tenured faculty member under either set of procedures. We therefore assume, for purposes of evaluating Heineke's breach of contract claim, that section 3.9 of the handbook has some application. Heineke contends that the court's interpretation renders the contract's tenure clause illusory because could, as here, simply have its Provost falsely (and/or in bad faith) claim, in his unfettered, subjective 'judgment,' that [a faculty member] committed misconduct, irrespective of whether he 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 39/52 actually did.\" The Supreme Court has already rejected precisely this theory, however. (See Cotran, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pages 102-103 [rejecting the same illusory \"just cause\" theory espoused in Toussaint v. Blue Cross &Blue Shield (Mich. 1980) 292 N.W.2d 880 and holding that a jury need evaluate the employer's determination of misconduct only for objective reasonableness].) Heineke also contends the genuineness of SCU's belief he committed harassment is a jury question, citing Cotran, supra, 17 Cal.4th at page 109. Not so. Cotran's \"objective good faith\" rule, like other \"reasonable person\" standards, may frequently evade summary adjudication due to triable factual disputes, but when no such issues exist or the facts \"admit of only one *48 conclusion,\" summary adjudication is proper. (See Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 873.) 48 As we have discussed above, the evidence firmly establishes that afforded Heineke all of the \"process\" to which the faculty handbook entitled him (perhaps more). (See pp. 9-18, 31-32, ante)~ This included a lengthy de novo evidentiary hearing before the FJB, culminating in a thorough written decision in which the made credibility findings and explained its reasoning. In our view this constitutes a prima facie showing that concluded that good cause existed to terminate Heineke in \"objective good faith,\" meaning \"fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of the employer, that are not trivial, arbitrary, or capricious; unrelated to business needs or goals; or pretextual reasoned conclusion, in short, supported by substantial evidence gathered through an adequate investigation that includes notice of the claimed misconduct and a chance for the employee to respond.\" (Cotran, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 108.) Heineke, for his part, did not point to any triable factual dispute material to these issues. Although he claims that did not comply with various aspects of the faculty handbook, these are the same arguments that were properly rejected as unsupported by any evidence in the mandamus proceeding (see pp. 27-36, ante). Heineke does not articulate a legal theory or cite any evidence relating to his breach of contract cause of action that we have not already considered and rejected in the mandamus appeal. *49 36 49 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 40/52 36 Our reasoning should not be misconstrued as a conclusion that the judgment in the mandamus proceeding gives the FJB's finding of harassment, as affirmed herein, issue-preclusive effect in the civil action. After considering the parties' supplemental briefs on this issue, we agree that there can be no preclusive effect until the mandamus judgment is final on appeal. (See, e.g., Contreras-Velazquez v. Family Health Centers of San Diego, Inc. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 88, 103.) B. The Court Erred in Summarily Adjudicating the Defamation Cause of Action as to Doe, but not as to Heineke claims both defendants defamed him by publishing \"to students and other faculty . . . false accusations of sexual harassment.\" On appeal, Heineke has narrowed the relied-upon defamatory statements to three: As to SCU, the statements in (1) Henry's report and (2) Jacobs's letter finding it more likely than not that Heineke harassed Doe. And, as to Doe, (3) her telling a friend (identified in Henry's report as \"Witness No. 2\") in spring or summer 2015 that Heineke had harassed her, and showing that friend her accusatory September 2015 emails to Heineke. In granting summary judgment on this cause of action, the court ruled that Doe's statements in her complaint, the investigation, and the hearing, and SCU's statements in Henry's report and Jacobs's letter, are subject to the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, \u00a7 47, subd. (b)) for statements \"made in . . . quasi-judicial proceedings\"-an absolute privilege that extends to statements prompting an investigation. Heineke does not challenge that ruling on appeal. Thus, this ruling disposes of all defamation claims except those against Doe for her 2015 republications of her accusations to Witness No. 2, which undisputedly predate any complaint or investigation. On appeal, *50 Heineke limits his defamation cause of action as against Doe to those republications, reiterating the argument he made below that they are not subject to any privilege. 37 50 38 37 The trial court held in the alternative that Henry's and Jacobs's statements are not potentially defamatory statements of fact, but \"subjective impressions and opinions of [the] investigation\" that are, as a matter of law, non-defamatory statements of opinion. We agree.\" 'The dispositive question . . . is \"whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 41/52 statements imply a provably false factual assertion.\" '\" (Jensen v. Hewlett- Packard Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 958, 970.) Heineke's claim that the findings are statements of fact rests on the idea that they relate to an underlying question of fact-that is, whether certain acts did or did not occur. Henry and Jacobs were considering a factual issue, but their statements constitute opinions as to whose testimony was more credible. 38 For her part, Doe implicitly concedes that the litigation privilege does not apply to her republications to Witness No. 2 but asserts that \"Heineke did not raise that issue in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment.\" Doe is incorrect: Heineke's opposition did contend that the 2015 communications, having occurred long before there was any litigation, are not subject to a litigation privilege. (In fairness to Doe's counsel, we note that Heineke made the point not under the \"no litigation privilege\" heading in his opposition, but under its \"no common interest privilege\" heading. Still, the point plainly applied to each privilege.) Doe asserts that the communications to Witness No. 2 are subject to a common-interest privilege, which applies to \"a communication, without malice, to a person interested therein . . . by one who is also interested\" (Civ. Code, \u00a7 47, subd. (c)), on a theory that students have a common interest in whether a professor is sexually harassing students. While we are unaware of any authority supporting her position, see Hui v. Sturbaum (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1119, *51 cited by Heineke, construing the privilege narrowly, we need not resolve this dispute, for, even if the privilege applied, it could be negated by malice. (Barker v. Fox &Assocs., supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 354 [\"malice\" negating common-interest privilege is\" '\" 'established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff or by a showing that the defendant lacked reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the publication'\"' \"].) And Heineke declared under penalty of perjury and testified before the that Doe's accusations, which she republished to Witness No. 2, were fabricated. This creates a triable issue that Doe not only lacked reasonable grounds for believing them true but personally knew, with certainty, that they were false. (See generally 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (11th ed. 2022) Torts, \u00a7 697 [\"The privilege is lost if the defendant knows the statement is false\"]; Barker v. Fox &Assocs., supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 354 [\"malice\" is established by proof of\" '\" 'motivat[ion] by hatred or ill will . . . or by a showing that the defendant 39 51 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 42/52 lacked reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the publication'\"' \"].) Furthermore, on summary judgment and Doe did not attempt to show the absence of triable issues as to the truthfulness of Doe's allegations. Instead, they insisted that their veracity did not matter. Because there are triable issues as to whether some of Doe's allegedly defamatory statements were privileged, we cannot affirm the judgment in favor of Doe- only SCU. *52 40 52 39 The trial court concluded, in the alternative, that \"Doe's harassment complaint to and its response\" are protected by a common-interest privilege. That privilege applies to \"a communication, without malice, to a person interested therein . . . by one who is also interested\" (Civ. Code, \u00a7 47, subd. (c)). (See Cruey v. Gannett Co. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 356, 369 [applying privilege to employee statements made to employer during internal investigation of harassment claim].) The trial court did not address whether the common-interest privilege might cover Doe's republications to Witness No. 2. On appeal, Heineke concedes that a common-interest privilege could apply to Doe's communications with but cites evidence raising a dispute as to whether Doe made her statements with malice, which could defeat this qualified privilege. (See Barker v. Fox & Assocs. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 354.) We need not decide this issue because the litigation- privilege and statement-of-opinion rationales discussed above suffice to uphold summary adjudication of the defamation cause of action as to all communications by each defendant except for Doe's communications to Witness No. 2. 40 Doe's motion did not request summary adjudication of individual defamation \"counts\" against her. (Cf. Blue Mountain Enterprises v. Owen (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 537, 549 [upon request, permitting summary adjudication of one of two factually distinct \"counts\" alleged in a single cause of action for breach of contract]; Edward Fineman Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1118 [where each cause of action was based upon defendant's unauthorized processing of multiple checks, summary adjudication on grounds that liability was barred due to statute of limitations for select checks was permitted and consistent with \u00a7 437c, subd. (f)].) We thus cannot affirm a partial summary adjudication of that cause of action. However, as our application of the litigation privilege to Doe's communications is essential to our affirmance of the summary adjudication of the cause of action for against Doe (see post, pp. 51-53), it may be 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 43/52 entitled to law-of-the-case effect on remand. (Nelson v. Tucker Ellis (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 827, 838.) On appeal, Doe asks us to affirm the judgment, insofar as it encompasses that one overlooked claim, on a theory not raised below- namely, that there are \"no conceivable damages to Heineke (and his brief addresses none) that resulted solely from Doe telling her fellow student, separate from . . . the investigation and proceedings\" about his alleged harassment. As this was not a basis on which Doe sought summary adjudication, below, and not a proposition set forth in her statement of undisputed material facts or established beyond triable factual dispute by her evidence, we decline to consider it. C. The Court Did Not Err as to the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action Heineke alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Doe, based on her allegedly false accusations which caused him \"emotional distress, mental anguish, deep depression\" and other mental harm defendant is liable for if, while acting with an intention of causing or a reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, the defendant engaged in outrageous conduct that proximately caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. (Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 946, disapproved on another point in White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 574, fn. 4.) Doe sought summary adjudication of the claim on several bases, including (1) that her *53 conduct cannot, as a matter of law, be deemed \"so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency\" (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-499), (2) that it was not her conduct but the investigation and termination that caused Heineke emotional distress, and (3) that the litigation and common-interest privileges bar the cause of action (Rotham v. Jackson (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1140 [litigation privilege bars claim of as well as defamation]). The trial court did not reach the causation argument and granted the motion on the other two grounds- finding Doe's conduct was not outrageous as a matter of law and is shielded by the litigation privilege. 53 41 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 44/52 41 The court based the latter ruling on a statement that Heineke's opposition \"failed to address [Doe's] argument regarding privilege, thereby implicitly conceding its merits.\" Heineke's opposition did in fact deny that the litigation privilege applies to any of Doe's communications, albeit in a way the court mistakenly (if understandably) perceived as limited to the defamation cause of action. On appeal, Doe defends the applicability of the litigation privilege on the merits but does not defend the trial court's mistaken forfeiture ruling. As discussed above, Heineke does not dispute that the litigation privilege shields all of Doe's statements except the 2015 publications to Witness No. 2; nor does he dispute that the privilege bars claims of as well as defamation. (Rotham v. Jackson, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 1140.) Thus, his cause of action (like his defamation cause of action against Doe) is effectively limited to the 2015 statements to Witness No. 2. On appeal, Doe renews her causation argument, asserting that \"Heineke's alleged emotional distress is attributable to his termination . . . not what Doe told an unnamed fellow student two years earlier in 2015.\" We agree. In opposing summary judgment, Heineke did not articulate any way in which Doe's republication of her allegedly false accusations to Witness No. 2 *54 in 2015 caused him emotional distress. He cited evidence that he had suffered \"emotional distress at the destruction of his reputation, . . . the loss of the joy of teaching students and the association of his colleagues and friends and the loss of the financial security his job provided,\" but no facts attribute these harms to Doe's mere publication to Witness No. 2. Similarly, he contends Doe's accusations \"led to suspending him . . . and then firing him, which caused additional emotional distress.\" But the causal connection between Doe's statements to Witness No. 2 in 2015 and these harms is neither apparent, nor articulated by Heineke. (Indeed, his reputational and employment losses plainly flowed from Doe's (privileged) statements to in her 2015 complaint and in the subsequent investigation and adjudication.) 54 42 42 In his opposition below, Heineke also attributed his distress to \"people like [his former colleague] Professor Ram believing [Doe's false] accusations and urging to fire him\" and to Doe's 2015 accusatory emails, but none of these claims have any connection to the 2015 publications to Witness No. 2. 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 45/52 Even if Heineke had proffered facts supporting causation, his claim would still fail because there is no evidence of non-privileged conduct satisfying the outrageousness requirement. To qualify, conduct must be \"so extreme and outrageous 'as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.'\" (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc., supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp. 497-499 &fn. 5.) The conduct must be\"' \"of a nature which is especially calculated to cause . . . mental distress,\" '\" and it is\" '\" 'for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the . . . conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery.'\" '\" (Chang v. Lederman (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 67, 86-87.) *55 55 Heineke offers only one theory of how Doe's conduct satisfies that demanding standard: Her \"fabrications and false accusations of sexual harassment, intended to get him fired,\" constitute 'outrageous' conduct.\" One could reasonably infer such intent from making such allegations to SCU, which had the power to \"get [Heineke] fired, make him a pariah, and cause him to lose the job he loved,\" as Heineke asserted. However, Heineke has not identified any evidence, direct or circumstantial, suggesting that in disclosing her accusations to a friend and fellow student with no such power, Doe had such an intent. As Heineke himself observed, \"Doe was simply trashing [him] to her friend.\" Without more, we conclude that, with his claim limited to the statements to Witness No. 2, Heineke has demonstrated no dispute of material fact that the conduct at issue was extreme and outrageous. (Chang v. Lederman, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at pp. 86-87.) D. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying a Continuance If an affidavit shows \"that facts essential to justify opposition [to a summary judgment motion] may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented,\" the court shall order a continuance to permit discovery or take other appropriate action. (\u00a7 437c, subd. (h).)\" '[A] continuance (normally a matter within the court's discretion) is \"virtually mandated\" where the nonmoving party makes the requisite showing. The party need not show that essential evidence does exist, but only that it may exist.'\" (Insalaco v. Hope Lutheran Church of West Contra Costa County (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 506, 517 (Insalaco).)\" 'The purpose of the affidavit required by . . . section 437c, 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 46/52 subdivision (h) is to inform the court of outstanding discovery which is necessary to resist the summary judgment motion. [Citations.]' [Citation.] However, it 'is not sufficient under the statute merely to indicate further discovery or investigation is contemplated. The statute makes it a condition *56 that the party moving for a continuance show \"facts essential to justify opposition may exist.\" '\" (Insalaco, supra, at p. 518.) 56 Primarily, we agree with the trial court that Heineke did not identify evidence that may exist, is ascertainable through discovery, and is essential to opposition. (Insalaco, supra, 49 Cal.App.5th at p. 518.) The affidavit submitted by his attorney stated the need \"to depose and obtain documents from Jane Doe . . . to show that [her] accusations were false\" because her deposition \"will reveal that the events never happened, that she fabricated them, that she is not credible, and that her claims are not believable.\" This strikes us as wishful thinking, not specific factual matter crucial to opposition, particularly after Doe had already held fast to her account under vigorous if abbreviated cross-examination before the FJB. The affidavit also stated that \"[a]ll of SCU's grounds for summary judgment, as to each . . . cause[] of action . . ., are based on Defendants' assertion . . . that [Heineke] sexually harassed Doe,\" but in fact defendants argued and the court held that the veracity of Doe's underlying accusations was irrelevant.43 43 As noted, that holding was correct as to all claims except the defamation claim based on the 2015 republications to Witness No. 2. Because we reverse the judgment as to the cause of action including that claim (ante, pp. 48-52), any possible abuse in denying a continuance is moot insofar as it might have affected that issue. Heineke also sought testimony and documents from Doe \"about having provided her with its own attorneys,\" which would assertedly \"reveal that her . . . allegations of sexual harassment are fabricated by her[, SCU, and their shared] attorneys\" to create a pretext of sexual harassment \"to hide the real (age discrimination) reason why fired [him].\" The notion that Heineke would be permitted to take discovery into attorney/client *57 communications, let alone that such discovery would ferret out the alleged conspiracy, is, at best, fanciful. 57 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 47/52 We also agree with the trial court's assessment of Heineke's diligence, or lack thereof, in conducting discovery to support his opposition. Heineke filed this action in August 2018. While it was stayed for six months in 2019 pending resolution of the mandamus proceeding, discovery motions resumed in November 2019-some 15 months before defendants filed the motion for summary judgment and 18 months before the continuance request. Heineke then waited two months after defendants filed the summary judgment motion to serve written discovery, and until three weeks before his opposition was due to notice depositions. There is nothing to suggest any of the asserted bases for summary judgment, or means of opposition, took him by surprise. As to the purported conflict of interest for SCU's attorneys (in also representing Doe), this fact was long known to Heineke. Heineke also claimed the need to depose and obtain documents from Guthrie, Henry, Jacobs, Engh, and Nelson to test SCU's contentions that it had provided him a fair hearing and that it accepted Henry's finding, as affirmed by the FJB, in \"objective good faith.\" Although Nelson had stated that Engh consulted with him-as the harassment policy required-he stated this was only for procedural advice about Heineke's pending appeal from Provost Jacobs to Engh. Heineke speculated that Engh and Nelson had in fact \"discussed [Heineke]'s appeal to the FJB\" (italics added), which had not *58 even been filed yet, including the merits and desired outcome of that appeal. His proposed discovery would, he asserted, \"show that Nelson was biased and not open-minded about the hearing and that he influenced or dictated the outcome at President Engh's direction\" and would probe \"whether the 'investigation' was really 'independent,' whether the conclusions were predetermined . . . by Guthrie, Eng and Jacobs . . ., and whether each of them really 'believed' that sexual harassment occurred speculative hope that this discovery might yield such admissions is not a showing that specific, relevant facts or evidence may exist. 44 58 44 Heineke had not yet noticed depositions of Henry, Jacobs, Engh, or Nelson. He had noticed one of Ed Ryan, whose declaration supported SCU's argument that it did not replace Heineke with younger employees. Because we affirm the judgment as to the wrongful termination cause of action 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 48/52 without regard for that theory (see, fn. 30, ante), the propriety of the request as it related to those issues is moot. Significantly, by the time of the ex parte application, Heineke had not yet deigned to notice most of these assertedly necessary depositions. And while he had noticed depositions for Guthrie and SCU's person most knowledgeable, he then canceled them for tactical reasons which, under these circumstances, do not justify a continuance. In other words, to the extent he had identified any facts essential to opposition (a dubious premise), they could not be presented due to Heineke's own questionable strategic decisions. 45 45 After defendants filed their motion for summary judgment in February 18, 2021, for hearing on 119 days' notice on June 17, Heineke waited 82 days to notice a raft of depositions, beginning with Doe's, to be taken from May 24- 31, or 3 to 10 days before his opposition was due. After learning that Doe, for medical reasons, could only sit for 45-60 minutes per day of deposition, and thus could not complete her deposition before that of Heineke's other witnesses, Heineke's counsel abruptly cancelled all but one of the depositions (claiming that deposing these other witnesses first could \"result in distorted or false testimony\" from Doe) rather than at least pursuing discovery that was then available to him, and timely seeking relief as to Doe. We recognize that there is a split in authority as to whether, and to what extent, a movant's lack of diligence in discovery may support denial of a motion for continuance under subdivision (h). (Braganza v. Albertson's *59 (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 144, 155, citing Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246, 255.) \"That split . . . continues to this day.\" (Braganza, supra, at p. 155, citing Rodriguez v. Oto (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1020, 10381039 [no abuse of discretion in denying continuance request where party 'offered no cogent justification for extreme tardiness' in seeking necessary discovery] and Insalaco, supra, 49 Cal.App.5th at pp. 519-520 [noting that the majority of appellate districts have \"upheld denials of continuance requests, at least partly on the ground that the party seeking the continuance had had adequate time to complete the discovery\" but holding that lack of diligence alone did not justify denial of continuance].) \"Cooksey reasoned that, '[a]lthough [section 437c, subdivision (h)] does not expressly mention diligence, it does require a party seeking a continuance to declare why \"facts 59 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 49/52 essential to justify opposition . . . cannot, for reasons stated, then be presented.\" '\" (Braganza, supra, at p. 156, quoting Cooksey, supra, at p. 257.) Thus, there\" 'must be a justifiable reason why the essential facts cannot be presented. An inappropriate delay in seeking to obtain the facts may not be a valid reason why the facts cannot then be presented.'\" (Ibid.) The Braganza court held that a party seeking a continuance \"must show why the discovery necessary to oppose the motion . . . could not have been completed sooner.\" (Ibid.) We observe, first, that Heineke's lack of diligence in this case was more extreme and inexcusable than that in Insalaco, supra, 49 Cal.App.5th 506, and the circumstances of the weeks leading up to the hearing are more suggestive of a tactic to delay the hearing than a genuine, good faith effort to obtain needed discovery. However, we need not resolve this issue, because Insalaco distinguished between inexcusable delay in taking necessary discovery that was undisputedly essential to opposition, on one hand, and inexcusable delay that prevented a party from making the showing required to obtain a *60 continuance under subdivision (h), on the other, and held that the latter is a fair basis for denial of the request. (Insalaco, supra, at p. 519 [\" 'When lack of diligence results in a party's having insufficient information to know if facts essential to justify opposition may exist, and the party is therefore unable to provide the requisite affidavit under . . . section 437c, subdivision (h), the trial judge may deny the request for continuance of the motion.' \"].) As we have explained, Heineke's attorney may have described legal theories he wished to explore, but he failed to identify any nonspeculative basis for the existence of specific \"facts essential to justify opposition\" (\u00a7 437c, subd. (h)) or a plausible manner of obtaining them. Thus, Heineke's lack of diligence did not only prevent him from taking purportedly essential discovery, it left him with insufficient information to know-rather than wishfully speculate-if \"facts essential to justify opposition may exist,\" and why they would support his opposition. Thus, even under Insalaco, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request for continuance. *61 60 46 61 46 We do not question the result our colleagues in Division Two reached in Insalaco. In that case, where the dispute turned on whether a church's surface water-drainage system had damaged neighboring property, the church sought summary judgment based upon the opinions of its experts. 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 50/52 (Insalaco, supra, 49 Cal.App.5th at pp. 508-511.) Plaintiffs noticed the experts' depositions and sought a continuance to allow for a property inspection and depositions, clearly identifying numerous facts plaintiffs' experts needed to assess. (Id. at pp. 511-512.) In reversing the trial court's denial of the request for continuance, which was based solely on lack of diligence in taking the discovery, Division Two emphasized that the plaintiffs' \"detailed declaration . . . could not have been more clear.\" (Id. at pp. 518-520.) All other factors weighed heavily in favor of granting the continuance. Moreover, the circumstances there did not suggest any strategic reason for delay In appeal No. A165818, the judgment is affirmed shall recover its costs on that appeal. In appeal No. A165842, the judgment is affirmed insofar as it dismisses all causes of action against defendant but reversed as to defendant Jane Doe with regard only to the seventh cause of action for defamation as asserted against her. The matter is remanded for further proceedings limited to that cause of action and Doe shall recover their costs on this appeal CONCUR: BROWN, P. J., GOLDMAN, J. Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. [*] About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 51/52 LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/13/25, 10:51 Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., No. A165818 | Casetext Search + Citator 52/52", "7549_104.pdf": "Court Upholds Decision To Terminate Tenured Professor For Alleged Sexual Harassment CATEGORY: Nonprofit News, Private Education Matters TYPE: Nonprofit, Private Education DATE: May 25, 2023 Professor John Heineke became a tenured professor of economics at Santa Clara University, a private institution, in 1972. His employment was subject to the faculty handbook, a part of his employment contract with the University. In 2015, Jane Doe, a Chinese national and student, enrolled in one of Heineke\u2019s classes. She repeatedly met with Heineke in his office outside of office hours, at her own request, for help with the course material. Doe received an \u201cA\u201d in the class and accepted an offer to serve as Heineke\u2019s teaching assistant (TA) for the same course in the fall of 2015. Heineke and Doe had a friendly relationship and Doe sent complimentary emails to Heineke. Heineke admits that he tried to \u201cmentor\u201d Doe in European/American culture, including once demonstrating the French style of greeting by pressing cheeks and kissing the air, and hugging her several times. Heineke described the contact as brief, nonsexual, and at her request. Doe described the contact as extreme, extensive, and non-consensual. During the summer of 2015, Doe canceled a lunch and when Heineke asked to reschedule for later in the summer, Doe responded that she was unavailable during summer break. Despite Doe\u2019s and Heineke\u2019s agreement to defer a meeting until September, Heineke emailed Doe multiple times over the summer to see if she was available to discuss the materials. In September 2015, Doe responded to the emails, again stating her unavailability and alleging that Heineke had put his hands in her clothes, touched her body and skin, squeezed her bottom, kissed her mouth, pressed his penis against her, and sexually harassed her. Heineke emailed back denying the allegations and expressing shock and disbelief. Doe reported the sexual harassment to the University\u2019s equal employment opportunity office. The University\u2019s Director of Equal Opportunity and Title Coordinator Belinda Guthrie met with Doe about her claim, but Doe did not 2/13/25, 10:51 Court Upholds Decision To Terminate Tenured Professor For Alleged Sexual Harassment - Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 1/4 respond to Guthrie\u2019s requests for more information and Guthrie did not pursue Doe\u2019s claim. Guthrie did not initiate an investigation or advise Heineke of the complaint. Heineke did not tell anyone at the University about the emails and deleted them from his account because they \u201cbothered him immensely.\u201d In January 2017, another female student from China (Student A) complained to Guthrie\u2019s office that Heineke had sexually harassed her. Guthrie hired Michael Henry, an investigator with the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management Group (NCHERM) to investigate. When Henry interviewed Heineke, Heineke did not disclose Doe\u2019s accusations and said \u201cno\u201d when asked if anything like this has ever come up before. Henry also interviewed Doe at length, and her account was consistent with her September 2015 emails. After the interview, Guthrie authorized a separate investigation of Doe\u2019s claim. In May 2017, Henry interviewed Heineke and seven other witnesses about Doe\u2019s accusations. Heineke again denied that anything like this had happened before. In May 2017, Henry issued a report concluding that Heineke had not sexually harassed Student A. In June 2017, Henry issued a report on the Doe investigation, finding it more likely than not that Heineke had harassed Doe. Consistent with University policy, Henry\u2019s report was sent to the Provost, Doe, and Heineke. Heineke indicated that additional relevant emails he previously deleted from his account might exist, and urged the University to consider them. The emails were retrieved and Henry prepared a supplemental analysis, which found that the tone of Doe\u2019s emails were friendly in the first half of 2015, but this did not change the findings of the investigation. Again consistent with University policy, the Provost met with Heineke and accepted Heineke\u2019s lengthy written response to Henry\u2019s investigation addendum. The Provost concluded that it was more likely than not that Heineke violated the harassment policy, which amounted to gross misconduct, and the Provost imposed a dismissal and termination of tenure effective in two weeks. The Provost told Heineke that the University\u2019s President would handle any appeal. Heineke appealed to the University\u2019s President. The President consulted with Doe, Heineke, the dean of students, and a member of the Faculty Judiciary Board (FJB), and affirmed the findings. Heineke petitioned the for review. The appointed a five-member hearing committee. Following the hearing affirmed the University\u2019s finding of harassment and decision to dismiss Heineke. In July 2018, Heineke filed an administrative mandamus petition, asking the Court to review the testimony to determine whether afforded Heineke a fair trial. The 2/13/25, 10:51 Court Upholds Decision To Terminate Tenured Professor For Alleged Sexual Harassment - Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 2/4 trial court reviewed the testimony, agreed with the FJB\u2019s conclusion that Heineke\u2019s explanations were not credible, and agreed that Doe\u2019s reasons for maintaining friendly relations with Heineke in the face of harassment were plausible. The trial court denied Heineke\u2019s petition. Heineke appealed. The Court of Appeal determined that the University followed its procedures and that the record contained substantial evidence to support the finding of harassment. The Court of Appeal noted that the evidence did not definitively weigh in favor of one party, but the Court of Appeal declined to reweigh the evidence and reassess credibility, as this task is reserved for the trial court. Heineke also sued the University for wrongful termination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) asserting a theory of age discrimination, denial of state constitutional right to due process, breach of contract, and defamation. For Heineke\u2019s wrongful termination claim, the trial court concluded the University made a prima facie showing of a legitimate basis for termination under the faculty handbook for sexual harassment. Heineke admitted he had no objective evidence that he was discriminated against or terminated due to his age, and thus failed to create a factual dispute. The trial court also found that the veracity of Doe\u2019s allegations was immaterial to the question of whether the University genuinely believed, after conducting an investigation, that Heineke had harassed Doe. The Court of Appeals agreed. The Court of Appeals noted that Heineke did not provide any evidence of age discrimination. Heineke\u2019s \u201cevidence\u201d of pretext was all speculation, hearsay, and conclusory arguments. For Heineke\u2019s due process claims, the trial court held that Santa Clara University is not a state actor, meaning the University is not subject to the due process clause. On appeal, Heineke conceded that the University is not a state actor, and instead argued that he did not receive a fair process. The Court of Appeals concluded that Heineke\u2019s complaint did not plead a cause of action for denial of a common law right to a fair process, and he could not amend his complaint at this stage on appeal from a summary judgment. For Heineke\u2019s breach of contract claim, the trial court held that the University complied with their faculty handbook terms permitting termination for misconduct, which includes sexual harassment. The handbook authorizes termination when \u201cin the judgment of the Provost, reasons exist to dismiss and terminate the tenure of a tenured faculty member for misconduct.\u201d Heineke argued that this interpretation renders the tenure clause illusory because the University could have its Provost falsely (and/or in bad faith) claim subjectively that a faculty member committed misconduct. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court\u2019s ruling and noted that the 2/13/25, 10:51 Court Upholds Decision To Terminate Tenured Professor For Alleged Sexual Harassment - Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 3/4 University afforded Heineke all of the processes he was entitled to in the faculty handbook, including a lengthy evidentiary hearing and a thorough decision where the made credibility findings and explained its reasoning. The Court of Appeals upheld the University\u2019s decision to terminate Heineke. Heineke v. Santa Clara University (2023) __ Cal. Ct. App. __ [2023 3116225]. Note: Terminating a tenured professor at a college or university is typically higher stakes than terminating an employee at a primary, elementary, or secondary school. Nonetheless, this case is instructive because it shows the importance of following the process outlined in the employee handbook when terminating an employee for violation of a school policy. Private Education Matters Court Declined To Reinstate Student Expelled For Bullying Incident View More News 2/13/25, 10:51 Court Upholds Decision To Terminate Tenured Professor For Alleged Sexual Harassment - Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 4/4", "7549_105.pdf": "3 Misconduct from Nonprofit News: Summer 2023 by lcwlegal Court Upholds Decision To Terminate Tenured Professor For Alleged Sexual Harassment. Professor John Heineke became a tenured professor of economics at Santa Clara University, a private institution, in 1972. His employment was subject to the faculty handbook, a part of his employment contract with the University. In 2015, Jane Doe, a Chinese national and student, enrolled in one of Heineke\u2019s classes. She repeatedly met with Heineke in his office outside of office hours, at her own request, for help with the course material. Doe received an \u201cA\u201d in the class and accepted an offer to serve as Heineke\u2019s teaching assistant (TA) for the same course in fall 2015. Heineke and Doe had a friendly relationship and Doe sent complimentary emails to Heineke. Heineke admits that he tried to \u201cmentor\u201d Doe in European/American culture, including once demonstrating the French style of greeting by pressing cheeks and kissing the air and hugging her several times. Heineke described the contact as brief, nonsexual, and at her request. Doe described the contact as extreme, extensive, and nonconsensual. During the summer of 2015, Doe canceled a lunch and when Heineke asked to reschedule for later in the summer, Doe responded that she was Read Features Use Cases Find cr Learn Pricing Log in Sign up 2/13/25, 10:51 Misconduct - Issuu 1/6 unavailable during summer break. Despite Doe\u2019s and Heineke\u2019s agreement to defer a meeting until September, Heineke emailed Doe For more information on some of our upcoming events and trainings, click on the icons: multiple times over the summer to see if she was available to discuss the materials. In September 2015, Doe responded to the emails, again stating her unavailability and alleging that Heineke had put his hands in her clothes, touched her body and skin, squeezed her bottom, kissed her mouth, pressed his penis against her, and sexually harassed her. Heineke emailed back denying the allegations and expressing shock and disbelief. Doe reported the sexual harassment to the University\u2019s equal employment opportunity office. The University\u2019s Director of Equal Opportunity and Title Coordinator Belinda Guthrie met with Doe about her claim, but Doe did not respond to Guthrie\u2019s requests for more information and Guthrie did not pursue Doe\u2019s claim. Guthrie did not initiate an investigation or advise Heineke of the complaint. Heineke did not tell anyone at the University about the emails and deleted them from his account because they \u201cbothered him immensely.\u201d In January 2017, another female student from China (Student A) complained to Guthrie\u2019s office that Heineke had sexually harassed her. Guthrie hired Michael Henry, an investigator with the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management Group (NCHERM) to investigate. When Henry interviewed Heineke, Heineke did not disclose Doe\u2019s accusations and said \u201cno\u201d when asked if anything like this has ever come up before. Henry also interviewed Doe at length, and her account was consistent with her September 2015 emails. After the interview, Guthrie authorized a separate investigation of Doe\u2019s claim. In May 2017, Henry interviewed Heineke and seven other witnesses about Doe\u2019s accusations. Heineke again denied that anything like this had happened before. In May 2017, Henry issued a report concluding that Heineke had not sexually harassed Student A. In June 2017, Henry issued a report on the Doe investigation, finding it more likely than not that Heineke had harassed Doe. Based on the investigation findings, the University determined that Heineke engaged in gross misconduct and terminated his employment. Heineke appealed the decision internally, when the appeal was denied and his dismissal was affirmed, he brought multiple actions in court to overturn the termination. None of these succeeded. 2/13/25, 10:51 Misconduct - Issuu 2/6 For example, for Heineke\u2019s wrongful termination claim alleging age discrimination, the trial court concluded the University made a primafacie showing of a legitimate basis for termination under the faculty handbook for sexual harassment. Heineke admitted he had no objective evidence that he was discriminated against or terminated due to his age. The trial court also found that the veracity of Doe\u2019s allegations was immaterial to the question of whether the University genuinely believed, after conducting an investigation, that Heineke had harassed Doe. The Court of Appeals agreed. The Court of Appeals noted that Heineke did not provide any evidence of age discrimination. Heineke\u2019s \u201cevidence\u201d of pretext was all speculation, hearsay, and conclusory arguments. For Heineke\u2019s breach of contract claim, the trial court held that the University complied with their faculty handbook terms permitting termination for misconduct, which includes sexual harassment. The handbook authorizes termination when \u201cin the judgment of the Provost, reasons exist to dismiss and terminate the tenure of a tenured faculty member for misconduct.\u201d Heineke argued that this interpretation renders the tenure clause illusory because the University could have its Provost falsely (and/or in bad faith) claim subjectively that a faculty member committed misconduct. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court\u2019s ruling and noted that the University afforded Heineke all of the processes he was entitled to in the faculty handbook, including a lengthy evidentiary hearing and a thorough decision where the Faculty Judiciary Board made credibility findings and explained its reasoning. The Court of Appeals upheld the University\u2019s decision to terminate Heineke. Heinekev.SantaClaraUniversity (2023) __ Cal. Ct. App. __ [2023 3116225]. Note: This case is instructive because it shows the importance of following the process outlined in the employee handbook when terminating an employee for violation of an organization\u2019s policy. In addition, it shows the importance of conducting a thorough investigation into allegations of harassment to support terminating an employee accused of harassment. More articles from this publication: 2/13/25, 10:51 Misconduct - Issuu 3/6 new to the Firm! 3min pages 13-14 2min page 13 new to the Firm! 2min page 12 Agreements 4min pages 11-12 Consortium Call Of The Month 1min page 22 Construction Corner 5min pages 20-21 Labor Relations Returns To Previous Test For Determining Independent Contractor Status. 6min pages 18-19 Retaliation 3min page 17 DidYou Know? 2min page 16 2/13/25, 10:51 Misconduct - Issuu 4/6 Issuu Inc. Create once, share everywhere. Issuu turns PDFs and other files into interactive flipbooks and engaging content for every channel. Company Issuu Platform Resources This article is from: Show more Nonprofit News: Summer 2\u2026 About us Careers Plans & Pricing Press Blog Contact Content Types Features Flipbook Industries Developers Publisher Directory English 2/13/25, 10:51 Misconduct - Issuu 5/6 Redeem Code Terms Privacy Accessibility Cookie Settings 2/13/25, 10:51 Misconduct - Issuu 6/6", "7549_106.pdf": "9TH v (2018) United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. John M. HEINEKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v and Qianyue Evelyn Zhang, Defendants-Appellees. John M. Heineke, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Santa Clara University and Jane Doe, Defendants- Appellees. No. 17-16876, No. 17-17408 Decided: May 25, 2018 Before and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BERG,* District Judge. Samuel Kornhauser, Law Offices of Samuel Kornhauser, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff- Appellant Marcie S. Isom, Attorney, Gordon Rees LLP, San Francisco, CA, Don Willenburg, Esquire, Attorney, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee ** Plaintiff John M. Heineke (Heineke), a long-serving tenured professor at Santa Clara University, appeals the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to lift his suspension from teaching and order his reinstatement. Heineke sought this injunction after the university suspended him pending the results of an internal investigation of a sexual harassment complaint by a former student. Along with his claims for injunctive relief, Heineke brought suit for wrongful termination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 623; due process violations under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; breach of contract; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and defamation. \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/13/25, 10:51 v (2018) | FindLaw 1/9 The district court denied the preliminary injunction request,1 resting its decision solely on a finding that Heineke had not established a substantial likelihood of irreparable harm. The district court failed to address the additional preliminary injunction factors of likelihood of success on the merits, balance of the hardships between the parties absent an injunction, and the public interest in granting the injunction. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). We review the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. See Pom Wonderful v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2014). We reverse and remand for a complete application of the four-part preliminary injunction test. The district court concluded that Heineke's evidence of reputational damage, loss of opportunity to pursue his chosen profession, and emotional distress did not support a showing of irreparable harm. The district court read Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974), and this Circuit's decisions applying Sampson, as rejecting \u201cassertions of irreparable harm stemming from lost income, reputational damage, and psychological injury\u201d that arise from an adverse employment decision. Citing Sampson, 415 U.S. at 89\u201393 & n.68, 94 S.Ct. 937; Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516 (9th Cir. 1985); Kennedy v. Sec'y of Army, 191 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1999). In Sampson, the Court acknowledged that an extreme case of lost income or reputational harm might constitute irreparable injury, but noted that generally \u201cinsufficiency of savings or difficulties in obtaining other employment\u2014external factors common to most discharged employees and not attributable to any unusual actions relating to the discharge itself\u2014will not support a finding of irreparable injury, however severely they may affect a particular individual.\u201d Sampson, 415 U.S. at 92 n. 68, 94 S.Ct. 937. The district court erred when it interpreted this language in Sampson to create a per se rule for all employment cases. Sampson specifically did not foreclose the possibility that reputational damage and emotional distress may represent irreparable harm. The district court also erred by failing to address Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist. of Cal., 840 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1988), in which we upheld an injunction based on the finding that a school district's decision to reassign a teacher to administrative-only duties because of his diagnosis caused irreparable harm in the form of loss of job satisfaction and emotional distress. Chalk, 840 F.2d at 709\u201310. Heineke has proffered evidence that he will experience emotional distress and loss of job satisfaction as a result of his suspension. The district court therefore abused its discretion by interpreting Sampson to create a per se rule for all employment cases\u2014that reputational damage, lost opportunity, and emotional distress caused by a suspension or termination cannot constitute irreparable harm\u2014and by ignoring the impact of binding, relevant precedent from Chalk. United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the district court did not address all of the elements that must be shown in order to support a preliminary injunction. In Chalk, we noted first that the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his Rehabilitation Act claims, and second that the injuries of reputational harm, loss of 2/13/25, 10:51 v (2018) | FindLaw 2/9 opportunity, and emotional distress resulting from that (likely provable) discrimination were the type of non-compensable injury the law was designed to prevent. 840 F.2d at 704\u201310. Chalk therefore suggests that in the employment discrimination context the likelihood of success on the merits may inform the irreparable harm analysis. Without any analysis regarding the likelihood of Plaintiff's success on the merits\u2014including whether his suspension was discriminatory under the ADEA\u2014the district court could not evaluate what impact the strength of Plaintiff's discrimination claims had on the likelihood he would suffer an irreparable, non-compensable injury absent an injunction. On remand, the district court is therefore instructed to complete a full analysis of the preliminary injunction factors to decide whether to issue the preliminary injunction. The district court's order denying Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion is thus and for consideration of all preliminary injunction factors 1. Heineke appealed the denial of his preliminary injunction motion. Dkt. 13 (Case No. 17-16876). While that appeal was pending, the university president affirmed the initial finding that Heineke had sexually harassed a former student and approved his termination. Heineke then filed a second motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin his termination as well as an internal appeal of the president's decision to the faculty judicial board. Pending the outcome of that appeal, Heineke remained on paid suspension. The district court denied Heineke's second preliminary injunction motion on the same grounds as the first, noting that his \u201cstatus has not changed since his first motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.\u201d Heineke again appealed. Dkt. 7 (Case No. 17-17408). His two appeals are consolidated. Was this helpful? Yes No 2/13/25, 10:51 v (2018) | FindLaw 3/9 Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law v (2018) Docket No: No. 17-16876, No. 17-17408 Decided: May 25, 2018 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Need to find an attorney? 2/13/25, 10:51 v (2018) | FindLaw 4/9 Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 For Legal Professionals 2/13/25, 10:51 v (2018) | FindLaw 5/9 Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * \uf105 2/13/25, 10:51 v (2018) | FindLaw 6/9 Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) 2/13/25, 10:51 v (2018) | FindLaw 7/9 Find a lawyer Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/13/25, 10:51 v (2018) | FindLaw 8/9 Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles By Name Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/13/25, 10:51 v (2018) | FindLaw 9/9", "7549_107.pdf": "1 Case No. 17-CV-05285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California HEINEKE, Plaintiff, v UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. Case No. 17-CV-05285 Re: Dkt. Nos. 14, 18 On September 12, 2017, Plaintiff John Heineke filed a complaint against Defendants Santa Clara University (\u201cSCU\u201d) and a named former student (\u201cStudent A\u201d) alleging age discrimination, wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and defamation No. 1 (\u201cCompl.\u201d). On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction Nos. 9, 14 (\u201cMot.\u201d). Counsel for Plaintiff certified that he provided notice of the emergency motion to counsel for No. 8 at 3. SCU\u2019s counsel stated that opposed the requested relief. Id. Also on September 13, 2017, the Court ordered to respond to the emergency motion No. 16 responded Case 5:17-cv-05285 Document 22 Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 8 2 Case No. 17-CV-05285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California on September 14, 2017 No. 17 (\u201cOpp.\u201d). Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a reply on September 15, 2017 No. 18. Because the reply exceeds the page limit set forth in Civil Local Rules 7-3(c) and 7-4(b), the Court Plaintiff\u2019s motion and the reply. However, the Court notes that the arguments in the reply would not have changed the Court\u2019s conclusion. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court Plaintiff\u2019s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1076 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Stuhlbarg Int\u2019l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001 plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.\u201d Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (emphasis added plaintiff must make \u201ca certain threshold showing . . . on each factor.\u201d Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011)). The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of proving these elements. Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009 preliminary injunction is \u2018an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.\u2019\u201d Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff is a 79-year-old tenured professor of economics at SCU. In 2015, Student A, then a student of his, accused Plaintiff of sexual harassment and filed a complaint with SCU\u2019s Office of & Title IX. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 28, 32; Mot. at 2. Student chose not to pursue the complaint at that time. Compl. \u00b6 33; Mot. at 2. Plaintiff denies the allegations. In 2017, another student (\u201cStudent B\u201d) of Plaintiff\u2019s filed a complaint accusing him of Case 5:17-cv-05285 Document 22 Filed 09/15/17 Page 2 of 8 3 Case No. 17-CV-05285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California sexual harassment. Mot. at 3; Mot. Exh. 8 at 1 hired a neutral investigator to investigate the charges. The investigator found that a preponderance of the evidence did not support Student B\u2019s allegations of sexual harassment. Mot. at 3; Exh. 8 at 1-3. In the course of the investigation into Student B\u2019s claims, however, the investigator learned of Student A\u2019s complaint and interviewed her. Mot. at 3; Mot. Exh. 9 at 2; Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 37-38. The investigator then opened a formal investigation into Student A\u2019s complaint. Following an investigation that included interviewing Plaintiff, Student A, and seven witnesses, and reviewing emails between Plaintiff and Student A, the investigator issued a report on June 19, 2017. Mot. Exh. 9. The investigator found based on a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff violated SCU\u2019s Gender-Based Discrimination and Sexual Misconduct Policy as well as Policy 311 of the Staff Policy Manual. Id. at 54. SCU\u2019s and Title Coordinator adopted this finding on June 23, 2017. Id. at 55. The investigator issued an addendum on August 9, 2017, to respond to objections raised by Plaintiff. The investigator\u2019s conclusions remained the same. Mot. Exh. 10 at 50. Plaintiff then submitted an \u201caddendum to the addendum.\u201d Mot. Exh. 13 at 1. On August 20, 2017 Provost Dennis Jacobs accepted the findings of the investigation. Id. In a letter, Jacobs informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff\u2019s \u201cunwelcome, sexual, verbal, written, online and physical contact amounts to gross misconduct and subjects [Plaintiff] to dismissal from the university and loss of tenure, effective Sept. 5, 2017.\u201d Id. at 2. The letter provided that Plaintiff could appeal the decision by submitting a written appeal within ten days. Id. Pursuant to an extension granted by SCU, Plaintiff submitted an appeal on September 12, 2017. Compl. \u00b6 45; Guthrie Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 8-9; Exh. 3 to Guthrie Decl granted Plaintiff until the close of business on September 29, 2017 to submit any additional materials he would like to be considered as part of his appeal. Guthrie Decl. \u00b6 9; Exh. 4 to Guthrie Decl suspended Plaintiff with pay pending the resolution of his appeal. Compl. \u00b6 46; Mot. at 9; Guthrie Decl. \u00b6 8; Exh. 3 to Guthrie Decl. The fall quarter begins on September 18, 2017. Mot. at 9; Compl. at \u00b6 46. Plaintiff Case 5:17-cv-05285 Document 22 Filed 09/15/17 Page 3 of 8 4 Case No. 17-CV-05285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California contends that has already announced that Plaintiff is \u201con leave\u201d for the fall quarter. Mot. at 9 states that it has arranged for other professors to teach Plaintiff\u2019s classes, Guthrie Decl. \u00b6 10, but that it has not disclosed Plaintiff\u2019s suspension to anyone without a business need to know, Opp. at 20. Plaintiff argues that, in the absence of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, SCU\u2019s suspension of him pending his appeal\u2019s resolution will cause irreparable harm to his reputation and career. Mot. at 9. First, Plaintiff contends that, given his age, any suspension or termination will eliminate any other employment opportunities. Mot. at 13-14. Plaintiff also contends that \u201cgiven the nature of the false accusations alleged against him, the damage to his reputation likely also forecloses any other employment opportunities.\u201d Id. at 14. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish a threshold showing of irreparable harm. This conclusion is supported by ample precedent from the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, this Court, and other federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974), is instructive. In Sampson, a federal employee sought to enjoin her dismissal pending resolution of her administrative appeal. Id. at 63. The employee argued that, absent an injunction, she would be irreparably harmed because \u201cspurious and unrebutted charges against her might remain on the record\u201d and \u201cshe would suffer the embarrassment of being wrongfully discharged in the presence of her coworkers.\u201d Id. at 89. The federal employee also argued that she would be irreparably harmed because she would be denied an income. Id. The D.C. Circuit \u201cintimated that either loss of earnings or damage to reputation might afford a basis for finding irreparable injury,\u201d but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, saying that a showing of lost earnings and reputational harm \u201cfalls far short of the type of irreparable injury which is a necessary predicate to the issuance of a temporary injunction.\u201d Id. at 91-92. In a footnote, the U.S. Supreme Court observed, \u201cWe have held that . . . difficulties in immediately obtaining other employment\u2014[an] external factor[] common to most discharged employees and not attributable to any unusual actions relating to the discharge itself\u2014will not support a finding Case 5:17-cv-05285 Document 22 Filed 09/15/17 Page 4 of 8 5 Case No. 17-CV-05285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California of irreparable injury, however severely they may affect a particular individual.\u201d Id. at 93 n.68. In the instant case, like in Sampson, Plaintiff alleges that he will suffer irreparable harm from the allegedly false accusations against him and from the injury to his reputation from being suspended. Unlike in Sampson, however, Plaintiff will be suspended with full pay pending the outcome of his administrative appeal. As a result, Plaintiff\u2019s claim to injury in the instant case is even weaker than the federal employee\u2019s claim in Sampson, which the U.S. Supreme Court held was insufficient to support injunctive relief. Applying Sampson, the Ninth Circuit has rejected assertions of irreparable harm stemming from lost income, reputational damage, and psychological injury. In Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516 (9th Cir. 1985), the Ninth Circuit held that lost income, lost retirement and relocation pay, and damage to a military service member\u2019s reputation resulting from the stigma of a less-than-honorable discharge did not constitute irreparable harm. Id. at 1518. Similarly, in Kennedy v. Secretary of Army, 191 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision), the Ninth Circuit held that lost military benefits, damage to the service member\u2019s reputation, and damage to his mental health would not support a finding of irreparable harm.1 Id. at *2; see also 1 In his reply, Plaintiff relies on Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014), Herb Reed Enterprises v. Florida Entertainment Management., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2013), and Cassim v. Bowen, 824 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1987) for the proposition that reputational injury and \u201closs of opportunity to pursue one\u2019s profession\u201d constitute irreparable harm. These cases are distinguishable. First, in Arizona Dream Act Coalition, the Ninth Circuit stated that \u201c[t]he loss of opportunity to pursue [Plaintiffs\u2019] chosen profession[s] constitutes irreparable harm.\u201d 757 F.3d at 1068 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). The Court finds that any such lost opportunity in the instant case is speculative at best. Plaintiff\u2019s administrative appeal is still pending and a successful outcome in that appeal or in the instant case could result in his reinstatement. See Singh v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., No. 10-2028, 2010 3220336, at *6-7 (E.D. Penn. Aug. 11, 2010). In addition, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that he would be unable to obtain other employment, making his assertions to that effect speculative. See Holcomb v. Cal. Board of Psychology, No. 2:15-cv-02154, 2015 7430625, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015); Brown v. District of Columbia, 888 F. Supp. 2d 28, 31-34 (D.D.C. 2012). Second, Herb Reed was a trademark case dealing with a company\u2019s business reputation and goodwill. 736 F.3d at 1250. Plaintiff cites no authority to suggest that the standards for analyzing harm to business reputation and harm to an individual\u2019s professional reputation are the same\u2014indeed, Samson, Hartikka, and Kennedy show that it is not. Finally, in Cassim, the Ninth Circuit summarily stated that Cassim, a surgeon who was suspended from the Medicare program, \u201chas shown the possibility of irreparable injury.\u201d 824 F.2d at 796. Cassim provides little support to Plaintiff, however, because it was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Winter, Case 5:17-cv-05285 Document 22 Filed 09/15/17 Page 5 of 8 6 Case No. 17-CV-05285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that plaintiff had adequate remedy at law for claims seeking money damages and back pay for the loss of her job); Loft v. Stationary Engineers, Local 39, 2014 709980, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2014) (finding loss of job and pension benefits is not irreparable); Belzer v. American Airlines, 2007 685865, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2007) (finding no irreparable harm where airline pilot alleged he would suffer loss of employment and health benefits). The particular circumstances of Plaintiff\u2019s case that might distinguish it from Sampson, Hartikka, and Kennedy\u2014the nature of Plaintiff\u2019s employment as a tenured professor, the nature of the allegations against him, Plaintiff\u2019s advanced age, and his alleged emotional distress\u2014do not require a different result. First, other courts have regularly held in the context of academia that damage to a professor\u2019s professional reputation resulting from adverse tenure or employment decisions or disciplinary proceedings does not constitute irreparable harm for the purposes of a preliminary injunction. See Bagley v. Yale Univ., No. 3:13\u2013cv\u20131890, 2014 7370021, at *5-6, 10 (D. Conn. Dec. 29, 2014) (finding damage to professional reputation, including in academia, to be both speculative and compensable by money damages at trial); Weathers v. Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 2008 5110952, at *3-4 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 4, 2008) (finding no irreparable harm where refusal to grant tenure would cause professor to lose status as principal investigator on a grant and would damage her reputation and employability); Halikas v. Univ. of Minn., 856 F. Supp. 1331, 1334 (D. Minn. 1994) (finding no irreparable harm where professor of medicine claimed reputational damage from university\u2019s investigation into and suspension of his research). Second, in Choudhry v. Regents of University of California, No. 16-cv-5281, 2016 6611067 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2016), which bears some strong factual similarities to the instant case, the court found that there was no irreparable harm where a university dean remained a tenured, which required that a plaintiff show that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Accordingly, the Court finds that Sampson, Hartikka, Kennedy, and the other cases discussed above below are more directly on point and more persuasive than those relied on by Plaintiff. Case 5:17-cv-05285 Document 22 Filed 09/15/17 Page 6 of 8 7 Case No. 17-CV-05285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California paid faculty member but had no teaching responsibilities during the pendency of a sexual harassment investigation. Id. at *2, 7. Moreover, it is undisputed that Plaintiff\u2019s appeal within is still pending, and presumably any reputational injury would \u201cbe largely negated should [h]e ultimately prevail\u201d in that appeal or in the instant case. Hines v. Cal. Public Utilities Comm\u2019n, No. C\u201310\u20132813, 2011 724658, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2011). Third, other courts have rejected the assertion that a plaintiff\u2019s advanced age will make finding a new job difficult or impossible, thereby rendering an adverse employment action irreparable. See Holcomb v. Cal. Board of Psychology, No. 2:15-cv-02154, 2015 7430625, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015) (finding no irreparable harm where plaintiff alleged that in the absence of a temporary restraining order she would lose her job, be unable to find employment due to her advanced age, and possibly become homeless as a result); Brown v. District of Columbia, 888 F. Supp. 2d 28, 31-34 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding no irreparable harm where professor was denied tenure despite alleged harm to her professional reputation, an effective end to her teaching career, a loss of income, and a difficult transition period due to her age and health); Singh v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., No. 10-2028, 2010 3220336, at *6-7 (E.D. Penn. Aug. 11, 2010) (finding no irreparable harm where 59-year-old tenured teacher was allegedly illegally dismissed because economic harm cannot constitute irreparable harm and reinstatement was available as a remedy at trial). Fourth, other courts have refused to find irreparable harm based on emotional distress caused by adverse employment decisions. See Kennedy, 191 F.3d 460 at *2; DeNovellis v. Shalala, 135 F.3d 58, 64 (1st Cir. 1998) (\u201c[T]he fact that an employee may be psychologically troubled by an adverse job action does not usually constitute irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief.\u201d); Brown, 888 F. Supp. 2d at 31-32; Pollis v. New School for Social Research, 829 F. Supp. 584, 591-601 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (finding no irreparable harm when 70-year-old professor claimed emotional and psychological distress from being forced to transition from a full- time professorship to an adjunct position). Case 5:17-cv-05285 Document 22 Filed 09/15/17 Page 7 of 8 8 Case No. 17-CV-05285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California Because Plaintiff has not made the required threshold showing of irreparable harm, the Court need not address the other three Winter factors. See Bagley, 2014 7370021, at *5 (\u201cIf a plaintiff does not or cannot demonstrate irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted, the injunction will not be granted.\u201d). Accordingly, Plaintiff\u2019s motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is ORDERED. Dated: September 15, 2017 ______________________________________ United States District Judge Case 5:17-cv-05285 Document 22 Filed 09/15/17 Page 8 of 8"} |
8,980 | Eric Pappas | James Madison University | [
"8980_101.pdf",
"8980_102.pdf",
"8980_103.pdf",
"8980_104.pdf",
"8980_105.pdf"
] | {"8980_102.pdf": "(/) Upcoming Event (/SUBSCRIBE) Home(/) > Employment Law(Https://Valawyersweekly.Com/Category/Opinion-Digests/Employment-Law/) > Ex-professor\u2019s federal claims dismissed Ex-professor\u2019s federal claims dismissed Virginia Lawyers Weekly ( weekly-staff/) // April 24, 2023 // 4 Minute Read on/? om%2F2023%2F04%2F24%2Fex- F&media=&description=Ex- missed) (mailto:?subject=Ex-professor\u2019s federal claims dismissed&body=Where a former professor at James Madison University, or JMU, who resigned after he was accused of sexual harassment by a female student, sued and university officials, but his... You can read the content in details following link https%3A%2F%2Fvalawyersweekly.com%2F2023%2F04%2F24%2Fex- professors-federal-claims-dismissed%2F) Where a former professor at James Madison University, or JMU, who resigned after he was accused of sexual harassment by a female student, sued and university officials, but his complaint failed to plead plausible Title IX, federal due process or First Amendment retaliation claims, and the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims, the suit was dismissed. Background Dr. Eric Pappas, formerly a professor at James Madison University, or JMU, alleges he was falsely and maliciously accused of sexual harassment by a female student and that constructively terminated him after a university hearing panel found him \u201cresponsible\u201d for the alleged harassment. He has sued and three of its employees, alleging federal and state claims. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Documents Defendants attached several documents to their motion to dismiss that were not attached to the complaint. Dr. Pappas maintains the court cannot consider Dean Bauerle and Provost Coltman\u2019s decisions, Doe\u2019s complaint in the case and Roe\u2019s statement. The court concludes that all of the exhibits are integral to the complaint and can be considered except for Roe\u2019s statement. Statute of limitations Dean Bauerle\u2019s written decision was dated Nov. 11, 2019. Absent tolling, the two-year statute of limitations would thus have expired on Nov. 11, 2021. Dr. Pappas did not file this action until Feb. 23, 2022. Therefore, unless the limitations period was tolled for approximately 104 days, Dr. Pappas\u2019 \u00a7 1983 and Title claims are time barred. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued several \u201cjudicial emergency orders.\u201d Thus, the applicable limitations period was tolled for 126 days, and Dr. Pappas\u2019 federal claims were therefore timely filed. Count One In support of his Title claim, Dr. Pappas\u2019 complaint fails to plausibly allege that, at the time of his case, there was external pressure on to effect institutional bias against men in disciplinary proceedings. And Dr. Pappas\u2019 allegations that two of the hearing panel members were Virginia Lawyers Weekly Daily Newsletter Sign up for your daily digest of News. By signing up you agree to our Privacy Policy ( policy/) Sign In (/User-Login/?Dmcss=Login) Select Region or Brand Manage Account News (/category/news- stories/) Events (/events) Opinions ( digests/) Verdicts & Settlements (/category/verdicts- settlements/) Classifieds ( Search... Editors\u2019 Picks ( picks/) r- Trademark case remanded over distinctiveness long-running trademark battle should be remande because the evidence failed to prove that a propo[.. ( case-remanded-over-distinctiveness/) Verdicts & Settlements ( settlements/) Man\u2019s death blamed on delayed diagnosis\u2026 Product leaves man with chronic\u2026 Judge finds worker conspired against his\u2026 Brain bleeds suffered in car crash \u2014 $1.3\u2026 Spinal cord injury suffered in fall \u2014 $1.75\u2026 Resident dies after falling from window at\u2026 Mack tractor-trailer rear-ends \u2014 $3.2\u2026 Motorcyclist fractures leg in Chesterfield\u2026 Spinal cord injury occurs at work \u2014 $2\u2026 Passenger paralyzed after crash \u2014 $4\u2026 Car accident victim: defendant motorist w\u2026 See All Verdicts & Settlements Opinion Digests ( We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking \u201cAccept\u201d, you consent to the use of the cookies. Cookie settings 2/13/25, 10:52 Ex-professor\u2019s federal claims dismissed | Virginia Lawyers Weekly 1/5 biased against him because of his sex either are conclusory or otherwise fail to raise a plausible inference of sex bias. Count Two Because the procedural due process claim is brought against the non defendants in their individual capacities, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. The court will assume, for the purpose of its analysis, that Dr. Pappas has stated a property interest. As for whether deprived Dr. Pappas of that property interest, \u201cthe answer would be evident\u201d had he been officially discharged from his employment. But never fired Dr. Pappas \u2014 he resigned. Dr. Pappas claims that teaching his classes, grading student work and conducting research without the assistance of other students is, as a condition of employment, so objectively onerous that effectively left him with no choice but to resign. But the Fourth Circuit has made clear that \u201c[d]ifficult or unpleasant working conditions\u201d or dissatisfaction with work assignments, \u201cwithout more, are not so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.\u201d Similarly the complaint does not plausibly allege that Dr. Pappas was deprived of any liberty interest in his reputation and status as a professor. Count Three Dr. Pappas brings a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Sirocky-Meck in her official capacity as JMU\u2019s Title coordinator. Sirocky-Meck argues that this claim is barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Dr. Pappas first responds that Sirocky-Meck waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by removing this case to federal court. The court disagrees. However the court finds that the Ex parte Young exception permits Dr. Pappas to bring this claim against Sirocky-Meck, except to the extent it seeks a change in his \u201cprofessional record.\u201d For the reasons provided earlier on Count Two, however, Dr. Pappas failed to plausibly allege that he was deprived of either a recognized property or liberty interest. As such, Count Three must likewise be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Count Four Dr. Pappas alleges the non defendants investigated, charged and disciplined him for allegedly exercising his rights under the First Amendment. According to Doe\u2019s Title complaint, he largely spoke about his personal dating life with younger girlfriends and the benefits of dating older men. He allegedly shared that several of his former romantic partners were people he initially met as students in his class and that he has never dated anyone over the age of 30. These alleged comments fall far outside the realm of public life, and was permitted to impose discipline upon a professor for making such comments to a student. And even if those comments could somehow be construed as matters of public concern, a university\u2019s interest in disciplining an employee accused of sexually harassing a student far outweighs any interest of the employee in making sexually suggestive comments to students. State-law claims Because the court is dismissing the only federal claims in the case, the court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and to dismiss them without prejudice. Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss granted. Pappas v. James Madison University, Case No. 5:22-cv-00028, March 31, 2023 at Harrisonburg (Dillon 023-3-174. 42 pp 023-3-174 Virginia Lawyers Weekly 023-3-174 \u2013 Pappas v. James Madison University ( digests/) Arbitration: Servicemembers Civil Relief A\u2026 Civil Procedure: Court clarifies standard in\u2026 Civil Procedure: Landowner can testify\u2026 Civil Procedure: Trial court wrongly rejecte\u2026 Arbitration: Faulty memory is insufficient t\u2026 Education: School district prevails on IDEA\u2026 Evidence: Expert can\u2019t testify in support of\u2026 Insurance: Mother and wife squabble over\u2026 Real Property: Landowner sues neighbor f\u2026 Arbitration: Coal miners\u2019 wage suit headed\u2026 Civil Procedure: Court grants untimely jury\u2026 Contract: Default judgment granted in\u2026 See All Digests We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking \u201cAccept\u201d, you consent to the use of the cookies. Cookie settings 2/13/25, 10:52 Ex-professor\u2019s federal claims dismissed | Virginia Lawyers Weekly 2/5 Related Content (/) ategory/opinion- Verdicts & Settlements (/category/verdicts- settlements/) Classifieds ( Press Releases ( business-connect/) ( man-sues-city-of-charlottesville-for-retaliation/) Employment: Man sues city of Charlottesville for retaliation February 10, 2025 ( constructive-discharge-claim-is-dismissed/) Employment: Constructive discharge claim is dismissed February 3, 2025 ( discrimination-suit-was-wrongly-dismissed/) Employment: Discrimination suit was wrongly dismissed January 26, 2025 ( mans-color-discrimination-claim-survives-motion-to- dismiss/) Employment: Man\u2019s color discrimination claim survives motion to dismiss January 26, 2025 ( district-court-erred-by-dismissing-suit-on-timeliness- grounds/) Employment: District court erred by dismissing suit on timeliness grounds January 20, 2025 ( nurses-covid-19-vaccine-refusal-suit-is-reinstated/) Employment: Nurse\u2019s COVID-19 vaccine refusal suit is reinstated January 20, 2025 We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking \u201cAccept\u201d, you consent to the use of the cookies. Cookie settings 2/13/25, 10:52 Ex-professor\u2019s federal claims dismissed | Virginia Lawyers Weekly 3/5 Virginia Lawyers Weekly provides 24/7 legal news coverage and events honoring top legal professionals Login (/user-login/? dmcss=login) Subscribe (/subscribe/) Manage Account (/manage-account-fc) Group Subscription ( 0014/t/page/fm/0) Subscriber Agreement ( agreement About (/about/) Contact Us (/contact- us/) Accessibility Statement (/accessibility- statement (/frequently-asked- questions Advertise With Us (/advertising/) Free E-Guide (/free- growth-guide/) Event Sponsorship (/event-advertising ( ( lawyers-weekly Get our free e-alerts & breaking news notifications! We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking \u201cAccept\u201d, you consent to the use of the cookies. Cookie settings 2/13/25, 10:52 Ex-professor\u2019s federal claims dismissed | Virginia Lawyers Weekly 4/5 ( ( ubscribe (/subscribe) for access to the latest digital and special editions. \u00a9 2025 BridgeTower Media. All rights reserved. Use of this website is subject to its Terms of Use ( | Privacy Policy ( | Your California Privacy Rights/Privacy Policy ( | Do Not Sell My Info/Cookie Policy ( We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking \u201cAccept\u201d, you consent to the use of the cookies. Cookie settings 2/13/25, 10:52 Ex-professor\u2019s federal claims dismissed | Virginia Lawyers Weekly 5/5", "8980_103.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Pappas v. James Madison Univ. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Harrisonburg Division Mar 31, 2023 Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 (W.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2023) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Delegate legal research to CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 03-31-2023 PAPPAS, Plaintiff, v UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. Elizabeth K. Dillon, United States District Judge Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/39 Elizabeth K. Dillon, United States District Judge Plaintiff Dr. Eric Pappas, formerly a professor at James Madison University (\u201cJMU\u201d), alleges he was falsely and maliciously accused of sexual harassment by a female student and that constructively terminated him after a University hearing panel found him \u201cresponsible\u201d for the alleged harassment. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1-2.) He originally brought this suit in Rockingham County Circuit Court against and three of its employees- Amy Sirocky-Meck, David Stringham, and Elizabeth Pass (collectively, \u201cnon defendants\u201d)-alleging violations of Title IX, violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and state-law claims for breach of contract and tortious interference. Defendants then removed the case to this court. (Dkt. No. 1.) Now before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 3), which has been fully briefed and argued. For the following reasons, the court will deny the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, grant the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to Counts through V, and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts and VII. *2 2 A. Factual Background The following facts are taken from the allegations in Dr. Pappas' complaint and, at this stage, are presumed to be true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In 2013, Dr. Pappas was promoted to the rank of full professor at JMU, the highest rank a non-administrative employee may occupy. (Compl. \u00b6 26.) When Dr. Pappas was initially hired, he signed an express contract with (which was continuously renewed during his employment) stating, among other things, that he would only be terminated according to the \u201cpolicies and procedures of JMU, including but not limited to . . . dismissal for misconduct.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 29-30.) During his time at JMU, Dr. Pappas, who was an Integrated Science and Technology professor that \u201c[taught] problem 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/39 solving using innovative developmental psychology methodologies,\u201d was beloved by his students and worked with \u201cover a hundred student employees, research assistants, teaching assistants, and student graders.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 1, 31.) According to Dr. Pappas, student employees were \u201cessential\u201d for him to effectively teach his courses and conduct his active research and publishing work. (Id. \u00b6 32.) From fall 2017 through fall 2018, \u201cJane Doe,\u201d then a student, worked as a student assistant and grader for two of Dr. Pappas' classes. (Id. \u00b6 35.) During the fall 2018 semester, Doe occupied the role of \u201clead student grader\u201d for Dr. Pappas and worked closely with him until at least December 2018. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 36, 46.) Dr. Pappas alleges that Doe has \u201can ideological interest in filing Title complaints against male figures at [JMU].\u201d (Id. \u00b6 37.) *3 1 3 1 For confidentiality purposes, Dr. Pappas refers to several individuals, including the accusing student, only by a pseudonym or abbreviation, though the parties to this case are aware of the identities of these individuals. On June 25, 2019, Doe filed a Title complaint against Dr. Pappas, alleging that he sexually harassed her during the spring 2018 semester. (Id. \u00b6 38.) Specifically, according to Doe's Title complaint, during a conversation with Doe at an off-campus coffee shop on May 11, 2018, Dr. Pappas allegedly told her \u201cthat he had met some of his previous girlfriends when they were first students in his class and that a friendship had developed which later lead [sic] to a dating relationship,\u201d told her that he had never dated anyone over the age of 30, told her that he \u201ccouldn't imagine being with one woman sexually and romantically for the rest of his life,\u201d and \u201cspoke about the benefits of dating someone older.\u201d (Dkt. No. 4-4 at 2, 6-7.) Dr. Pappas characterized these allegations as \u201csexual comments in the abstract.\u201d (Compl. \u00b6 39.) Doe's Title complaint also alleged that Dr. Pappas had sexually harassed other students and engaged in a romantic relationship with one of his students, \u201cC.B.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 40-41.) Dr. Pappas asserts that Doe fabricated those accounts, that he has never sexually harassed Doe or any other student, and that he has never engaged in a sexual relationship with a student. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 42-43.) According to Dr. Pappas, after filing her Title complaint, Doe engaged in \u201can aggressive campaign to recruit other 2 3 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/39 accusers\u201d through text messages and social media and published an op-ed detailing her accusations \u201cin order to advocate for [fewer] due process protections on campus.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 44-45.) 2 In her complaint, Doe expressed that she was uncertain whether Dr. Pappas was allegedly referring to former students who later became romantic partners after graduation or people who were his romantic partners while they were students. 3 For reasons explained herein, the court will give limited consideration to Doe's Title complaint, as well as several other extrinsic documents. At the time Doe filed her Title complaint, Amy Sirocky-Meck was JMU's Title Coordinator. (Id. \u00b6 3 uses a Single Investigator Model to conduct its investigations, whereby assigns an investigator to bring the charges, investigate the matter, and make an *4 initial determination as to the findings. (Id. \u00b6 51 policies afforded Dr. Pappas the right to be presumed \u201cnot responsible\u201d throughout the investigation and adjudication. (Id. \u00b6 50.) 4 Sirocky-Meck \u201capproved\u201d Doe's complaint and began a Title investigation (the \u201cdisciplinary case\u201d). (Id. \u00b6 55.) According to Dr. Pappas, instead of conducting an initial assessment of the complaint (as he alleges is required by University Policy 1340), Sirocky-Meck accepted Doe's statements as true and assumed that, if proven, her allegations would violate the policy. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 47-48.) She also did not offer Dr. Pappas a meeting to discuss possible interim supportive measures, as apparently required by the policy. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 56-57.) On or around July 26, 2019, Sirocky-Meck notified Dr. Pappas of Doe's formal complaint and instituted mutual no-contact orders that prohibited Dr. Pappas and Doe from having any contact directly or through third parties. (Id. \u00b6 58.) Sirocky-Meck charged Dr. Pappas with \u201chostile environment sexual harassment,\u201d which defines as, in relevant part, conduct of a sexual nature that \u201cis so severe, pervasive . . . and objectively offensive . . . that it denies the ability of a person's ability to participate . . . in the institution's educational programs.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 48-49.) Dr. Pappas alleges that this charge was inappropriate because Doe did not present any evidence 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/39 that she had been deprived of her \u201cability to participate in the institution's educational programs.\u201d (See id. \u00b6\u00b6 52-55.) In support, Dr. Pappas notes that Doe \u201creceived stellar performance reviews from her students during the Fall 2018 semester - averaging ratings [of] 4.7 out of 5,\u201d which he says demonstrates \u201cthat she had not suffered any educational deprivation.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 54.) Dr. Pappas claims that Sirocky-Meck's investigation was deficient in several respects. According to Dr. Pappas policy requires that Title investigations be conducted in an impartial and unbiased manner and requires the exclusion of irrelevant evidence or evidence that *5 is not \u201cappropriate\u201d given the facts alleged. (Id. \u00b6 59.) During her investigation of Jane Doe's complaint, Sirocky-Meck did not speak with any non-party witnesses with any personal knowledge of the root of Doe's complaint: the May 11, 2018, off-campus coffee shop conversation. (Id. \u00b6 60.) Instead, Sirocky-Meck accepted statements submitted by Doe that purported to be from other students who said they suffered sexual harassment by Dr. Pappas- allegations which Dr. Pappas also denied. (Id. \u00b6 61.) Dr. Pappas submits that policy requires that a complaint submitted on behalf of another be designated a \u201cthird party complaint\u201d and be subject to special timeliness requirements. (Id. \u00b6 62.) However, Sirocky-Meck never designated the portions of Doe's complaint that alleged sexual harassment on behalf of others as a \u201cthird party complaint,\u201d nor did she engage in any timeliness analysis, even though portions of Doe's complaint alleged sexual harassment suffered by others multiple years earlier. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 6364.) 5 Sirocky-Meck contacted some of the students referenced in Doe's complaint and requested to interview them. (Id. \u00b6 66.) Out of all the students contacted, only one student responded in support of Doe: \u201cJane Roe,\u201d one of Doe's close friends. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 66-67.) Sirocky-Meck \u201cuncritically accepted\u201d the third-party accounts from students such as Roe and added them to the investigation file, despite them having no relevance to Jane Doe's allegations. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 6869.) By contrast, Dr. Pappas submitted over 16 verified statements from his student graders who worked with him and Doe, each of whom testified that, to their knowledge, Dr. Pappas did not sexually harass Doe or anyone else; Sirocky-Meck deemed these accounts to be \u201cnot relevant\u201d or otherwise excluded them. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 70-71.) Dr. Pappas also 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/39 submitted 18 support letters from student graders who worked for him during the time Doe was employed, purporting to demonstrate that nobody, including Doe, raised any issues of sexual harassment; Sirocky-Meck *6 excluded these statements over concerns of student privacy, despite Dr. Pappas' offer to redact the names of the students involved. (Id. \u00b6 72.) By contrast, Sirocky-Meck never raised issues of student privacy with Doe's submissions of other students' false allegations against Dr. Pappas and included those students' names. (Id. \u00b6 73.) 6 One student, \u201cE.M.,\u201d discovered that Doe had fabricated an allegation of sexual allegation purportedly on her behalf. (Id. \u00b6 74.) E.M. contacted Sirocky-Meck and stated that she had no allegation of sexual harassment against Dr. Pappas, that he had been nothing but professional with her, and that Doe's complaint on her behalf was false. (Id. \u00b6 75.) However, Sirocky- Meck credited Doe's original report on E.M.'s behalf instead of E.M.'s own statements that she had no complaint against Dr. Pappas. (Id. \u00b6 76.) Another student, \u201cK.S.,\u201d similarly discovered that Doe had fabricated allegations on her behalf. (Id. \u00b6 77.) K.S. submitted three statements to Sirocky-Meck explaining that Doe's statement on her behalf was false and, further, that Doe's statements alleging a romantic relationship between Dr. Pappas and C.B. were false. (Id.) Nevertheless, Sirocky-Meck credited Doe's allegations on K.S.'s behalf in lieu of K.S.' own statements. (Id. \u00b6 78.) Sirocky-Meck made an \u201cinitial determination\u201d that Dr. Pappas had committed sexual harassment and set the matter for a hearing. (Id. \u00b6 79.) Following this initial determination, Dr. Pappas submitted a statement contesting Doe's complaint and highlighting alleged contradictions in Doe's statements. (Id. \u00b6 85.) On or around September 16, 2019, Dr. Pappas inquired about the possibility of settling the case through mediation (which he alleges is provided for by policy). (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 80-81.) Sirocky-Meck responded to Dr. Pappas that would not facilitate any mediation, but that Dr. Pappas could settle privately with Doe. (Id. \u00b6 82.) When Sirocky- Meck made this statement, she knew that she had already put in place no- contact orders which *7 would make private mediation with Doe impossible- such that if Dr. Pappas were to reach out to try to privately settle with Doe, he would subject himself to disciplinary action for communicating with her. (Id. \u00b6 83.) 7 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/39 Per policy, the University convened a hearing panel for Dr. Pappas' disciplinary case. (Id. \u00b6 86.) According to Dr. Pappas, a \u201ccontrolling majority\u201d of the three-member hearing panel was biased against him. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 88-91.) First, Dr. Pappas alleges that Stringham, the hearing panel chair, has a bias against men; in support, Dr. Pappas avers that Stringham has \u201cendorsed\u201d a podcast titled \u201cScene on Radio MEN'\u201d which \u201chas as its description, in relevant part, \u201cWhat's up with this male-dominated world? How did we get sexism, patriarchy, misogyny in the first place? How can we get better at seeing it, and what can we do about it?\u201d (Id. \u00b6 88.) Additionally, Dr. Pappas claims that Elizabeth Pass, another hearing panel member, sat on the University's Diversity Council and participated in meetings \u201cwherein the Council advocates for greater protection for female students and complains that the University's efforts to protect female students are not reflected in critical media reports,\u201d yet \u201chas never argued for greater protection for male members of the University community.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 89-90.) Dr. Pappas' hearing was held on October 23, 2019. (Id. \u00b6 84.) The hearing panel advised that parties' attorneys and advisors were not to speak during the proceeding, except to advise their clients privately. (Id. \u00b6 92.) Neither Jane Doe nor any of her witnesses attended the hearing. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 93-94.) As a result, Dr. Pappas was not permitted to ask any questions of Doe or of any witness, to test their credibility or for any other purpose. (Id. \u00b6 95.) None of the parties' or witnesses' statements were made under oath at any point in the University's investigation process. (Id. \u00b6 96.) Sirocky-Meck testified at the hearing to her initial determination that Dr. Pappas violated *8 policy. (Id. \u00b6 97.) She further testified that she did not speak to any of Doe's witnesses to verify the complaint and did not speak to any witnesses who had firsthand knowledge of the May 11, 2018, off- campus, coffee shop meeting. (Id. \u00b6 98.) The hearing panel reviewed statements from E.M. and K.S., which Dr. Pappas claims demonstrated that Doe had lied about reports they supposedly had made. (Id. \u00b6 99.) The hearing panel found Doe credible, without hearing from her, and found Dr. Pappas not credible, despite having heard from him. (Id. \u00b6 100.) 8 Ultimately, on or around October 28, 2019, approximately five days after the hearing, the hearing panel reached its decision, recommending that Dr. 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/39 Pappas be found \u201cresponsible\u201d for Doe's allegations. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 101-02.) Dr. Pappas alleges he submitted two appeals of the hearing panel's decision-one to a Dean and one to the Provost, respectively. (Id. \u00b6 103.) Both the Dean and the Provost summarily denied Dr. Pappas' appeal \u201cwithout substantive discussion of his arguments.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 104.) The final appeal was denied on December 10, 2019, and the findings and sanctions were then made final. (Id. \u00b6 105.) After being found \u201cresponsible\u201d for sexual harassment, Dr. Pappas was permanently barred from working with student assistants for the remainder of his employment with JMU. (Id. \u00b6 106.) Dr. Pappas claims this sanction made it \u201cimpossible\u201d for him to do his job because his high course load- including several courses containing hundreds of students-required the active participation of student assistants. (Id. \u00b6 107.) Dr. Pappas' research program required student researchers and assistants; without those assistants, he became ineligible for key research grants. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 108.) As a result of these consequences, Dr. Pappas contends he was \u201cforced to resign.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 109.) Dr. Pappas further alleges that, because of JMU's finding (which he maintains was wrongful), he suffered severe emotional and psychological harm and had been attending *9 psychotherapy for several months at the time he filed this action. (Id. \u00b6 110.) Further, Dr. Pappas alleges that JMU's finding caused him severe financial harm because it effectively bars him from future employment in any other educational institution or any professional consulting work that requires letters of recommendation from past employers. (Id. \u00b6 111.) Additionally, because Dr. Pappas' case has been discussed on JMU's Reddit message board website, his name is now easily searchable and associated with Doe's allegations and the University's finding. (Id. \u00b6 112.) Lastly, Doe, Roe, and other female students started a petition to get Dr. Pappas banned from campus and to have him prevented from being in physical proximity to a female; they also wrote to his landlord to have him evicted. (Id. \u00b6 116.) It's alleged that did not act to prevent or remedy these actions. (Id.) 9 B. Procedural History 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/39 *10 On February 23, 2022, Dr. Pappas filed this action in Rockingham County Circuit Court against JMU, Sirocky-Meck (in her official and individual capacities), Stringham (only in his individual capacity), and Pass (only in her individual capacity). (Dkt. No. 1-2.) His complaint asserts seven causes of action: \u2022 Count I: Title claim (against JMU); \u2022 Count II: Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process based on both a property interest and a liberty interest (against non defendants in their individual capacities); \u2022 Count III: Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process based on both a property interest and a liberty interest (against Sirocky- Meck in her official capacity); \u2022 Count IV: First Amendment free speech (against non defendants in their individual capacities); \u2022 Count V: First Amendment free speech (against Sirocky-Meck in her official capacity); \u2022 Count VI: state-law breach of contract (against JMU); and 10 \u2022 Count VII: state-law tortious interference with contractual relations (against Sirocky-Meck in her individual capacity). On May 17, 2022, defendants removed the case to this court (Dkt. No. 1) and filed the instant motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 3), arguing (1) that most of Dr. Pappas' claims are untimely and thus barred by the statute of limitations; (2) that the complaint fails to state a claim under any legal theory; (3) that the non defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) that the official-capacity and breach-of-contract claims are barred by sovereign immunity. (Dkt. No. 4 at 2 A. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Including Consideration of the Statute of Limitations 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/39 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's allegations must \u201cstate a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.\u201d Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). This standard \u201crequires the plaintiff to articulate facts, when accepted as true, that \u2018show' that the plaintiff has stated a claim entitling him to relief, i.e., the \u2018plausibility of entitlement to relief.'\u201d Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The plausibility standard requires more than \u201ca sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.\u201d Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In determining whether the plaintiff has met this plausibility standard, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and any documents incorporated into or attached to it. Sec'y of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, it must \u201cdraw[] all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor,\u201d Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999), but it \u201cneed not accept legal conclusions couched as facts or \u2018unwarranted inferences, unreasonable *11 conclusions, or arguments,'\u201d Wag More Dogs v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008)). 11 As already noted, defendants argue that many of Pappas' claims are time barred. The raising of the statute of limitations as a bar to a plaintiff's cause of action constitutes an affirmative defense that may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). United States v. Kivanc, 714 F.3d 782, 789 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Dean v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp, 395 F.3d 471, 474 (4th Cir. 2005)). While a Rule 12(b)(6) motion \u201cinvites an inquiry into the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not an analysis of potential defenses to the claims set forth therein, dismissal nevertheless is appropriate when the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a meritorious affirmative defense.\u201d Brockington v. Boykins, 637 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotations omitted). B. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a defendant may move for dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Generally speaking, a federal court has subject-matter 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/39 jurisdiction over a claim only if it raises a question of federal law, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331, if it is between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, id. \u00a7 1332, or-when both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction are lacking-if it is so related to another claim within the court's jurisdiction in the same action that they \u201cform part of the same case or controversy,\u201d id. \u00a7 1367(a). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). If he cannot do so, then the court must dismiss his complaint. Arbaugh v Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). *12 12 Assertions of sovereign immunity must also be addressed on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because sovereign immunity \u201cdeprives federal courts of jurisdiction to hear claims\u201d against the immune party. See Cunningham v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc., 888 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2000). The doctrine of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment generally prohibits actions in federal court by individuals against a state. Ballenger v. Owens, 352 F.3d 842, 844-45 (4th Cir. 2003). Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity also applies to state agencies, agents, and instrumentalities that act as an arm of the state. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997) (explaining that the Eleventh Amendment's reference to actions \u201cagainst one of the United States\u201d encompasses \u201cnot only actions in which a State is actually named as the defendant, but also certain actions against state agents and state instrumentalities A. Consideration of Documents Outside of the Pleadings Defendants attached several documents to their motion to dismiss that were not attached to Dr. Pappas' complaint and now ask the court to consider those documents in reaching its decision. Those documents are: (1) the written decisions of Dean Cynthia Bauerle and Provost/Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs Heather Coltman at in Dr. Pappas' disciplinary case (Dkt. No. 4-1 [\u201cDean & Provost Decisions\u201d or \u201cExhibit A\u201d]); 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/39 (2) the Judicial Emergency Orders of the Supreme Court of Virginia (Dkt. No. 4-2 Orders\u201d or \u201cExhibit B\u201d]); (3) the sexual misconduct policy of JMU's Title Office that was in effect at the time of the events giving rise to this suit (Dkt. No. 4-3 [\u201cPolicy 1340\u201d or \u201cExhibit C\u201d]); (4) Jane Doe's initial sexual harassment complaint to Sirocky-Meck (Dkt. No. 4-4 [\u201cDoe Compl.\u201d or \u201cExhibit D\u201d]); (5) Jane Roe's statement (Dkt. No. 4-5 [\u201cRoe Statement\u201d or \u2018Exhibit E\u201d]); and *13 13 (6) An employment agreement between Dr. Pappas and JMU, to run from August 25, 2008, through June 30, 2009 (Dkt. No. 4-6 [\u201cPappas Contract\u201d or \u201cExhibit F\u201d]). Before turning to the merits of the motion, the court must first determine which extrinsic documents, if any, may be considered in ruling on the motion and how the court must regard the facts raised in those documents, given its obligation to accept as true the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint. At this stage, courts should generally \u201cfocus their inquiry on the sufficiency of the facts relied upon by the plaintiff[] in the complaint.\u201d Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int'l, Ltd., 780 F.3d 597, 606 (4th Cir. 2015). Thus, a court is generally \u201climited to considering the sufficiency of allegations set forth in the complaint and the \u2018documents attached or incorporated into the complaint.'\u201d Id. (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc, 637 F.3d 435, 448 (4th Cir. 2011)). If a court goes beyond these documents during the pleading stage, then it risks \u201cimproperly convert[ing] the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.\u201d Zak, 780 F.3d at 606.4 4 Additionally, \u201cstatements by counsel that raise new facts constitute matters beyond the pleadings and cannot be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.\u201d Kolon, 637 F.3d at 449. For example, at the hearing, counsel for stated that the subject of the May 11, 2018 coffee shop meeting between Pappas and Doe was her role as Pappas' lead grader for fall 2018, but conceded that the complaint does not specifically say this. (See Hr'g Tr., Dkt. No. 15 at 3.) To 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/39 the extent any new facts were presented at oral argument but not otherwise properly alleged, they will not be considered. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. For example, the court \u201cmay consider a document submitted by the movant that was not attached to or expressly incorporated in a complaint, so long as the document was integral to the complaint and there is no dispute about the document's authenticity.\u201d Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016 \u201cnecessary prerequisite\u201d for such finding is the \u201cplaintiff's reliance on the terms and effect of a document in drafting the complaint.\u201d Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002) *14 (emphasis in original), cited with approval in Goines, 822 F.3d at 166; see also Am. Chiropractic Ass'n v. Trigon Healthcare, Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the \u201crationale underlying this exception is that the primary problem raised by looking to documents outside the complaint - lack of notice to the plaintiff - is dissipated where plaintiff has actual notice . . . and has relied upon these documents in framing the complaint\u201d) (emphasis added). 14 During the hearing, the court asked counsel to clarify the parties' respective positions as to which documents it could consider. Defendants, as the proponent of these documents, predictably submitted that they all can be considered (Hr'g Tr. 4-5), and Dr. Pappas conceded that Exhibits (the orders of the Supreme Court of Virginia (the University's sexual harassment policy), and (his employment contract with JMU) are authentic and integral to the complaint for purposes of the court's review (id. 8). Thus, the only documents that Dr. Pappas maintains cannot be considered are Exhibits (Dean Bauerle and Provost Coltman's decisions (Doe's complaint in Dr. Pappas' disciplinary case), and (Roe's statement). The court concludes that it is appropriate to consider Exhibits and in ruling on the motion to dismiss, but not Exhibit E. 5 6 5 In his memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion, Dr. Pappas also attached a declaration from his counsel, Benjamin North, to respond to defendants' argument on brief that Dr. Pappas failed to comply with state law by properly noticing JMU's president before he brought his state-law pecuniary breach-of-contract claim. (See Dkt. No. 7-1.) At the hearing, defendants assured the court that they have no objection to the court's 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/39 consideration of Mr. North's declaration (see Hr'g Tr. 4-5), so the court will consider it to the extent it is relevant to the issues. 6 Dr. Pappas has not challenged the authenticity of these documents. Exhibit is integral to the complaint in several respects. In the complaint, Dr. Pappas notes that the Dean and Provost \u201csummarily\u201d reached their decisions \u201cwithout substantive discussion of his arguments.\u201d (Compl. \u00b6 104.) Dr. Pappas repeatedly refers to the University's \u201cwrongful\u201d and \u201cerroneous finding\u201d (e.g., id. \u00b6\u00b6 110, 114) and discusses the career and personal *15 impact of the sanctions imposed (id. \u00b6\u00b6 106-112), all of which were conclusions reached by Dean Bauerle. Looking to the claims themselves, Count of the complaint (alleging a violation of Title against JMU), for example, alleges that made an \u201cerroneous determination that [Dr. Pappas] committed sexual offenses.\u201d (Id. \u00b6 135.) The thrust of Dr. Pappas' claims is that Doe's allegations were partially fabricated and that JMU's decision erroneously accepted them as true. As such, Dr. Pappas has evidently relied upon Exhibit in framing the complaint, and the court will consider it in reaching its decision. 15 Dr. Pappas relies even more heavily upon Exhibit D. Indeed, a section of his complaint (entitled \u201cJane Doe's Title Complaint\u201d) explicitly recalls Doe's allegations from the document itself-including the time, date, and location of the allegedly harassing conversation, the nature of the topics discussed, as well as additional allegations of harassment by Dr. Pappas of other students on earlier occasions-and maintains that he has never sexually harassed anyone. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 38-43.) Moreover, Doe's Title complaint forms the basis for the bulk of Dr. Pappas' due process and First Amendment claims against Sirocky-Meck; he alleges that she blindly \u201caccepted Jane Doe's statements as true\u201d (id. \u00b6 48), that she did not abide by policy in failing to designate the \u201cportions of Jane Doe's complaint that alleged sexual harassment on behalf of others\u201d as a \u201cthird party complaint\u201d and in failing to engage in a timeliness analysis (id. \u00b6\u00b6 63-64), and that she credited the allegations in Doe's complaint over that of another student (id. \u00b6\u00b6 77-78), all in deprivation of his due process and free speech rights. The document is doubtless integral to Dr. Pappas' complaint, and although Dr. 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/39 Pappas properly disputes Doe allegation that he committed sexual assault, he does not dispute the authenticity of the document itself. *16 16 Lastly, the court will not consider Exhibit because it is not integral to the complaint. Although the complaint mentions Jane Roe's statement, it does not purport to incorporate its words; rather, it simply states that Roe submitted a statement in support of Jane Doe and that Sirocky-Meck \u201cuncritically\u201d accepted the statement and added it to the investigation file \u201cdespite [it] having no relevance to Jane Doe's allegations.\u201d (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 66-69.) Further, it cannot be said that Dr. Pappas \u201cframed\u201d the complaint around Roe's statement, as he alleges that Roe was just one of several students who wrote letters in support of Doe. B. Applicability of the \u201cExhibit-Prevails\u201d Rule to the Extrinsic Documents The more critical question here, however, is how the court is to treat the factual contents of these extrinsic documents, particularly those that conflict with allegations in Dr. Pappas' complaint. Generally, \u201cin the event of conflict between the bare allegations of the complaint and any exhibit attached . . ., the exhibit prevails.\u201d Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1465 (4th Cir. 1991). \u201cUnder the rule, if a plaintiff attaches documents and relies upon the documents to form the basis for a claim or part of a claim, dismissal is appropriate if the document negates the claim.\u201d Goines, 822 F.3d at 166 (internal quotations and citation omitted). The principle underlying this \u201cexhibit-prevails\u201d rule is \u201cthe presumption that the plaintiff, by basing his claim on the attached document, has adopted as true the contents of that document.\u201d Id. at 167. But \u201c[p]laintiffs attach exhibits to their complaints for all sorts of reasons,\u201d and \u201cit is not always appropriate to conclude that the plaintiff has adopted the contents of an attached document.\u201d Id. (citations omitted). In Goines, the Fourth Circuit instructed that \u201c[i]n cases where the plaintiff attaches or incorporates a document for purposes other than the truthfulness of the document, it is inappropriate to treat the contents of that document as true.\u201d Id. \u201cThe *17 purpose for which the document is offered is particularly important where the document is one prepared by or for the defendant.\u201d Id. 17 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/39 at 168. \u201cSuch unilateral documents may reflect the defendant's version of contested events or contain self-serving, exculpatory statements that are unlikely to have been adopted by the plaintiff.\u201d Id. \u201cTreating the contents of such a document as true simply because it was attached to or relied upon in the complaint, even though the plaintiff relied on it for purposes other than truthfulness, would be contrary to the concept of notice pleading and would enable parties to hide behind untested, self-serving assertions.\u201d Id. (internal quotations omitted). Two of the documents at issue here-the Dean and Provost decisions, as well as Doe's Title complaint-were prepared by parties adverse to Dr. Pappas (either in this case or in the disciplinary case) and include assertions with which Dr. Pappas openly disagrees (in particular, that he sexually harassed other students and was in a romantic relationship with C.B.). With respect to the Title and due process claims (Counts through III), no portion of those causes of action are \u201cdependent upon the truth\u201d of any statements contained in these documents. See Goines, 822 F.3d at 168. Instead, Dr. Pappas' complaint simply \u201ctells the story\u201d of JMU's allegedly unfair disciplinary process that he says generally reflected bias against him. See Id. \u201cThus, when the complaint is read in the light most favorable\u201d to Dr. Pappas and \u201cin light of his theory of the case\u201d as to those counts, it is apparent that his purpose in extensively referring to Doe's complaint and the findings of the hearing panel (relied upon by Dean Bauerle) was not to assert the truth of their contents, but instead to illustrate the missteps he believes were made by and its employees. See id. Accordingly, when the court analyzes Counts through III, it will treat these exhibits only \u201cas what they were\u201d-documents prepared by parties adverse to Dr. *18 Pappas representing their own views of what he did, not representing independent facts that the court would be bound to accept as true. See id. 18 However, with respect to the First Amendment claims (Counts and V), these questions become far more complicated. This is because a close reading of the complaint reveals that it alleges nothing about what Dr. Pappas actually said to Jane Doe at the off-campus coffee shop on May 11, 2018-only that Doe claims he said certain things. (See, e.g., Compl. \u00b6 39 (referring to Jane Doe's \u201conly allegation with any specificity\u201d in which \u201cshe contends that Dr. Pappas made sexual comments in the abstract\u201d (emphasis 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 16/39 added).) And specifically in the sections of the complaint that claim violations of the First Amendment, Dr. Pappas refers directly to his \u201calleged comments about sex in the abstract and sexual norms\u201d (again, \u201calleged\u201d meaning as recounted by Doe) and argues that those comments \u201ceven if made, were protected speech\u201d and that \u201c[i]f made, [he] made those comments as a citizen and not as an employee. (See id. \u00b6\u00b6 163, 173 (emphasis added); see also id. \u00b6\u00b6 164, 174 (\u201cNo part of Dr. Pappas's alleged speech amounted to a true threat or any other exception to the broad protection of the First Amendment) (emphasis added).) To summarize, on numerous occasions in the complaint, Dr. Pappas relies on Jane Doe's recitation of what he said at the coffee shop, adds the gloss that his comments were \u201cin the abstract,\u201d and argues that even assuming he said what Doe claims he said, his First Amendment rights were violated. In other words, the complaint only speaks to what Doe alleged in her Title document, and defendants have now introduced that document as an exhibit. Accordingly, when the court analyzes Counts and V, it must assume that Doe's allegations regarding what Dr. Pappas said at the coffee shop are true- because the complaint itself already assumes that they are true for purposes of the First Amendment claims. And to the *19 extent that the complaint conflicts with the exhibit on this issue, the exhibit-prevails rule continues to apply. 7 19 8 7 Of course, to the extent Doe's complaint alleges that Dr. Pappas' alleged comments amounted to sexual harassment, that is a conclusion not entitled to the presumption of truth. 8 What the exception to the extrinsic-documents rule seeks to prevent \u201cis the situation in which a plaintiff is able to,\u201d for example, \u201cmaintain a claim of fraud by extracting an isolated statement from a document and placing it in the complaint, even though if the statement were examined in the full context of the document, it would be clear that the statement was not fraudulent.\u201d Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, 367 F.3d at 234 (quotations omitted). In American Chiropractic Association, the plaintiff explicitly referred to an agreement and some of its claims were based on \u201cthe alleged misrepresentation in that document.\u201d Id. The Fourth Circuit determined that the documents were integral to the complaint and properly considered on defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Id. Similarly, 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 17/39 Dr. Pappas points to deficiencies in the decisions finding him responsible for sexual harassment, in Sirocky-Meck's alleged noncompliance with University policy, and in Doe's statement as a basis for his Title claim (if not his other federal claims). As for the remaining documents (the orders of the Supreme Court of Virginia Policy 1340, and Dr. Pappas' employment contract), the court will treat their contents as true because it is clear from the context in which they were referenced in the complaint that Dr. Pappas intended to assert that these documents were accurate. For example, the complaint cites extensively to Policy 1340 to demonstrate that and its employees were not following applicable University policy throughout the investigation (see, e.g., Compl. \u00b6 47), making it clear Dr. Pappas intended to allege that this indeed was the policy that would have been applicable to University actors at the time. He also refers directly to his \u201cexpress contract\u201d with and its limitations on how he could be terminated (see id. \u00b6 29), indicating he means to allege that this contract does reflect his employment relationship with at the time he was found responsible for sexual harassment. Because neither party contests the authenticity of these documents and Dr. Pappas refers to them for their truth value, the court may likewise accept their contents as true. C. Statute of Limitations (Counts Through V) Defendants argue that Dr. Pappas failed to file his federal claims under Title and \u00a7 1983 (Counts through V) within the applicable statute of limitations, meaning those claims are *20 time barred. The parties agree that both Title and \u00a7 1983 borrow the forum state's personal injury statute of limitations: in Virginia, that is two years. Owens v. Baltimore City State's Attorneys Office, 767 F.3d 379, 388 (4th Cir. 2014) (\u00a7 1983); Doe v. Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., 400 F.Supp.3d 479, 496 (W.D. Va. 2019) (Title IX). Accrual of a cause of action is governed by federal law, which provides that \u201ca cause of action accrues when the plaintiff possesses sufficient facts about the harm done to him that reasonable inquiry will reveal his cause of action.\u201d Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995). 20 In the present case, the federal causes of action accrued when Dean Bauerle issued the final decision finding Dr. Pappas responsible for sexual 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 18/39 harassment. As clarified by University Policy 1340, the hearing panel's decision was merely a recommended finding, subject to the final decision of the Dean. (See Policy 1340 \u00a7\u00a7 6.6.8.15 (stating that the chair of the hearing panel is required to communicate the Panel's \u201cdecision and recommendations\u201d in writing to the Title Coordinator); 6.6.8.16 (requiring the Dean to send a \u201cwritten decision in the case\u201d to the reporter and respondent \u201c[w]ithin ten days of receipt of the panel's recommendations\u201d).) Thus, the University did not formally render its decision in the disciplinary case until Dean Bauerle adopted the panel's recommendations. As such, the date of Dean Bauerle's decision is the operative date for purposes of the statute of limitations. Accord Doe, 400 F.Supp.3d at 493 (\u201c[T]he court concludes that the limitations period for plaintiffs' [due process] claims began, and the claim accrued, at the time of the initial decision ....\u201d); id. at 494 (holding that, as to plaintiffs' Title claims, the court was adopting \u201cthe same reasoning and conclusion that it reached with regard to plaintiffs' due process claims\u201d). The date on which the Provost denied Dr. Pappas' appeal of that decision is of no consequence here. See Del. State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 261 (1980) (\u201c[E]ntertaining a grievance . . . does not suggest that the earlier decision *21 was in any respect tentative. The grievance procedure, by its nature, is a remedy for a prior decision, not an opportunity to influence that decision before it is made.\u201d); Doe, 400 F.Supp.3d at 490-91. 21 Dean Bauerle's written decision was dated November 11, 2019. (See Dean & Provost's Decisions 4.) Absent tolling, the two-year statute of limitations would thus have expired on November 11, 2021, but Dr. Pappas did not file this action until February 23, 2022. Therefore, unless the limitations period was tolled for approximately 104 days, Dr. Pappas' \u00a7 1983 and Title claims are time barred. When a federal court applies a state's statute of limitations, it is also obliged to \u201capply the State's rule for tolling that statute of limitations.\u201d Scoggins v. Douglas, 760 F.2d 535, 537 (4th Cir. 1985). When the COVID-19 pandemic began, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued several \u201cjudicial emergency orders\u201d that tolled statutes of limitations that \u201cran\u201d from March 16, 2020, through July 19, 2020. Although courts have split over whether the tolling applied to all causes of action (as Dr. Pappas claims) or only those for which 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 19/39 the statute of limitations expired during the tolling period (as defendants argue), the Court of Appeals of Virginia recently resolved that question in Dr. Pappas' favor. See English v. Quinn, 880 S.E.2d 35, 39 (Va. Ct. App. 2022) (\u201c[T]he plain language of the judicial emergency orders \u2018stopp[ed] the limitations clock' for all statutes of limitations between March 16, 2020, and July 19, 2020. By their clear and express terms, the orders' tolling provisions were not limited to deadlines that otherwise would have expired during that period.\u201d). Thus, the applicable limitations period was tolled for 126 days, and Dr. Pappas' federal claims were therefore timely filed. As such, his claims are not barred by the statute of limitations. *22 22 D. Count I: Title (Against JMU) Title states that \u201c[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.\u201d 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a). It is enforceable through an implied private right of action. Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 703 (1979). Title IX's protections extend to sex-motivated discrimination in university disciplinary hearings. See Sheppard v. Visitors of Va. State Univ., 993 F.3d 230, 235-37 (4th Cir. 2021). In Sheppard, the Fourth Circuit clarified that in order for a plaintiff to state a plausible claim to relief under Title in this context, the plaintiff must allege facts that, if true, would \u201craise a plausible inference that the university discriminated against [the person] on the basis of sex.\u201d Id. The Sheppard court explained that this approach-first articulated by the Seventh Circuit-closely tracked Title IX's text. Id. The Fourth Circuit adopted that standard (previously adopted by the Third, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits), rather than Second Circuit's \u201cerroneous outcome\u201d and \u201cselective enforcement\u201d theories of liability, though it noted that there were \u201cno inherent problems\u201d with those theories and that \u201ceither theory, with sufficient facts, may suffice to state a plausible claim.\u201d Id. However, the court \u201cemphasize[d] that the text of Title prohibits all discrimination on the basis of sex.\u201d Id. 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 20/39 The Sheppard court further explained that a Title plaintiff must establish a \u201ccausal link between the [person's] sex and the university's challenged disciplinary proceeding,\u201d to prevail on a Title claim, and that the statute requires a showing of \u201cbut-for\u201d causation. Id. In other words, the plaintiff must show that sex was the \u201cbut-for\u201d cause of the university's challenged disciplinary action. Id. *23 23 1. External pressure on Dr. Pappas' complaint contains both specific allegations regarding JMU's investigation and adjudication of Doe's complaint against him (as summarized earlier) and general allegations regarding the climate surrounding sexual misconduct at JMU. The general allegations summarize alleged external pressures on relating to sexual misconduct toward women to provide a backdrop for the inference that the University and its agents would manifest bias toward men, such as Dr Pappas, in disciplinary hearings. In particular, Dr. Pappas cites the following: (1) The U.S. Department of Education's April 2011 \u201cDear Colleague\u201d Letter to colleges and universities (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 12-16, 22); (2) An allegation that was \u201cpreviously sued\u201d by female sexual harassment victims, which required significant resources to defend against (id. \u00b6\u00b6 17-18); (3) An allegation that in 2014 received \u201charsh criticism\u201d from The Daily Show for its handling of three female students' Title complaints (id. \u00b6 20); and (4) An allegation that has received \u201csignificant public criticism of its handling of several sexual harassment cases brought by female students,\u201d particularly three media reports-one published as recently as 2018 (id. \u00b6 19). Some courts have found that external pressure can \u201cprovide[] a backdrop that, when combined with other circumstantial evidence of bias in [a plaintiff's] specific proceeding, gives rise to a plausible claim.\u201d See, e.g., Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 586 (6th Cir. 2018). But courts \u201cuniformly hold\u201d that external pressure-such as the Dear Colleague Letter-\u201calone is not enough to state a claim that the university acted with bias in a particular case.\u201d Doe v. 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 21/39 Coastal Carolina Univ., 522 F.Supp.3d 173, 179 (D.S.C. 2021) (quoting Baum, 903 F.3d at 586). Here, though, Dr. Pappas' general allegations of external pressure do not weigh heavily in the analysis. As the complaint notes, the Dear Colleague Letter was rescinded in 2017, approximately two years before Doe's complaint. Cf. Doe v. Samford Univ., 29 F.4th 675, 692 *24 (11th Cir. 2022) (\u201c[Plaintiff's] allegations about a government policy that has been rescinded and replaced do not assist him in crossing \u2018the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'\u201d) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). More to the point, Dr. Pappas' general allegations regarding \u201charsh criticism\u201d from The Daily Show (dating more than five years before Doe brought her complaint) and vague references to previous expensive litigation and media reports (that by Dr. Pappas' own allegation were at least a year old) are far too attenuated to create a meaningful inference that external pressures led and its agents to manifest bias against Dr. Pappas in his case on the basis of sex. By comparison, in Baum, for example, the federal government was actively investigating the university during the disciplinary board's consideration of the plaintiff's case. 903 F.3d at 586. Dr. Pappas' complaint fails to plausibly allege that, at the time of his case, there was external pressure on to effect institutional bias against men in disciplinary proceedings. 24 9 9 See also Doe v. University of Ark.-Fayetteville, 974 F.3d 858, 865-66 (8th Cir. 2020) (finding \u201csubstantial pressure on the University to demonstrate that it was responsive to female complainants\u201d where the federal government and the Arkansas legislature had launched investigations against the university and there was an active, highly publicized lawsuit against the university by a female athlete); Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652, 668 (7th Cir. 2019) (finding that pressure against university to demonstrate compliance with Title was \u201cfar from abstract\u201d where the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights had opened two investigations into the university during the year a complaint was filed against the plaintiff). 2. Bias of non defendants 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 22/39 As to the specifics of this case, Dr. Pappas' allegations that two of the hearing panel members were biased against him because of his sex either are conclusory or otherwise fail to raise a plausible inference of sex bias. Stringham allegedly \u201cendorsed\u201d a podcast with a description that poses the question: \u201cWhat's up with this male-dominated world?\u201d, references \u201csexism, patriarchy, and misogyny,\u201d and asks: \u201cWhat can we do about it?\u201d But this allegation is \u201cwholly vague and conclusory.\u201d Doe v. Va. Dep't of State Police, 713 F.3d 745, 754 (4th Cir. 2013) (quotations omitted). The court is left to speculate what action Stringham took that *25 constituted an \u201cendorse[ment],\u201d or whether he has even listened to the podcast. And even if Stringham did express generalized support for this podcast in some way, there is no allegation that he adopted the views expressed in its description. By all accounts, those statements belong to the podcast, not to Stringham. 25 Regarding Pass, Dr. Pappas alleges that she \u201csat on the University's Diversity Council,\u201d where she \u201cparticipated in meetings wherein the Council advocates for greater protection for female students.\u201d But claims that particular adjudicators or investigators have participated in activities whose goal is to assist sexual-assault victims are generally insufficient to state a claim of bias. See, e.g., Doe v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 23 F.4th 930, 938 (9th Cir. 2022) (\u201c[M]aking arguably feminist statements, like the ones in [the school's lead investigator's] 2016 tweet, is not alone sufficient to support a reasonable inference that an individual is biased against men.\u201d); Doe v. Loh, No. PX-16-3314, 2018 1535495, at *10 n.8 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2018), aff'd, 767 Fed.Appx. 489, 491 (4th Cir. 2019) (finding insufficient to support plausible inference of bias assertions that university raised awareness of violence against women, that Title Director advocated for female sexual-assault victims, and that she trained students to participate on a review committee using hypotheticals involving female victims). The complaint provides no other details about Pass or Stringham that would support an inference of sex bias. In the same vein, Dr. Pappas lodges a variety of allegations regarding aspects of the process that were unfavorable to him-including that Sirocky-Meck should have dismissed Doe's report of sexual misconduct without referring it to the hearing panel and that the hearing panel summarily believed Jane Roe's allegations and evidence while rejecting his-and *26 maintains that 10 26 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 23/39 found him responsible for sexual misconduct even though the conduct alleged did not amount to harassment (at least in his view). But even if one were to accept Dr. Pappas' conclusory assertions that the process was irregular and the outcome erroneous, nothing in the complaint demonstrates that he was discriminated against because of his sex-as opposed to, for example, his status as the accused or as a university professor. Dr. Pappas cites Doe v. Oberlin College, 963 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2020), for the proposition that procedural irregularities and an \u201cinexplicable\u201d decision on the merits may support an inference of sex bias. Id. at 587-88. However, the Oberlin court failed to consider that there must be a causal connection between any irregularity or erroneous outcome and the plaintiff's sex. See id. at 588-91 (Gilman, J., dissenting). Given its most gratuitous reading, what the complaint essentially alleges is \u201ca onesided investigation, standing alone\u201d; without more, that raises only \u201ca reasonable inference of anti- complainant bias,\u201d not of sex discrimination. Doe v. Univ. of Denver, 1 F.4th 822, 836 (10th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added). 10 As discussed earlier, Doe's Title complaint alleges that Dr. Pappas make various comments relating to sex in his personal life. Regardless of their truth, those were the allegations presented to the University. As such, the court is hard-pressed to conclude that Sirocky-Meck was required, at the initial stage, to dismiss the complaint as irrelevant to Policy 1340 (which covers sexual harassment). In sum, the court finds that the complaint fails to create a plausible inference that violated Title in Dr. Pappas' disciplinary case and will grant the motion to dismiss Count I. E. Count II: Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process (Against Non Defendants in Their Individual Capacities) The Fourteenth Amendment provides that \u201cno state shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.\u201d U.S. Const. amend. XIV, \u00a7 1. To state a procedural due process claim, Pappas must allege facts sufficient to show \u201c(1) a cognizable liberty or property interest; (2) the deprivation of that interest by some form of state action; and (3) that the procedures employed 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 24/39 were constitutionally inadequate.\u201d Kendall v. Balcerzak, 650 F.3d 515, 528 (4th Cir. 2011). *27 27 However, because Count is brought against the non defendants in their individual capacities, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity, which \u201cprotects [government officials] who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.\u201d Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011). The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001 court must consider whether a constitutional violation occurred and, if so, whether the right violated was \u201cclearly established.\u201d Id. at 201; Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 805 (4th Cir. 2013). In performing this analysis, however, a court is not required to consider these two steps in any particular order. Id. at 805-06 court may exercise its discretion to determine which of the two steps in the qualified immunity analysis \u201cshould be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.\u201d Id. at 806 (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009)). Here, the court will first consider whether Dr. Pappas' due process rights were violated. It goes without saying that if a government official did not violate any right, he or she is hardly in need of any immunity, and the analysis ends there. Henry, 652 F.3d at 531. 1. Property interest \u201cProperty interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.\u201d Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). To possess a property interest, a claimant \u201cmust have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.\u201d Id. *28 28 \u201cIn the context of employment in public education, the independent source for the property interest has been said to be a contract which provides for continued employment, and which can be terminated only for good cause.\u201d Royster v. Bd. of Trs. of Anderson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 5, 774 F.2d 618, 620-21 (4th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Thus, \u201c[a] state employee may or may not 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 25/39 have a property interest in her employment depending on the terms of that employment.\u201d Rockville Cars v. City of Rockville, 891 F.3d 141, 146 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing Roth, 408 U.S. at 578). In Count II, Dr. Pappas alleges that he had a property interest \u201cin his continued employment at the University.\u201d (Compl. \u00b6 132.) His contract with JMU, which was renewed annually, provides that he may be terminated only \u201cfor reasons specified in the policies and procedures of JMU, including but not limited to . . . dismissal for misconduct.\u201d (Pappas Contract 2.) The contract further provided that \u201csuch termination may occur at any time upon written notice . . . according to the policies and procedures of JMU.\u201d (Id.) Lastly, the contract gave discretion not to renew Dr. Pappas' employment, provided it gave him sufficient notice. (Id. 1-2.) Here, Dr. Pappas claims that his property interest protects him from termination of his employment during the term of his contract for reasons other than those specified in JMU's policies, not from the nonrenewal of his contract after its term has expired (the situation addressed in Roth). As such, the court will assume, for the purpose of its analysis, that Dr. Pappas has adequately stated such a property interest. As for whether deprived Dr. Pappas of that property interest, \u201cthe answer would be evident\u201d had he been officially discharged from his employment. See Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 167, 173 (4th Cir. 1988). But never fired Dr. Pappas-he resigned. Dr. Pappas claims he was constructively terminated and therefore did not voluntarily relinquish *29 any property interest. On the other hand argues that Dr. Pappas has failed to meet the \u201chigh standard\u201d of constructive discharge. (See Defs.' Reply Br., Dkt. No. 9, at 16 (quoting Ofoche v. Apogee Med. Group., Va., P.C., 815 Fed.Appx. 690, 692 (4th Cir. 2020)).) 29 In Stone, the Fourth Circuit reasoned that if a public employee plaintiff \u201cresigned of his own free will even though prompted to do so by events set in motion by his employer,\u201d he thereby \u201crelinquished his property interest voluntarily and thus cannot establish that the state \u2018deprived' him of it\u201d within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. See 855 F.2d at 173 (citing Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 281 (1980)). But \u201c[i]f, on the other hand, [the employee's] \u2018resignation' was so involuntary that it amounted to a 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 26/39 constructive discharge, it must be considered a deprivation by state action\u201d that triggers the protections of the Due Process Clause. Id. To establish a constructive discharge, a plaintiff generally must show \u201cthat his \u2018working conditions became so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to resign.'\u201d Perkins v. Int'lPaper Co., 936 F.3d 196, 211-12 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547, 555 (2016)). \u201c\u2018Intolerability' is not established by showing merely that a reasonable person, confronted with the same choices as the employee, would have viewed resignation as the wisest or best decision, or even that the employee subjectively felt compelled to resign.\u201d Id. at 212. \u201cInstead, intolerability is assessed by the objective standard of whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to resign, . . . that is, whether he would have had no choice but to resign.\u201d Id. (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original). Dr. Pappas claims that being \u201cpermanently barred from working with student assistants for the remainder of his employment\u201d at effectively \u201cmade it impossible for [him] to do his *30 job\u201d because his high course load, including \u201chundreds of students,\u201d required the active participation of student assistants, and because he needed student assistants to be eligible for grants from the National Science Foundation to fund his research and publishing work. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 32, 106-09.) Regarding Dr. Pappas' courseload and grading of student work, he was not guaranteed any access to student assistance under his employment contract; rather was only responsible for providing him with \u201can appropriate office, classroom, and other space.\u201d (See Pappas Contract 1.) Nor was he contractually entitled to the teaching workload he maintained at the time he resigned. And Dr. Pappas does not allege that his workload could not have been adjusted in light of being cut off from the help of student assistants, nor that he was contractually obligated to teach a specific number of classes; his contract required only that he perform his duties \u201cfaithfully and to the best of his [] abilities.\u201d (Id.) Regarding his research and publishing, Dr. Pappas never alleges that his job responsibilities at included research or publishing, nor that his employment was at all dependent on whether he could obtain research grants. And even if he had, the fact that one organization-the 30 11 12 13 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 27/39 National Science Foundation- requires the use of student assistants as a condition for grant funding says little about whether Dr. *31 Pappas could have sought funding from another organization before leaving the University entirely. 31 11 Dr. Pappas argues that the court is obligated to accept as true his allegation that the lack of student assistants would deprive his of the ability to fulfill his job requirements such that he was constructively terminated. (Dkt. No. 7 at 26 n.19.) The court is undoubtedly obligated to assume the truth of the non-conclusory pleadings, such as the fact that prohibited Dr. Pappas from using teaching assistants, that he previously had used teaching assistants to help instruct his classes and grade papers, and that the National Science Foundation required the use of student assistants as a condition for grant funding. However, the allegation that those facts thus made it \u201cimpossible\u201d for Dr. Pappas to proceed with his employment is a \u201cnaked assertion[]\u201d that \u201c[is] not entitled to the assumption of truth.\u201d See Francis, 588 F.3d at 193 (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664). The court's inquiry is necessarily focused only on \u201cobjective intolerability,\u201d see Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., 750 F.3d 413, 425 (4th Cir. 2014), not one's subjective perception of the same. 12 The contract also provides for \u201cother non-monetary support associated with [Dr. Pappas'] duties as a faculty member at during the term of [the] agreement,\u201d but the nature of that support was reserved to \u201cthe sole discretion of JMU.\u201d (See Pappas Contract 1.) 13 Cf. Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (\u201c[T]he due process clause does not protect [plaintiff's] specific job duties or responsibilities absent a statute, rule, or express agreement reflecting an understanding that he had a unique property interest in those duties or responsibilities.\u201d). Broadly, though, the gravamen of Dr. Pappas' argument is that teaching his classes, grading student work, and conducting research without the assistance of other students is, as a condition of employment, so objectively onerous that effectively left him with no choice but to resign. But the Fourth Circuit has made clear that \u201c[d]ifficult or unpleasant working conditions\u201d or dissatisfaction with work assignments, \u201cwithout more, are not so intolerable as to compel a reasonable person to resign.\u201d Perkins, 936 F.3d at 212. With respect to the grading of student work and teaching of classes, undoubtedly it would have been more difficult for Dr. 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 28/39 Pappas to do his job without student assistants working with him, assuming nothing else in his workload changed. But the allegations in the complaint do not support a plausible inference that this sanction was tantamount to involuntary termination. Therefore, even framing the property interest as Dr. Pappas does and assuming its existence, the complaint fails to state a deprivation of that interest. 2. Liberty interest \u201cThe Fourth Circuit has determined that to state a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest in one's reputation or choice of occupation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the charges made against [him] imposed on [him] a stigma that prevented [him] from engaging in other employment, (2) that the charges were made public by [his] employer, (3) that the charges were made in conjunction with a termination or significant demotion, and (4) that the charges were false.\u201d Wilcox v. Lyons, No. 7:17-cv- 000530, 2018 6422494, at *2 (W.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2018) (citing Stone, 855 F.2d at 173 n.5). *32 32 Here does not appear to dispute that it imposed a stigma upon Dr. Pappas by finding him responsible for sexual harassment, and Dr. Pappas alleges that he \u201chas already suffered terminations from other employment opportunities\u201d and likely will be unable to continue his employment because of JMU's finding. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 142, 158.) Dr. Pappas also adequately states throughout the complaint that he has never sexually harassed anyone and that Doe's allegations that he did so are not true. (See, e.g., id. \u00b6\u00b6 38-45.) Beyond that, however, his argument for the deprivation of a protected liberty interest is lacking. First, it is a stretch to suggest, based on the allegations in the complaint, that the harassment charges were \u201cmade public\u201d by JMU. To invoke due process protections of a liberty interest, a charge of a serious character defect must be publicly disclosed. See Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 312 (4th Cir. 2006). Dr. Pappas certainly submits that he will be \u201cforever harm[ed] when he applies to jobs that require background checks or character and fitness evaluations\u201d (Compl. \u00b6 135) and that he lost other job opportunities \u201cafter he disclosed the University's erroneous findings to those employers (id. \u00b6 142 (emphasis 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 29/39 added)). But neither of those allegations show that made these charges public. Dr. Pappas insists that the charges were \u201cat least de facto made public\u201d by (Dkt. No. 7 at 34) because information about the allegations was posted on \u201cthe University's Reddit message board website,\u201d and Jane Doe published an op-ed in the school's student newspaper that discussed the same. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 45, 114.) The court disagrees. There is no allegation, nor would it be fair to surmise, that controls the content published either on the Reddit board or by the student newspaper. Lastly, making a notation on Dr. Pappas' \u201cemployment record\u201d (Compl. \u00b6 112) at *33 that he was found responsible for sexual harassment is not the same as publicly disclosing the finding. 14 33 14 And even if the newspaper is indeed sponsored by or otherwise is subject to its oversight, prohibiting Doe from publishing an op-ed about her alleged experience with sexual harassment by a professor could have created additional constitutional issues. See Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 273 (1988) (holding that a school may only \u201cexercis[e] editorial control over the style and content\u201d of a school-sponsored newspaper if its actions are \u201creasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns\u201d). Even assuming any of those allegations amounted to public disclosure of the disciplinary findings by JMU, Dr. Pappas' claim to a liberty interest fails on a similar ground as was fatal to the property interest: the disciplinary findings were not made in conjunction with a \u201cdischarge or significant demotion.\u201d See Stone, 855 F.2d at 173 n.5. First, for the reasons noted earlier, Dr. Pappas' resignation after being banned from working with student assistants was not a constructive discharge. Further, the disciplinary sanction imposed did not constitute a \u201csignificant demotion,\u201d which the Fourth Circuit has defined as \u201cthe reassignment of an employee to a position outside his field of choice\u201d or \u201can offer of a job far beneath the one he had, where being so demoted is to be as effectively excluded from one's trade or calling as by being thrown out on the street.\u201d See Ridpath, 447 F.3d at 309, 314 (internal quotations omitted). In Ridpath, for example, the Fourth Circuit held that a university employee whose chosen career was intercollegiate athletics administration suffered a \u201csignificant demotion\u201d when he was \u201cousted\u201d from the university's Athletics Department and reassigned from Compliance Director to Director of Judicial Programs. Id. at 311-12. Dr. Pappas, on the 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 30/39 other hand, was not reassigned to another department or \u201cousted\u201d from his position at all-he remained a professor at the same salary in the same department. For the same reasons as with the property interest, the complaint fails to show that prohibiting Dr. Pappas from using student assistants was \u201ceffectively excluded\u201d him from his trade as a professor. See id. at 314. *34 34 Accordingly, the complaint does not plausibly allege that Dr. Pappas was deprived of any liberty interest in his reputation and status as a professor, and Count must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.15 15 Even if Dr. Pappas could have plausibly alleged the deprivation of either a property or liberty interest, the court finds that the non defendants would still be entitled to qualified immunity on Count because there is no Supreme Court, Fourth Circuit, or Supreme Court of Virginia decision rendering it \u201cclearly established\u201d that prohibiting a public employee (such as a professor) from using an accessory resource to which the employee is not contractually entitled (such as student assistants) in order to complete the work constitutes a deprivation of either liberty or property under the Due Process Clause, see Ray v. Roane, 948 F.3d 222, 229 (4th Cir. 2020), nor is the same clearly established as a matter of \u201cgeneral constitutional principles or a consensus of persuasive authority,\u201d id. F. Count III: Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process (Against Sirocky-Meck in Her Official Capacity) In addition to the individual-capacity claims against all non defendants, Dr. Pappas also brings a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Sirocky-Meck in her official capacity as JMU's Title Coordinator with respect to the deprivation of both a property and liberty interest. He seeks (1) a permanent injunction prohibiting Sirocky-Meck or any agent of from making any notation on his professional record relating to discipline or investigation of Doe's complaint or taking any further action to deprive him of his due process rights; and (2) a declaration that the investigation and adjudication at issue violated his constitutional rights and that the Due Process Clause requires a live hearing with some form of live cross- examination in the context of disciplinary proceedings. 1. Waiver of sovereign immunity 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 31/39 Sirocky-Meck argues that this claim is barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. An officer of a state acting in his or her official capacity is entitled to sovereign *35 immunity from claims for money damages. See id. at 70. However, under the Ex parte Young exception, a defendant may be sued in his or her official capacity for \u201cprospective, injunctive relief . . . to prevent ongoing violations of federal law.\u201d McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 399 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908)). \u201cThe requirement that the violation of federal law be ongoing is satisfied when a state officer's enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional state [policy] is threatened, even if the threat is not yet imminent.\u201d Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 330 (4th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted) 16 35 16 Regardless of whether aspects of the merits of Count have been addressed elsewhere in the case, this court cannot assume it has subject matter jurisdiction over this count. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). And the Supreme Court has specifically instructed that a district court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction before it can decide whether the plaintiff has stated a claim for relief. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). In the Fourth Circuit, sovereign immunity is a question of subject matter jurisdiction. See Cunningham, 888 F.3d at 649. Dr. Pappas first responds that Sirocky-Meck waived Eleventh Amendment immunity by removing this case to federal court. He relies principally on the Supreme Court's decision in Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613, 623 (2002), for the proposition that a state official who \u201cvoluntarily invoke[s] the jurisdiction of the federal court[s]\u201d via removal thereby waives sovereign immunity. See id. at 622. However, at least in the Fourth Circuit, the Lapides rule is not so broad. In Lapides, the plaintiff-a professor employed by the Georgia state university system-brought suit in state court, alleging that university officials (in their official capacities) had placed allegations of sexual harassment in his personnel files in violation of both Georgia and federal law. Id. at 616. The state conceded that it had waived its sovereign immunity by consenting to state-law suits in its own courts but argued that it was regained immunity under the Eleventh Amendment upon removal. Id. at 616-17. The only issue, then, was whether the state could indeed regain immunity it already waived 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 32/39 by removing to federal court. Id. at 616, 622. The district court- and, eventually, the Supreme Court-held that it could not. Id. at 616. In doing so, the Supreme Court crucially limited its holding to the state-law claims because the only federal claims Lapides brought against the state-pursuant to \u00a7 1983-were for money damages, and a state is *36 not a \u201cperson\u201d against whom a \u00a7 1983 claim for money damages may be asserted. Id. at 617. Moreover, the Court explicitly declined to address \u201cthe scope of waiver by removal in a situation where the State's underlying sovereign immunity from suit has not been waived or abrogated in state court,\u201d which is the situation presented here by Dr. Pappas' federal claims against Sirocky-Meck. See id. at 617-18. 36 The Fourth Circuit has since interpreted Lapides to hold only that, upon removal to federal court, a state does not regain sovereign immunity if it already consented to suit in the state court. See Stewart v. North Carolina, 393 F.3d 484, 489-90 (4th Cir. 2005). And more recently, as other courts of appeals split on whether to adopt the holding of Stewart, the Fourth Circuit has reaffirmed it. See, e.g., Passaro v. Virginia, 935 F.3d 243, 247 (4th Cir. 2019) (\u201cNothing in these out-of-circuit cases makes us inclined to revisit Stewart.\u201d). As such, Dr. Pappas is incorrect that Sirocky-Meck (or any defendant, for that matter) waived sovereign immunity by removing to this court, and the court will proceed to considering whether the Ex parte Young exception applies. 2. Ex parte Young exception Although Ex parte Young provides an avenue for plaintiffs seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against state officials to enjoin their enforcement of an unconstitutional policy, \u201c[t]he purpose\u201d of allowing such relief \u201cis not aided by enjoining the actions of a state official not directly involved in enforcing the subject [policy].\u201d Waste Mgmt. Holdings, 252 F.3d at 331. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit has read Ex parte Young to require a \u201c\u2018special relation' between the officer being sued and the challenged [policy]\u201d before one may invoke the exception. McBurney, 616 F.3d at 399 (quoting Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 157). \u201cGeneral authority to enforce the [policies] of the state is not sufficient to make government officials the proper parties *37 to litigation challenging the [policy].\u201d Waste Mgmt. Holdings, 252 F.3d at 331. 37 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 33/39 Rather, \u201cthe \u2018special relation' requirement is satisfied when the complaint plainly alleges that the defendant[] ha[s] the ability to order the relief requested.\u201d See Doe v. Citadel, No. 2:21-cv-04198-DCN, 2022 2806473, at *5 (D.S.C. July 18, 2022) (citing S.C. Wildlife Fed'n v. Limehouse, 549 F.3d 324, 333 (4th Cir. 2008) (nothing that the \u201dspecial relation\u201d requirement is meant to \u201censure[] that a federal injunction will be effective with respect to the underlying claim\u201d)). Here, Dr. Pappas has properly alleged such a special relation as to the constitutionality of JMU's Title adjudicatory process, but not as to his employment record. Sirocky-Meck argues that Dr. Pappas has failed to explain how \u201c[she], a Title Coordinator, would have any authority to make any notation on his professional record relating to discipline or investigation of Doe's complaint [or] issue a declaration that the investigation and adjudication at issue here violated [his] due process [rights] and that the Due Process Clause requires a live hearing with live cross-examination.\u201d (Defs.' Reply Br. 11.) As to the injunctive relief, she is partially correct; Dr. Pappas does not allege that Sirocky-Meck or her office has any control over what notations are made or maintained on his \u201cprofessional record,\u201d let alone over the actions of other \u201cagent[s] of the University.\u201d But he has plausibly alleged that Sirocky-Meck has control over JMU's Title disciplinary processes; as JMU's policy confirms, the Title Coordinator \u201chas oversight over\u201d the University's Title policy, \u201ccoordinates the actions of the various Title officers on campus,\u201d and \u201cis responsible for tracking [JMU's] compliance with Title IX.\u201d (See Policy 1340 at 6.) As such, she bears a \u201cspecial relation\u201d to JMU's Title disciplinary policies and, based on the allegations, has the authority to ensure that its execution does not violate Dr. Pappas' due process rights in the future. Moreover, as to the requested declaration, Sirocky-Meck misunderstands the relief Dr. Pappas *38 seeks here. He is asking this court, not her, to issue a declaration that the processes used in his disciplinary case violated his constitutional rights and that the Due Process Clause requires a live hearing with cross-examination-a form of relief which the court is fully empowered to provide, should it later be warranted. 38 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 34/39 Accordingly, the court finds that the Ex parte Young exception permits Dr. Pappas to bring this claim against Sirocky-Meck, except to the extent it seeks a change in his \u201cprofessional record.\u201d As such, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity is denied with respect to Count III. 3. Deprivation of liberty or property interest For the reasons provided earlier on Count II, Dr. Pappas failed to plausibly allege that he was deprived of either a recognized property or liberty interest. (See supra pp. 26-34.) As such, Count must likewise be dismissed for failure to state a claim. G. Count IV: First Amendment (Against Non Defendants in Their Individual Capacities) In Count IV, Dr. Pappas claims that his alleged comments about sex in the abstract and sexual norms, even if made, were constitutionally protected speech made as a private citizen, and that the non defendants investigated, charged, and disciplined him for allegedly exercising his rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. As with Count II, defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. The court will once again consider first whether the complaint alleges a constitutional violation before evaluating whether the right violated was clearly established, if necessary. It is well settled that \u201cpublic employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment.\u201d Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 417 (2006). But that does not mean that the speech rights of, for example, professors employed at public schools, are \u201cso *39 boundless that they may deliver any message to anyone anytime they wish.\u201d See Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S.Ct. 2407, 2423 (2022). \u201cIn addition to being private citizens, teachers . . . are also government employees paid in part to speak on the government's behalf and convey its intended messages.\u201d Id. 39 To state a retaliation claim under the Free Speech Clause as a public employee, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he spoke \u201cas a citizen upon a matter of public concern [rather than] as an employee about a 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 35/39 matter of personal interest;\u201d (2) that his \u201cinterest in speaking upon the matter of public concern outweighed the government's interest in providing effective and efficient services to the public;\u201d and (3) that his \u201cspeech was a substantial factor\u201d in the employer's decision to impose discipline. McVey v. Stacy, 157 F.3d 271, 277-78 (4th Cir. 1998). With respect to the content of the speech, as noted earlier, the court must assume that Doe's recollection of what Dr. Pappas said is true because the complaint itself assumes, for the sake of argument, that her recollection is true.17 17 Dr. Pappas cites Doe v. Princeton University, 30 F.4th 335 (3d Cir. 2022) for the proposition that the court must credit the allegations of the complaint over that of the integral document which the complaint partially incorporates by reference. The holding of Princeton is not the law in the Fourth Circuit- which, in Goines and other earlier decisions, seems to have adopted quite a different rule. An employee's speech involves a matter of public concern if the speech addresses an issue of \u201csocial, political, or other interest to a community.\u201d Ridpath, 447 F.3d at 316 (quoting Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401, 406-07 (4th Cir. 2000)). Generally, expressions about matters of one's own interest are not protected by the First Amendment as matters of public concern. Stroman v. Colleton Cnty. Sch. Dist., 981 F.2d 152, 156 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142 (1983)). Here, even assuming his speech was protected to begin with, the matters on which Dr. Pappas spoke during the coffee shop conversation with Jane Doe were plainly not of public *40 concern. According to Doe's Title complaint (to which Dr. Pappas refers directly in his complaint in this case), he largely spoke about his personal dating life with younger girlfriends and the benefits of dating older men. He allegedly shared that several of his former romantic partners were people he initially met as students in his class and that he has never dated anyone over the age of 30. The court expresses no view on whether these alleged comments constituted sexual harassment as defined by JMU's policies, but, regardless, they fall far outside the realm of public life, and was permitted to impose discipline upon a professor for making such comments to a student. And even if those comments could somehow be construed as matters of public concern, a university's interest in disciplining an employee accused of sexually 40 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 36/39 harassing a student far outweighs any interest of the employee in making sexually suggestive comments to students, \u201cin the abstract\u201d or not. As such, Dr. Pappas has not plausibly alleged a violation of his free speech rights and Count will be dismissed. H. Count V: First Amendment (Against Sirocky-Meck in Her Official Capacity) As was true for the due process claims, Dr. Pappas also brings an official- capacity claim against Sirocky-Meck for violation of his First Amendment rights. Once again, Sirocky-Meck argues that she is entitled to sovereign immunity. The parties presented substantially the same arguments on sovereign immunity for Count as they did for Count III. Finding no meaningful legal distinction between the two counts on this issue, the court finds that Sirocky-Meck is not entitled to sovereign immunity on Count for the reasons noted in Count III. (See supra pp. 34-38.) Accordingly, to the extent Sirocky-Meck moves to dismiss Count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, the motion is denied. *41 41 Likewise, as the court concluded on Count IV, Dr. Pappas failed to plausibly allege a violation of his First Amendment free speech rights. (See supra pp. 38-40.) Thus, Count must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. I. Counts and VII: Supplemental Jurisdiction Over State-Law Claims Lastly, Dr. Pappas brings two state-law claims: breach-of-contract claim against and a tortious interference claim against Sirocky-Meck in her individual capacity. Because the court is dismissing the only federal claims in the case, the court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and to dismiss them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c)(2). In exercising its discretion, the court must consider factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Generally, though, when a case is in its early stages, courts will decline to exercise jurisdiction. 13D Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, (3d ed., April 2022 update) (\u201c[I]f the jurisdiction-invoking federal claims are dismissed before trial, 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 37/39 even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.\u201d) (internal quotations omitted). The court sees no unfairness or inconvenience to any party from a dismissal without prejudice. The court finds that the comity factor also favors declining jurisdiction because the remaining claims are state-law contract and tort claims involving Virginia residents that occurred in Virginia. Thus, the state courts have a significant interest in resolving these types of claims. Considering these factors, the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Counts and and dismiss these claims without prejudice. *42 42 For the reasons stated herein, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to Counts and based on sovereign immunity will be denied, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted as to Counts through V, and the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts and VII. An appropriate order will follow. About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 38/39 Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/13/25, 10:52 Pappas v. James Madison Univ., Civil Action 5:22-cv-00028 | Casetext Search + Citator 39/39", "8980_104.pdf": "| | Listen Live Professor resigned following harassment claim By Frank Wilt April 4, 2023 10:07 am Facebook Source: clipart.com Privacy - Terms Closings & Delays 2/13/25, 10:52 Professor resigned following harassment claim - Rocktown Now 1/8 4/4/23 lawsuit brought against James Madison University by a former professor who resigned following sexual harassment claims has been tossed out of federal court. In a ruling filed March 31 in District Court, a judge discarded the suit by Dr. Eric Pappas (POP-us) that accused of wrongfully pushing him out. Pappas alleged that he was \u201cmaliciously\u201d accused of harassment by a former student assistant, after she said the professor made sexual comments toward her five years ago at an off-campus coffee shop. He also said the ensuing Title 9 investigation and panel hearing was biased against him. The court agreed to dismiss the suit for failing to prove legal action is necessary. Story \u00a9 2023 Saga Communications - Images \u00a9 2023 clipart.com What's Happening Arrest Made Following Stuarts Draft Stabbing st Facebook Today's Weather Forecast Pets of the Week Go Local Shen Valley Deals Contests Newsletter Contact Submit News Closings & Delays 2/13/25, 10:52 Professor resigned following harassment claim - Rocktown Now 2/8 By Mario Retrosi April 3, 2023 9:44 pm Facebook Closings & Delays 2/13/25, 10:52 Professor resigned following harassment claim - Rocktown Now 3/8 Source: Rocktown Now Photographer: Courtesy of | Joshua Ray Meadows, 26, was arrested Saturday in connection with a stabbing in Stuarts Draft. Closings & Delays 2/13/25, 10:52 Professor resigned following harassment claim - Rocktown Now 4/8 Augusta County authorities have arrested a suspect in connection with a stabbing over the weekend. According to a Monday release, deputies responded to the Pizza Hut in the 2600 block of Stuarts Draft Highway just before two o\u2019clock Saturday afternoon. August County Sheriff\u2019s Lieutenant Leslie Snyder said the incident began when 26-year-old Joshua Ray Meadows was unhappy with a pizza delivered to his home near Mint Springs, and returned to the restaurant to voice his displeasure. Snyder says that\u2019s when a verbal altercation began, with Meadows cursing at employees husband of one of the workers reportedly followed Meadows into the restaurant\u2019s parking lot, where he suffered two stab wounds to the leg. Meadows was arrested later Saturday and charged with malicious wounding. He is held without bond at Middle River Regional Jail. Story \u00a9 2023 Saga Communications - Images \u00a9 2023 Saga Communications What's Happening Facebook Today's Weather Forecast Pets of the Week Go Local Shen Valley Deals Contests Newsletter Contact Submit News Closings & Delays 2/13/25, 10:52 Professor resigned following harassment claim - Rocktown Now 5/8 20 hours ago Partly cloudy tonight, much cooler Clouds will break for some sunshine today 14 hours ago Keep a lookout for spotted lanternfly egg masses Spotted lanternfly egg masses, which resemble mud patches, are laid in the fall and hatch in the spring, and experts say now is a good time to find them 8 hours ago Cassell Elementary School placed on \u201cSecure\u201d Even though the situation was not associated with the school, the code \u201csecure\u201d was implemented out of an abundance of caution. Closings & Delays 2/13/25, 10:52 Professor resigned following harassment claim - Rocktown Now 6/8 8 hours ago Classic Kitchen and Bath transitions to Dovetail Design and Cabinetry in the Shenandoah Valley Classic Kitchen and Bath is transitioning its operations to Dovetail Design and Cabinetry, effective March 1, 2025 5 days ago Listen to Win: \u2018Little Women\u2019 at American Shakespeare Theater Tickets! Travel back to Civil War-era America and step into the lives of the March [\u2026] Closings & Delays 2/13/25, 10:52 Professor resigned following harassment claim - Rocktown Now 7/8 Some images copyright AP, Clipart.com \u00a9 Copyright 2025 Saga Communications, Inc, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy Terms of Use Non-Discriminatory Advertising Letter Advisory Public Notice - Non-Discriminatory Ad Contracts Closings & Delays 2/13/25, 10:52 Professor resigned following harassment claim - Rocktown Now 8/8", "8980_105.pdf": "Closings & Delays Home \u00bb News \u00bb Story \ue122 2 Professor resigned following harassment claim Privacy - Terms Listen Live 2/13/25, 10:53 Professor resigned following harassment claim | 96.9 1/4 4/4/23 lawsuit brought against James Madison University by a former professor who resigned following sexual harassment claims has been tossed out of federal court. In a ruling filed March 31 in District Court, a judge discarded the suit by Dr. Eric Pappas (POP-us) that accused of wrongfully pushing him out. Pappas alleged that he was \u201cmaliciously\u201d accused of harassment by a former student assistant, after she said the professor made sexual comments toward her five years ago at an off-campus coffee shop. He also said the ensuing Title 9 investigation and panel hearing was biased against him. The court agreed to dismiss the suit for failing to prove legal action is necessary. Share Tweet Share st Listen Live 2/13/25, 10:53 Professor resigned following harassment claim | 96.9 2/4 7 \u2018Saturday Night Live\u2019 plans a massive 50th anniversary special. Who\u2019s coming and how to watch Airing Sunday and spanning three hours, the, yes, live \"SNL50: The Anniversary Celebration\" will assemble a dream team of stars who have helped the show become an enduring pop culture force. 14 Golden State Warriors blend sports and music with new album from their groundbreaking record label The Golden State Warriors are known for their electrifying plays and superstar Stephen Curry, but now the team is pioneering a fresh gameplan: blending sports and entertainment in a way no franchise has before. 14 Mariah Carey, Chubby Checker, Cyndi Lauper, OutKast and Phish get Rock Hall nominations Mariah Carey, Chubby Checker, Cyndi Lauper, OutKast and Phish are some the 2025 nominees for induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, a list that also includes two sets of musical brothers who have had public feuds and recent reunions \u2014 the Black Crowes and Oasis. 14 It\u2019s a publishing fairy tale. \u2018Hansel and Gretel\u2019 is reimagined by Stephen King and Maurice Sendak An upcoming edition of \"Hansel and Gretel\" combines the dark and singular talents of two literary giants who apparently never met: Stephen King and the late Maurice Sendak. 2 Paul McCartney rocks the Bowery. Inside his surprise concert Paul McCartney's previous New York-area performance took place three years ago at MetLife Stadium, capacity 82,500. His surprise show Tuesday night at the Bowery Ballroom fit, at most, 575 \u00a9 2023 \u00a9 2023 Listen Live 2/13/25, 10:53 Professor resigned following harassment claim | 96.9 3/4 96.9 Copyright 2025 Saga Communications, Inc. All rights reserved Report Public File Applications For assistance accessing public files, contact [email protected] Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contests & Rules | Some images copyright AP, Clipart.com Non-Discriminatory Advertising Letter | Advisory Public Notice - Non-Discriminatory Ad Contracts Listen Live 2/13/25, 10:53 Professor resigned following harassment claim | 96.9 4/4"} |
8,635 | Denise Gabriel | University of North Carolina - Greensboro | [
"8635_101.pdf"
] | {"8635_101.pdf": "News theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 22ND, 2021 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 1/14 professor Denise Gabriel speaks with Triad Stage co-founder Preston Lane about her pedagogic process in a video published in June 2020. (screenshot) Trigger warning: This story includes a graphic description of physical contact and references to genitalia. n associate professor at the School of Theatre has abruptly resigned amid accusations of abuse and other improper conduct by former students. Denise Gabriel has taught as a tenured professor at since 2009, specializing in teaching movement. Prior to joining the faculty at UNCG, the 68-year-old Gabriel served as resident movement director at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival. As a movement director, Gabriel has more than 50 production credits, both nationally and internationally, including in China, Austria and South Africa, along with San Diego, Calif. and Cincinnati according to her CV. Several former students brought concerns about abuse, ranging from inappropriate physical contact with students to bullying and racism, to the university in August. The university received Title complaints against Gabriel as well as witness statements. Although the university declined to provide a specific reason for Gabriel\u2019s departure, two former students told Triad City Beat they are certain it was the result of an internal investigation by the university. In an email to students and faculty on Wednesday School of Theatre Director Natalie Sowell said Gabriel had \u201ctendered her resignation and will be retiring effective 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 2/14 January 31.\u201d Sowell indicated a substitute instructor has been lined up to teach Gabriel\u2019s courses for the spring 2021 semester. \u201cIf you are one of Denise\u2019s advisees, we are working to switch you to another advisor ASAP,\u201d Sowell wrote search for a professor of acting specializing in movement will be conducted this semester.\u201d The email concluded: \u201cProfessor Gabriel\u2019s 10+ years with the School of Theatre have benefited a great many students and the school as a whole. She will be missed did not address a question from about whether Gabriel will receive retirement benefits, responding by email that \u201cwe cannot comment on specifics related to personnel issues.\u201d Gabriel\u2019s departure from follows the resignation of playwright and director Preston Lane as producing artistic director from Triad Stage. The School of Theatre and Triad Stage enjoyed a longstanding relationship, with the theater school funneling talent to Triad Stage, and Lane holding a position as a teaching adjunct instructor at UNCG. Gabriel has also served on a contractual basis as a movement coach at Triad Stage, most recently in early 2020, according to board chair Deborah Hayes. Lane announced his resignation from Triad State in November, following a board investigation into allegations of sexual abuse. Through his lawyer, Lane has denied \u201cany and all allegations of sexual abuse.\u201d At the time confirmed it would no longer employ Lane as an adjunct. 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 3/14 Describing Gabriel\u2019s role as a movement director on a video posted on Triad Stage\u2019s Facebook page in June 2020, Lane said tell people all the time that Denise is like this miracle worker who gives you an extra week of rehearsal\u2026. That extra week that we get from Denise is really because it goes from an intellectual thing into a really deeply felt, lived thing in the body.\u201d Gabriel described her philosophy of teaching movement and the discipline of \u201cbody work\u201d in the video, which shows her seated on a porch swing with Lane. \u201cEmbodiment [has] so much to do with empathy and care, and feeling in the other,\u201d Gabriel said. \u201cIt led me to a definition of embodiment. People say, \u2018Oh, that means you\u2019re in your body.\u2019 And it was much more than that. It was sensation versus cognition\u2026. It was, there are always temporal shifts that go on in breathing, in living.\u201d Gabriel\u2019s focus on teaching students to get in touch with their bodies to deliver more authentic theatrical performances \u2014 and what former students described as blurring the lines between the professional and personal \u2014 is at the heart of the most serious allegation of misconduct that has been made public. Claudia H. Stein, who graduated with a bachelor of fine arts from in 2017, took several classes with Gabriel and worked under her as an assistant choreographer for the 2015 production of Cabaret. In a written statement provided to Triad City Beat, Stein said that as a young acting student trying to find her footing, she accepted an evening dinner invitation from Gabriel during her sophomore year in the fall of 2014 semester. After the dinner at 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 4/14 Thai Garden on Tate Street, Stein said Gabriel drove her home, and then just before they reached her apartment, Stein said Gabriel abruptly invited her to her home. In hindsight, Stein said, she didn\u2019t know why she agreed to go to Gabriel\u2019s home, although because of Gabriel\u2019s forceful personality, she felt she had no choice. \u201cOnce at Gabriel\u2019s apartment, she told me we could do some \u2018body work,\u2019\u201d Stein recalled didn\u2019t really understand what this meant, and she didn\u2019t exactly explain what it would entail. My relationship with Gabriel was extremely centered around the fact that am a dancer and how she wanted me to unlearn everything knew about my dancing training to be a more successful actor.\u201d Stein described how Gabriel would come up to her in Movement classes \u201cand tell me how tight was in my chest, and then proceed to vigorously tap at my chest, shoulders and armpit areas to \u2018free me up.\u2019\u201d Stein assumed that the after-hours encounter at Gabriel\u2019s home would be like instructional time in class. That proved to not be the case. \u201cShe instructed me to shower in her bathroom attached to her bedroom,\u201d Stein recalled. \u201cShe said to take as much time as wanted and when was finished, to come out in whatever level of dress felt comfortable in and lay on her massage table was taken aback couldn\u2019t believe that my teacher was asking me to do something like this. But for whatever reason felt compelled to say yes and proceeded with this request showered, all the while panicking about what was to come, and emerged from the bathroom in my bra, underwear, and a towel slipped under the blanket on the massage table as inconspicuously as possible and laid face down.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 5/14 What took place next, Stein said, made her feel violated and \u2014 completely counter to the purported purpose of the exercise \u2014 disembodied. \u201cGabriel then proceeded to perform a full body massage on me with various creams and oils,\u201d Stein wrote. \u201cShe touched every inch of my body, moaning at points while doing so. While there was never any penetration did feel extremely uncomfortable and violated. But a small voice in my head just kept telling me to lay quiet and wait for it to be over. Though Gabriel said during the massage that this \u2018body work\u2019 was supposed to make me feel more connected to my body have never felt more disconnected from myself.\u201d During the massage, Stein said Gabriel \u201cencouraged me to express how was feeling, through words, moaning, or grunts,\u201d and that Gabriel \u201ccontinued to moan and increased her intensity and volume\u201d as if to encourage Stein.\u201d Gabriel \u201cexplained to me that freeing up the body in this way is the only way to access deep emotions that will give me the tools to use in my acting,\u201d Stein wrote. But the encounter had exactly the opposite effect had no emotions during this experience other than fear, anxiety and panic,\u201d Stein wrote also distinctly remember the feeling that would get caught and kicked out of the program if told anyone about what Gabriel and did during our \u2018body work.\u2019\u201d Stein would go on to work under Gabriel as assistant choreographer for the Cabaret production the following semester and continued to take movement classes from her. But she said she declined continued invitations to dinner or for \u201cbody work sessions.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 6/14 Eventually, Stein said she found a way to distance herself from Gabriel by focusing on her musical theater classes. \u201cDenise Gabriel physically violated me without my consent, and constantly humiliated and bullied me and other individuals during our required classes as part of the acting program at UNCG,\u201d Stein wrote. In addition to the incident at Gabriel\u2019s home, Stein said Gabriel\u2019s conduct during instructional time also crossed the line on some occasions. \u201cWe were in rehearsal and choreographing the numbers,\u201d Stein told TCB, recalling the Cabaret production. \u201cDenise said, \u2018Separate the lips of your vagina. Get into your pelvic region.\u2019 \u2018Lips of vagina don\u2019t think that language is ever necessary. That kind of talk can be effective when done properly. When it\u2019s called out from the side, like \u2018point your toes,\u2019 the way she said it was so nonchalant.\u201d An account provided by another student who worked under Gabriel as an assistant portrays the professor as a harsh task master and someone who exhibited racial hostility. Kamilah Bush recalled in a written statement provided to that she accompanied Gabriel as an assistant on a class trip to a theater festival in the summer of 2016, when they got news about the police killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. \u201cMe and the other Black girls were trying to comfort and uplift each other,\u201d Bush recalled. \u201cThere was a day when we were supposed to be doing some mindfulness 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 7/14 exercises, and tried to excuse myself because of how hurt was, and Denise told me to \u2018suck it up\u2019 and that if didn\u2019t participate, no one would want to participate because had too much influence over the Black girls.\u2019\u201d When they returned to Greensboro, Bush said Gabriel told her she \u201chated the person became around other Black girls.\u201d Cameron Prevatte, who graduated from with a bachelor of fine arts in 2013, said he gravitated towards Gabriel in his sophomore and junior years after other faculty members made him doubt his acting abilities. He would later come to understand that his insecurity made him vulnerable to exploitation. Working with Gabriel, Prevatte received a university grant to travel to Mexico to write a play about a woman there who used sensory awareness to deal with physical traumas. Since the grant money wasn\u2019t immediately available, Prevatte loaned himself the money up front and then reimbursed himself from the university on monthly installments. Although the grant was under contract with UNCG, Gabriel held some sway as his mentor on the project. \u201cKnowing that information, she would hold that over me to do menial tasks,\u201d Prevatte told didn\u2019t say no to them. She made me feel that, The only way can keep you on this grant is to do tasks for me. Legally speaking, that\u2019s bullshit [because signed a contract. It\u2019s a research assistantship. She is a mentor in that agreement. It was a mental thing. It was all mental manipulation. She couldn\u2019t stop it unless she told the university wasn\u2019t doing the work. She told me: \u2018You\u2019re not a good actor, maybe a playwright.\u2019 \u2018No, you\u2019re not a good playwright, so you\u2019re going to have to do something else to remain relevant swept her floors watered her plants did other work for 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 8/14 her to help her get customers to do sensory awareness work. It was like was doing her marketing for her.\u201d Gabriel did not respond to an email message sent to her account, and a voicemail message left at her campus phone number went unreturned. Stein said she and about six other survivors met on a Zoom call with Title Director Murphey Chappell to discuss their experiences with Gabriel. The theater school director and vice provost also joined the call, Stein said. Prevatte said he felt relief when he learned about Gabriel\u2019s resignation earlier this week, but he said it\u2019s only a small step in addressing the larger issue of abuse of power and toxic climate in the theater community. \u201cIt is bigger than and Denise Gabriel,\u201d Prevatte said. \u201cThere\u2019s a reckoning in theater across the country and the world, honestly. \u201cShe was there for 10 years, and that\u2019s a failure, but also think there hasn\u2019t been great avenues for telling people about trauma,\u201d Prevatte continued. \u201cIf anything would be good think people should continue to come forward not just about Denise but about anything that they\u2019ve experienced in the [UNCG] School of Theatre said in a statement provided to that the university \u201ctakes very seriously our mission to provide an equitable, inclusive and accessible learning and working environment for all of our students and employees.\u201d The university said it is \u201cmaking the culture and climate a top priority\u201d for new leaders, specifically College of Visual 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 9/14 and Performing Arts Dean Bruce McClung and School of Theatre Director Natalie Sowell. \u201cAddressing issues of culture and climate in a way that truly generates change takes time, commitment and courage, whether the process is reactive and proactive,\u201d the university said. \u201cWe first and foremost listen to our students and alumni, and actively work with them when issues arise. The School of Theatre, among others, has undertaken this work with the full support of the university behind it.\u201d The statement issued by on Friday included a sentence that was identical to a previous statement in response to revelations about alleged misconduct by Preston Lane last November: \u201cWe will not tolerate behaviors that create a hostile environment for our students, are predatory, or limit students\u2019 opportunity to learn and grow.\u201d Claudia Stein said she felt a weight lift from her shoulders after learning about Gabriel\u2019s resignation. \u201cMy initial feeling was, yes, there\u2019s a sense of relief that, yes, she\u2019s gone, and that was at least my sort of overall goal,\u201d Stein said. \u201cTo get her out\u2026.\u201d She took a long pause to collect her emotions, before continuing: \u201c\u2026 So that she won\u2019t be able to cause further abuse and have access to young, vulnerable, highly impressionable students. And, you know, while she hurt me in a way that can only process and heal myself can\u2019t change the past, but can do everything in my power to change the future and make sure that it won\u2019t happen to anyone else. And based on what [the Title director] shared with me, as far as moving forward, post- 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 10/14 investigation, it feels like there is a sense of change and a sense of fixing what has been wrong and healing the department as a whole, which feels really good.\u201d Join the First Amendment Society, a membership that goes directly to funding TCB\u2018s newsroom. We believe that reporting can save the world. The First Amendment Society recognizes the vital role of a free, unfettered press with a bundling of local experiences designed to build community, and unique engagements with our newsroom that will help you understand, and shape, local journalism\u2019s critical role in uplifting the people in our cities. All revenue goes directly into the newsroom as reporters\u2019 salaries and freelance commissions \u26a1 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 11/14 One response to theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 14, 2023 12:31 am a former student of Denise and just recently learned of this. Denise is a brilliant teacher and practioner. Denise\u2019s mistake was not being guarded about the risk of bring a student into one\u2019s private space. It is unfortunate; knowing Denise, she was actually trying to mentor this person, but didn\u2019t take the critical step of securing her consent in writing beforehand. The body work described seems perfectly legit; the showering beforehand is a normal practice, the use of vocalization ( salaciously described as grunts and moans), anybody who has done Linklater vocal work knows about touching sound as a technique. We used to do a lot of the body work described in class did a certification program with an outside trainer in a program called Touch For Health, and much of the body work described fits the parameters of that work. Denise has a long history of work and imersive study in Japan, and believe she was bringing those influences to her work. The thing find most troubling are the allegations of racism. Denise has a (HE/HIM) Jordan is currently a senior editor for . He finished his masters in journalism at Columbia University and worked as a reporter in Santa Fe and Durham before moving to the Triad. He is a founding member of Triad City Beat, along with Brian Clarey and Eric Ginsburg. He specializes in investigative deep dives and political writing. His work has appeared in the Nation, the Guardian and Scalawag. Raw Story 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 12/14 long history of working positively with people of color believe one of her most prominent students is an actor of significant note, David Tony, who believe teaches at Virginia Commonwealth . If he said, \u201cNo, she was racist\u201d then would just shut my mouth don\u2019t know the details of what happened at Triad, but there are things about this that just don\u2019t jive Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Comment * Name Email Website 2 0 2 5 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 13/14 2/13/25, 10:53 Triad City Beat theater professor resigns following accounts of abuse by former students 14/14"} |
7,204 | Edward Jones | Alabama A&M University | [
"7204_101.pdf",
"7204_102.pdf",
"7204_103.pdf",
"7204_104.pdf"
] | {"7204_101.pdf": "More local news for Birmingham, Huntsville and Mobile \u2013 Start Today for $1 Alabama fires professor over sex acts committed on campus Published: Mar. 31, 2016, 9:18 p.m. Subscribe Edward Jones (LinkedIn photo) By Paul Gattis | [email protected] Alabama University fired a tenured professor in March after the school discovered videos of him participating in sexual activity with two students on campus, according to court documents. The school severed ties with Edward Jones, who has worked more than 20 years at Alabama A&M. Most recently, he worked as director of Office of Teacher Education and Certification. According to court documents filed in federal court by Alabama A&M, videos of Jones were discovered on a school laptop that recorded the professor in three sex acts, including twice having oral sex with two different male students. All three instances occurred on the Alabama campus, the school said. Jones filed a lawsuit against Alabama in February after the school began termination proceedings after what the lawsuit described as years of harassment when Jones attempted to bring to light administrative issues and concerns. Jones' attorney, Lee Loder, declined to comment on the case beyond the lawsuit. The videos were found on a school laptop recovered at Jones' home after Huntsville police and Alabama police executed a search warrant, according to court documents. Once the videos were discovered, Alabama informed Jones he would be fired. \"There is convincing evidence that you have engaged in sexual conduct below minimum standards of professional integrity and misused university computing/electronic assets in gross violation of well-established university policy,\" school Provost Daniel Wims wrote in Jones' March 10, 2016 termination letter, which was included in the court file. According to a memo from Alabama police investigator Brian Ruble, two of the videos were made in 2011 and the third in 2012. Jones previously received a letter outlining the school's intention to terminate him after sexually-graphic photos were discovered on the professor's work computer. In the lawsuit Jones filed, he criticized the Alabama administration for ignoring \"red flags\" he raised concerning the Office of Teacher Education and Certification. School officials retaliated toward Jones, his lawsuit said, because he wouldn't \"play ball and keep his mouth shut about Dr. Jones' previous warnings that had dropped the ball in several areas of fiscal grant management and implementation.\" Jones' 30-page lawsuit outlines 11 counts against the school and invokes the Alabama Public Employee Whistleblower Act. \"Dr. Jones' whistleblower speech and signed statement regarding AAMU's illegal conduct in charging students for services it did not provide and mismanaging federal and state funds designed to implement teacher certification information management system was met with a retaliatory attempt to terminate him, prosecute him and humiliate and ruin Dr. Jones' reputation,\" the lawsuit stated Judge throws out resisting arrest case against Alabama man attacked by police K9 on his porch Feb. 11, 2025, 8:19 p.m. Alabama is in Section 504 fight: Lawsuit over Biden gender dysphoria rule sparks concern Feb. 12, 2025, 7:57 p.m. In a statement to AL.com, Alabama denied the allegations in the lawsuit. The statement said Jones was guilty of \"gross professional misconduct.\" \"As is plainly evident by the university's filings, the university is fully committed to defending its decision to terminate this professor,\" the school's statement said. \"The supporting evidence of the professor's misconduct, which occurred on campus, is clearly identified in the university's response and the recent discovery of this evidence left the university with no alternative. \"The inappropriate conduct exhibited by this former faculty member will not be tolerated on this campus.\" If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy. About Us About Alabama Media Group Jobs at Alabama Media Group Advertise with us About AL.com Frequently Asked Questions Accessibility Statement Contact Us Online Store Subscriptions AL.com The Birmingham News The Huntsville Times Press-Register Newsletter Already a Subscriber Manage your Subscription Place a Vacation Hold Make a Payment Delivery Feedback AL.com Sections News Business Sports High School Sports Alabama Life & Culture Opinion Archives Obituaries Jobs Autos Your Regional News Pages Anniston/Gadsden Birmingham Huntsville Mobile Montgomery Tuscaloosa Gulf Coast Beaches On the Go Mobile Apps Tablet Apps Follow Us Pinterest Twitter Facebook Instagram Customer Service Send us an email Submit a news tip Buy newspaper front pages, posters and more More on AL.com Videos Weather News Site Map & search Sponsor Content Post a job | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Ad Choices Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement, (updated 8/1/2024) and acknowledgement of our Privacy Policy, and Your Privacy Choices and Rights (updated 1/1/2025). \u00a9 2025 Advance Local Media LLC. All rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local. Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. YouTube's privacy policy is available here and YouTube's terms of service is available here. Ad Choices", "7204_103.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Jones v. Hugine United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama Sep 9, 2022 5:16-cv-00326 (N.D. Ala. Sep. 9, 2022) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Meet CoCounsel, pioneering that\u2019s secure, reliable, and trained for the law. Try CoCounsel free 5:16-cv-00326 09-09-2022 L. JONES, Plaintiff, v HUGINE, JR., et al., Defendants Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/21 In 2016, Dr. Jones, a tenured professor at Alabama A&M, sued the university and several university employees after sent him an \u201cintent to terminate\u201d letter. Dr. Jones asserted several \u00a7 1983 claims against the defendants. Though Dr. Jones focused his efforts on his due process claim to compel to give him a full hearing concerning the grounds for his termination, Dr. Jones included two Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure claims in his complaint. (Doc. 1, pp. 1, 2123). In 2017, the Court dismissed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims with prejudice. (Doc. 61, pp. 4-5 short time later, the Court dismissed the entire action for failure to prosecute after Dr. Jones failed to comply with an order to amend his complaint. (Doc. 68, p. 1). *2 2 Pursuant to Rules 60(b)(6) and 60(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dr. Jones now asks the Court to vacate its \u201cFebruary 16, 2017 order insofar as it dismissed Dr. Jones'[s] Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful search,\u201d to allow him to amend his Fourth Amendment claims, and to consolidate this action with case number 5:17-cv-01723-MHH. (Doc. 82, pp. 1-2). This opinion addresses Dr. Jones's requests. The Court first discusses the general standards for relief pursuant to Rule 60 and then describes the procedural history of this case. Finally, the Court applies the legal standards relevant to Dr. Jones's motion to the record in this case. I. \u201cOn motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding\u201d for several enumerated reasons or \u201cany other reason that justifies relief.\u201d FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time-and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.\u201d FED. R.CIV. P. 60(c) (1). Rule 60(b) \u201cdoes not limit a court's power to . . . set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.\u201d FED. R. CIV. P. 60(d)(3). *3 1 3 1 The defendants argue that the Court should construe Dr. Jones's motion as a Rule 60(b)(3) motion rather than a Rule 60(b)(6) motion and hold that the motion is barred by the one-year limitation in Rule 60(c)(1). (Doc. 90, p. 8). Under Rule 60(b)(3), a court may set aside a judgment for \u201c(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/21 (Doc. 1, pp. 21-22, \u00b6 52). Expanding on his allegation regarding probable cause, Dr. Jones also alleged: (Doc. 1, p. 22, \u00b6 54). In his complaint, Dr. Jones provided no other details about the alleged unlawful search and seizure. *4 misconduct by an opposing party.\u201d FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3). Dr. Jones has not framed his motion as a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, (Doc. 91, p. 6), and the Court will not deem the motion a Rule 60(b)(3) motion. II. As noted, Dr. Jones brought this action to blunt Alabama A&M's efforts to terminate his employment. Dr. Jones tried to compel Alabama to provide a termination hearing; he alleged that the university had deprived him of due process. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-21, 23). Dr. Jones asserted that evidence on which relied to terminate him was obtained through an improper search of his \u201cpersonal electronic data and records\u201d by Brian Ruble, an police officer. (Doc. 1, pp. 2, 21, \u00b6\u00b6 3, 52). Dr. Jones alleged: 52. Defendant Ruble's search of Dr. Jones' personal electronic d1ata and records constituted an unlawful search without any cause, much less, did said defendant demonstrate any probable cause. All defendants and ratified and adopted defendant Ruble's acts as their own. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff prays this Court will enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, award the plaintiff compensatory, punitive, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees and such other relief as is just and appropriate. 54. Defendant Ruble's seizure of Dr. Jones' property was unlawful and made without probable cause and with an invalid warrant in violation of Dr. Jones' Fourth Amendment Constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. All defendants and ratified and adopted defendant Ruble's acts as their own. 4 After he filed his complaint, Dr. Jones filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction \u201cenjoining the defendants from terminating\u201d him \u201cwithout proper notice and hearing.\u201d (Doc. 9, p. 4). 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/21 In the March 15, 2016, affidavit that he filed in support of his request for injunctive relief, Dr. Jones attested that he did not \u201chave any information about the basis for the charges\u201d the university had brought against him. (Doc. 9-1, p. 2, \u00b6 3). But Dr. Jones's attorney attached to his brief in support of Dr. Jones's request for injunctive relief a January 14, 2016, \u201cIntent to Terminate\u201d letter addressed to Dr. Jones. In the letter explained: \u201c[t]he cause for termination is gross professional misconduct. You are charged with both using University resources to view obscene materials and the production and/or creation of obscene materials. The behaviors which are the basis of these charges occurred on university property during duty hours.\u201d (Doc. 10-1, p. 1). In a March 10, 2016, letter of termination informed Dr. Jones that he was terminated immediately because \u201c[t]here is convincing evidence that you have engaged in sexual conduct below minimum standards of professional integrity and misused University computing/electronic assets in gross violation of well-established University policy.\u201d (Doc. 10-4, p. 6). In support of their opposition to Dr. Jones's request for early injunctive relief and the individual defendants filed, among other things, an affidavit from Officer Ruble. (Doc. 15-5). In his affidavit, Officer Ruble explained: *5 5 4 became familiar with Plaintiff Dr. Edward Jones . . . through my work as an Investigator with Alabama became aware that Alabama A&M's Property Manager, Jeff Robinson, filed a police report concerning missing computers, including an Alabama laptop issued to Plaintiff. As a result of that report and after obtaining a search warrant, Alabama A&M's Police Department and the Huntsville Police Department executed a search warrant on Plaintiff's residence. On February 12, 2016, law enforcement located, seized and secured a Hewlett Packard 65606 laptop computer (serial number 4C21320G8M) with an Alabama property tag (number AMU000689) and logo. 5 computer forensics expert, Mike Canfield, examined the Alabama laptop and determined three (3) obscene and pornographic videos had been downloaded to the laptop 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/21 (Doc. 15-5, p. 3, \u00b6\u00b6 4-5) (emphasis omitted). The Court denied Dr. Jones's motion for injunctive relief because the Court found that Dr. Jones had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and because the Court found that Dr. Jones had an adequate remedy in damages. (Doc. 38). personally viewed all three[](3) videos for the purpose of reporting my findings to the University. One video depicts Plaintiff masturbating and showing off his penis on Alabama property second video depicts Plaintiff receiving oral sex from a young male on Alabama property. (Id.). Finally, the third video depicts Plaintiff receiving oral sex from another young male on Alabama property true and correct copy of my confidential memorandum concerning the videos located on the Alabama laptop in Plaintiff's possession is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A. 2 2 Two of the videos were recorded at Carver Complex on A&M's campus. (Doc. 15-5, p. 6). With the help of a new attorney, Dr. Jones asked the Court to reconsider the order denying his request for injunctive relief. (Doc. 41). In support of his request, *6 Dr. Jones submitted an October 2015 letter from to him advising him that he had been placed on administrative leave because of administrative compliance issues. (Doc. 41-1, p. 1). He also filed a new affidavit. (Doc. 42-1). In this affidavit, Dr. Jones discussed the October 2015 letter and stated that he left his office the afternoon of October 13, 2015, only to be notified a short time later that A&M's Chief Information Officer and a locksmith were at his office to seize his computer and change the locks on his office. (Doc. 42-1, p. 3, \u00b6 4). Dr. Jones asserted that after sent its \u201cIntent to Terminate\u201d letter in January 2016, the university \u201cembarked upon a criminal investigation and Gestapo police tactics\u201d against him and \u201cprocured a warrant for [his] arrest and a search warrant for [his] home, alleging theft of property.\u201d (Doc. 42-1, p. 4, \u00b6 7). Dr. Jones acknowledged that the search warrant \u201cwas issued by a magistrate or judge with the City of Huntsville.\u201d (Doc. 421, p. 4, \u00b6 7). Dr. Jones indicated that he lived in the City of Huntsville and asserted that the police did not have 6 3 4 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/21 jurisdiction to execute a search warrant at his house. (Doc. 42-1, p. 5, \u00b6 7). Dr. Jones did not mention the City of Huntsville police *7 officers who Officer Ruble attested accompanied him to Dr. Jones's house to execute the search warrant. (Doc. 15-5, p. 3, \u00b6 4). 7 3 Dr. Jones contends that during the search of his office employees took not only university equipment but also jump drives that belonged to him, not the university. (See, e.g., Doc. 78, pp. 7, 11-12 contends that a thumb drive containing elicit pictures was attached to a university computer. (Doc. 78, p. 13). 4 Dr. Jones's attorneys later confirmed that in February of 2016, a magistrate judge in Huntsville issued a search warrant for Dr. Jones's home in conjunction with a charge of theft of property. (Doc. 78, pp. 7, 9). At a February 2017 hearing in this matter, counsel for Dr. Jones explained that they had the inventory for the items seized in conjunction with that search warrant. (Doc. 78, pp. 8-10). In his affidavit, Dr. Jones asserted that the university searched his home and seized his property \u201cfor clandestine reasons to build a case against [him] that had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons\u201d Provost Daniel Wims gave for placing him on administrative leave. (Doc. 42-1, p. 5, \u00b6 7). Dr. Jones stated that his termination was not based on incompetence (for which he was placed on administrative leave with pay) or his alleged theft of property (for which he was arrested on criminal charges), but on sexual misconduct. (Doc. 42-1, p. 6, \u00b6 9). According to Dr. Jones, the defendants: unlawfully searched and seized [his] personal property from [his] home. Among said property are video recordings, an old personal Apple IPhone 4 that was located in [his] bedroom dresser drawer, and an old broken issued laptop located in [his] closet. In [his] opinion, the search warrant was a ruse for something more sinister because the University police officers, in executing the search, stumbled upon a video of a sexual nature from a video camera located in [his] nightstand drawer. The video recorder was [his] personal property. It was not the property of Alabama University. Nonetheless, the officers sat and watched the video tape that was in the recorder. [He] know[s] this because [he] later 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/21 *8 (Doc. 42-1, pp. 6-7, \u00b6 9). discovered the video camera plugged into the electrical outlet .... They then took the video tape out of the camera and took it with them, having viewed the contents. There is no nexus between the video recording contents and the alleged theft of property charge that Alabama University has leveled against [him]. Indeed, there is no nexus between the video contents and the reasons articulated by Provost Wims when he initially placed [Dr. Jones] on administrative leave with pay in October 2015. [Dr. Jones] submit[s] that defendants have manipulated the unlawfully seized 8 video recordings, [his] personal property, so as to manufacture a case of terminating [him] because of [his] sexual orientation. In February of 2017, the Court held a hearing regarding Dr. Jones's motion for reconsideration of his request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. During the hearing, the Court addressed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims against and the individual defendants. The Court stated that Dr. Jones's complaints about the execution of the state search warrant were an evidentiary matter in the ongoing criminal prosecution against Dr. Jones and involved state law enforcement officers. (Doc. 78, pp. 39-40). The Court dismissed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims with prejudice. (Doc. 78, pp. 39-40; see also Doc. 61, pp. 4-5).5 5 Pursuant to Younger v. Harris, a federal district court should abstain from addressing an issue or a claim \u201cwhen the federal proceeding will intrude on an ongoing state criminal proceeding.\u201d Watson v. Fla. Jud. Qualifications Comm'n., 618 Fed.Appx. 487, 489 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). \u201cFor Younger abstention to apply, state judicial proceedings must be ongoing, the proceedings must implicate important state interests, and the federal plaintiff must have an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in the state proceedings.\u201d Watson, 618 Fed.Appx. at 490. Following the hearing, the Court issued an eight-page order formally denying Dr. Jones's motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 61). At the conclusion of the order, the Court ordered to give Dr. Jones another opportunity 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/21 *9 to engage in the university's grievance process to challenge his termination. The Court explained: The March 10, 2016 not\\ice of termination is the notice pursuant to which Dr. Jones was terminated. (Doc. 15-2, pp. 84-85) (stating that 9 the university terminated Dr. Jones \u201ceffective immediately\u201d). In that notice, the university provided four grounds for immediate termination: \u201cconvincing evidence\u201d that Dr. Jones \u201cengaged in sexual conduct below minimum standards of professional integrity;\u201d misuse of the university's electronic equipment; failure to respond to the January 2016 notice of intent to terminate; and elimination of the right to grieve, per the faculty handbook, because Dr. Jones instituted legal action against the university. (Id.). With respect to immediate terminations, the university's faculty handbook states: Faculty, including tenured faculty, may be terminated after other disciplinary measures fail or when first time incidents occur that are of a nature that the University, in its sole discretion, deems necessary for immediate termination. Cause for immediate termination is defined as gross professional misconduct or serious failure of a faculty member to discharge his or her obligations to the University. Adequate cause may include but is not limited to . . . conduct below minimum standards of professional integrity . . . or other good and adequate just causes. (Doc. 15-2, p. 27). The handbook also states that after the university provides notice of immediate termination, the university must give an employee \u201can opportunity to submit any information they wish to be considered in reaching a determination concerning whether disciplinary action should be taken and, if so, which disciplinary procedure will be exercised.\u201d (Id.). The university provided Dr. Jones a post-termination opportunity to participate in a grievance proceeding. Dr. Jones declined the opportunity because the university did not allow Dr. Jones to 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/21 *10 (Doc. 61, pp. 5-7). As the Court explained in a subsequent hearing, the Court's rationale for this order was simple: one of the four grounds examine the computer equipment at issue; however, the university did allow Dr. Jones to view the videotape that forms that basis of the university's finding that Dr. Jones \u201cengaged in sexual conduct below minimum standards of professional integrity.\u201d According to evidence in the record, the video recordings depict Dr. Jones in a university classroom engaging in sexual conduct on two separate occasions with two different men. Each of the men recorded on the videotape is approximately 20 years old. (Doc. 15-2, pp. 79-80). 10 Pursuant to the faculty handbook, the Court directs the university to give Dr. Jones an opportunity to submit any information he wishes the university to consider with respect to the university's finding that that [sic] Dr. Jones \u201cengaged in sexual conduct below minimum standards of professional integrity.\u201d Dr. Jones must submit any information that he wishes the university to consider on or before February 28, 2017. The university shall evaluate the information that Dr. Jones provides and, on or before March 14, 2017, the university shall inform Dr. Jones in writing whether the information that he provided changes the university's termination decision or requires further proceedings. Upon receipt of the university's written response, Dr. Jones's attorneys shall evaluate the response and decide how they wish to proceed. If they wish to proceed with this action, then on or before March 28, 2017, Dr. Jones shall file an amended complaint that states, in separate counts, the claims that Dr. Jones wishes to pursue against each defendant who Dr. Jones names in the amended complaint. In naming defendants in the amended complaint, consistent with their obligations under Rule 11, counsel for Dr. Jones shall consider the immunity defenses available to the various defendants named in the original complaint and name in an amended complaint only those defendants against whom counsel believes, in good faith, Dr. Jones may proceed. 6 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/21 stated for Dr. Jones's termination was that Dr. Jones \u201cengaged in sexual conduct below minimum standards of professional integrity.\u201d Because that alleged conduct was an adequate independent basis for termination, if Dr. Jones had no evidence to refute A&M's *11 evidence that he engaged in sexual conduct on university property, then his efforts at reinstatement were futile. (Doc. 71; see also Doc. 78, pp. 32-35). 11 6 Early in this case, Dr. Jones and his attorney reviewed the videos of conduct that form the basis of A&M's assertion that Dr. Jones engaged in sexual misconduct on campus. (Doc. 78, p. 14). Rather than comply with the Court's instruction, Dr. Jones's attorneys filed a request for discovery regarding forensic examinations of the computer(s) and jump drives onto which Dr. Jones allegedly downloaded explicit materials. Dr. Jones's attorneys also sought evidence of other university employees who terminated for theft or misappropriation of property, sexual misconduct, or moral turpitude. (Doc. 64). The requested discovery was geared more towards the Title discrimination claim that Dr. Jones was pursuing before the than his due process claim for reinstatement. (Doc. 69, pp. 8-9). Just over one month after Dr. Jones requested this discovery, in April of 2017, the Court dismissed his remaining claims for failure to comply with a court order. (Docs. 68, 71). Again, Dr. Jones asked the Court to reconsider its decision. (Docs. 69, 70). Dr. Jones argued, in part, that still had not returned the personal property that it seized from him. (Doc. 70, pp. 13-14). In March of 2018, the Court denied Dr. Jones's motion because he did not provide new evidence or new arguments to support his request for relief. (Doc. 75). In November of 2018, Dr. Jones's attorney notified the Court by email that Dr. Jones's state criminal proceeding was concluded. (Doc. 76-1, p. 1). The Court placed the message in the record but did not act on it *12 because the Court already had dismissed the action and denied Dr. Jones's request for reconsideration of the dismissal order. (Docs. 68, 75, 76, 77). 12 On February 23, 2022, Dr. Jones asked the Court to vacate the dismissal of his Fourth Amendment claims, to add five defendants to the claims, and to consolidate those claims with his Title action against A&M, Case No.: 5:17-cv-1723-MHH. (Docs. 79, 82). In his Title action, Dr. Jones contends 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/21 that offered several reasons for his termination in 2016, all of which were pretext for discrimination based on his sexual orientation. (Case No.: 5:17-cv-1723-MHH, Doc. 22). Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims are intertwined with his theory of pretext. Because the Court dismissed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims in this case with prejudice, Dr. Jones may not amend his Title complaint to add a Fourth Amendment claim, hence Dr. Jones's effort to revive his Fourth Amendment claims in this \u00a7 1983 action and to consolidate this \u00a7 1983 action with his Title action. Dr. Jones's proposed first amended complaint in this action contains a plausible Fourth Amendment violation; the defendants do not argue otherwise. (Doc. 82-3). Therefore, the Court must consider whether Dr. Jones may use Rule 60 to revive his Fourth Amendment claims in this action. III. The Court begins its analysis of Dr. Jones's motion to vacate by recognizing that it erred when it dismissed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims for damages *13 with prejudice. The Court does not believe it erred in abstaining from hearing Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims pursuant to Younger v. Harris because the propriety of the search of Dr. Jones's home was an evidentiary issue for the state court presiding over the pending criminal charge against Dr. Jones. In his state criminal case, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, Dr. Jones could have moved to suppress the evidence that state law enforcement officers and Officer Ruble gathered in a search of his home. Dr. Jones had an adequate state forum to challenge the evidence against him. 13 But in Watson, the Eleventh Circuit held that while a district court in a civil action may dismiss a plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as those claims relate to a state search warrant in a pending state criminal proceeding, a district court may only stay its proceedings with respect to a Fourth Amendment claim for damages district court may not dismiss a claim for damages for an alleged violation of an individual's Fourth Amendment rights in connection with a state criminal proceeding because damages are not available in the state proceeding. Watson, 618 Fed.Appx. at 491; see Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 202 (1988) (\u201c[T]he District Court had no discretion to dismiss rather than to stay claims for monetary relief 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/21 *15 that cannot be redressed in the state proceeding. In reversing the District Court's dismissal of the claims for damages and attorney's fees, the Court of Appeals applied the Third Circuit rule that requires a District Court to stay, rather *14 than to dismiss, federal claims that are not cognizable in the parallel state proceeding. The Third Circuit rule is sound. It allows a parallel state proceeding to go forward without interference from its federal sibling, while enforcing the duty of federal courts to assume jurisdiction where jurisdiction properly exists.\u201d) (internal citations and footnotes omitted). Consequently, because the state criminal charge against Dr. Jones was pending in February 2017, in February 2017, the Court should have stayed his Fourth Amendment claims to the extent he pursued damages and other monetary relief for the alleged constitutional violations. 14 Though it does not excuse the Court's error, the Court recognizes that if it had not dismissed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims in February 2017, the Court would have resolved those claims in April 2017 when the Court dismissed Mr. Jones's remaining claims for his refusal to comply with court orders. Following the April 2017 dismissal of this action, Dr. Jones did not appeal to challenge the dismissal of his Fourth Amendment claims with prejudice or the dismissal of the balance of his claims for failure to follow court orders. Instead, Dr. Jones shifted his focus to his separate Title action against the defendants. Dr. Jones may not use a Rule 60(b) motion as a substitute for appeal. Indeed, when evaluating a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, a court may consider several factors, including: (1) That final judgments should not lightly be disturbed; (2) that the Rule 60(b) motion is not to be used as a substitute for appeal; (3) that 15 the rule should be liberally construed in order to achieve substantial justice; (4) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time; (5) whether - if the judgment was a default or a dismissal in which there was no consideration of the merits - the interest in deciding cases on the merits outweighs, in the particular 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/21 Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing U.S. v. Gould, 301 F.2d 353, 355-56 (5th Cir. 1962 party seeking relief under Rule 60(d)(3) must establish fraud on the court, a high bar. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gore, 761 F.2d 1549, 1551 (11th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 60(d)(3) rests on equitable principles. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), overruled on other grounds, Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. U.S., 429 U.S. 17 (1976). *16 case, the interest in the finality of judgments, and there is merit in the movant's claim or defense; (6) whether - if the judgment was rendered after a trial on the merits - the movant had a fair opportunity to present his claim or defense; (7) whether there are intervening equities that would make it inequitable to grant relief; and (8) any other factors relevant to the justice of the judgment under attack. These factors are to be considered in the light of the great desirability of preserving the principle of the finality of judgments. 7 Fraud upon the court should, we believe, embrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication, and relief should be denied in the absence of such conduct. 16 7 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent decisions of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued before the close of business on September 30, 1981. 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). Hazel-Atlas illustrates the variety of fraud that supports a request for relief from judgment under Rule 60(d)(3). In that case, to support a pending patent application, \u201ccertain officials and attorneys of Hartford determined to have published in a trade journal an article signed by an ostensibly disinterested expert\u201d lauding the device for which Hartford sought a patent. Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 240. The article was published; the article was placed in the record before the Patent Office; and the Patent Office eventually granted the patent application. Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 240-41. 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/21 Several months after the Patent Office granted the application, Hartford sued Hazel-Atlas for patent infringement. Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 241. The district court found that Hazel-Atlas had not infringed on Hartford's patent, but the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, \u201cholding the patent valid and infringed.\u201d Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 241. In so doing, the Circuit Court of Appeals \u201c[q]out[ed] copiously from the article to show that labor organizations of practical workmen recognized the new and differentiating elements of the gob feeding patent owned by Hartford ....\u201d Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted). Hazel-Atlas did not file a petition for rehearing, and the Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case for the district court to enter a final judgment in favor of Hartford. Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 253. *17 17 Several years later, Hazel-Atlas \u201cpresented to the Circuit Court of Appeals its petition for leave to file in the District Court a bill of review\u201d based on false information in the trade journal article that Hartford submitted in support of its patent application. Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 253. The Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief, and Hazel-Atlas appealed to the Supreme Court. Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 252. The Supreme Court held that equity demanded relief for Hazel-Atlas. The Supreme Court stated: Every element of the fraud here disclosed demands the exercise of the historic power of equity to set aside fraudulently begotten judgments. This is not simply a case of a judgment obtained with the aid of a witness who, on the basis of after-discovered evidence, is believed possibly to have been guilty of perjury. Here, even if we consider nothing but Hartford's sworn admissions, we find a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only the Patent Office but the Circuit Court of Appeals. Furthermore, tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society. Surely it cannot be that preservation of the integrity of the 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/21 Id. at 245-46. judicial process must always wait upon the diligence of litigants. The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud. To establish fraud on the court in this case, Dr. Jones asserts that A&M's attorneys engaged in fraud when obtaining state search warrants and then defrauded *18 this Court in urging the Court to dismiss Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims. (Doc. 82, p. 11-12). Dr. Jones contends that \u201csearch warrants issued for the exclusive purpose of conducting a theft investigation\u201d of him were \u201crepurposed and used to conduct searches focused on investigating Dr. Jones'[s] personal life and other matters unrelated to theft.\u201d (Doc. 82, p. 3). Dr. Jones relies on evidence that demonstrates that between March 2016 and June 2016, A&M's General Counsel met with the university's investigation team \u201cto discuss and review new evidence,\u201d which \u201cincluded text messages from Dr. Jones['s] iPhone from 2011-2012,\u201d (Doc. 82-1, p. 11; Doc. 82, p. 4), but the \u201csearch warrants to retrieve Dr. Jones['s] text messages from his iPhones for the University's theft investigations were not obtained until July 12, 2016,\u201d (Doc. 82, p. 5). Additionally, Dr. Jones produced an affidavit from a former campus police officer who stated that in May 2015 personnel questioned him about his \u201cinteractions with Dr. Jones,\u201d (Doc. 82-2, p. 2, \u00b6 6), and that the meeting was attended by \u201can attorney for the University; and a second male attorney who stated he represented the University,\u201d (Doc. 82-2, p. 2, \u00b6 3). Based on this evidence, Dr. Jones argues that \u201cDefendants' counsels oversaw and perhaps even directed the misuse of warrants to obtain evidence for posttermination investigations unrelated to theft.\u201d (Doc. 82, p. 5). *19 18 8 19 8 According to Dr. Jones, the affiant \u201cindicated that the unidentified male attorney referenced in his affidavit . . . was likely someone from\u201d the private firm representing Alabama in this action. (Doc. 82, pp. 4-5). There is no statement to this effect from the affiant in the record. The evidence Dr. Jones offers to support his fraud on the court theory falls short for several reasons. First, Dr. Jones has not demonstrated that launched a bogus investigation into alleged theft by Dr. Jones as a ploy to 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/21 investigate Dr. Jones's sexual conduct. As Dr. Jones's evidence demonstrates, Officer Ruble submitted to a state court magistrate an affidavit to support a search warrant for Dr. Jones's cell phone to explore evidence of criminal conduct, including the crime of theft. (Doc. 82-4). Dr. Jones does not argue that the magistrate judge erred in finding probable cause to issue a search warrant, and Dr. Jones was convicted of the crime of theft. Thus, A&M's theft investigation was legitimate. Second, in his affidavit, Officer Ruble disclosed that the university's investigation into theft was linked to other investigations that began when the university \u201cplaced Dr. Jones on administrative leave in the Fall of 2015.\u201d (Doc. 824, pp. 4, 10). Officer Ruble disclosed to the state court magistrate that after placed Dr. Jones on administrative leave, the university secured his work computer and attached thumb drives and found on them \u201cimages of nude males\u201d that the university reported to its Department of Public Safety. (Doc. 82-4, pp. 4, 10). Officer Ruble provided several details about the university's investigation of the illicit images found on Dr. Jones's work computer equipment and explained that as a consequence of the forensic examination of the computer and thumb drives \u201calso learned of the possible theft of computers, Ipads, and misapplication and *20 money laundering of [A&M] funds through fraudulent channeling of university resources by Dr. Edward Jones.\u201d (Doc. 82-4, pp. 4, 10). Officer Ruble stated that he believed that data on Dr. Jones's iPhone would supply \u201crecords of theft of property, money laundering activities, and other crimes to include invasion of privacy ....\u201d (Doc. 82-4, pp. 6, 12). Thus disclosed to the state court magistrate that the university was investigating not only possible theft by Dr. Jones but also other potential criminal conduct. Given these disclosures in Officer Ruble's affidavit, Dr. Jones has not demonstrated that \u201ctamper[ed] with the administration of justice.\u201d Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 246. 20 Third, the Court, without prompting from the attorney for A&M, explored the status of Dr. Jones's criminal proceedings before deciding to dismiss Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims. At the outset of the February 13, 2017 motions hearing, the Court asked Mr. Jones's attorney: \u201cwhat is the status of any criminal proceedings related to Dr. Jones?\u201d (Doc. 78, p. 5). The Court also asked a series of questions about computer equipment that the 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 16/21 university took from Dr. Jones's office and that police obtained from Dr. Jones's house pursuant to a search warrant. (Doc. 78, pp. 6-12). Ultimately, the Court dismissed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims because the Court determined that Dr. Jones's arguments about \u201cevidence that was seized in violation of law\u201d was an evidentiary issue related to the state search warrant in Dr. Jones's criminal case that should be resolved in the criminal case. (Doc. 78, p. 39). *21 Again, had the Court not dismissed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims in February of 2017, the Court no doubt would have dismissed the claims two months later when the Court dismissed the balance of Dr. Jones's claims because his attorneys refused to comply with court orders. 21 Thus, because the criminal investigation into Dr. Jones's misappropriation of funds was legitimate and because the Court concluded, without prompting from the defendants' attorney, that the state criminal proceeding against Dr. Jones was the proper forum for him to challenge evidence obtained pursuant to the state search warrant, Dr. Jones has not established that dismissal of his Fourth Amendment claims was procured by fraud. In support of his contention that duped the Court into dismissing his Fourth Amendment claims, Dr. Jones cites A&M's attorney's representation during the February 13, 2017, hearing that Dr. Jones sought discovery as to the \u201cbox of documents . . . related to the theft of monies that were otherwise state funds that were collected by Dr. Jones under the guise believe, of student fees which actually formed the basis for the criminal charge which you heard about.\u201d (Doc. 82, pp. 1517) (internal quotation marks omitted). Dr. Jones asserts that when he obtained the \u201cbox of documents\u201d in discovery in his Title action, he discovered that the box \u201ccontains documents wholly divorced from any criminal theft investigation or the University's decision to terminate Dr. Jones on March 10, 2016.\u201d (Doc. 82, p. 3). *22 Based on A&M's attorneys' involvement in the termination investigation, Dr. Jones argues that counsel for the defendants knew what the \u201cbox of documents\u201d contained and deliberately misrepresented its contents to the Court. (Doc. 82, p. 3). 22 Even if the Court assumes that the \u201cbox of documents\u201d mentioned briefly during the February 13, 2017, hearing is the box produced to Dr. Jones 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 17/21 more than four years later, and even if the Court assumes that A&M's attorney at the February 13, 2017, hearing knew exactly which documents were contained in the box, this evidence is insufficient to establish fraud upon the Court for purposes of Rule 60(d)(3 lone statement made to the Court regarding a due process claim does not rise to the level of a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme that warrants upending a five-year old dismissal of Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims, especially when the Court did not consider the statement regarding the box in dismissing Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims. And even if the Court were to conclude that the defendants or their attorneys misled the Court, the Court would not automatically provide relief to Dr. Jones under Rule 60(d)(3). The Court would have to consider whether Dr. Jones's \u201cown negligence or oversight . . . contributed to the original judgment ....\u201d Booker v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281, 284 (11th Cir. 1987). If so, \u201can independent action for relief is not proper unless the evidence which would establish injustice is practically conclusive.\u201d Booker, 825 F.2d at 284 (internal quotation marks and citations *23 omitted). The Court also would have to consider Dr. Jones's transparency in this litigation. Neither consideration favors Dr. Jones. 23 Dr. Jones's refusal to participate in A&M's grievance process caused the Court to dismiss his \u00a7 1983 claims in April of 2017, and the dismissal order would have encompassed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment claims had the Court not already dismissed those claims on February 13, 2017. Moreover, Dr. Jones was not forthright in his submissions to the Court. In support of his request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Dr. Jones stated in a March 15, 2016, affidavit that he did not \u201chave any information about the basis for the charges\u201d the university had brought against him. (Doc. 9-1, p. 2, \u00b6 3). But that is not so. Dr. Jones's attorney filed with Dr. Jones's request for injunctive relief a January 14, 2016 \u201cIntent to Terminate\u201d letter addressed to Dr. Jones in which stated: \u201c[t]he cause for termination is gross professional misconduct. You are charged with both using University resources to view obscene materials and the production and/or creation of obscene materials. The behaviors which are the basis of these charges occurred on University property and during duty hours.\u201d (Doc. 10-1, p. 1). In a March 10, 2016, letter of termination informed 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 18/21 Dr. Jones that he was terminated immediately because \u201c[t]here is convincing evidence that you have engaged in sexual conduct below minimum standards of professional integrity and misused University computing/electronic assets in gross violation of well- *24 established University policy.\u201d (Doc. 10-4, p. 6). Dr. Jones's assertion in his affidavit that he did not \u201chave any information about the basis for the charges\u201d against him is disingenuous at best. Therefore, Dr. Jones is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(d)(3). 24 Rule 60(b)(6) is not a viable alternative for Dr. Jones. To revive his Fourth Amendment claims for damages, Dr. Jones could have appealed following the dismissal of this action in 2017, but he opted not to appeal. His nearly five-year delay in bringing his Rule 60(b)(6) motion counsels against relief because Dr. Jones could have raised the error in the Court's dismissal of his Fourth Amendment damages claims at any time; Dr. Jones did not need the information that he purportedly gained through discovery in his Title case to challenge the dismissal of is Fourth Amendment damages claims. Besides, Dr. Jones previously asked the Court to reconsider the dismissal of his claims in this action, and the Court denied his motion. (Docs. 69, 70, 75). In his most recent motion, Dr. Jones has offered a new twist on a previously- stated reason for relief, namely that the defendants still had not returned his personal property to him. (Doc. 70, pp. 13-14). But, as discussed, Dr. Jones's fraud theory is not persuasive. The Court erred when it dismissed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment damages claims with prejudice, and the Court regrets the error. On another record, the error might suffice to permit relief under Rule 60(b)(6), but here, Dr. Jones cannot escape *25 the fact that his litigation strategy ultimately is to blame for the dismissal of his claims in this action. Dr. Jones chose to include an inaccurate representation in his first affidavit in this case; he chose to refuse to follow court orders; and he chose not to appeal the dismissal of this case. Against the backdrop of the policy favoring the finality of judgments, the 60(b)(6) factors weigh against Dr. Jones's request for relief. 25 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 19/21 For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Dr. Jones's motion to vacate the judgment in this action. (Docs. 79, 82).9 9 For purposes of this opinion, the Court has not considered whether in his Title action, Dr. Jones may use as circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent alleged diversions from policy or flaws in the state criminal process for which the defendants purportedly are responsible. Those are questions for Dr. Jones's Title action and ORDERED. About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 20/21 Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/13/25, 10:54 Jones v. Hugine, 5:16-cv-00326 | Casetext Search + Citator 21/21", "7204_104.pdf": "Donald V. Watkins Oct 22, 2023 8 min read Sex, Lies, and a Coverup: The Highly Questionable Firing of Alabama Professor Edward L. Jones No ratings yet Part 1 Tangled Web of Lies and Deceit By: Donald V. Watkins Coryrighted and Published on October 22, 2023 IMAGE: Dr. Daniel K. Wims (left) and Dr. Edward L. Jones (right). An Editorial Opinion 2/13/25, 10:54 Sex, Lies, and a Coverup: The Highly Questionable Firing of Alabama Professor Edward L. Jones 1/6 Alabama University President Daniel K. Wims is caught up in a web of lies, deceit, and an ongoing coverup involving the highly questionable firing of former tenured professor Edward L. Jones. Wims was the university\u2019s provost in 2015 when he organized, orchestrated, and oversaw the eventual termination of Dr. Jones as a university program director. Today, he is the university\u2019s president. In October 2015, Dr.Wims placed Dr. Jones on administrative leave pending the resolution of unspecified administrative compliance issues. October 13, 2015, A&M's Chief Information Officer, accompanied by university police officer Brian Ruble and a locksmith, entered Jones\u2019 on-campus office to seize his computer and change the locks on his office. Dr. Jones' on-campus office computer never became a pertinent issue in his case. On January 14, 2016, Dr. Wims sent Dr. Jones a \"Intent to Terminate\" letter, which failed to provide Jones a pre- termination hearing. On February 24, 2016, Dr. Jones sued Alabama A&M, its board of trustees, president (Dr. Andrew Hugine), provost (Dr. Daniel Wims), and dean of the College of Education (Dr. Curtis Martin) in federal court (N.D. Ala., Case No. 5:16-CV-00326) to stop the university from firing him. Jones also included two Fourth Amendment claims regarding the unlawful search and seizure of his personal property. On March 16, 2016, Provost Wims sent Dr. Jones a termination letter that stated, \"There is convincing evidence that you have engaged in sexual conduct below minimum standards of professional integrity and misused university computing/electronic assets in gross violation of well-established university policy.\" Based upon Officer Ruble's search of Dr. Jones' on-campus office, the university also claimed that about 10 items of school property that were assigned to Dr. Jones' program were either stolen or missing. According to Wims, Jones' alleged sexual misconduct and misuse/theft of university property constituted grounds for his termination. The so-called \u201cconvincing evidence\u201d of sexual misconduct consisted of videos that were purportedly found on an old school laptop recovered at Jones' home after Alabama police officers executed a search warrant. Dr. Jones\u2019 personal cellphone was also seized from his home. Even though the laptop at Dr. Jones' home had an logo on it, the computer was broken and never contained pornographic images of any kind, according to Dr. Jones. In February 2017, the federal judge assigned to Jones's case dismissed his search and seizure claims, with prejudice. In a September 9, 2022, Order, the judge wrote that the Court \u201cerred when it dismissed Dr. Jones's Fourth Amendment damages claims with prejudice, and the Court regrets the error.\u201c Yet, the judge did not correct this error. The judge's denial of Jones\u2019 search and seizure claims is presently an issue on appeal in Jones\u2019 case. 2/13/25, 10:54 Sex, Lies, and a Coverup: The Highly Questionable Firing of Alabama Professor Edward L. Jones 2/6 Alabama opposed Dr. Jones' request for injunctive relief by submitting an affidavit from Officer Brian Ruble. In his affidavit, Ruble stated that he searched the residence of Jones and found a missing university laptop. Ruble said he seized this laptop and secured it during his investigation. Ruble also stated that he personally viewed three pornographic videos that were found on this laptop. According to Ruble's affidavit, one video depicted Dr. Jones masturbating and showing off his penis on Alabama property second video depicted Jones receiving oral sex from a young male on Alabama property. The third video depicted Jones receiving oral sex from another young male on Alabama property,\" according to Ruble. We have confirmed that Dr. Wims personally viewed these videos, as well. It is not clear why this video evidence was shared with Wims. We have also confirmed that the videos referenced by Officer Ruble were never downloaded onto the laptop prior to its seizure at Dr. Jones' home. If any pornographic images were extracted from this laptop, they were downloaded onto the device after it was taken into police custody by Officer Ruble. The university has never permitted Jones' legal team to access this laptop for the purpose of forensic testing. The federal judge refused to stop the university from firing Dr. Jones. However, she ordered Alabama to provide Jones a post-termination hearing. The university set a hearing date. Dr. Jones did not attend the hearing because the university would not provide his legal team with access to the laptop and his personal cellphone that were seized by Officer Ruble. On March 16, Dr. Wims fired Dr. Jones. After he was fired, Dr. Jones filed a second lawsuit in 2017 in the same federal court (Case No. 5:17-cv-01723). This lawsuit alleged that Alabama discriminated against Dr. Jones based upon his sexual orientation. It also alleged that Jones was fired after years of harassment and only when Jones attempted to bring to light certain administrative issues and concerns involving Dr. Wims. On March 10, 2021, the judge dismissed now-President Daniel Wims and the other individually named defendants from the case. She also confirmed her earlier dismissal of Jones\u2019 retaliation claim against the board of trustees. What Really Happened in the Edward Jones Case, and Why? We have independently investigated Edward Jones\u2019 legal claims and the university's defenses based upon the pertinent court filings by the parties, witness interviews, court orders, and forensic evidence. Part 1 of this series of investigative articles focuses on whether the university\u2019s allegation that Dr. Jones engaged in the theft or misused university property has any merit, or whether this allegation was a pretext for his firing. 2/13/25, 10:54 Sex, Lies, and a Coverup: The Highly Questionable Firing of Alabama Professor Edward L. Jones 3/6 Part 2 will focus on whether Alabama has subjected Dr. Jones to disparate treatment in firing him for sexual misconduct. The Search for Evidence Alabama A&M's allegation that Dr. Jones stole or misused of university property (i.e., a University-issued laptop) is predicated on lies, fraud, and a massive, ongoing, coverup by the university into what happened to Dr. Jones, and why. What is more, Dr. Wims appears to be directly implicated in the university's ongoing coverup of Officer Ruble's bungled search and seizure of electronic devices from Jones' home. Here are some of the university's faux pas, lies, and coverup in Dr. Jones' case. First, Officer Brian Ruble searched Dr. Jones\u2019 on-campus office in October 2015, without a search warrant and in apparent violation of standard operating procedure for the university's police department. Ruble was later rewarded for his work in Jones' case with a promotion to captain on the university\u2019s police force. Second, on February 12, 2016, Ruble led Dennis Gardner, Timothy Dawkins, and Captain Amard Martin (who was second in command at the university police department) on a search of Jones\u2019 off-campus home, car, and off- campus office for evidence of his sexual relationships Huntsville police officer (Julian Johnson) joined the university police officers' search of Dr. Jones\u2019 home. The Huntsville police officer left the premises about 15 minutes after the search began. In announcing his sudden departure, this officer said the search did not seem to be lawful. Third, after the search of Dr. Jones\u2019 home, car, and off-campus office was completed, Dr. Wims called Amard Martin to his office and told him, \u201cYou need to stay out of the Jones case.\u201d Martin took that as a threat. Shortly after Wims\u2019 threat, Martin was terminated as a captain on the university\u2019s police force. Fourth, Lt. Chris Coffey, the university police officer who often unlocked Dr. Jones's office when he worked on weekends, was promptly terminated at the conclusion of a meeting with Vice President for Student Affairs, Dr. Gary Crosby, officer Brian Ruble, and two university attorneys in May 2016. These officials appeared to be miffed with Coffey when his answers to their questions did not implicate Jones in any sexual improprieties. Even under duress, Coffey refused to provide false testimony on Jones. The university\u2019s police chief \u2013 Monica Ray \u2013 was unaware of this meeting. She, herself, was later removed from the chief's job for questioning Crosby's excess intrusion into the police department's day-to-day affairs. Fifth, officer Dennis Gardner participated in the search of Dr. Jones\u2019 home, car, and off-campus office. Gardner is listed as the author of certain police reports that Alabama produced to Jones\u2019 legal team in his federal court litigation. However, Gardner has testified, via an affidavit, that he did not write these police reports and they contained \u201cfalse or misleading statements.\u201d Gardner further testified that he never gave officer Ruble permission to use his name or credentials to prepare the false police reports in Edward Jones\u2019 case. Gardner concluded his 2/13/25, 10:54 Sex, Lies, and a Coverup: The Highly Questionable Firing of Alabama Professor Edward L. Jones 4/6 testimony by stating, \u201cit is my position that the subject police reports were forged [ ].\" Alabama fired officer Gardner when he refused to participate in a police coverup of Ruble\u2019s \"forged\" police reports in Dr. Jones\u2019 case. Sixth, Officer Ruble claimed that Dr. Jones stole about 10 items of university property that were assigned to his university program -- The Teacher Service Center. At the direction of President Andrew Hugine and Dean Curtis Martin, Ruble met with Talbert Cox, Alabama A&M\u2019s property manager, as part of his investigation. Cox took Ruble to the property room to see if they could locate the \u201cstolen\u201d items. Every item on Ruble\u2019s list was accounted for. None of the items was stolen or missing. Despite this exculpatory evidence in Jones' favor, Alabama persisted in claiming that Dr. Jones had stolen university property. Seventh, after denying Dr. Jones access to the two electronic devices Officer Ruble seized for more than seven years, Alabama finally turned over Jones\u2019 personal cell phone to him. This item of evidence had been tampered with after the seizure. Alabama failed to follow standard forensic procedures for preserving digital evidence. Specifically, Officer Ruble did not immediately place the iPhone in airplane mode. What is more, a forensics expert hired by Dr. Jones has found evidence of significant and illegal manipulation of the data. In particular, some 419 files were modified and/or deleted from the iPhone and 36 phone calls were deleted. Further, the iPhone's internal clock had been rolled back--an effort that was both intentional and purposeful. An independent digital forensics consultant for donaldwatkins.com reviewed the same cellphone extraction data and reached the same conclusion -- the data on Dr. Jones' phone had been manipulated after its seizure by Officer Ruble. Eighth, there is no credible evidence to support Alabama A&M's contention that pornographic images were downloaded onto the old Alabama A&M-issued laptop prior to the search of Dr. Jones' home. Furthermore, Dr. Jones had a legal right to possess this laptop until his termination on March 16, 2016 -- the date of his employment termination. The list of university lies and acts of deceit perpetrated by Alabama in Dr. Jones' case seems to be endless. What is more, the university successfully used these lies to achieve a strategic advantage in the first federal lawsuit Jones filed against the university, which the Court dismissed. Additionally, these lies were used to induce the Madison County District Attorney's Office to further punish Dr. Jones by indicting him on a theft of property felony charge on July 28, 2017. On September 24, 2018, Dr. Jones filed an \"Alford\" or \"Best Interests\" plea to a reduced misdemeanor charge and disposed of this criminal case by paying a $1,000 fine, only. No court costs were assessed against Dr. Jones and he made no restitution payment. The misdemeanor charge had nothing to do with the electronic devices Office Ruble seized during his searches of Dr. Jones' office, home, and car. This kind of disposition of a misdemeanor criminal case is equivalent to a nuisance value settlement of a civil lawsuit. Dr. Wims, who thrusted himself into the vortex of the Edward Jones case and threatened police Capt. Amard Martin, is one of the Alabama employees who benefitted from preferential treatment in the face of sexual misconduct allegations. During the presidential search in 2021, allegations of sexual misconduct against Dr. Wims involving three women and one man surfaced publicly. Wims denied the allegations. 2/13/25, 10:54 Sex, Lies, and a Coverup: The Highly Questionable Firing of Alabama Professor Edward L. Jones 5/6 The presidential search committee never independently investigated the sexual misconduct allegations against Dr. Wims. Likewise, there was no university police investigation, as was the case with Dr. Jones. Instead, outgoing president Andrew Hugine simply turned himself into a spontaneous character witness for Dr. Wims and declared him \"fit\" for the presidency. Thereafter, Alabama A&M\u2019s ceremonial board of trustees promoted Wims from provost to president. Alabama has been mired in controversy and scandal ever since Dr. Wims, a closet Republican who actually lives in Georgia, has been president. Part 2 -- Was Dr. Jones Subjected to Disparate Treatment? Part 2 of this series of articles will examine whether Alabama subjected Dr. Edward Jones to unlawful disparate treatment with respect to: (a) allegations of sexual misconduct, and (b) the unequal application of personnel policies that benefitted certain high ranking employees who faced allegations of sexual conduct with women and men on campus, who were allowed to continue in their jobs, and who received promotions, while Dr. Jones was fired. Stay tuned! 2/13/25, 10:54 Sex, Lies, and a Coverup: The Highly Questionable Firing of Alabama Professor Edward L. Jones 6/6"} |
7,301 | Kyle Christensen | Columbus State University | [
"7301_101.pdf"
] | {"7301_101.pdf": "by: wrblkristinaprivette Posted: May 11, 2016 / 01:46 Updated: May 11, 2016 / 01:46 COLUMBUS, Ga spokesperson from Columbus State University says an assistant professor has resigned after he was accused of sexually harassing one of his female students. University spokesman John Lester says the school has dropped the case against Dr. Kyle Christensen following his resignation. The young woman\u2019s father filed the sexual harassment report with police back in December assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 46 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 1/22 \u201cWe\u2019ve been in constant contact with the young woman involved in this incident. Obliviously that is one of our primary concerns and we will contact her again now that there\u2019s some additional attention coming out of this,\u201d Lester says when asked about the alleged victim. \u201cShe\u2019s known what\u2019s happened along every step of the way\u201d News 3 first reported this incident on March 9. It was the following day that Christensen was placed on administrative leave. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. 10 Presidents Day small appliance deals you shouldn\u2019t / 10 Hours Ago Presidents Day is almost here, which means retailers are rolling out markdowns on everything from coffee makers to countertop ice machines > Next > Cancel \u2715 Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 2/22 The best smart deals this week / 11 Hours Ago This week, multiple retailers have great deals on smart TVs, each packed with streaming capabilities and advanced features. Culturelle vs. Align: Which is the best probiotic > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 3/22 / 11 Hours Ago Probiotics are excellent for introducing good bacteria into your digestive system. Culturelle and Align are both popular probiotic brands. View All BestReviews Valentine\u2019s Day Forecast; Weather Aware Sunday Endangered salamanders re- introduced into the wild \u2026 Vause faces Drexel family\u2019s wrath at sentencing > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 4/22 Top Stories Judge orders Trump administration to temporarily crackdown on substandard homes leaves low-income \u2026 Stock market today: Asian stocks mostly up Friday \u2026 Heavy rain pummels slide-prone Southern California \u2026 Plane carrying Secretary of State Rubio to Europe \u2026 Armed fighters have raped scores of children in eastern \u2026 Senate panel advances nomination of Kash Patel, Trump\u2019s \u2026 Would-be school shooter had collage of killers: Docs More Stories Freshman Georgia Congressman on Subcommittee, \u2026 Green Berets to train Mexican forces > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 5/22 NASA\u2019s new Mars rover hits dusty red road, 1st trip \u2026 News 4 years ago Beyond the Moon: 50 Years to the Future Beyond the Moon 6 years ago Beyond the Moon: Living Legend Beyond the Moon 6 years ago Beyond the Moon: From the Moon to Mars Beyond the Moon 6 years ago Beyond the Moon: Singularity Beyond the Moon 6 years ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 6/22 D-Day: Woman travels to Georgia to learn about \u2026 Remembering D-Day 8 months ago Eighty Years: Remembering D-Day Remembering D-Day 8 months ago Watch: National D-Day Memorial 80th anniversary Remembering D-Day 8 months ago Faces of D-Day: Remembering Pvt. Matthew Spitz D-Day Anniversary 8 months ago Remembering D-Day: The role of tankers on D-Day and \u2026 News 8 months ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 7/22 Kendrick Brothers release documentary on fatherhood News 3 years ago to rescue of local film \u201cMy Brother\u2019s Keeper\u201d Local News 4 years ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 8/22 The faith factor when filming during a pandemic Local News 5 years ago Faith-Based Movie: \u201cThe Inheritance\u201d wraps-up in \u2026 Top Stories 5 years ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 9/22 Faith and Film in the Fountain City Faith and Film in the Fountain City 5 years ago Faith and Film: The River City Faith and Film in the Fountain City 5 years ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 10/22 View All Faith and Film in the Fountain City Faith and Film: The Power of Prayer Faith and Film in the Fountain City 5 years ago National Signing Day 2025 Sports 1 week ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 11/22 Pacelli\u2019s Dwight Jones to retire at the end of 2024-2025 \u2026 PrepZone 1 month ago The News 3 PrepZone Week 15: Georgia and Alabama \u2026 PrepZone 3 months ago The News 3 PrepZone week 14: Alabama high school \u2026 PrepZone 3 months ago The News 3 PrepZone week 14: Georgia high school \u2026 PrepZone 3 months ago Jay and Susie Gogue Performing Arts Center announces \u2026 Local News 3 years ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 12/22 Auburn\u2019s Gogue Center announces fall 2021 lineup: \u2026 Gogue Performing Arts Center 4 years ago Gogue Center partners with Kennedy Center, presents \u2026 Gogue Performing Arts Center 5 years ago The Gogue Center for Performing Arts gives a sneak \u2026 Gogue Performing Arts Center 5 years ago Gogue Performing Arts Center at Auburn University \u2026 Gogue Performing Arts Center 5 years ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 13/22 Valentine\u2019s Day Forecast; Weather Aware Sunday 7 Day Forecast 6 hours ago Storms move out; becoming more seasonal 7 Day Forecast 12 hours ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 14/22 LIVE: Tracking severe thunderstorms near Columbus 7 Day Forecast 19 hours ago AWARE: Potential for stronger storms to arrive \u2026 7 Day Forecast 1 day ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 15/22 First Round of storms prompts Weather Aware Wednesday, \u2026 Weather 2 days ago Active weather pattern to give us severe rounds of \u2026 7 Day Forecast 2 days ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 16/22 View All 7 Day Forecast Weather Aware: Active Tuesday late thru Thursday \u2026 Weather 2 days ago Tracking a mild but unsettled week 7 Day Forecast 3 days ago > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 17/22 Video More Videos Current 46\u00b0 Clear Tonight 37\u00b0 Clear Tomorrow 65\u00b0 Sunny > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 18/22 Precip: 1% Precip: 2 3 Current 46\u00b0 Clear Tonight 37\u00b0 Clear Precip: 1% Tomorrow 65\u00b0 Sunny Precip: 2 10 Presidents Day small appliance deals you shouldn\u2019t \u2026 Holiday 10 hours ago Best Buy Presidents Day Sale: Apple, Samsung, Dyson \u2026 Holiday 12 hours ago Score Presidents Day deals right now on Amazon Holiday 3 days ago Best Valentine\u2019s Day gifts under $100 Holiday 6 days ago The best early Presidents Day deals to shop now Holiday 2 days ago Walmart\u2019s \u2018Flash Deals\u2019 are filled with hidden gems \u2026 Holiday 1 week ago View All BestReviews Picks > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 19/22 News 3 On Your Side Public File Inquiries Equal Employment Opportunity Endangered salamanders re-introduced into the wild \u2026 Vause faces Drexel family\u2019s wrath at sentencing Freshman Georgia Congressman on Subcommittee, \u2026 Green Berets to train Mexican forces Valentine\u2019s Day Forecast; Weather Aware Sunday > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 20/22 Closed Captioning for Children\u2019s Programming Children\u2019s Report Advertise With Us Public File Inquiries Equal Employment Opportunity Closed Captioning for Children\u2019s Programming Children\u2019s Report Advertise With Us Get News App Get Weather App Stay Connected Privacy Policy 11/18/2024 Terms Of Use Applications Public File Assistance Contact The Hill NewsNation BestReviews Content Licensing Nexstar Digital > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 21/22 Journalistic Integrity Sitemap Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information \u00a9 1998 - 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved > Next > Next story in > 2/13/25, 10:54 assistant professor resigns amid sexual harassment allegation 22/22"} |
8,282 | Rich Rodriguez | University of Arizona | [
"8282_101.pdf",
"8282_102.pdf",
"8282_103.pdf",
"8282_104.pdf",
"8282_105.pdf",
"8282_106.pdf",
"8282_107.pdf",
"8282_108.pdf",
"8282_109.pdf"
] | {"8282_101.pdf": "U. of Arizona Fires Football Coach Amid Sexual- Harassment Claim \u201cTitle doesn\u2019t exist in our office.\u201d Published Jan. 3 2018 7:01AM The University of Arizona fired head football coach Rich Rodriguez late Tuesday, days after the filing of a $7.5 million notice of claim BOOK\u201d Reuters 2/13/25, 10:55 U. of Arizona Fires Football Coach Amid Sexual-Harassment Claim 1/4 with the state attorney general that alleges the coach sexually harassed a former employee and ran a hostile work environment. Parts of the claim, obtained by the Arizona Daily Star, portray a culture in which secrecy was valued above all else. In it, the former employee alleges the existence of an internal guide called a \u201chideaway book\u201d that detailed advice, including \u201cTitle doesn't exist in our office,\u201d as well as a \u201cTriangle of Secrecy\u201d that involved assistant coaches who helped to cover up Rodriguez\u2019s extramarital affair. Rodriguez, who said he was fired by email, acknowledged the affair but denies the harassment allegations am not a perfect man,\u201d he wrote on Twitter, \u201cbut the claims by my former assistant are simply not true and her demands for a financial settlement are outrageous.\u201d University President Robert C. Robbins and Athletic Director Dave Heeke said late Tuesday: \u201cWhile this is a difficult decision, it is the right decision.\u201d Read it at Arizona Daily Star Can\u2019t get enough of the Beast? Unlock unrestricted access to our reporting with a paid subscription. Subscribe Now Trending Now 2/13/25, 10:55 U. of Arizona Fires Football Coach Amid Sexual-Harassment Claim 2/4 Laughing Kremlin Insiders Say Trump Has Given Putin Greenlight to Expand the War Julia Davis \u2018Does He Understand Money?\u2019: Rupert Murdoch\u2019s Wall Street Journal Slams Donald Trump\u2019s Intellect Conrad Quilty-Harper Don Jr. Includes Zuckerberg on His Wall of Shame Even After His Transformation Liam Archacki Reporters Laugh as Trump Lambasts Star Kaitlan Collins to Her Face Nandika Chatterjee Therabody\u2019s Massive Cyber Week Sale Is Full of Discounted Gift Ideas Thomas Price 2/13/25, 10:55 U. of Arizona Fires Football Coach Amid Sexual-Harassment Claim 3/4 \u00a9 2024 The Daily Beast Company 2/13/25, 10:55 U. of Arizona Fires Football Coach Amid Sexual-Harassment Claim 4/4", "8282_102.pdf": "Harassment suit against Rodriguez dismissed 3y - Adam Rittenberg The Arch Manning takeover, Carson Beck in Miami: Everything we're excited for in 2025 17h Sources: Ex coach Patricia to be OSU's 1d - Pete Thamel LSU, Kelly land in-state 4-star Martinez 7h - Eli Lederman Former football players sue over 'Last Chance U' 6h football player found dead in apartment 1d Ex-Buckeyes coach Tressel now Ohio lt. governor 1d great White to join Rodriguez's staff 1d - Jake Trotter Buffalo rewards Lembo with raise, extension 3d - Pete Thamel Source to hire Brian Belichick as assistant 5d How Texas Tech built a portal class so good Notre Dame tried to poach the 3d - Max Olson Way-Too-Early All-America team: Who will be the best at every position in 2025? 11d - Chris Low 'Belichick has put the state on notice': Wh t it' lik b i it d b th Share lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and a hostile workplace environment against former Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez and the university was dismissed earlier this month, with Adam Rittenberg Oct 28, 2021, 06:37 Lawsuit alleging sexual harassment against former football coach Rich Rodriguez, University of Arizona dismissed 2/13/25, 10:55 Lawsuit alleging sexual harassment against former football coach Rich Rodriguez, University of Arizona dismissed 1/3 both sides only paying their own costs and attorneys' fees. The stipulated dismissal ends four years of legal issues involving Rodriguez, the university and a former administrative assistant, who first made allegations in 2017 U.S. district judge approved the dismissal, which came after the university last month filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal based on a late filing. The dismissal does not include a settlement agreement or a nondisclosure agreement, and neither Rodriguez nor the university paid the former assistant to settle the case. \"This brings closure to a 4-year saga, affirming what we have maintained from the beginning -- that the plaintiff fabricated claims of harassment in an attempt to exact a large financial settlement,\" Bennett Speyer, Rodriguez's attorney, said in a statement to ESPN. \"The scheme failed. She did not receive a single cent from my client or UA. Unfortunately, Coach Rodriguez paid a steep reputational price as the subject of publicized false allegations. As an added cost, his wife, Rita, and their children, as well as former staff members and players, were unnecessarily harmed.\" In July 2019, Rodriguez's former assistant filed a federal lawsuit against Rich Rodriguez, Rita Rodriguez and the university, alleging violation of due process, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. According to Rodriguez's attorneys, the former assistant didn't attempt to serve the lawsuit until Oct. 28, 2019, and dropped Rich and Rita Rodriguez from the lawsuit on Nov. 25, 2019, while continuing against the university Louisiana-Monroe names Rich Rodriguez new 4y \u2022 Adam Rittenberg does not typically identify people who report acts of sexual assault or harassment. The dismissal occurred because Rodriguez's former assistant did not file her civil rights complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the 300-day deadline from the time of the alleged harassment, instead filing 343 days later. She initially filed a $7.5 million notice of claim with the Arizona attorney general's office on Dec. 28, 2017, alleging that Rodriguez ran a hostile workplace. The assistant alleged that Rodriguez forced her to keep his extramarital affair with a woman not affiliated with the university a secret and that he had groped and attempted to kiss her. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/13/25, 10:55 Lawsuit alleging sexual harassment against former football coach Rich Rodriguez, University of Arizona dismissed 2/3 The University of Arizona investigated the allegations throughout the fall of 2017 and could not substantiate them, but became aware of information that caused administrators to \"be concerned with the direction and climate of the football program.\" Rodriguez was fired Jan. 2, 2018, after going 43-35 in six seasons at the school. Rodriguez admitted to having the affair but denied all other allegations and said the former assistant had threatened a $7.5 million lawsuit against him. The former assistant, who did not participate with the university's investigation into Rodriguez, filed an $8.5 million notice of claim against the university on Jan. 18, 2018, alleging that the school was liable for Rodriguez's conduct. In a statement to ESPN, Arizona said: \"The University has consistently maintained that this lawsuit lacked merit. We are extremely pleased that [Rodriguez's former assistant] apparently has reached a similar conclusion and has voluntarily dismissed her complaint without any settlement agreement or payment being made between the parties.\" Rodriguez did not coach in 2018 but returned to the sideline in 2019 as offensive coordinator at Ole Miss. He's now in his first season as offensive coordinator at Louisiana- Monroe, where his son, Rhett, plays quarterback after transferring there from Arizona. Before coming to Arizona, Rodriguez spent three years as Michigan's coach and seven seasons leading West Virginia, his alma mater, where he finished No. 5 nationally in 2005 and went 32-5 between 2005 and 2007. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/13/25, 10:55 Lawsuit alleging sexual harassment against former football coach Rich Rodriguez, University of Arizona dismissed 3/3", "8282_103.pdf": "Rich Rodriguez is out as football coach at the University of Arizona. Photograph: Chris Coduto/Getty Images College football This article is more than 7 years old Arizona fires Rich Rodriguez after investigation into sexual harassment Tucson school fires coach after ex-employee threatens $7.5m suit Notice of claim alleges 54-year-old Rodriguez ran a hostile workplace Rodriguez finishes with a 43-39 record in six seasons at Arizona Associated Press Wed 3 Jan 2018 07.10 claim filed by the former assistant to fired Arizona football coach Rich Rodriguez says he required her to cover up for his extramarital affair with another woman. 2/13/25, 10:55 Arizona fires Rich Rodriguez after investigation into sexual harassment | College football | The Guardian 1/6 She also alleged he sexually harassed her. The claim filed by an attorney for the former assistant and her husband was released Wednesday by the Arizona attorney general\u2019s office. Lawyer Augustine Jimenez is seeking a $7.5m settlement, saying in the claim that jurors who considered a lawsuit against a coach who misused his power could award tens of millions of dollars \u201cin this current climate where #MeToo is in the headlines.\u201d Arizona fired Rodriguez on Tuesday. The university said it could not substantiate the woman\u2019s claims but found other troubling issues. Rodriguez denied her allegations but acknowledged he had an affair. The Arizona Daily Star revealed the notice of the claim on Tuesday after making a public-records request notice of claim is a legal document that signals a lawsuit will be filed. The Daily Star reported that the notice was filed after the University\u2019s Office of Institutional Equity retained outside counsel to investigate allegations of sexual harassment from a former employee. The investigation, which concluded last week, did not find enough to fire Rodriguez, but the university became concerned with the \u201cclimate and direction\u201d of the program. Rodriguez issued a statement after he was fired, saying he cooperated with the investigation and passed a voluntary polygraph test, noting the complainant did not cooperate with the investigation. Rodriguez also acknowledged the extramarital affair, saying he apologized to his wife and family and is working to regain their trust am not a perfect man, but the claims by my former assistant are simply not true and her demands for a financial settlement are outrageous,\u201d Rodriguez said am saddened that these accusations and investigation have caused my family additional stress.\u201d Arizona athletic director Dave Heeke announced Rodriguez\u2019s firing in a statement issued by the school and said the separation terms of his contract will be honored. \u201cAfter conducting a thorough evaluation of our football program and its leadership, both on and off the field, President Robbins and feel it is in the best interest of the University of Arizona and our athletics department to go 2/13/25, 10:55 Arizona fires Rich Rodriguez after investigation into sexual harassment | College football | The Guardian 2/6 in a new direction,\u201d Heeke said. \u201cWe\u2019ll move through the coaching search in an effort to identify a head coach that will build a solid foundation for our program and create an identity of Arizona football that the university, Tucson and southern Arizona communities can be proud of. We\u2019re excited about the future of our football program and we look forward to introducing our new head coach at the completion of the search process.\u201d Rodriguez arrived in Tucson after an ugly split with Michigan, where he coached for three seasons. He had an immediate impact on the Wildcats, leading them to four straight bowl games. Arizona took a step back last season, losing eight straight games while finishing 3-9. The Wildcats were one of college football\u2019s more surprising teams this season after opening 6-2. They fell flat after that, losing four of their final five, including a 38-35 setback against Purdue in the Holiday Bowl. Rodriguez was 43-39 in six seasons at Arizona. In August, Creative Artists Agency, which represented him until 2015, sued Rodriguez on claims he owed it more than $230,000 in past-due fees. 2/13/25, 10:55 Arizona fires Rich Rodriguez after investigation into sexual harassment | College football | The Guardian 3/6 Most viewed 2/13/25, 10:55 Arizona fires Rich Rodriguez after investigation into sexual harassment | College football | The Guardian 4/6 2/13/25, 10:55 Arizona fires Rich Rodriguez after investigation into sexual harassment | College football | The Guardian 5/6 2/13/25, 10:55 Arizona fires Rich Rodriguez after investigation into sexual harassment | College football | The Guardian 6/6", "8282_104.pdf": "Court Filing Details Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Rich Rodriguez Rodriguez is accused of forcing his assistant to cover up his extramarital affair and making sexual advances. The day after Arizona football coach Rich Rodriguez was fired, details of the impending sexual harassment lawsuit against him have surfaced. In a notice of claim filed last week by a lawyer for Rodriguez\u2019s former assistant and published Wednesday by the Arizona Daily Dan Gartland | Jan 3, 2018 Court Filing Details Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Rich Rodriguez / 2/13/25, 10:56 Rich Rodriguez: Sexual harassment allegations against Arizona coach - Sports Illustrated 1/4 Star, Rodriguez is accused of sexual harrassment, forcing his assistant to cover up his extramarital affair and making unwanted sexual advances. In the filing, the assistant, Melissa Wilhelmsen, claims that she and two football staffers formed a group they dubbed the \u201cTriangle of Secrecy\u201d and \u201cwere forced to lie to Rodriguez\u2019s wife to help cover up his indiscretions\u2014primarily his extramarital affair.\u201d (Rodriguez admitted to having an affair in a statement released Tuesday night after his dismissal.) On one occasion, Wilhelmsen says she was asked to obtain a sideline pass for Rodriguez\u2019s girlfriend and then \u201chad to stand between [Rodriguez\u2019s wife and girlfriend] hoping to avoid a confrontation.\u201d Another situation where Wilhelmsen covered for Rodriguez was when she received a voicemail from someone at a Tuscon spa alleging Rodriguez had made sexual advances toward a masseuse there. Wilhelmsen did not inform anyone at the university about the voicemail. Wilhelmsen also makes several allegations of inappropriate sexual remarks by Rodriguez, including the coach telling her that \u201chis preferred style of underwear \u2018visually enhanced\u2019 his genitalia.\u201d Rodriguez would also create situations where Wilhelmsen would see him shirtless, she alleges. In November 2016, \u201cRodriguez noticeably began timing his workouts so he could walk back to his office shirtless in front of Melissa.\u201d On another occasion, Rodriguez asked Wilhelmsen to stay in his office with his dog while he showered but she \u201ctook the dog on a long walk to avoid interaction with Rodriguez and to avoid seeing him naked.\u201d Wilhelmsen said she would also catch Rodriguez \u201cconstantly glaring at her thighs.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:56 Rich Rodriguez: Sexual harassment allegations against Arizona coach - Sports Illustrated 2/4 Additionally, Wilhelmsen accuses Rodriguez of \"grasping his penis beneath his basketball shorts\" while they spoke after he invited her into his office. She claims Rodriguez, after calling her into his office and discussing marital problems with her, tried to kiss her and touch her breast. The school said Tuesday that it had investigated sexual harassment claims against Rodriguez in October but could find no wrongdoing am not a perfect man, but the claims by my former assistant are simply not true and her demands for a financial settlement are outrageous,\u201d Rodriguez said in a statement Tuesday night am saddened that these accusations and investigation have caused my family additional stress.\u201d Published Jan 3, 2018 Dan Gartland is the writer and editor of Sports Illustrated\u2019s flagship daily newsletter, SI:AM, covering everything an educated sports fan needs\u2026 Follow Dan_Gartland Home / College Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Takedown Policy Terms and Conditions Accessibility Statement Sitemap Index Cookie Preferences 2/13/25, 10:56 Rich Rodriguez: Sexual harassment allegations against Arizona coach - Sports Illustrated 3/4 \u00a9 2025 LLC. - All Rights Reserved. The content on this site is for entertainment and educational purposes only. Betting and gambling content is intended for individuals 21+ and is based on individual commentators' opinions and not that of Sports Illustrated or its affiliates, licensees and related brands. All picks and predictions are suggestions only and not a guarantee of success or profit. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER. 2/13/25, 10:56 Rich Rodriguez: Sexual harassment allegations against Arizona coach - Sports Illustrated 4/4", "8282_105.pdf": "against-ua-by-richrods-former-office-assistant/article_92176d0e-2de2-11ec-9b09-ebfa06636340.html Federal judge dismisses sexual harassment lawsuit filed against by RichRod's former office assistant Caitlin Schmidt Oct 15, 2021 Caitlin Schmidt Rich Rodriguez\u2019s former office assistant Melissa Melendez filed a federal lawsuit against the former coach and the university in 2019. Rodriguez was removed from the suit four months later; earlier this month, a federal judge agreed to dismiss the case. Mamta Popat, Arizona Daily Star 2/13/25, 10:56 Federal judge dismisses sexual harassment lawsuit filed against by RichRod's former office assistant 1/4 1 2 3 4 5 federal judge has dismissed a 2019 lawsuit filed against the University of Arizona by ex-football coach Rich Rodriguez's former office assistant, with both parties paying their own costs and attorneys' fees. Melissa Melendez sued Rodriguez and the in federal court in July 2019, alleging violation of due process, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, after her previous state-level claims against the and Rodriguez and went unanswered. Rodriguez was removed from the federal suit four months after her filing. The case was active until Sept. 21, when lawyers for the University of Arizona filed a motion for summary judgement, asking U.S. District Judge Scott Rash to to make a ruling in the UA's favor without taking the case to trial. On Oct. 4, Melendez's lawyer, Stephanie Leach, filed a document saying Melendez and the agreed that the suit should be dismissed without the option to refile. Rash signed off on the dismissal the next day. Beaten up in Lubbock, Arizona Wildcats flip script at McKale with 82-73 win over Texas Tech Republicans seeking to unseat Arizona Gov. Hobbs grows to 2 We're hosting a market with 100 makers, food trucks, live music, tattoos + more \u2764\ufe0f Tim Steller's column: Intersex Tucsonan defends Marana teacher suspended over lesson 6 Oils to Try for Relaxation The pair of motions ends nearly four years of legal grappling involving Melendez, Rodriguez \u2014 who was fired in January 2018 \u2014 and the UA. People are also reading\u2026 2/13/25, 10:56 Federal judge dismisses sexual harassment lawsuit filed against by RichRod's former office assistant 2/4 On December 28, 2017, Melendez filed a notice of claim \u2014 advance notice of intent to sue a public body \u2014 with the Arizona Attorney General's Office, asking for $7.5 million in damages. On January 18, 2018, Melendez filed an additional $8.5 million notice of claim against the UA, saying the school was liable for his conduct. Melendez filed both claims under her married name, Wilhelmsen, but has since divorced, Pima County Superior Court records show. The federal lawsuit, filed July 24, 2019, sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, back and front pay, attorney's fees and interest at the maximum rate allowed, according to court documents. Melendez then removed Rodriguez from the suit, directing her claims solely at the and its governing body, the Arizona Board of Regents, court records show. The new lawsuit accused the of violating Melendez's due process, sexual harassment and retaliation. The lawsuit said that Melendez was forced to hide Rodriguez's longtime relationship with a mistress, and that he eventually began sexually harassing Melendez. Melendez said she told one other football department employee about the behavior and requested a transfer to another department, but left for a job with a local insurance agency in August 2017. Rodriguez admitted to the affair but denied the other allegations. In their summary judgment filing, UA's lawyers said Melendez's case against the should be dismissed for the following reasons: Melendez did not file a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission until after the deadline to file had passed. Discrimination charges must be filed within 300 calendar days from the date the alleged discrimination takes place if the person works for a state or local agency that prohibits discrimination. Melendez didn't file her charge until more than 343 days after the events in her lawsuit occurred. 2/13/25, 10:56 Federal judge dismisses sexual harassment lawsuit filed against by RichRod's former office assistant 3/4 The had an anti-harassment policy in place, but Melendez failed to take advantage of corrective opportunities. Melendez testified that she took an online anti-harassment quiz every year and knew how to contact both human resources and the Office of Institutional Equity, but never made a complaint against Rodriguez. Melendez failed to cooperate with the UA's effort to investigate her allegations after she left her job. In October 2017, a staffer informed the Office of Institutional Equity that a donor had reported a conversation with Melendez in which she said Rodriguez \"engaged in inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature towards her.\" This was the first time the was made aware that Melendez had any concerns. The department's deputy director met with Melendez the same day she received the information, and despite Melendez's assurances that she'd provide additional documents supporting her claims against Rodriguez, she failed to respond to requests for the information. The hired a team of outside investigators to investigate the claims, but Melendez failed to cooperate or participate in the investigation, which ultimately cleared Rodriguez of any wrongdoing. Melendez ended up making more money at her next job than she did while working for the UA, but was fired from her new job after failing to pass her insurance license test three times. Lawyers for the also said Melendez's claim \"fails as a matter of law,\" among other reasons, in their request for summary judgment. Rodriguez, 58, took the 2018 football season off before spending 2019 as Ole Miss' offensive coordinator. He returned to the sidelines this fall, where he is the offensive coordinator at Louisiana-Monroe. His son Rhett, a former Catalina Foothills High School star who played at the UA, is a quarterback on Monroe's roster. Contact Star reporter Caitlin Schmidt at 573-4191 or [email protected]. On Twitter: @caitlincschmidt By Caitlin Schmidt 2/13/25, 10:56 Federal judge dismisses sexual harassment lawsuit filed against by RichRod's former office assistant 4/4", "8282_106.pdf": ". Arizona football coach Rich Rodriguez fired amid sexual harassment claim January 3, 2018 / 3:46 Arizona has fired football coach Rich Rodriguez after a notice of claim was filed with the state attorney general's office alleging he ran a hostile workplace. The Arizona Daily Star revealed the notice of claim on Tuesday after making a public-records request. The paper said the claim was filed last Thursday by a former employee notice of claim is a legal document that signals a lawsuit will be filed. U.S. World Politics HealthWatch MoneyWatch Entertainment Crime Sports Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/13/25, 10:56 Arizona Wildcats football coach Rich Rodriguez fired amid sexual harassment claim News 1/4 The Daily Star reported that the notice was filed after the University's Office of Institutional Equity retained outside counsel to investigate allegations of sexual harassment from a former employee. The school issued a statement saying the investigation of the sexual harassment claim, which concluded last week, didn't find enough to fire Rodriguez, but the university became concerned with the \"climate and direction\" of the program. Rodriguez issued a statement after he was fired saying the investigation concerned a former administrative assistant who threated a $7.5 million lawsuit alleging harassment. Rodriguez said he cooperated with the investigation and passed a voluntary polygraph test, noting the complainant did not cooperate with the investigation. Rodriguez also acknowledged an extramarital affair with a woman not affiliated with the university, saying he apologized to his wife and family. and is working to regain their trust am not a perfect man, but the claims by my former assistant are simply not true and her demands for a financial settlement are outrageous,\" Rodriguez said am saddened that these accusations and investigation have caused my family additional stress.\" Arizona Athletic Director Dave Heeke announced Rodriguez's firing in a statement issued by the school and said the separation terms of his contract will be honored reports the payout will be more than $5 million. \"After conducting a thorough evaluation of our football program and its leadership, both on and off the field, President Robbins and feel it is in the best interest of the University of Arizona and our athletics department to go in a new direction,\" Heeke said. \"We'll move through the coaching search in an effort to identify a head coach that will build a solid foundation for our program and create an identity of Arizona football that the university, Tucson and southern Arizona communities can be proud of. We're excited about the future of our Watch News Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/13/25, 10:56 Arizona Wildcats football coach Rich Rodriguez fired amid sexual harassment claim News 2/4 \u00a9 2018 Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. football program and we look forward to introducing our new head coach at the completion of the search process.\" Rodriguez arrived in Tucson after an ugly split with Michigan, where he coached for three seasons. He had an immediate impact on the Wildcats, leading them to four straight bowl games. Arizona took a step back last season, losing eight straight games while finishing 3- 9. The Wildcats were one of college football's more surprising teams this season after opening 6-2. They fell flat after that, losing four of their final five, including a 38-35 setback against Purdue in the Holiday Bowl. Rodriguez was 43-39 in six seasons at Arizona. In August, Creative Artists Agency, which represented him until 2015, sued Rodriguez, claiming he owed it more than $230,000 in past-due fees. Sexual Misconduct Conor McGregor accuser found \"very bruised\" after alleged rape, medic says Associate of Frenchman in mass rape trial admits copycat abuse of own wife Sexual harassment at work is as common today for women as 5 years ago Big names in south India movie industry face sexual assault allegations More Watch News Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/13/25, 10:56 Arizona Wildcats football coach Rich Rodriguez fired amid sexual harassment claim News 3/4 Copyright \u00a92025 Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy Cookie Details Terms of Use About Advertise Closed Captioning News Store Site Map Contact Us Help Watch News 2/13/25, 10:56 Arizona Wildcats football coach Rich Rodriguez fired amid sexual harassment claim News 4/4", "8282_107.pdf": "Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez It outlines the allegations of sexual harassment and the creation of a hostile workplace. Rodriguez has denied them. By Ryan Kelapire @RKelapire Jan 3, 2018, 2:57pm The Arizona Wildcats fired head coach Rich Rodriguez on Tuesday after former administrative assistant Melissa Wilhelmsen filed a multi-million-dollar claim on Dec. 28, accusing Rodriguez of sexual harassment and the creation of a hostile workplace. The claim calls for a $7.5 million lawsuit. Rodriguez has denied the allegations (though he did admit to having an extramarital affair) and said the demands for a financial settlement are \u201coutrageous.\u201d The entire claim, which outlines all the allegations, can be read below or you can click the link to the here. December 28, 2017 The Honorable Mark Brnovich Arizona Attorney General State of Arizona 1275 W. Washington St. Phoenix 85007 300 an Arizona Wildcats community 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 1/12 Re: A.R.S. \u00a712-821.01 - Notice of Claims Melissa & Jason R. Wilhelmsen v. Richard A. Rodriguez, his wife and their marital community Dear Attorney General Brnovich: INTRODUCTION: Pursuant to A.R.S. \u00a712-821.01 Melissa Wilhelmsen (\u201cMelissa\u201d) and her husband Jason R. Wilhelmsen (\u201cJason\u201d) hereby provide notice to the State of Arizona of their claims against State employee, and University of Arizona Head Football Coach, Richard Rodriguez (\u201cRodriguez\u201d) for his sexual harassment of Mrs. Wilhelmsen, as well as the hostile work environment created and fostered by Rodriguez. FACTS: Melissa began her career at the University of Arizona in July of 2001 as an Accounting Associate in the Athletic Department. She briefly left to try a career in real estate but returned in August of 2007 to serve as Assistant to Eric Harper the Director of Football Operations. By all accounts Melissa was extremely well liked and worked tirelessly to ensure that football operations were effective, timely and organized. Melissa will testify that sexual harassment was not tolerated under then-Head Football Coach Mike Stoops and that his attitude of zero tolerance permeated throughout the football program. Coach Stoops was terminated in October of 2011 and the University hired Rodriguez soon thereafter. On the strong recommendation of Coach Stoops, Rodriguez retained Melissa to serve as his assistant. Melissa was eager to prove herself worthy of Coach Stoops\u2019 recommendation, so she redoubled her already tireless efforts to make sure Rodriguez had a smooth transition into his new role. However, her enthusiasm started to dwindle in 2013 with the introduction of the \u201cHideaway Book.\u201d The Hideaway Book was a book authored by Rodriguez and typed up each year. The Hideaway Book was for coaches and some football operations people. It was not to be disclosed to anyone else. The main focus of the book was to establish secrecy within Rodriguez\u2019s inner circle and establish complete control of the group. This yielded such things as the saying: \u201cTitle doesn\u2019t exist in our office.\u201d Those who had the most interaction with Rodriguez - Melissa, Charlie Ragle, and Miguel Reveles referred to themselves as the Triangle of Secrecy. They were forced to lie to Rodriguez\u2019s wife to help cover up his 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 2/12 indiscretions - primarily his extramarital affair. This Triangle was also coerced to shield Rodriguez from anything that could harm his reputation. Just for good measure, Rodriguez also befriended Jason to help ensure that his Triangle stayed intact. By the summer of 2015, Melissa was newly wed to Jason, but most of her attention had to be paid to Rodriguez, who had become more and more demanding. Jason recalls being shocked about the stories of Rodriguez berating staff members and how Melissa had to answer Rodriguez\u2019s calls at all hours of the night just to change travel plans or make some other requests which were only emergencies to him. She had to walk on eggshells at work, because of his volatility and supreme power over the department. Jason even recalls some instances during this time period where football players sent Melissa screen shots of their genitalia and illicit overtures via text. When she asked Rodriguez to intervene, he ignored her. By now, most of the department knew about Rodriguez\u2019s affair and lies to his family. Many of the assistant coaches and staff were longtime friends of Rodriguez, his wife and their children. His coaches and staff began to lose respect for Rodriguez and the web of lies had become too widespread to remain private anymore. In August of 2015, Rodriguez\u2019s daughter was in Rodriguez\u2019s office when she saw a text from his girlfriend come up on her father\u2019s iPad that said love you.\u201d She demanded to know whom the text was from. Rodriguez created an elaborate story, suggesting that the text was meant for someone else. As per usual, Rodriguez directed Melissa to lie for him, to which Melissa responded, \u201cOk don\u2019t know anything.\u201d Rodriguez also made Charlie Ragle and Miguel Reveles go along with the lie. On November 6, 2015, Rodriguez asked Melissa to get a sideline pass for his \u201cfriend\u201d for the game in Tucson, which turned out to be his girlfriend. During the game, Melissa realized that Rodriguez\u2019s wife was also on the sideline. At some point Melissa had to stand between the two hoping to avoid a confrontation. The following Monday, Melissa complained to Rodriguez about how upsetting it was to be placed in that situation. Rodriguez laughed it off without acknowledging her stress or sense of betrayal to his wife. On January 27, 2016, Melissa was in Tucson when she received a call from the San Diego Marriott about a barking dog in Rodriguez\u2019s room. Rodriguez was supposed to be on a recruiting visit. Melissa called Rodriguez who didn\u2019t immediately answer. Later she learned from Coach Rod Smith that Rodriguez had walked out of their meeting when the phone rang, but did not answer. Coach Smith also confirmed that the dog belonged to the girlfriend. 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 3/12 short time afterwards, Melissa caught Rodriguez ogling her as she left the office for that day. She had suspicions prior to that time that Rodriguez may have been staring at her, but this was the first time she caught him doing it. She simply responded, \u2018\u2019No, you can\u2019t do that ... that\u2019s not cool.\u201d She hoped that would be the end of it, but Rodriguez\u2019s bad behavior only became more egregious. On February 23, 2016, upon learning that Jason was being considered as a head security officer for the Diamondbacks, Melissa told Rodriguez that she would need to quit her job and move to Phoenix. Rodriguez responded that he didn\u2019t want her to leave saying, \u201cNo can\u2019t lose you.\u201d Rodriguez told Melissa that he would have a friend set up an apartment for her to stay several nights a week so she could continue working for him. Melissa told him she was unwilling to do that. On May 10, 2016, Rodriguez\u2019s wife asked Melissa out to lunch. It became a 3-hour interrogation of sorts to find out what Melissa knew about Rodriguez\u2019s flirting and promiscuity. Again, per Rodriguez\u2019s strict instructions and despite Melissa\u2019s growing discomfort with doing so, she told his wife that she knew nothing and continued to cover up for Rodriguez. As it turned out, Rodriguez knew about the lunch and made Miguel Reveles call Melissa to make sure the Triangle of Secrecy had not been broken. Rodriguez\u2019 demand for secrecy included doing nothing about a player that needed help. On August 8, 2016, football player Zach Hemmila was found dead from a painkiller overdose. The evening before, Matt Dudek had taken Zach to Rodriguez telling him that something was wrong with Zach and needed help. But Rodriguez did nothing simply saying, \u201che\u2019ll be fine.\u201d If Rodriguez\u2019s knowledge of the extent of Zach\u2019s issues was another secret Melissa had to keep. By September 20, 2016, Jason and Melissa began having marital issues, primarily due to Jason\u2019s growing uneasiness with Melissa working amongst all men and the comments they made to her. On one specific occasion, Melissa was wearing a light colored top and two coaches made inappropriate comments, and shouted \u201cDamn!\u201d as she walked out. This environment was condoned and in many ways encouraged by Rodriguez. The comments and staring by the males in the office reached the point where an assistant coach asked Jason, \u201cAre you okay with Melissa working here?\u201d 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 4/12 During the 2016 football season, Melissa\u2019s daughter worked as an equipment manager for the football team- Her daughter\u2019s boyfriend, worked there too. One of the assistant coaches commented in front of Jason and Melissa, \u201cCome on you know your daughter is laying down on the bed for all those guys.\u201d Again, the coach feared no repercussions because this behavior was perfectly acceptable with \u201cRich Rod\u201d in charge. Whenever Rodriguez asked Melissa into his office, he always told her to close the door behind her, which made her uncomfortable and wasn\u2019t necessary. Others began to notice, and make suggestive comments to her about what happened behind closed doors. By this time, Melissa was keeping so many of Rodriguez\u2019s secrets that she could barely function. Her obligation to Rodriguez extended to keeping secrets from Jason as well. When he simply asked her, \u201cHow was your day?\u201d she couldn\u2019t respond for fear of revealing one of the secrets. Jason naturally grew more and more uncomfortable and felt that Melissa was keeping things from him. This created stress on their marriage and caused Jason to lose trust with Melissa to the point where he considered divorcing her. Melissa felt that she couldn\u2019t be honest with him because she wanted to protect their marriage. One particular day, Rodriguez found Melissa crying at work because of personal issues with Jason. Rodriguez attempted to comfort her by telling Melissa if she needs anything, \u201canything at all,\u201d to let him know. Melissa had never known Rodriguez to comfort anyone, and she found this level of over-commitment from a boss to be somewhat disconcerting. Shortly after the incident where Rodriguez saw that Melissa was fragile, he asked her to get underwear for him from the equipment area downstairs. Melissa found this degrading and out of line so she emailed Michael Bamel at equipment to get him to provide Rodriguez [a] clean pair. Michael took the underwear into the office instead of Melissa, as she was hoping to avoid the situation altogether. Nonetheless, Rodriguez made incredibly inappropriate comments to Melissa afterwards about how his preferred style of underwear \u201cvisually enhanced\u201d his genitalia when worn. Melissa pretended to ignore these comments, although they sickened her. By November, Rodriguez noticeably began timing his workouts so he could walk back to his office shirtless in front of Melissa. On one such occasion, Rodriguez walked past her in just his underwear and said \u201cGood Morning\u201d to her to make sure she saw him. 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 5/12 On Monday, November 14, 2016, Melissa received a voice mail from La Paloma complaining that Rodriguez made sexual advances towards a young woman who had provided Rodriguez a massage. The caller \u201cjust wanted to inform the university.\u201d Per Rodriguez\u2019s instructions and the overarching rules of the Triangle of Secrecy, the complaint never made it past Melissa\u2019s voice mail. The following January, Rodriguez asked Melissa to come into office and shut door; despite her discomfort with this, she agreed to do so. Rodriguez told Melissa that he began marital counseling with his wife because of issues at home. Rodriguez emphasized to Melissa that he needs to be with someone who is passionate, and Melissa understood Rodriguez to mean that he wants her to be that person, even though Rodriguez was still married and keeping his girlfriend on the side. Rodriguez told Melissa, \u201cWhatever you need, I\u2019m here for you\u201d ... he then grabbed Melissa, embraced her, touched the side of her breast, and tried to kiss her. Melissa managed to pull away and move her head. Now desperate and emotional that Melissa rejected his advances, Rodriguez cried out that he had no place to stay that night. Melissa assured him that she\u2019d find him a hotel. After this incident Melissa began to look for a way out. However, her daughter was on qualified tuition reduction, and still working in the Athletic department, so she didn\u2019t want to complicate her situation by quitting. Melissa began considering a transfer into the University\u2019s development office to get away from Rodriguez without rocking the boat. Two weeks after Rodriguez assaulted Melissa in his office, he called her back inside (again closing the door) and said he wanted to \u201ctake care of her.\u201d Rodriguez handed her $300 in cash, but Melissa refused his money. Rodriguez begged her not tell Jason or his wife. This made Melissa even more uncomfortable that Rodriguez believed she could be bought. Melissa emailed her sister about the incident. On February 22, 2017, Rodriguez called Melissa into office, again telling her to close the door. After closing the door, Melissa looked up in horror to see Rodriguez grasping his penis beneath his basketball shorts which were pulled all the way up. Rodriguez carried on a normal conversation with Melissa while still holding himself, but Melissa just looked down until he was through talking, so she could get out of there. Once Rodriguez had finished, Melissa darted to the restroom and recalled asking herself, \u201cWhat the f*** just happened?\u201d Eventually she returned to her desk, where Rodriguez leaned over her to start up another conversation. Melissa called Matt Dudek about the incident and they both begin calling him \u201cthe predator.\u201d 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 6/12 By March 7, 2017, Melissa mustered up the conviction to ask for a transfer. She texted Mike Ketcham to ask about other positions at the University, specifically in the development office. Melissa scheduled a meeting with him but he later canceled without stating a reason. Melissa knew she would be well received in the development office, because Greg Byrne had confirmed as much; she had also received blessings from major donors who would be thrilled to have her oversee their account in development. Around the same time, Melissa broached the topic of transitioning out of the Athletic Department with Rodriguez. His response was, \u201cBullshit, you\u2019re not leaving can\u2019t let you leave need you.\u201d Throughout the next month, Rodriguez continued to stand ve1y close to get skin-to-skin contact with Melissa. He was constantly glaring at her now, and she would wear skirts less often because she could feel him constantly glaring at her thighs. Melissa recalls continuous jokes from this time period about how \u201cTitle 9 doesn\u2019t exist in this office.\u201d On April 5, 2017, Melissa attempted to make a second appointment with Mike Ketcham to discuss transferring departments. She received no response. Eventually Mike told her, \u201cWe can\u2019t take you; Coach [Rodriguez] would be pissed.\u201d Melissa realized she was trapped. Rodriguez had control over all the people that could allow her to leave the department, and she couldn\u2019t quit for fear of what would happen to her daughter. Shortly after trying to schedule the appointment, Rodriguez asked Melissa to help clean out his closet, handed her underwear to fold, and told her love that you want to take care of me.\u201d Melissa escaped the closet area without further incident, but the experience confirmed that Rodriguez, through his twisted view of reality, believed that she wanted to be near him. On May 24, 2017, Melissa had lunch brought into the office for Rodriguez\u2019s birthday and invited his family in to celebrate. Rodriguez pulled Melissa aside and asked her to do a tequila shot with him in his office; Melissa declined, and felt it was highly inappropriate, especially with his family in the next room. Shortly after his birthday, Rodriguez and Dusty Rutledge were standing at Melissa\u2019s desk discussing fund raising for football camps. Dusty made a comment that Melissa raises funds by rubbing her breasts on donors. Everyone within earshot laughed, including Rodriguez. Melissa pretended to ignore that comment, but later cried at the realization that the entire office thought that she had become successful by using her sexuality. 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 7/12 By April 26, 2017, Melissa began suffering migraines. On this particular day, she could not get up off the floor. She had never suffered from migraines in her life prior to this time period. On May 4, 2017, it became clear that the migraines were not subsiding, so Melissa went to the emergency room. Melissa was treated and sent home. On May 30, 2017, an was performed; her migraines were attributed to stress from work. These affected her day-to-day life, her marriage and irritability with her younger children whom she saw every other weekend. On June 13, 2017, Mike Ketcham told Melissa he didn\u2019t think there were any positions in development open. Melissa knew this wasn\u2019t hue because she saw job postings earlier that month. Mike had no further explanation as to why. On June 27, 2017, Rodriguez paid Melissa $6,000 for summer camp work, which Melissa thought was appropriate for the amount of work she performed. Rodriguez told her afterward that this amount was more than anyone else received, and he gave her more money, not because she did more work or better work than the others, but because he wanted to \u201ctake care of her.\u201d Not long after that, Rodriguez gave Melissa a wad of cash, approximately $1,500, and asked her not to tell Jason or his wife about it. She wasn\u2019t sure whether the cash was for her or whether Rodriguez just wanted her to hold the money. When Rodriguez explained that the money was for her and insisted that she use it for outside costs like food and gas money. Then he demanded that Melissa take him to the airport the next day. Rodriguez ended the conversation by whispering to Melissa have more cash to give you.\u201d She recalls him being so close to her face that she could smell the chips on his breath. He then grazed her breast with his hand as he awkwardly reached towards her for a hug. Melissa left the office feeling violated. Rodriguez then texted her that she may need to come to his home late that night to help him with the dog, because his wife and daughter had already left on vacation. Melissa came home and told Jason about having to take Rodriguez to the airport the next morning and about needing to help with the dog that evening. Jason was upset, and refused to let her go to Rodriguez\u2019s house. Melissa texted Rodriguez that if he needed help with the dog, she and Jason would come over to help. The following texts were sent: Rodriguez: \u201cjust you.\u201d Melissa: \u201cI\u2019m loyal to you and will always cover for you but it can\u2019t be me\u201d 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 8/12 Rodriguez: \u201cYou know love you\u201d [with a kissing face emoji] Melissa: \u201cNo! It can\u2019t be me\u201d Rodriguez: \u201cHa. I\u2019ll see you in the morning.\u201d Melissa told Mike Parrish about this incident. His response was that \u201cWe don\u2019t need that in the office, but am more concerned with his misuse of funds.,, The next morning Melissa arrived at the office to take Rodrignez to the airport, although it had been her scheduled day off. Rodriguez passed by her desk shirtless and told her that he needed to shower in his office. Rodriguez asked Melissa to stay in his office to keep his dog calm while he showered. Instead, Melissa took the dog on a long walk to avoid interaction with Rodriguez and to avoid seeing him naked. On her way back from walking the dog, Melissa ran into Dusty who remarked just shocked the shit out of Coach [Rodriguez]! He is in his underwear.\u2019\u2019 Over the next few days, Melissa had a scheduled vacation in Disneyland with Jason and her family. It was the first time in more than a year that she felt relaxed. Her migraines began to subside because she had no fear of Rodriguez, especially while he was spending time with his own family in Atlanta. The month of July was relatively calm, because most of the staff was on vacation, but Melissa\u2019s anxiety grew as she edged closer to returning to daily work with Rodriguez. On July 23, 2017, Melissa and Jason went to dinner at Oreganos and Melissa told Jason everything that had happened. He was understandably furious, and they both agreed that she needed to look for another job, no matter what the financial fallout might be or what may happen with their daughter\u2019s job. Jason was, however, relieved that Melissa opened up to him. Melissa was also worried that if she told the Athletic Department everything that had happened, many other coaches and staff members would probably lose their jobs too. Although she didn\u2019t care about some of the coaches that made comments, even they had families to support, so she decided instead to leave quietly, and \u201ctake one for the team.\u201d On July 27, 2017, Melissa got a new job with Crest Insurance. The owner, Cody Ritchie had been a major donor for the university and hired Melissa on the spot because of her work with the development office. The following day, Melissa gave Rodriguez her two-week notice. He tore it up, stating that it\u2019s \u201cso depressing, can\u2019t lose you.\u201d Shortly afterward, Rodriguez\u2019s wife 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 9/12 learned that Melissa was leaving, and scheduled another long lunch, peppering her with questions about Rodriguez\u2019s indiscretions. On August 9, 2017, Melissa filled out exit paperwork and did an exit interview with Mike Ketcham. When he asked Melissa about why she was leaving, she began to c1y, but ultimately told him that she had a great opportunity at Crest. Regarding Rodriguez, Melissa told Mike lot of shit happened need to remove myself from this situation.\u201d Melissa didn\u2019t say more because she did not want anyone to be adversely affected if Rodriguez was fired. August 11, 2017, was Melissa\u2019s last day. Rodriguez\u2019s wife cornered Melissa in the office and demanded to know the truth about Rodriguez\u2019s girlfriend. She asked about a photograph taken of Rodriguez and his girlfriend. Melissa admitted that she knew about the girlfriend and apologized for not telling her sooner. She demanded to have a meeting between herself, Melissa and Rodriguez. Melissa did not agree, as she did not want to get further involved. Later on that day, apparently after arguing with his wife, Rodriguez stormed out of his office yelling about his wife, \u201cWhat the fuck is wrong with her?\u201d and \u201cWho is trying to ruin me?\u201d Afterwards Rodriguez\u2019s wife called and texted Melissa incessantly to the point where Rodriguez called Melissa to apologize for his wife\u2019s harassment. Although Melissa had removed herself from the situation, reminders continue to pop up. On October 17, 2017, Melissa had lunch with a friend at the Trident Grill. Rodriguez\u2019s wife was also there with her daughter. Melissa\u2019s friend told her, \u201cIf they only knew booked a separate room for Coach [Rodriguez] and his girlfriend.\u201d About two weeks after that, Melissa spoke with Matt Dudek, who called just to check on her. During the conversation, he remarked, \u201cJust be glad your boss isn\u2019t groping you anymore.\u201d Also in October, Melissa had a conversation during a football game with a prominent football booster. He informed her that know what Coach [Rodriguez] has done,\u201d and said don\u2019t agree with that shit.\u201d He said he respected Melissa for how she left quietly. Melissa began to realize how widespread these rumors had become, and although the booster respected her for how she handled it, her good name was now slandered throughout the University. Since 2001, Melissa had worked hard to build a sterling reputation in the business community. She could have left the University years ago, as she had multiple job prospects throughout the community. She stayed because she enjoyed the excitement of working in the fast-paced, competitive environment of the football program. And when that joy faded because of the direct and indirect actions of Rodriguez, she realized she was trapped there. She wasn\u2019t 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 10/12 allowed to transfer and leaving could have brought harm to her daughter who was still working in the program. Meanwhile, for the last year of her employment under Rodriguez, staff members throughout the University began to speculate about what was going on behind Rodriguez\u2019s closed office door. Tucson is a small community, and rumors, especially salacious ones, spread fast. Although Melissa has a new job, she constantly runs into old acquaintances and wonders whether they think she was nothing more than Rodriguez\u2019s concubine all those years. He certainly never did anything to dissuade others from assuming as much. Although the migraines have subsided, the nightmares have not. Melissa recently entered counseling to help her deal with the ongoing stress of being in such an abusive work environment and help her move on from it. Jason and Melissa feel that they need to leave Tucson altogether. He has already sought employment in the Phoenix area, which would be at a lower pay grade. But a move would be even more impactful on Melissa, who spent 13 years building an incredible network of contacts in Tucson. Even though she has some contacts in Phoenix and elsewhere, she needs a clean break from her prior life which means she will have to start from the bottom once again. Melissa and Jason care for each other very much. They are now in their third year of marriage, but thanks to Rodriguez\u2019 actions, nearly the entire marriage has been turbulent. Melissa\u2019s prior marriage ended over ten years ago; she was both cheated upon and physically abused. Understandably, this left her with trust issues that kept her from getting close to anyone until she met Jason. But shortly after the two were married, Rodriguez began to drive a wedge between them using his position of ultimate authority to make Melissa his servant. Melissa\u2019s trust issues from her prior marriage resurfaced and she tried to weather the storm by putting up a wall to protect herself. But the same wall kept Jason away, at least temporarily. Time will tell if a fresh start for both of them can heal the damage that has been done. Jason, a former Marine and agent, feels emasculated by what Rodriguez has done to his wife. For as long as he can remember, Jason has seen himself as a protector of the innocent and helpless who was always willing to put himself in harm\u2019s way to save those who couldn\u2019t save themselves. He didn\u2019t realize that Melissa needed saving, until it was too late. When he 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 11/12 sees what has happened to Melissa, he sees it as his own failure to be a man. Rodriguez has taken this away from Jason, perhaps forever. CONCLUSION: It\u2019s difficult to quantify the damage that Rodriguez has done opening Melissa\u2019s old wounds and creating new ones for Jason. Unlike broken bones, emotional fractures rarely heal. Where the two of them were perfectly positioned to spend a blissful existence together, now there are only walls, trust issues, and paranoia. There is no telling how long it will take for these two young people to move past what has been done to them. The specter of Rodriguez will linger over this marriage in some respect for the rest of their lives. If this case were to go to trial, in the current climate where #MeToo is in the headlines on a daily basis, neither male nor female jurors would have any sympathy for a public figure who used his authority and power to oppress and degrade his female assistant in such ways. Undoubtedly, the verdict could be in the tens of millions of dollars because the jurors would want to send a message to such high-profile and highly paid coaches that such abuses of power are not acceptable. My clients, Melissa & Jason R. Wilhelmsen therefore agree to settle all claims they may have against Richard A. Rodriguez, his wife and their marital community for $7,500,000.00. Very truly yours, Augustine B. Jimenez 2/13/25, 10:56 Read the full allegations against Rich Rodriguez - Arizona Desert Swarm 12/12", "8282_108.pdf": "Rich Rodriguez admits to past extramarital affair in statement addressing firing Sports Published 11:59 p.m Jan. 2, 2018 Updated 7:25 a.m Jan. 3, 2018 Former Arizona football coach Rich Rodriguez admitted to having an extramarital affair and said an investigation that contributed to his firing on Tuesday \u201cconcerned a complaint by my former administrative assistant, who threatened a $7.5 million lawsuit alleging harassment.\u201d Rodriguez, in a statement released by his attorney, Bennett H. Speyer of Toledo, Ohio, said \u201cclaims by my former assistant are simply not true and her demands for a financial settlement are outrageous.\u201d He vowed to \u201cvigorously fight these fabricated and groundless claims.\u201d Rodriguez was fired after completing his sixth season at Arizona. As reported by Sports\u2019 Dan Wolken, the school had grown uncomfortable with the direction of the program amidst an investigation into an off-the-field allegation of sexual harassment by a former athletic department employee. The school, wrote Wolken, confirmed in a letter signed by school President Robert Robbins and athletics director Dave Heeke that it hired the law firm of Cohen Dowd Quigley to \u201cconduct a comprehensive investigation\u201d in October after the initial report of misconduct by the former employee. More: Arizona fires football coach Rich Rodriguez LAWSUIT: Details of accusations made by former assistant More: How Rich Rodriguez joined elite company, at least with his salary Rich Rodriguez Add Topic 2/13/25, 10:57 Rich Rodriguez admits to past affair in statement addressing firing 1/2 few hours after the announcement that he had been fired, Rodriguez released this statement through his attorney was deeply disappointed to learn by email this evening that the University of Arizona is buying out my contract. My coaching staff and were very excited about the trajectory of our young team, and looked forward to 2018 and beyond. \"This action comes on the heels of an outside investigation by the University into alleged workplace misconduct. This investigation concerned a complaint by my former administrative assistant, who threatened a $7.5 million lawsuit alleging harassment. \"The University initiated a thorough outside investigation fully cooperated with the investigation, including voluntarily taking and passing a polygraph. The University determined that there was no truth to her accusations and found me innocent of any wrongdoing. This was a thorough investigation that lasted over 10 weeks and included multiple members of my current and former staff. Notably, the complainant refused to cooperate with the investigation. It was comforting to be reassured of what already knew, the claims were baseless and false. \"Regrettably, the complaint included a single truth \u2014 in the past had a consensual extramarital affair with a woman who is not affiliated with the University. It was wrong, and have apologized to my wife and family am still working incredibly hard to repair the bonds I\u2019ve broken and regain the trust of my wife and children, whom love dearly am not a perfect man, but the claims by my former assistant are simply not true and her demands for a financial settlement are outrageous am saddened that these accusations and investigation have caused my family additional stress. \"To my players, staff and supporters, it\u2019s been an honor to lead and serve you. As I\u2019m sure that you would expect to me to do will vigorously fight these fabricated and groundless claims. 2/13/25, 10:57 Rich Rodriguez admits to past affair in statement addressing firing 2/2", "8282_109.pdf": "Arizona head coach Rich Rodriguez yells from the sideline during the first half of an college football game against California Saturday, Oct. 21, 2017, in Berkeley, Calif Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez) Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press Rich Rodriguez Fired as Arizona Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations Tyler Conway Jan 2, 2018 Featured Video Lauri Markkanen with the Dunk Not Available in Your Region Yet To learn more about where you can access Max, visit the Help Center. If you contact us about this error, please include the following code: 332e4119-a038-4364-b212-5bac4e016db8 Go Back 2/13/25, 10:57 Rich Rodriguez Fired as Arizona Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations 1/6 Arizona fired head football coach Rich Rodriguez on Tuesday after the Wildcats finished a 7-6 season. According to Dan Wolken of Today, the school made the official announcement regarding Rodriguez's firing Tuesday evening. Brett McMurphy reported \"Arizona has fired Rich Rodriguez in part after sexual harassment allegations against him that the school says could not be substantiated.\" Wolken previously reported Tuesday that Arizona was \"weighing whether to fire\" him and noted \"the school also has been dealing with a troubling allegation behind the scenes that led school officials last fall to hire an outside law firm to investigate Rodriguez for potential workplace misconduct 2025 Offseason Trade Block Big Board After Super Bowl Bleacher Report 16h 2025 Mock Draft Scouting Dept.'s Post-Super Bowl Picks Bleacher Report 3d 2025 Free Agency: The 10 Best 25-and-Under Players in This Year's Class Bleacher Report 16h Spencer Hall of Nation shared the official statement from Arizona, while Michael Lev of the Arizona Daily Star highlighted the portion regarding the allegations: 2/13/25, 10:57 Rich Rodriguez Fired as Arizona Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations 2/6 On Wednesday, Dan Wolken of Today noted the claim states that the woman and two other employees \"referred to themselves as the 'Triangle of Secrecy' because they were asked to lie to cover up Rodriguez's extramarital affair.\" Per Wolken, the claim alleges Rodriguez called the woman into his office and \"began discussing his marital problems and then grabbed her, 'embraced her, touched the side of her breast, and tried to kiss her.'\" 2/13/25, 10:57 Rich Rodriguez Fired as Arizona Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations 3/6 It also states Rodriguez \"touched himself inappropriately in front of her. He also made 'incredibly inappropriate comments to her,' the claim said, such as telling her his underwear 'visually enhanced' his genitalia.\" The Arizona Daily Star also reported Rodriguez and his \"closest aids followed a 'hideaway book' that detailed such sayings as 'Title doesn't exist in our office,' referring to the federal gender-equity law.\" Rodriguez released a statement in which he admitted to having an extramarital affair but denied claims of harassment: \" pic.twitter.com/PNZBbvxNTj \u2014 Rich Rodriguez (@CoachRodAZ) January 3, 2018\" Rodriguez, 54, went 43-35 in six seasons at Arizona. He previously coached at West Virginia and Michigan. The Wildcats went 33-20 in Rodriguez's first four seasons, winning three bowl games and emerging as a solid mid-tier program in the Pac-12. But things have fallen off each of the past two years, with Arizona posting a 3-9 record in 2016 before struggling to establish consistency again this season. \"In our competitive situation the way the Pac-12 is going, you've got to\u2014especially at a place like Arizona\u2014you better be a little bit fortunate and really on top of your game in all aspects to have a chance to compete,\" Rodriguez said in March, per Kyle Bonagura of ESPN.com. Arizona entered 2017 facing a bit of an uphill battle because of its youth-laden roster. The defense, in particular, had as many as six freshmen competing for significant playing time during training camp. The Wildcats started 6-2 and appeared to be heading in the right direction, but the defense struggled in losses to USC, Oregon and Arizona State down the stretch, allowing more than 40 points in all three games. The defense also struggled in a 38-35 loss to Purdue in the Foster Farms Bowl. There is some optimism moving forward for the program, considering quarterback Khalil Tate was only a sophomore in 2017 and thrived with 1,591 passing yards, 1,411 rushing 2/13/25, 10:57 Rich Rodriguez Fired as Arizona Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations 4/6 yards and 26 total touchdowns, but he and the rest of the team will be led by a new coach in 2018 About Advertise Contact Us Get Help Careers Community Guidelines Privacy Terms Of Use Sports on Creators Program Way-Too-Soon 2025-26 Power Rankings: Who's the Favorite to Dethrone Eagles? 2025 Mock Draft: Pro Comparisons and 2-Round Predictions Post-Trade Deadline 10 Biggest Bust Candid Among Pitchers f Season Cookie Preferences 2/13/25, 10:57 Rich Rodriguez Fired as Arizona Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations 5/6 Copyright \u00a9 2025 Bleacher Report, Inc Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. 2/13/25, 10:57 Rich Rodriguez Fired as Arizona Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations 6/6"} |
7,843 | John Lighton | University of Utah | [
"7843_101.pdf",
"7843_102.pdf",
"7843_103.pdf"
] | {"7843_101.pdf": "Legal Research Law Dictionaries Law Schools Federal Judges Federal Courts Federal Contracts Search 209 F. 3d 1213 - John Lighton v. University of Utah Home Federal Reporter, Third Series 209 F.3d 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah 209 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2000 LIGHTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v McCREARY EHLERINGER, Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-4070 April 24, 2000 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 96-CV-606) Robert H. Wilde, Midvale, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Brent A. Burnett (Jan Graham, Attorney General, with him on the brief), Assistant Attorney General, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendants-Appellees. Before and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 1 This appeal arises from a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for damages brought by Appellant John Lighton, a former assistant professor at the University of Utah (University), against Appellees James Ehleringer and Karen McCreary two University officials in their official and individual capacities. At issue is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary on Dr. Lighton's 1983 complaint, which alleges they constructively terminated him without due process of law following sexual harassment and retaliation charges filed against him by a subordinate. We exercise our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm 2 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 1/14 This case involves numerous undisputed, material facts relied on by the district court in making its summary judgment decision. We begin by noting Dr. Lighton worked at the University as a tenure-track assistant professor in the biology department. During his employment with the University, he had an affair with Dr. Fielden-Rechav (\"Dr. Fielden\"), a subordinate female researcher from South Africa who was visiting his laboratory for two to three months to learn advanced respirometry techniques for insects. During this period, they submitted a written grant application to the National Institute of Health seeking funding for a research project to study ticks. In June 1994, the National Institute of Health granted the application. As a result, Dr. Lighton furnished Dr. Fielden a three-year contract to work with him under the grant. Regardless of who ended the affair, their relationship became strained at the commencement of Dr. Fielden's research contract. Eventually, the situation culminated in Dr. Fielden complaining to Dr. Ehleringer, the biology department chair and Dr. Lighton's supervisor, of sexual harassment and retaliatory actions by Dr. Lighton.1 3 In response to Dr. Fielden's complaints, Dr. Ehleringer contacted the Dean's office, the University's Office of General Counsel and the campus Office of Equal Opportunity. In January 1995, a series of meetings commenced between Dr. Lighton, Dr. Ehleringer, the Dean of the College of Science, and Ms. McCrearyan assistant general counsel for the University. In these meetings, they discussed the need to amicably resolve the conflict and to obtain a neutral person to act as an intermediary. They also advised Dr. Lighton a letter might be placed in his file if he did not refrain from taking perceived retaliatory actions against Dr. Fielden. 4 On January 26, 1995, Dr. Ehleringer wrote Dr. Lighton a letter recognizing him as a \"very valued member\" of his department, offering to act as a first-round mediator between Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden, and proffering his support and hope for a quick resolution of their conflict. He also drafted a memo to both Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden urging them to seek help from an individual outside of the biology department to mediate their conflict. 5 Two weeks later, Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden voluntarily met with a professional University mediator. This meeting culminated in Dr. Lighton believing they reached a mutually acceptable agreement. Dr. Lighton later approved the written draft agreement that presumably embodied the terms of the two parties. The draft agreement included a provision requiring the parties to refrain from making disparaging remarks to third parties about each other outside each other's presence. However, the draft agreement also contained a provision abolishing Dr. Fielden's three-year contract and placing her on six-months probation. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Fielden retained counsel who wrote Dr. Ehleringer a letter accusing Dr. Lighton of sexual harassment and retaliation against Dr. Fielden. 6 In March 1995, Ms. McCreary met with Dr. Lighton to discuss Dr. Fielden's allegations and allow him to communicate his version of events. At that time, Dr. Lighton informed Ms. McCreary of his efforts to contact Dr. Fielden's previous colleagues and advisors in an attempt to dig up information on her early experiences as well as her \"craziness and pathological nature.\" Ms. McCreary advised Dr. Lighton this action could be perceived as retaliatory and he should proceed carefully in his conduct regardless of the merit of Ms. Fielden's sexual harassment claim. Dr. Lighton also presented Ms. McCreary with a letter he prepared accusing Dr. Fielden of unauthorized use of a South African university's equipment since July 1994.2 7 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 2/14 Shortly thereafter, he sent another letter to Ms. McCreary indicating he no longer wished to employ Dr. Fielden, again raising the equipment issue. 8 On March 30, 1995, Dr. Fielden filed a formal sexual harassment and retaliation complaint with the Utah Anti- Discrimination Division against the University's biology department.3 In response, Dr. Lighton offered to \"refrain in a legally binding manner from making any negative comments concerning Dr. Fielden to anyone, and undertake not to damage or undermine her research career in anyway.\" At an April 5, 1995 meeting with Ms. McCreary over Dr. Fielden's request for a $15,000 settlement, Dr. Lighton offered to use his Packard Fellowship fund to pay Dr. Fielden in absentia if she prepared papers on their project. Meantime, at a subsequent biology department executive committee meeting, Dr. Ehleringer announced someone filed a sexual harassment complaint against the department, but declined to cite Dr. Lighton's involvement, even when specifically asked. 9 Thereafter, Dr. Fielden's attorney proposed a settlement of her claims on certain conditions, including the condition Dr. Lighton refrain from notifying the National Institute of Health of any adverse information about her, or if he had already contacted the Institute, to rectify the situation. By written response, Dr. Lighton agreed to this condition, but when Dr. Fielden insisted he sign the agreement, he refused. In a letter drafted by his attorney, Dr. Lighton stated he would not pay a settlement to Dr. Fielden with his grant money and complained that, even though he did not intend to make disparaging comments about Dr. Fielden, he would not sign an agreement preventing him from disclosing her inappropriate actions should an investigation arise. 10 On May 14, 1995, Dr. Ehleringer sent Dr. Lighton a letter directing him to: 1) sign the settlement agreement, noting it did not include any admission of wrongdoing by Dr. Lighton; 2) file his complaint against Dr. Fielden internally, instead of with the National Institute of Health, as required by federal procedures; and 3) refrain from making any disparaging remarks about her to any third party. Most importantly, the letter stated failure to comply would \"result in the initiation of disciplinary action ... that may result in the imposition of serious sanctions, including termination of your employment with the University.\" The next day, Dr. Lighton's attorney acknowledged his understanding, after communicating with Ms. McCreary, that no disciplinary action would rise from Dr. Lighton reporting Dr. Fielden's alleged \"malfeasance\" or misappropriation of the equipment to the University or the National Institute of Health. 11 Almost one month later, Dr. Fielden, Dr. Lighton, and the University entered into the settlement agreement, which included Dr. Lighton's requested provision he could disclose information about Dr. Fielden to third parties, provided he simultaneously notify her, through her attorney, of such disclosure. The agreement also expressly disclaimed any wrongdoing or liability by Dr. Lighton or the University. Under the terms of the agreement, Ms. Fielden agreed to withdraw her formal complaint and resign from her three-year employment contract in order to obtain employment elsewhere. In addition, the settlement money did not come out of Dr. Lighten's grant or fellowship monies, but from the Utah State Division of Risk Management. 12 Both Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary supported the settlement with Dr. Fielden, primarily because they believed Dr. Lighton's actions could potentially be perceived as retaliatory.4 In addition, Ms. McCreary believed 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 3/14 it prudent to settle with Dr. Fielden, not because she necessarily believed Dr. Fielden's side of the story over Dr. Lighton's, but because of her assessment on the University's potential legal exposure. 13 Two weeks after signing the settlement agreement, Dr. Lighton signed a non-tenure employment offer with the University of Las Vegas, and on the same day, resigned. In his resignation letter, Dr. Lighten simply stated: 14 The actions of the University of Utah have made it impossible for me to retain my academic post in the Biology Department without compromising my respect for both this institution and myself. 15 Following Dr. Lighton's resignation, Dr. Ehleringer sent a notice to the biology department's faculty merely announcing another university attracted Dr. Lighten away. At the following biology department executive committee meeting, Dr. Ehleringer advised members of the withdrawal of the sexual harassment and retaliation complaint against the department, and also commented on their fortune in resolving the situation so quickly.5 16 It is important to note that prior to tendering his June 1995 resignation, Dr. Lighton contacted the University of Las Vegas as early as 1992 seeking employment, writing: 17 Your department at [the University of Las Vegas] is plainly going places, and the opportunity to play a role in the development of a growing dynamic department is simply too exciting to let slip by. 18 In late 1994, Dr. Lighton also talked with University of California personnel about future employment, basing his desire to leave the University on Dr. Ehleringer's refusal to find additional research space for him. Even before his January 1995 meetings with Ms. McCreary to discuss Dr. Fielden's charges, Dr. Lighton contacted the University of Las Vegas and three other universities in an effort to seek employment. Subsequently, in a May 1995 interview, Dr. Lighton gave the following statement to a University of Las Vegas job recruiter as to why he wanted to leave the University: 19 have never been happy with Salt Lake City as a social or intellectual environment, and have been still less content with the University. Essentially have found myself increasingly intellectually isolated between extreme and rancorous camps of reductionists and anti-reductionists. Promised positions for colleagues in disciplines related to mine have been repeatedly scuttled by in-fighting .... Allied to this are problems have had with unethical behavior on the part of certain high-ranking University officials no longer wish to work here; my decision is not whether to move, but when find [the University of Las Vegas] especially attractive because of the high quality of its faculty and graduate students, its location, and because of the presence among your faculty of colleagues with whom have enjoyably and constructively interacted in the past ....\" 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 4/14 20 Since his June 1995 resignation and acceptance of the University of Las Vegas non-tenure position, Dr. Lighton has not obtained a tenure or \"tenure-track\" position. However, he admits he is unaware of any communications about him between the University and the University of Las Vegas, or of Ms. McCreary saying anything to damage his reputation. Mr. Lighton also does not dispute he received superlative annual performance evaluations from Dr. Ehleringer before and during the period in question. In fact, as late as February 3, 1995, after Dr. Ehleringer became aware of Dr. Fielden's complaints and some of Dr. Lighton's perceived retaliatory actions, Dr. Ehleringer nevertheless gave Dr. Lighton a superlative annual performance review, calling him a \"rising star.\" Even Dr. Lighton admitted this performance review indicated \"a strong expression of support\" for him 21 One year after his resignation, Dr. Lighton brought a 1983 complaint against Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary, alleging their actions forced him to involuntarily resign. He claimed he was \"constructively terminated\" and deprived of his property right and liberty interest in his continued employment without due process of law or an opportunity to rebut defamatory accusations made against him. He also alleged Ms. McCreary's and Dr. Ehleringer's actions infringed his free speech to comment on Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of laboratory equipment. Finally, Dr. Lighton claimed Dr. Ehleringer \"orally published\" statements, accusing him of unprofessional and unlawful conduct, which adversely affected his liberty interest in his good will and reputation.6 22 The district court issued a bench ruling accepting as uncontroverted their statement of undisputed material facts7 and granting Dr. Ehleringer's and Ms. McCreary's motion for summary judgment. The district court determined qualified immunity barred Dr. Lighton's claims against Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary because no constitutional violation occurred and their actions were reasonable and necessary to protect the interests of the University. In support, the district court found no triggering of any due process right on the constructive termination claim because Dr. Lighton voluntarily resigned, as evidenced by: 1) his active quest in seeking employment elsewhere; 2) the fact he obtained a job before resigning, and 3) his leaving the University on his own terms and schedule. The court further found the May 14, 1995 letter, threatening possible termination if Dr. Lighton did not cease his retaliatory conduct, constituted the only adverse consequence, and merely an \"interim imposition on [Dr.] Lighton's activities.\" 23 As to Dr. Lighton's liberty interest in name and reputation, the district court found he did not meet any of the requisite requirements of showing Dr. Ehleringer's statements: 1) impugned his name, reputation, honor or integrity; 2) were false; 3) occurred in the course of his termination or foreclosed other employment opportunities, or 4) were published. Finally, under the appropriate balancing test, the district court found no infringement of Dr. Lighton's free speech because it did not touch on a matter of public concern. The court also found the timing and nature of Dr. Lighton's allegations about Dr. Fielden's improperly taking equipment \"suspect\" and more of a \"personal vendetta\" than public speech in the public's interest. Even if his speech on this topic did meet the \"public concern\" requirement, the district court determined Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 5/14 possessed a right to restrict his speech to prevent the disruption of official function and insure effective employee performance 24 On appeal, Dr. Lighton raises essentially the same claims addressed by the district court in its summary judgment determination. In their response, Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary fully support the district court's decision. A. Standard of Review 25 In reviewing the district court's summary judgment decision, we follow the standard we articulated in Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1995). In so doing, we review the district court's finding of qualified immunity de novo, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Dr. Lighton as the nonmoving party. Id. at 1475. However, as we noted in Romero, we review summary judgment decisions involving qualified immunity somewhat differently than other summary judgment rulings. Id. To reach the question of whether Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer are entitled to qualified immunity, we must first ascertain, by de novo review, whether Dr. Lighten sufficiently asserted the violation of a constitutional right. Id. In order to carry his burden, Dr. Lighton must do more than abstractly identify an established right, but must specifically identify the right and conduct by Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer which violated that right. Id. Once Dr. Lighton sufficiently alleges the conduct violated clearly established law, then Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer bear the burden of showing no material issues of fact remain to defeat their claim of qualified immunity. Id. B. Constructive Termination 26 With these standards in mind, we first turn to Dr. Lighton's claim Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary somehow denied him a property right or liberty interest in his continued employment at the University by constructively terminating him without due process of law. In support of his constructive termination claim, Dr. Lighton argues he never received any alternative to resignation because he was coerced into signing the settlement agreement on threat of termination. Specifically, Dr. Lighton relies on Dr. Ehleringer's May 14, 1995 letter to show the only choice given to him was to either submit to \"a gag order\" or face termination. 27 We begin by resolving whether Dr. Lighton possessed a property interest in his position with the University. It is well-established constructive discharge from employment is actionable under 1983 if an employee possesses a protectable property or liberty interest in his employment. Woodward v. City of Worland, 977 F.2d 1392, 1401 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Bailey v. Kirk, 777 F.2d 567, 579 (10th Cir. 1985)), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 923 (1993). In the employment context, the Supreme Court defines a property interest \"as a legitimate expectation in continued employment.\" Lenz v. Dewey, 64 F.3d 547, 551 (10th Cir. 1995) (relying, in part, on Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)). We determine whether such a property interest exists by looking at state law. See Watson v. University of Utah Med. Ctr,, 75 F.3d 569, 577 (10th Cir. 1996). Under Utah law, an employment contract with no specified term of duration is an at-will relationship and the employer may terminate such employment at any time. Id. at 577-78 (citations omitted). In such instances, no property interest exists. 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 6/14 28 In this case, the University employed Dr. Lighton as a non-tenured professor, even though the University characterized him as a \"tenure-track\" professor. Dr. Lighton fails to point to any contract showing a specific term of employment existed nor identify any Utah statutes or University policy on which his alleged property interest is grounded. 75 F.3d at 578. Because insufficient evidence exists in the record to show he possessed a property right to his continued employment, under either state law or some internal University policy, we cannot conclude any property right existed.8 Id.; see Lenz, 64 F.3d at 551-52. 29 Even if Dr. Lighton did possess a property right or liberty interest in his continued employment, we hold the district court correctly determined he voluntarily resigned his position. In determining whether a resignation is voluntary or involuntary, we use a \"reasonable person test.\" Yearous v. Niobrara County Mem'l Hosp., 128 F.3d 1351, 1356 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1074 (1998). The question is not whether working conditions become difficult or unpleasant. Id. at 1357. Rather, a resignation is only considered involuntary if the working conditions are viewed as so intolerable, a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Id. at 1356. In other words, Dr. Lighton must show he had \"no other choice but to quit.\" Id. (quoting Woodward, 977 F.2d at 1401 , quoting Irving v. Dubuque Packing Co., 689 F.2d 170, 172 (10th Cir. 1982) (quotation marks omitted)). We determine the voluntariness of Dr. Lighton's resignation under the totality of the circumstances, including whether he: 1) received some alternative to resignation; 2) understood the nature of his choice; 3) had a reasonable time in which to choose, and 4) was permitted to select the effective date of his resignation. See Yearous, 128 F.3d at 1356.9 30 In determining the voluntariness of Dr. Lighton's resignation, we point out Dr. Ehleringer's May 14, 1995 letter offered Dr. Lighton a choice of signing the settlement agreement or possibly facing disciplinary proceedings. The letter did not require mandatory termination or resignation if he did not sign the settlement agreement. Thus, under the first factor we consider, it is clear Dr. Ehleringer offered Dr. Lighton something other than mandatory resignation. In situations even more explicit or denotative than here, \"[w]e have held that offering an employee a choice between resignation and termination does not violate an employee's due process of law, as long as the resignation is 'voluntary.'\" Lenz, 64 F.3d at 552 (citing Parker v. Board of Regents, 981 F.2d 1159, 1162 (10th Cir. 1992)). 31 In proceeding to examine the voluntariness of Dr. Lighton's resignation, we look at the second factor and find nothing shows Dr. Lighton did not understand his alternatives,10 even though he obviously considered one of the alternatives the possibility of disciplinary proceedings an unpleasant one.11 As to the other factors outlined above, Dr. Lighton took three weeks after receiving the May 14 letter to sign the settlement agreement, and an additional two weeks after signing the agreement to tender his resignation. Under these circumstances, Dr. Lighton received a reasonable length of time to make his choice and clearly selected his own resignation date. 32 We do not end our discussion here, but continue to examine Dr. Lighton's constructive termination claim by looking at the totality of the circumstances. We find it important Dr. Lighton actively sought other employment well before the January 1995 meetings began over Dr. Fieldon's complaints and while he remained on a \"tenure 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 7/14 track\" at the University and continued to receive superlative reviews. Equally telling is the fact Dr. Lighton gave academic and social reasons for leaving the University which are inconsistent with the reasons given during the course of this litigation. Under these circumstances, it is clear Dr. Lighton intended to leave the University long before the announcement or escalation of Dr. Fielden's charges and for reasons other than the settlement he allegedly felt compelled to enter. Because we find Dr. Lighton voluntarily resigned his position, we determine no constructive termination occurred and thus, no due process deprivation existed. C. Liberty Interest in Name and Reputation 33 We next address Dr. Lighton's contention Dr. Ehleringer's statements affected his liberty interest in his good name and reputation.12 For the purpose of evaluating Dr. Lighton's argument, we assume he possessed a liberty interest in his continued employment at the University. However, in order to succeed, Dr. Lighton must show how Dr. Ehleringer infringed that interest. See Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475, 481 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1015 (1995). First, Dr. Lighton must show Dr. Ehleringer's statements impugned his \"good name, reputation, honor or integrity.\" Id. Second, Dr. Ehleringer's statements must have been false. Id. Third, his statements must have occurred in the course of terminating Dr. Lighton or must have foreclosed other employment opportunities. Id. And finally, his statements must have been published. Id. We have said these four elements are not disjunctive i.e., all four elements must be satisfied to demonstrate deprivation of Dr. Lighton's liberty interest. Id. 34 In this case, Dr. Ehleringer informed the biology department's executive committee a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint had been filed against the department, and later advised them of the withdrawal of that complaint. We find nothing to show Dr. Ehleringer's statements in anyway impugned Dr. Lighton's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity. This alone is sufficient reason to conclude no violation of Dr. Lighton's liberty interest occurred. Moreover, as the trial court found, nothing shows Dr. Ehleringer made untruthful statements about Dr. Lighton, or that his statements caused him to resign. We also reject Dr. Lighton's allegations Dr. Ehleringer's speech caused him to lose employment opportunities elsewhere for the reasons stated, and because we find Dr. Lighton's alleged loss of future employment too speculative and intangible to constitute a deprivation of a liberty interest. See Workman, 32 F.3d at 481. Under the circumstances presented, we hold Dr. Ehleringer clearly did not violate Dr. Lighton's liberty interest, and therefore, no due process violation occurred. D. Right of Free Speech 35 In support of his protected speech argument, Dr. Lighton suggests Ms McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer failed to make a good faith effort to resolve his First Amendment concerns and in fact, violated his First Amendment rights by requiring him to remain silent on a matter of public concern regarding Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of equipment.13 36 It is well established a government employer, such as the University or its officials, \"cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.\" Lytle v. City of Haysville, 138 F.3d 857, 863 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In evaluating a protected, freedom of speech argument, we rely on the Supreme Court's balancing test, first 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 8/14 articulated in Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968). The Pickering balancing test has developed into a four-step analysis, under which we must determine: 1) if Dr. Lighton's speech is of public concern; 2) if it is, we must balance the interest of his freedom of expression with the University's interest in preventing disruption of official function and promoting the efficiency of public service through its employees; 3) if the balance tips in Dr. Lighton's favor, he must prove the speech was substantial or a motivating factor in the detrimental employment decision; and 4) finally, we must give the University, or in this case, Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer, an opportunity to prove the same decision would have been reached, even absent the protected conduct. See Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d 803, 811 (10th Cir. 1996). 37 In order for Dr. Lighton to succeed, the first step of the Pickering balancing test must be established. In other words, we need not go further if we determine Dr. Lighton's speech, in accusing Dr. Fielden of unauthorized use of equipment, does not rise to \"a matter of public concern.\" We have defined matters of public concern as \"those of interest to the community, whether for social, political, or other reasons.\" Lytle, 138 F.3d at 863. In analyzing whether speech constitutes a matter of public concern, we may focus on the motive of the speaker and whether the speech is calculated to disclose misconduct or merely deals with personal disputes and grievances unrelated to the public's interest. See McEvoy v. Shoemaker, 882 F.2d 463, 466 (10th Cir. 1989) (relying on Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 796 (10th Cir. 1988)). For example, when the identified speech focuses on disclosing a public official's malfeasance or wrongdoing, it is most likely a matter of public concern. See Schalk v. Gallemore, 906 F.2d 491, 494 (10th Cir. 1990). Conversely, it \"is generally not [considered] protected speech if [its] aim is simply to air grievances of a purely personal nature.\" Id. 38 In applying these principles, it does not appear Dr. Lighton's speech about Dr. Fielden's alleged unauthorized use of property rose to that of \"public concern,\" but as the district court said was more of a \"vendetta.\" The record discloses Dr. Lighton knew about Dr. Fielden's alleged unauthorized use of the equipment, but did not report it until nine months later immediately after Dr. Fielden raised sexual harassment and retaliation charges against him.14 Under these circumstances, we are persuaded Dr. Lighton did not disclose the information concerning the equipment for the principal aim or Good Samaritan purpose of disclosing \"government misconduct,\" but for his own personal reasons for either getting even with, or using leverage against, Dr. Fielden.15 39 As to Dr. Lighton's characterization of Dr. Ehleringer's letter as placing a \"gag order\" on his free speech,16 we disagree. Long before Dr. Ehleringer's May 14, 1995 letter demanding Dr. Lighton not make disparaging remarks about Dr. Fielden, Dr. Lighton twice expressed an interest in an agreement which included a provision preventing third-party disclosures. With respect to Dr. Lighton's reporting unauthorized equipment use, the same letter simply demanded Dr. Lighton go through the proper channels by reporting it to the University, rather than the National Health Institute. In the event Dr. Lighton did not understand this distinction or the topics that might trigger disciplinary proceedings, he certainly should have understood them by the next day when his attorney acknowledged his understanding the sanction provision of the letter did not extend to Dr. Lighton's reporting Dr. Fielden's alleged misconduct to the University, or even to the National Institute of Health. In addition, the settlement allowed Dr. Lighton to disclose information about Dr. Fielden to third parties, provided he simultaneously notifies her, through her attorney, of such disclosure. Under the circumstances, we cannot say this constitutes a \"gag order.\" Having determined Dr. Lighton's speech on Dr. Fielden's actions did not rise to that of a matter of public concern, we need go no further to conclude his free speech argument lacks merit. E. Additional Disputed Facts 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 9/14 40 As to the appropriateness of summary judgment disposition in this case, we point out Dr. Lighton did not contest the facts presented by Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary in their summary judgment motion and brief, other than to claim additional disputed facts existed to prevent summary judgment disposition, and to dispute whether Dr. Lighton received a \"reasonable alternative\" to resignation and \"concurred\" with the settlement agreement. On appeal, Dr. Lighton continues to contend additional, disputed facts exist concerning: 1) the merit of Dr. Fielden's sexual harassment and retaliation claims; 2) his perceived view of Ms. McCreary's and Dr. Ehleringer's malice towards him as evidenced, in part, by their facial expressions and other intimations; 3) the inadequacy of their investigation into Dr. Fielden's claims; and 4) his subjective view he was constructively terminated. For these reasons, he purports the district court erred in granting summary judgment. 41 Although we view the evidence and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to Dr. Lighton as the party opposing summary judgment, he must identify sufficient evidence of material disputed facts to require submission of the case to a jury. Langley v. Adams County, 987 F.2d 1473, 1476 (10th Cir. 1993) (quotation marks and citation omitted). To determine what facts are material to summary judgment disposition, we look to the primary issues in this case, which involve Dr. Lighton's claims of constructive termination, a violation of his liberty interest in his name and reputation, and a restriction on his protected speech. In making a determination on these issues, we find the veracity of Dr. Fielden's sexual harassment and retaliation allegations against Dr. Lighton irrelevant or immaterial. 42 Obviously, Dr. Fielden's allegations began the chain of events leading to the controversy over Dr. Lighton's signing the settlement agreement. As a consequence, any significance we attach to them stems merely from the fact they were made, resulted in Dr. Ehleringer reporting Dr. Fielden's formal complaint against the department to its executive committee, influenced Dr. Ehleringer's and Ms. McCreary's desire to settle the dispute between Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden, and resulted in the settlement agreement, containing a provision on reporting allegations of improper acts to third parties, which Dr. Lighton contends he felt compelled to sign. Thus, while Dr. Fielden's allegations lead to the instant litigation, we find the truth of those allegations does not affect resolution of the issues at dispute. Because we hold any disputed facts as to the merits of Dr. Fielden's claims are immaterial to our decision, we also hold the adequacy of Dr. Ehleringer's and Ms. McCreary's investigation into them is immaterial. 43 We next direct our attention to Dr. Lighton's subjective perception Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer felt malice toward him and their actions caused him to involuntarily resign. In reviewing his allegations of constructive termination, Dr. Lighton's subjective view of the situation is clearly irrelevant. See Yearous, 128 F.3d at 1356. Therefore, his subjective views on Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary's perceived facial expressions and other intimations are irrelevant to our decision. Because we have already thoroughly discussed the undisputed facts we believe pertinent to making a summary judgment determination in this case, we will not repeat our analysis here. In sum, Dr. Lighton fails to identify evidence of additional undisputed, material facts sufficient to require submission of his case to a jury. See Langley, 987 F.2d at 1476. For these reasons, we hold the district court did not err in disposing of this matter by summary judgment decision. F. Ms. McCreary's Affidavit 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 10/14 44 As a procedural matter, the district court issued a bench ruling denying Dr. Lighton's motion to strike Ms. McCreary's supplemental affidavit, determining it did not violate \"standard practice,\" and contained information \"relevant\" to Dr. Lighton's reply and admissible as evidence. According to Dr. Lighton, the district court erred in its ruling because Ms. McCreary's untimely affidavit constituted an attempt to \"patch up ... factual holes\" in her and Dr. Ehleringer's summary judgment brief. 45 We begin by noting Ms. McCreary filed her affidavit three weeks prior to the summary judgment hearing in response to Dr. Lighton's memorandum opposing her summary judgment motion and brief. Her supplemental affidavit simply explains the University maintained an interim policy for investigation into research misconduct, and that Dr. Lighton did not to file a formal complaint against Dr. Fielden under that policy, but instead filed his complaint with the National Institute of Health. It further verifies the Institute investigated Dr. Lighton's accusations and exonerated the University and Dr. Fielden. 46 Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states \"[w]hen a motion is supported by affidavit, the affidavit shall be served with the motion.\" However, under Rule 56(e): \"The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories or further affidavits. Thus, the district court clearly has discretion to permit supplemental affidavits it finds useful for summary judgment determination. In this case, the district court found Ms. McCreary's supplemental affidavit contained information \"relevant\" and admissible as evidence review of the record convinces us the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Lighton's motion to strike her affidavit. Moreover, even if we agreed with Dr. Lighton and considered only facts outside of Ms. McCreary's supplemental affidavit, it would not alter our decision the district court properly granted summary judgment 47 Having conducted a de novo review of the district court decision granting summary judgment to Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer on the issue of qualified immunity, we hold Dr. Lighten has failed to make the requisite showing of a violation of any constitutional right. See Romero, 45 F.3d at 1475. As a result, we conclude Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Id. For these reasons, we the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer. Notes: 1 Specifically, beginning in late November 1994, Dr. Fielden complained to Dr. Ehleringer that Dr. Lighton threatened to fire her and make her life difficult. In December, she complained Dr. Lighton posted an advertisement on her laboratory door seeking a replacement for her job and that Dr. Lighton accused her of spreading rumors about him. Later, in January 1995, she presented Dr. Ehleringer with a letter from Dr. Lighton, stating he would not tolerate complaints made behind his back. She also presented Dr. Ehleringer with a letter dated December 26, 1994, in which Dr. Lighton requested she produce, within the next four days during the 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 11/14 holiday season, a summary of all her work to date and plans for the next several months. Another letter from Dr. Lighton criticized her for not exchanging Christmas gifts with him. She also furnished Dr. Ehleringer a copy of the job advertisement Dr. Lighton posted on her laboratory door. 2 The equipment consisted of a gas analyzer allegedly taken from the University of Bophutatswana. 3 In her complaint, Dr. Fielden accused Dr. Lighton of continuing to retaliate against her after their affair concluded by: 1) failing to assist her with her experiments; 2) isolating her from the laboratory; 3) excluding her from interacting with other research colleagues; 4) interfering with her personal affairs; making verbal threats and telephone calls; 5) threatening to terminate her employment; 6) posting an opening for her job after threatening termination; and blocking funding for her to participate and deliver a paper at an international congress. 4 Besides the retaliatory actions cited by Dr. Fielden directly to Dr. Ehleringer and in her complaint, Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer also believed other actions taken by Dr. Lighton's could be perceived as retaliatory. These included Dr. Lighton's: 1) request the biology department's accountant obtain Dr. Fielden's long distance phone records and gather information on her use of National Institute of Health grant funds for supplies and travel; 2) timing in alleging Dr. Fielden stole equipment, which he did not raise until she brought sexual harassment and retaliation charges against him; 3) request to others to write a letter exonerating him over Dr. Fielden; 4) tone in his Christmas letter to Dr. Fielden chastising her for refusing to exchange gifts; 5) admission he was contacting associates of Dr. Fielden, raising question about her competence and mental stability; 6) attempt to get a mediation agreement canceling her three-year contract and placing her on six-months probation; 7) attempt to change the sick-leave policy to prevent Dr. Fielden from visiting her ill father; and 8) claim diseased ticks under Dr. Fielden's care escaped, which he knew was false and quickly recanted once the laboratory became quarantined. 5 Later, Dr. Ehleringer noted biology department members eventually figured out Dr. Lighton's involvement simply by making the \"linkage\" between Dr. Fielden's settlement and Dr. Lighton's resignation. 6 While Dr. Lighton brought additional allegations against the University, Dr. Ehleringer, and Ms. McCreary, those issues were resolved prior to the summary judgment determination at issue here and are not appealed. 7 The only \"facts\" Dr. Lighton did not contest, as presented by Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary in their summary judgment motion and brief, involved whether Dr. Lighton received a \"reasonable alternative\" to resignation and \"concurred\" with the settlement agreement. He also alleged additional material facts existed to prevent summary judgment disposition. On appeal, Dr. Lighton continues to contend additional disputed facts exist which must prevent summary judgment determination, which we examine later in this decision. 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 12/14 8 Moreover, during oral argument Dr. Lighton's counsel conceded Dr. Lighton may not have a property right in his non-tenure position with the University, but nevertheless argued Dr. Lighton's liberty interest in his continued employment was violated by his constructive termination without due process. Under either scenario, we hold Dr. Lighton's resignation did not constitute constructive termination. 9 In Yearous, hospital nurses quit their jobs after claiming their supervisor wanted them to compromise their ethics. 128 F.3d at 1357. We held they voluntarily resigned because they were given the choice of leaving or continuing their employment with the hospital while they attempted to resolve their problems with their supervisor through a formal hearing. Id. Dr. Lighton suggests his case is distinguishable from Yearous because the nurses were given an alternative of continuing to work, while the only alternative he received consisted of entering into a \"gag order\" or resigning. We disagree. As explained in our discussion, Dr. Lighton freely chose resignation, and his employment would have continued whether he signed the settlement agreement or not, even though the possibility of discipline proceedings may have loomed ahead. 10 This is supported by the fact legal counsel represented Dr. Lighton at the time in question. 11 The crux of Dr. Lighton's constructive termination claim centers mainly on the fact the May 14 letter indicated termination could result from discipline proceedings. While we acknowledge disciplinary proceedings may have ensued, it does not mean termination would automatically result, especially in light of the fact Dr. Ehleringer considered Dr. Lighton a valued member of his department and gave him superlative performance reviews. Moreover, even if Dr. Lighton did possess some property right in his continued employment, he fails to show he did not understand University procedures regarding his due process rights in such a disciplinary hearing. 12 We exercise our discretion to address this contention even though Dr. Lighton failed to set forth any authority supporting it. Cf. Primas v. City of Oklahoma City, 958 F.2d 1506, 1511 (10th Cir. 1992). 13 In his appeal brief, Dr. Lighton also complains Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary prevented him from voicing his concerns to the National Institute of Heath on the University's mishandling of federal research funds and involvement in insurance fraud. The only reference Dr. Lighton points to in the record to support this allegation is one conclusory, self-serving sentence in his brief in opposition to the summary judgment motion claiming \"misuse or misapplication of federal research monies at the University of Utah.\" In his complaint, Dr. Lighton also generally alleges Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary attempted to use federal funds to pay Dr. Fielden's settlement sum, but we are uncertain if this is the misuse of which Dr. Lighton complains of on appeal. Reviewing the record as a whole, we find Dr. Lighton's summary allegations insufficient to raise a protected speech claim on these issues. Moreover, nothing in the record shows Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary ever attempted to restrict Dr. Lighton's speech on any topic concerning any mishandling of research funds or insurance fraud. Because we will not usually consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, Walker v. Mather (In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 13/14 896 (10th Cir. 1992), or conclusory and unsupported allegations, Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1333 (10th Cir. 1981), we decline to address these issues here. 14 Contrary to Dr. Lighton's contentions, the facts in his case are not similar to those in Powell v. Gallentine, 992 F.2d 1088 (10th Cir. 1993). In Powell, unlike here, the professor's allegations of grade fraud did not stem from personal motives. Id. at 1090-91. 15 We also question, but do not decide, whether the unauthorized use of a foreign university's equipment by a subordinate, foreign contract researcher rises to a matter of public concern involving the community's, let alone this country's, social or political interest, especially when it also does not involve the misconduct of a government official. 16 Dr. Lighton contends the \"gag order\" on reporting Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of equipment restricted both his free speech to report criminal conduct and his ability to \"supervise and discipline.\"However, it is unclear how any restriction on Dr. Lighton's reporting Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of equipment affected his ability to \"supervise and discipline,\" especially given Dr. Fielden left the University and no longer remained under his supervision. Home Federal Reporter, Third Series 209 F.3d Home Legal Research Law Dictionary Law Schools Federal Judges Federal Courts Terms of Use 2/13/25, 10:57 209 F3d 1213 John Lighton v. University of Utah | OpenJurist 14/14", "7843_102.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Lighton v. University of Utah United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit Apr 24, 2000 209 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2000) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Meet CoCounsel, pioneering that\u2019s secure, reliable, and trained for the law. Try CoCounsel free No. 99-4070. April 24, 2000. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah, (D.C. No. 96-CV-606). *1214 1214 Robert H. Wilde, Midvale, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Brent A. Burnett (Jan Graham, Attorney General, with him on the brief), Assistant Attorney General, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendants-Appellees. Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/21 BRORBY, Circuit Judge. Before and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. *1216 1216 This appeal arises from a 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 action for damages brought by Appellant John Lighton, a former assistant professor at the University of Utah (University), against Appellees James Ehleringer and Karen McCreary \u2014 two University officials in their official and individual capacities. At issue is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary on Dr. Lighton's \u00a7 1983 complaint, which alleges they constructively terminated him without due process of law following sexual harassment and retaliation charges filed against him by a subordinate. We exercise our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1291 and affirm This case involves numerous undisputed, material facts relied on by the district court in making its summary judgment decision. We begin by noting Dr. Lighton worked at the University as a tenure-track assistant professor in the biology department. During his employment with the University, he had an affair with Dr. Fielden-Rechav (\"Dr. Fielden\"), a subordinate female researcher from South Africa who was visiting his laboratory for two to three months to learn advanced respirometry techniques for insects. During this period, they submitted a written grant application *1217 to the National Institute of Health seeking funding for a research project to study ticks. In June 1994, the National Institute of Health granted the application. As a result, Dr. Lighton furnished Dr. Fielden a three-year contract to work with him under the grant. Regardless of who ended the affair, their relationship became strained at the commencement of Dr. Fielden's research contract. Eventually, the situation culminated in Dr. Fielden complaining to Dr. Ehleringer, the biology department chair and Dr. Lighton's supervisor, of sexual harassment and retaliatory actions by Dr. Lighton. 1217 1 1 Specifically, beginning in late November 1994, Dr. Fielden complained to Dr. Ehleringer that Dr. Lighton threatened to fire her and make her life difficult. 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/21 In December, she complained Dr. Lighton posted an advertisement on her laboratory door seeking a replacement for her job and that Dr. Lighton accused her of spreading rumors about him. Later, in January 1995, she presented Dr. Ehleringer with a letter from Dr. Lighton, stating he would not tolerate complaints made behind his back. She also presented Dr. Ehleringer with a letter dated December 26, 1994, in which Dr. Lighton requested she produce, within the next four days during the holiday season, a summary of all her work to date and plans for the next several months. Another letter from Dr. Lighton criticized her for not exchanging Christmas gifts with him. She also furnished Dr. Ehleringer a copy of the job advertisement Dr. Lighton posted on her laboratory door. In response to Dr. Fielden's complaints, Dr. Ehleringer contacted the Dean's office, the University's Office of General Counsel and the campus Office of Equal Opportunity. In January 1995, a series of meetings commenced between Dr. Lighton, Dr. Ehleringer, the Dean of the College of Science, and Ms. McCreary \u2014 an assistant general counsel for the University. In these meetings, they discussed the need to amicably resolve the conflict and to obtain a neutral person to act as an intermediary. They also advised Dr. Lighton a letter might be placed in his file if he did not refrain from taking perceived retaliatory actions against Dr. Fielden. On January 26, 1995, Dr. Ehleringer wrote Dr. Lighton a letter recognizing him as a \"very valued member\" of his department, offering to act as a first- round mediator between Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden, and proffering his support and hope for a quick resolution of their conflict. He also drafted a memo to both Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden urging them to seek help from an individual outside of the biology department to mediate their conflict. Two weeks later, Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden voluntarily met with a professional University mediator. This meeting culminated in Dr. Lighton believing they reached a mutually acceptable agreement. Dr. Lighton later approved the written draft agreement that presumably embodied the terms of the two parties. The draft agreement included a provision requiring the parties to refrain from making disparaging remarks to third parties about each other outside each other's presence. However, the draft agreement also contained a provision abolishing Dr. Fielden's three-year contract and placing her on six-months probation. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Fielden retained 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/21 counsel who wrote Dr. Ehleringer a letter accusing Dr. Lighton of sexual harassment and retaliation against Dr. Fielden. In March 1995, Ms. McCreary met with Dr. Lighton to discuss Dr. Fielden's allegations and allow him to communicate his version of events. At that time, Dr. Lighton informed Ms. McCreary of his efforts to contact Dr. Fielden's previous colleagues and advisors in an attempt to dig up information on her early experiences as well as her \"craziness and pathological nature.\" Ms. McCreary advised Dr. Lighton this action could be perceived as retaliatory and he should proceed carefully in his conduct regardless of the merit of Ms. Fielden's sexual harassment claim. Dr. Lighton also presented Ms. McCreary with a letter he prepared accusing Dr. Fielden of unauthorized use of a South African university's equipment since July 1994. *1218 2 1218 2 The equipment consisted of a gas analyzer allegedly taken from the University of Bophutatswana. Shortly thereafter, he sent another letter to Ms. McCreary indicating he no longer wished to employ Dr. Fielden, again raising the equipment issue. On March 30, 1995, Dr. Fielden filed a formal sexual harassment and retaliation complaint with the Utah Anti-Discrimination Division against the University's biology department.3 3 In her complaint, Dr. Fielden accused Dr. Lighton of continuing to retaliate against her after their affair concluded by: 1) failing to assist her with her experiments; 2) isolating her from the laboratory; 3) excluding her from interacting with other research colleagues; 4) interfering with her personal affairs; making verbal threats and telephone calls; 5) threatening to terminate her employment; 6) posting an opening for her job after threatening termination; and blocking funding for her to participate and deliver a paper at an international congress. In response, Dr. Lighton offered to \"refrain in a legally binding manner from making any negative comments concerning Dr. Fielden to anyone, and undertake not to damage or undermine her research career in anyway.\" At an April 5, 1995 meeting with Ms. McCreary over Dr. Fielden's request for a $15,000 settlement, Dr. Lighton offered to use his Packard Fellowship fund 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/21 to pay Dr. Fielden in absentia if she prepared papers on their project. Meantime, at a subsequent biology department executive committee meeting, Dr. Ehleringer announced someone filed a sexual harassment complaint against the department, but declined to cite Dr. Lighton's involvement, even when specifically asked. Thereafter, Dr. Fielden's attorney proposed a settlement of her claims on certain conditions, including the condition Dr. Lighton refrain from notifying the National Institute of Health of any adverse information about her, or if he had already contacted the Institute, to rectify the situation. By written response, Dr. Lighton agreed to this condition, but when Dr. Fielden insisted he sign the agreement, he refused. In a letter drafted by his attorney, Dr. Lighton stated he would not pay a settlement to Dr. Fielden with his grant money and complained that, even though he did not intend to make disparaging comments about Dr. Fielden, he would not sign an agreement preventing him from disclosing her inappropriate actions should an investigation arise. On May 14, 1995, Dr. Ehleringer sent Dr. Lighton a letter directing him to: 1) sign the settlement agreement, noting it did not include any admission of wrongdoing by Dr. Lighton; 2) file his complaint against Dr. Fielden internally, instead of with the National Institute of Health, as required by federal procedures; and 3) refrain from making any disparaging remarks about her to any third party. Most importantly, the letter stated failure to comply would \"result in the initiation of disciplinary action . . . that may result in the imposition of serious sanctions, including termination of your employment with the University.\" The next day, Dr. Lighton's attorney acknowledged his understanding, after communicating with Ms. McCreary, that no disciplinary action would rise from Dr. Lighton reporting Dr. Fielden's alleged \"malfeasance\" or misappropriation of the equipment to the University or the National Institute of Health. Almost one month later, Dr. Fielden, Dr. Lighton, and the University entered into the settlement agreement, which included Dr. Lighton's requested provision he could disclose information about Dr. Fielden to third parties, provided he simultaneously notify her, through her attorney, of such disclosure. The agreement also expressly disclaimed any wrongdoing or 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/21 liability by Dr. Lighton or the University. Under the terms of the agreement, Ms. Fielden agreed to withdraw her formal complaint and resign from her three-year employment contract in order to obtain employment elsewhere. In addition, the settlement money did not come out of Dr. Lighten's grant or fellowship monies, but from the Utah State Division of Risk Management. Both Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary supported the settlement with Dr. Fielden, *1219 primarily because they believed Dr. Lighton's actions could potentially be perceived as retaliatory. 1219 4 4 Besides the retaliatory actions cited by Dr. Fielden directly to Dr. Ehleringer and in her complaint, Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer also believed other actions taken by Dr. Lighton's could be perceived as retaliatory. These included Dr. Lighton's: 1) request the biology department's accountant obtain Dr. Fielden's long distance phone records and gather information on her use of National Institute of Health grant funds for supplies and travel; 2) timing in alleging Dr. Fielden stole equipment, which he did not raise until she brought sexual harassment and retaliation charges against him; 3) request to others to write a letter exonerating him over Dr. Fielden; 4) tone in his Christmas letter to Dr. Fielden chastising her for refusing to exchange gifts; 5) admission he was contacting associates of Dr. Fielden, raising question about her competence and mental stability; 6) attempt to get a mediation agreement canceling her three-year contract and placing her on six-months probation; 7) attempt to change the sick-leave policy to prevent Dr. Fielden from visiting her ill father; and 8) claim diseased ticks under Dr. Fielden's care escaped, which he knew was false and quickly recanted once the laboratory became quarantined. In addition, Ms. McCreary believed it prudent to settle with Dr. Fielden, not because she necessarily believed Dr. Fielden's side of the story over Dr. Lighton's, but because of her assessment on the University's potential legal exposure. Two weeks after signing the settlement agreement, Dr. Lighton signed a non-tenure employment offer with the University of Las Vegas, and on the same day, resigned. In his resignation letter, Dr. Lighten simply stated: The actions of the University of Utah have made it impossible for me to retain my academic post in the Biology Department without 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/21 compromising my respect for both this institution and myself. Following Dr. Lighton's resignation, Dr. Ehleringer sent a notice to the biology department's faculty merely announcing another university attracted Dr. Lighten away. At the following biology department executive committee meeting, Dr. Ehleringer advised members of the withdrawal of the sexual harassment and retaliation complaint against the department, and also commented on their fortune in resolving the situation so quickly.5 5 Later, Dr. Ehleringer noted biology department members eventually figured out Dr. Lighton's involvement simply by making the \"linkage\" between Dr. Fielden's settlement and Dr. Lighton's resignation. It is important to note that prior to tendering his June 1995 resignation, Dr. Lighton contacted the University of Las Vegas as early as 1992 seeking employment, writing: Your department at [the University of Las Vegas] is plainly going places, and the opportunity to play a role in the development of a growing dynamic department is simply too exciting to let slip by. In late 1994, Dr. Lighton also talked with University of California personnel about future employment, basing his desire to leave the University on Dr. Ehleringer's refusal to find additional research space for him. Even before his January 1995 meetings with Ms. McCreary to discuss Dr. Fielden's charges, Dr. Lighton contacted the University of Las Vegas and three other universities in an effort to seek employment. Subsequently, in a May 1995 interview, Dr. Lighton gave the following statement to a University of Las Vegas job recruiter as to why he wanted to leave the University have never been happy with Salt Lake City as a social or intellectual environment, and have been still less content with the University. Essentially have found myself increasingly intellectually isolated between extreme and rancorous camps of reductionists and anti-reductionists. Promised positions for colleagues in disciplines related to mine have been repeatedly scuttled by in-fighting . . . . Allied to this are problems have had with unethical behavior on the part of certain high-ranking 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/21 University officials no longer wish to work here; my decision is not whether to *1220 move, but when find [the University of Las Vegas] especially attractive because of the high quality of its faculty and graduate students, its location, and because of the presence among your faculty of colleagues with whom have enjoyably and constructively interacted in the past . . . .\" 1220 Since his June 1995 resignation and acceptance of the University of Las Vegas non-tenure position, Dr. Lighton has not obtained a tenure or \"tenure- track\" position. However, he admits he is unaware of any communications about him between the University and the University of Las Vegas, or of Ms. McCreary saying anything to damage his reputation. Mr. Lighton also does not dispute he received superlative annual performance evaluations from Dr. Ehleringer before and during the period in question. In fact, as late as February 3, 1995, after Dr. Ehleringer became aware of Dr. Fielden's complaints and some of Dr. Lighton's perceived retaliatory actions, Dr. Ehleringer nevertheless gave Dr. Lighton a superlative annual performance review, calling him a \"rising star.\" Even Dr. Lighton admitted this performance review indicated \"a strong expression of support\" for him One year after his resignation, Dr. Lighton brought a \u00a7 1983 complaint against Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary, alleging their actions forced him to involuntarily resign. He claimed he was \"constructively terminated\" and deprived of his property right and liberty interest in his continued employment without due process of law or an opportunity to rebut defamatory accusations made against him. He also alleged Ms. McCreary's and Dr. Ehleringer's actions infringed his free speech to comment on Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of laboratory equipment. Finally, Dr. Lighton claimed Dr. Ehleringer \"orally published\" statements, accusing him of unprofessional and unlawful conduct, which adversely affected his liberty interest in his good will and reputation.6 6 While Dr. Lighton brought additional allegations against the University, Dr. Ehleringer, and Ms. McCreary, those issues were resolved prior to the summary judgment determination at issue here and are not appealed. 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/21 The district court issued a bench ruling accepting as uncontroverted their statement of undisputed material facts and granting Dr. Ehleringer's and Ms. McCreary's motion for summary judgment. The district court determined qualified immunity barred Dr. Lighton's claims against Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary because no constitutional violation occurred and their actions were reasonable and necessary to protect the interests of the University. In support, the district court found no triggering of any due process right on the constructive termination claim because Dr. Lighton voluntarily resigned, as evidenced by: 1) his active quest in seeking employment elsewhere; 2) the fact he obtained a job before resigning, and 3) his leaving the University on his own terms and schedule. The court further found the May 14, 1995 letter, threatening possible termination if Dr. Lighton did not cease his retaliatory conduct, constituted the only adverse consequence, and merely an \"interim imposition on [Dr.] Lighton's activities.\" 7 7 The only \"facts\" Dr. Lighton did not contest, as presented by Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary in their summary judgment motion and brief, involved whether Dr. Lighton received a \"reasonable alternative\" to resignation and \"concurred\" with the settlement agreement. He also alleged additional material facts existed to prevent summary judgment disposition. On appeal, Dr. Lighton continues to contend additional disputed facts exist which must prevent summary judgment determination, which we examine later in this decision. As to Dr. Lighton's liberty interest in name and reputation, the district court found he did not meet any of the requisite requirements of showing Dr. Ehleringer's statements: 1) impugned his name, reputation, honor or integrity; 2) were false; 3) occurred in the course of his termination or foreclosed other employment opportunities, *1221 or 4) were published. Finally, under the appropriate balancing test, the district court found no infringement of Dr. Lighton's free speech because it did not touch on a matter of public concern. The court also found the timing and nature of Dr. Lighton's allegations about Dr. Fielden's improperly taking equipment \"suspect\" and more of a \"personal vendetta\" than public speech in the public's interest. Even if his speech on this topic did meet the \"public concern\" requirement, the district court determined Ms. McCreary and Dr. 1221 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/21 Ehleringer possessed a right to restrict his speech to prevent the disruption of official function and insure effective employee performance On appeal, Dr. Lighton raises essentially the same claims addressed by the district court in its summary judgment determination. In their response, Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary fully support the district court's decision. A. Standard of Review In reviewing the district court's summary judgment decision, we follow the standard we articulated in Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1995). In so doing, we review the district court's finding of qualified immunity de novo, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Dr. Lighton as the nonmoving party. Id. at 1475. However, as we noted in Romero, we review summary judgment decisions involving qualified immunity somewhat differently than other summary judgment rulings. Id. To reach the question of whether Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer are entitled to qualified immunity, we must first ascertain, by de novo review, whether Dr. Lighten sufficiently asserted the violation of a constitutional right. Id. In order to carry his burden, Dr. Lighton must do more than abstractly identify an established right, but must specifically identify the right and conduct by Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer which violated that right. Id. Once Dr. Lighton sufficiently alleges the conduct violated clearly established law, then Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer bear the burden of showing no material issues of fact remain to defeat their claim of qualified immunity. Id. B. Constructive Termination With these standards in mind, we first turn to Dr. Lighton's claim Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary somehow denied him a property right or liberty interest in his continued employment at the University by constructively terminating him without due process of law. In support of his constructive termination claim, Dr. Lighton argues he never received any alternative to resignation because he was coerced into signing the settlement agreement on threat of termination. Specifically, Dr. Lighton 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/21 relies on Dr. Ehleringer's May 14, 1995 letter to show the only choice given to him was to either submit to \"a gag order\" or face termination. We begin by resolving whether Dr. Lighton possessed a property interest in his position with the University. It is well-established constructive discharge from employment is actionable under \u00a7 1983 if an employee possesses a protectable property or liberty interest in his employment. Woodward v. City of Worland, 977 F.2d 1392, 1401 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Bailey v. Kirk, 777 F.2d 567, 579 (10th Cir. 1985)), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 923 (1993). In the employment context, the Supreme Court defines a property interest \"as a legitimate expectation in continued employment.\" Lenz v. Dewey, 64 F.3d 547, 551 (10th Cir. 1995) (relying, in part, on Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)). We determine whether such a property interest exists by looking at state law. See Watson v. University of Utah Med. Ctr,, 75 F.3d 569, 577 (10th Cir. 1996). Under Utah law, an employment contract with no specified term of duration is an at-will relationship and the employer may terminate such employment at any time. Id. at 577-78 (citations omitted). In such instances, no property interest exists. *1222 1222 In this case, the University employed Dr. Lighton as a non-tenured professor, even though the University characterized him as a \"tenure-track\" professor. Dr. Lighton fails to point to any contract showing a specific term of employment existed nor identify any Utah statutes or University policy on which his alleged property interest is grounded. 75 F.3d at 578. Because insufficient evidence exists in the record to show he possessed a property right to his continued employment, under either state law or some internal University policy, we cannot conclude any property right existed.8 8 Moreover, during oral argument Dr. Lighton's counsel conceded Dr. Lighton may not have a property right in his non-tenure position with the University, but nevertheless argued Dr. Lighton's liberty interest in his continued employment was violated by his constructive termination without due process. Under either scenario, we hold Dr. Lighton's resignation did not constitute constructive termination. Id.; see Lenz, 64 F.3d at 551-52. 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/21 Even if Dr. Lighton did possess a property right or liberty interest in his continued employment, we hold the district court correctly determined he voluntarily resigned his position. In determining whether a resignation is voluntary or involuntary, we use a \"reasonable person test.\" Yearous v. Niobrara County Mem'l Hosp., 128 F.3d 1351, 1356 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1074 (1998). The question is not whether working conditions become difficult or unpleasant. Id. at 1357. Rather, a resignation is only considered involuntary if the working conditions are viewed as so intolerable, a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Id. at 1356. In other words, Dr. Lighton must show he had \"no other choice but to quit.\" Id. (quoting Woodward, 977 F.2d at 1401, quoting Irving v. Dubuque Packing Co., 689 F.2d 170, 172 (10th Cir. 1982) (quotation marks omitted)). We determine the voluntariness of Dr. Lighton's resignation under the totality of the circumstances, including whether he: 1) received some alternative to resignation; 2) understood the nature of his choice; 3) had a reasonable time in which to choose, and 4) was permitted to select the effective date of his resignation. See Yearous, 128 F.3d at 1356.9 9 In Yearous, hospital nurses quit their jobs after claiming their supervisor wanted them to compromise their ethics. 128 F.3d at 1357. We held they voluntarily resigned because they were given the choice of leaving or continuing their employment with the hospital while they attempted to resolve their problems with their supervisor through a formal hearing. Id. Dr. Lighton suggests his case is distinguishable from Yearous because the nurses were given an alternative of continuing to work, while the only alternative he received consisted of entering into a \"gag order\" or resigning. We disagree. As explained in our discussion, Dr. Lighton freely chose resignation, and his employment would have continued whether he signed the settlement agreement or not, even though the possibility of discipline proceedings may have loomed ahead. In determining the voluntariness of Dr. Lighton's resignation, we point out Dr. Ehleringer's May 14, 1995 letter offered Dr. Lighton a choice of signing the settlement agreement or possibly facing disciplinary proceedings. The letter did not require mandatory termination or resignation if he did not sign the settlement agreement. Thus, under the first factor we consider, it is clear Dr. Ehleringer offered Dr. Lighton something other than mandatory resignation. In situations even more explicit or denotative than here, \"[w]e 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/21 have held that offering an employee a choice between resignation and termination does not violate an employee's due process of law, as long as the resignation is `voluntary.'\" Lenz, 64 F.3d at 552 (citing Parker v. Board of Regents, 981 F.2d 1159, 1162 (10th Cir. 1992)). In proceeding to examine the voluntariness of Dr. Lighton's resignation, we look at the second factor and find nothing shows Dr. Lighton did not understand his alternatives, even though he obviously *1223 considered one of the alternatives \u2014 the possibility of disciplinary proceedings \u2014 an unpleasant one. 10 1223 11 10 This is supported by the fact legal counsel represented Dr. Lighton at the time in question. 11 The crux of Dr. Lighton's constructive termination claim centers mainly on the fact the May 14 letter indicated termination could result from discipline proceedings. While we acknowledge disciplinary proceedings may have ensued, it does not mean termination would automatically result, especially in light of the fact Dr. Ehleringer considered Dr. Lighton a valued member of his department and gave him superlative performance reviews. Moreover, even if Dr. Lighton did possess some property right in his continued employment, he fails to show he did not understand University procedures regarding his due process rights in such a disciplinary hearing. As to the other factors outlined above, Dr. Lighton took three weeks after receiving the May 14 letter to sign the settlement agreement, and an additional two weeks after signing the agreement to tender his resignation. Under these circumstances, Dr. Lighton received a reasonable length of time to make his choice and clearly selected his own resignation date. We do not end our discussion here, but continue to examine Dr. Lighton's constructive termination claim by looking at the totality of the circumstances. We find it important Dr. Lighton actively sought other employment well before the January 1995 meetings began over Dr. Fieldon's complaints and while he remained on a \"tenure track\" at the University and continued to receive superlative reviews. Equally telling is the fact Dr. Lighton gave academic and social reasons for leaving the University which are inconsistent with the reasons given during the course of this litigation. Under these circumstances, it is clear Dr. Lighton intended to leave the 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/21 University long before the announcement or escalation of Dr. Fielden's charges and for reasons other than the settlement he allegedly felt compelled to enter. Because we find Dr. Lighton voluntarily resigned his position, we determine no constructive termination occurred and thus, no due process deprivation existed. C. Liberty Interest in Name and Reputation We next address Dr. Lighton's contention Dr. Ehleringer's statements affected his liberty interest in his good name and reputation.12 12 We exercise our discretion to address this contention even though Dr. Lighton failed to set forth any authority supporting it. Cf. Primas v. City of Oklahoma City, 958 F.2d 1506, 1511 (10th Cir. 1992). For the purpose of evaluating Dr. Lighton's argument, we assume he possessed a liberty interest in his continued employment at the University. However, in order to succeed, Dr. Lighton must show how Dr. Ehleringer infringed that interest. See Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475, 481 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1015 (1995). First, Dr. Lighton must show Dr. Ehleringer's statements impugned his \"good name, reputation, honor or integrity.\" Id. Second, Dr. Ehleringer's statements must have been false. Id. Third, his statements must have occurred in the course of terminating Dr. Lighton or must have foreclosed other employment opportunities. Id. And finally, his statements must have been published. Id. We have said these four elements are not disjunctive \u2014 i.e., all four elements must be satisfied to demonstrate deprivation of Dr. Lighton's liberty interest. Id. In this case, Dr. Ehleringer informed the biology department's executive committee a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint had been filed against the department, and later advised them of the withdrawal of that complaint. We find nothing to show Dr. Ehleringer's statements in anyway impugned Dr. Lighton's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity. This alone is sufficient reason to conclude no violation of Dr. Lighton's liberty interest occurred. Moreover, as the trial court found, nothing shows Dr. Ehleringer made untruthful statements about Dr. Lighton, or that his statements caused him to resign. We also reject Dr. Lighton's allegations Dr. Ehleringer's speech caused him to lose employment opportunities elsewhere 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/21 *1224 for the reasons stated, and because we find Dr. Lighton's alleged loss of future employment too speculative and intangible to constitute a deprivation of a liberty interest. See Workman, 32 F.3d at 481. Under the circumstances presented, we hold Dr. Ehleringer clearly did not violate Dr. Lighton's liberty interest, and therefore, no due process violation occurred. 1224 D. Right of Free Speech In support of his protected speech argument, Dr. Lighton suggests Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer failed to make a good faith effort to resolve his First Amendment concerns and in fact, violated his First Amendment rights by requiring him to remain silent on a matter of public concern regarding Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of equipment.13 13 In his appeal brief, Dr. Lighton also complains Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary prevented him from voicing his concerns to the National Institute of Heath on the University's mishandling of federal research funds and involvement in insurance fraud. The only reference Dr. Lighton points to in the record to support this allegation is one conclusory, self-serving sentence in his brief in opposition to the summary judgment motion claiming \"misuse or misapplication of federal research monies at the University of Utah.\" In his complaint, Dr. Lighton also generally alleges Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary attempted to use federal funds to pay Dr. Fielden's settlement sum, but we are uncertain if this is the misuse of which Dr. Lighton complains of on appeal. Reviewing the record as a whole, we find Dr. Lighton's summary allegations insufficient to raise a protected speech claim on these issues. Moreover, nothing in the record shows Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary ever attempted to restrict Dr. Lighton's speech on any topic concerning any mishandling of research funds or insurance fraud. Because we will not usually consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, Walker v. Mather (In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992), or conclusory and unsupported allegations, Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1333 (10th Cir. 1981), we decline to address these issues here. It is well established a government employer, such as the University or its officials, \"cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.\" Lytle v. City of Haysville, 138 F.3d 857, 863 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In evaluating a protected, freedom of speech 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/21 argument, we rely on the Supreme Court's balancing test, first articulated in Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968). The Pickering balancing test has developed into a four-step analysis, under which we must determine: 1) if Dr. Lighton's speech is of public concern; 2) if it is, we must balance the interest of his freedom of expression with the University's interest in preventing disruption of official function and promoting the efficiency of public service through its employees; 3) if the balance tips in Dr. Lighton's favor, he must prove the speech was substantial or a motivating factor in the detrimental employment decision; and 4) finally, we must give the University, or in this case, Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer, an opportunity to prove the same decision would have been reached, even absent the protected conduct. See Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d 803, 811 (10th Cir. 1996). In order for Dr. Lighton to succeed, the first step of the Pickering balancing test must be established. In other words, we need not go further if we determine Dr. Lighton's speech, in accusing Dr. Fielden of unauthorized use of equipment, does not rise to \"a matter of public concern.\" We have defined matters of public concern as \"those of interest to the community, whether for social, political, or other reasons.\" Lytle, 138 F.3d at 863. In analyzing whether speech constitutes a matter of public concern, we may focus on the motive of the speaker and whether the speech is calculated to disclose misconduct or merely deals with personal disputes and grievances unrelated to the public's interest. See McEvoy v. Shoemaker, 882 F.2d 463, 466 (10th Cir. 1989) (relying on Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 796 (10th Cir. 1988)). For example, when the identified speech focuses on disclosing a public official's malfeasance or wrongdoing, it is *1225 most likely a matter of public concern. See Schalk v. Gallemore, 906 F.2d 491, 494 (10th Cir. 1990). Conversely, it \"is generally not [considered] protected speech if [its] aim is simply to air grievances of a purely personal nature.\" Id. 1225 In applying these principles, it does not appear Dr. Lighton's speech about Dr. Fielden's alleged unauthorized use of property rose to that of \"public concern,\" but \u2014 as the district court said \u2014 was more of a \"vendetta.\" The record discloses Dr. Lighton knew about Dr. Fielden's alleged unauthorized use of the equipment, but did not report it until nine months later \u2014 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 16/21 immediately after Dr. Fielden raised sexual harassment and retaliation charges against him.14 14 Contrary to Dr. Lighton's contentions, the facts in his case are not similar to those in Powell v. Gallentine, 992 F.2d 1088 (10th Cir. 1993). In Powell, unlike here, the professor's allegations of grade fraud did not stem from personal motives. Id. at 1090-91. Under these circumstances, we are persuaded Dr. Lighton did not disclose the information concerning the equipment for the principal aim or Good Samaritan purpose of disclosing \"government misconduct,\" but for his own personal reasons for either getting even with, or using leverage against, Dr. Fielden.15 15 We also question, but do not decide, whether the unauthorized use of a foreign university's equipment by a subordinate, foreign contract researcher rises to a matter of public concern involving the community's, let alone this country's, social or political interest, especially when it also does not involve the misconduct of a government official. As to Dr. Lighton's characterization of Dr. Ehleringer's letter as placing a \"gag order\" on his free speech, we disagree. Long before Dr. Ehleringer's May 14, 1995 letter demanding Dr. Lighton not make disparaging remarks about Dr. Fielden, Dr. Lighton twice expressed an interest in an agreement which included a provision preventing third-party disclosures. With respect to Dr. Lighton's reporting unauthorized equipment use, the same letter simply demanded Dr. Lighton go through the proper channels by reporting it to the University, rather than the National Health Institute. In the event Dr. Lighton did not understand this distinction or the topics that might trigger disciplinary proceedings, he certainly should have understood them by the next day when his attorney acknowledged his understanding the sanction provision of the letter did not extend to Dr. Lighton's reporting Dr. Fielden's alleged misconduct to the University, or even to the National Institute of Health. In addition, the settlement allowed Dr. Lighton to disclose information about Dr. Fielden to third parties, provided he simultaneously notifies her, through her attorney, of such disclosure. Under the circumstances, we cannot say this constitutes a \"gag order.\" Having determined Dr. Lighton's speech on Dr. Fielden's actions did not rise to that 16 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 17/21 of a matter of public concern, we need go no further to conclude his free speech argument lacks merit. 16 Dr. Lighton contends the \"gag order\" on reporting Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of equipment restricted both his free speech to report criminal conduct and his ability to \"supervise and discipline.\"However, it is unclear how any restriction on Dr. Lighton's reporting Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of equipment affected his ability to \"supervise and discipline,\" especially given Dr. Fielden left the University and no longer remained under his supervision. E. Additional Disputed Facts As to the appropriateness of summary judgment disposition in this case, we point out Dr. Lighton did not contest the facts presented by Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary in their summary judgment motion and brief, other than to claim additional disputed facts existed to prevent summary judgment disposition, and to dispute whether Dr. Lighton received a \"reasonable alternative\" to resignation and \"concurred\" with the settlement agreement. On appeal, Dr. Lighton continues to contend additional, disputed facts exist concerning: *1226 1) the merit of Dr. Fielden's sexual harassment and retaliation claims; 2) his perceived view of Ms. McCreary's and Dr. Ehleringer's malice towards him as evidenced, in part, by their facial expressions and other intimations; 3) the inadequacy of their investigation into Dr. Fielden's claims; and 4) his subjective view he was constructively terminated. For these reasons, he purports the district court erred in granting summary judgment. 1226 Although we view the evidence and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to Dr. Lighton as the party opposing summary judgment, he must identify sufficient evidence of material disputed facts to require submission of the case to a jury. Langley v. Adams County, 987 F.2d 1473, 1476 (10th Cir. 1993) (quotation marks and citation omitted). To determine what facts are material to summary judgment disposition, we look to the primary issues in this case, which involve Dr. Lighton's claims of constructive termination, a violation of his liberty interest in his name and reputation, and a restriction on his protected speech. In making a determination on these issues, we find 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 18/21 the veracity of Dr. Fielden's sexual harassment and retaliation allegations against Dr. Lighton irrelevant or immaterial. Obviously, Dr. Fielden's allegations began the chain of events leading to the controversy over Dr. Lighton's signing the settlement agreement. As a consequence, any significance we attach to them stems merely from the fact they were made, resulted in Dr. Ehleringer reporting Dr. Fielden's formal complaint against the department to its executive committee, influenced Dr. Ehleringer's and Ms. McCreary's desire to settle the dispute between Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden, and resulted in the settlement agreement, containing a provision on reporting allegations of improper acts to third parties, which Dr. Lighton contends he felt compelled to sign. Thus, while Dr. Fielden's allegations lead to the instant litigation, we find the truth of those allegations does not affect resolution of the issues at dispute. Because we hold any disputed facts as to the merits of Dr. Fielden's claims are immaterial to our decision, we also hold the adequacy of Dr. Ehleringer's and Ms. McCreary's investigation into them is immaterial. We next direct our attention to Dr. Lighton's subjective perception Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer felt malice toward him and their actions caused him to involuntarily resign. In reviewing his allegations of constructive termination, Dr. Lighton's subjective view of the situation is clearly irrelevant. See Yearous, 128 F.3d at 1356. Therefore, his subjective views on Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary's perceived facial expressions and other intimations are irrelevant to our decision. Because we have already thoroughly discussed the undisputed facts we believe pertinent to making a summary judgment determination in this case, we will not repeat our analysis here. In sum, Dr. Lighton fails to identify evidence of additional undisputed, material facts sufficient to require submission of his case to a jury. See Langley, 987 F.2d at 1476. For these reasons, we hold the district court did not err in disposing of this matter by summary judgment decision. F. Ms. McCreary's Affidavit As a procedural matter, the district court issued a bench ruling denying Dr. Lighton's motion to strike Ms. McCreary's supplemental affidavit, determining it did not violate \"standard practice,\" and contained information \"relevant\" to Dr. Lighton's reply and admissible as evidence. 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 19/21 According to Dr. Lighton, the district court erred in its ruling because Ms. McCreary's untimely affidavit constituted an attempt to \"patch up . . . factual holes\" in her and Dr. Ehleringer's summary judgment brief. We begin by noting Ms. McCreary filed her affidavit three weeks prior to the summary judgment hearing in response to Dr. Lighton's memorandum opposing her summary judgment motion and brief. Her supplemental affidavit simply explains the *1227 University maintained an interim policy for investigation into research misconduct, and that Dr. Lighton did not to file a formal complaint against Dr. Fielden under that policy, but instead filed his complaint with the National Institute of Health. It further verifies the Institute investigated Dr. Lighton's accusations and exonerated the University and Dr. Fielden. 1227 Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states \"[w]hen a motion is supported by affidavit, the affidavit shall be served with the motion.\" However, under Rule 56(e): \"The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories or further affidavits. Thus, the district court clearly has discretion to permit supplemental affidavits it finds useful for summary judgment determination. In this case, the district court found Ms. McCreary's supplemental affidavit contained information \"relevant\" and admissible as evidence review of the record convinces us the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Lighton's motion to strike her affidavit. Moreover, even if we agreed with Dr. Lighton and considered only facts outside of Ms. McCreary's supplemental affidavit, it would not alter our decision the district court properly granted summary judgment Having conducted a de novo review of the district court decision granting summary judgment to Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer on the issue of qualified immunity, we hold Dr. Lighten has failed to make the requisite showing of a violation of any constitutional right. See Romero, 45 F.3d at 1475. As a result, we conclude Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Id. For these reasons, we the district 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 20/21 court's decision granting summary judgment to Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer. About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/13/25, 10:57 Lighton v. University of Utah, 209 F.3d 1213 | Casetext Search + Citator 21/21", "7843_103.pdf": "10TH v (2000) United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. John LIGHTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v UTAH; Karen McCreary; James Ehleringer, Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-4070. Decided: April 24, 2000 Before and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. Robert H. Wilde, Midvale, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Brent A. Burnett (Jan Graham, Attorney General, with him on the brief), Assistant Attorney General, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendants-Appellees. This appeal arises from a 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 action for damages brought by Appellant John Lighton, a former assistant professor at the University of Utah (University), against Appellees James Ehleringer and Karen McCreary-two University officials in their official and individual capacities. At issue is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary on Dr. Lighton's \u00a7 1983 complaint, which alleges they constructively terminated him without due process of law following sexual harassment and retaliation charges filed against him by a subordinate. We exercise our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1291 and affirm This case involves numerous undisputed, material facts relied on by the district court in making its summary judgment decision. We begin by noting Dr. Lighton worked at the University as a tenure-track assistant professor in the biology department. During his employment with the University, he had an \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 1/20 affair with Dr. Fielden-Rechav (\u201cDr.Fielden\u201d), a subordinate female researcher from South Africa who was visiting his laboratory for two to three months to learn advanced respirometry techniques for insects. During this period, they submitted a written grant application to the National Institute of Health seeking funding for a research project to study ticks. In June 1994, the National Institute of Health granted the application. As a result, Dr. Lighton furnished Dr. Fielden a three-year contract to work with him under the grant. Regardless of who ended the affair, their relationship became strained at the commencement of Dr. Fielden's research contract. Eventually, the situation culminated in Dr. Fielden complaining to Dr. Ehleringer, the biology department chair and Dr. Lighton's supervisor, of sexual harassment and retaliatory actions by Dr. Lighton.1 In response to Dr. Fielden's complaints, Dr. Ehleringer contacted the Dean's office, the University's Office of General Counsel and the campus Office of Equal Opportunity. In January 1995, a series of meetings commenced between Dr. Lighton, Dr. Ehleringer, the Dean of the College of Science, and Ms. McCreary- an assistant general counsel for the University. In these meetings, they discussed the need to amicably resolve the conflict and to obtain a neutral person to act as an intermediary. They also advised Dr. Lighton a letter might be placed in his file if he did not refrain from taking perceived retaliatory actions against Dr. Fielden. On January 26, 1995, Dr. Ehleringer wrote Dr. Lighton a letter recognizing him as a \u201cvery valued member\u201d of his department, offering to act as a first-round mediator between Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden, and proffering his support and hope for a quick resolution of their conflict. He also drafted a memo to both Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden urging them to seek help from an individual outside of the biology department to mediate their conflict. Two weeks later, Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden voluntarily met with a professional University mediator. This meeting culminated in Dr. Lighton believing they reached a mutually acceptable agreement. Dr. Lighton later approved the written draft agreement that presumably embodied the terms of the two parties. The draft agreement included a provision requiring the parties to refrain from making disparaging remarks to third parties about each other outside each other's presence. However, the draft agreement also contained a provision abolishing Dr. Fielden's three-year contract and placing her on six-months probation. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Fielden retained counsel who wrote Dr. Ehleringer a letter accusing Dr. Lighton of sexual harassment and retaliation against Dr. Fielden. In March 1995, Ms. McCreary met with Dr. Lighton to discuss Dr. Fielden's allegations and allow him to communicate his version of events. At that time, Dr. Lighton informed Ms. McCreary of his efforts to contact Dr. Fielden's previous colleagues and advisors in an attempt to dig up information on her early experiences as well as her \u201ccraziness and pathological nature.\u201d Ms. McCreary advised Dr. Lighton this action could be perceived as retaliatory and he should proceed carefully in his conduct regardless of the merit of Ms. Fielden's sexual harassment claim. Dr. Lighton also presented Ms. McCreary with a letter 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 2/20 he prepared accusing Dr. Fielden of unauthorized use of a South African university's equipment since July 1994.2 Shortly thereafter, he sent another letter to Ms. McCreary indicating he no longer wished to employ Dr. Fielden, again raising the equipment issue. On March 30, 1995, Dr. Fielden filed a formal sexual harassment and retaliation complaint with the Utah Anti-Discrimination Division against the University's biology department.3 In response, Dr. Lighton offered to \u201crefrain in a legally binding manner from making any negative comments concerning Dr. Fielden to anyone, and undertake not to damage or undermine her research career in anyway.\u201d At an April 5, 1995 meeting with Ms. McCreary over Dr. Fielden's request for a $15,000 settlement, Dr. Lighton offered to use his Packard Fellowship fund to pay Dr. Fielden in absentia if she prepared papers on their project. Meantime, at a subsequent biology department executive committee meeting, Dr. Ehleringer announced someone filed a sexual harassment complaint against the department, but declined to cite Dr. Lighton's involvement, even when specifically asked. Thereafter, Dr. Fielden's attorney proposed a settlement of her claims on certain conditions, including the condition Dr. Lighton refrain from notifying the National Institute of Health of any adverse information about her, or if he had already contacted the Institute, to rectify the situation. By written response, Dr. Lighton agreed to this condition, but when Dr. Fielden insisted he sign the agreement, he refused. In a letter drafted by his attorney, Dr. Lighton stated he would not pay a settlement to Dr. Fielden with his grant money and complained that, even though he did not intend to make disparaging comments about Dr. Fielden, he would not sign an agreement preventing him from disclosing her inappropriate actions should an investigation arise. On May 14, 1995, Dr. Ehleringer sent Dr. Lighton a letter directing him to: 1) sign the settlement agreement, noting it did not include any admission of wrongdoing by Dr. Lighton; 2) file his complaint against Dr. Fielden internally, instead of with the National Institute of Health, as required by federal procedures; and 3) refrain from making any disparaging remarks about her to any third party. Most importantly, the letter stated failure to comply would \u201cresult in the initiation of disciplinary action \u2024 that may result in the imposition of serious sanctions, including termination of your employment with the University.\u201d The next day, Dr. Lighton's attorney acknowledged his understanding, after communicating with Ms. McCreary, that no disciplinary action would rise from Dr. Lighton reporting Dr. Fielden's alleged \u201cmalfeasance\u201d or misappropriation of the equipment to the University or the National Institute of Health. Almost one month later, Dr. Fielden, Dr. Lighton, and the University entered into the settlement agreement, which included Dr. Lighton's requested provision he could disclose information about Dr. Fielden to third parties, provided he simultaneously notify her, through her attorney, of such disclosure. The agreement also expressly disclaimed any wrongdoing or liability by Dr. Lighton or the University. Under the terms of the agreement, Ms. Fielden agreed to withdraw her formal complaint and resign from her three-year employment contract in order to obtain employment elsewhere. In addition, the 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 3/20 settlement money did not come out of Dr. Lighton's grant or fellowship monies, but from the Utah State Division of Risk Management. Both Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary supported the settlement with Dr. Fielden, primarily because they believed Dr. Lighton's actions could potentially be perceived as retaliatory.4 In addition, Ms. McCreary believed it prudent to settle with Dr. Fielden, not because she necessarily believed Dr. Fielden's side of the story over Dr. Lighton's, but because of her assessment on the University's potential legal exposure. Two weeks after signing the settlement agreement, Dr. Lighton signed a non-tenure employment offer with the University of Las Vegas, and on the same day, resigned. In his resignation letter, Dr. Lighton simply stated: The actions of the University of Utah have made it impossible for me to retain my academic post in the Biology Department without compromising my respect for both this institution and myself. Following Dr. Lighton's resignation, Dr. Ehleringer sent a notice to the biology department's faculty merely announcing another university attracted Dr. Lighton away. At the following biology department executive committee meeting, Dr. Ehleringer advised members of the withdrawal of the sexual harassment and retaliation complaint against the department, and also commented on their fortune in resolving the situation so quickly.5 It is important to note that prior to tendering his June 1995 resignation, Dr. Lighton contacted the University of Las Vegas as early as 1992 seeking employment, writing: Your department at [the University of Las Vegas] is plainly going places, and the opportunity to play a role in the development of a growing dynamic department is simply too exciting to let slip by. In late 1994, Dr. Lighton also talked with University of California personnel about future employment, basing his desire to leave the University on Dr. Ehleringer's refusal to find additional research space for him. Even before his January 1995 meetings with Ms. McCreary to discuss Dr. Fielden's charges, Dr. Lighton contacted the University of Las Vegas and three other universities in an effort to seek employment. Subsequently, in a May 1995 interview, Dr. Lighton gave the following statement to a University of Las Vegas job recruiter as to why he wanted to leave the University have never been happy with Salt Lake City as a social or intellectual environment, and have been still less content with the University. Essentially have found myself increasingly intellectually isolated between extreme and rancorous camps of reductionists and anti-reductionists. Promised positions for colleagues in disciplines related to mine have been repeatedly scuttled by in-fighting\u2024 Allied to this are problems have had with unethical behavior on the part of certain high-ranking University officials no longer wish to work here; my decision is not whether to move, but when find [the University of Las Vegas] especially attractive because of the high quality of its faculty and graduate students, its location, 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 4/20 and because of the presence among your faculty of colleagues with whom have enjoyably and constructively interacted in the past\u2024\u201d Since his June 1995 resignation and acceptance of the University of Las Vegas non-tenure position, Dr. Lighton has not obtained a tenure or \u201ctenure-track\u201d position. However, he admits he is unaware of any communications about him between the University and the University of Las Vegas, or of Ms. McCreary saying anything to damage his reputation. Dr. Lighton also does not dispute he received superlative annual performance evaluations from Dr. Ehleringer before and during the period in question. In fact, as late as February 3, 1995, after Dr. Ehleringer became aware of Dr. Fielden's complaints and some of Dr. Lighton's perceived retaliatory actions, Dr. Ehleringer nevertheless gave Dr. Lighton a superlative annual performance review, calling him a \u201crising star.\u201d Even Dr. Lighton admitted this performance review indicated \u201ca strong expression of support\u201d for him One year after his resignation, Dr. Lighton brought a \u00a7 1983 complaint against Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary, alleging their actions forced him to involuntarily resign. He claimed he was \u201cconstructively terminated\u201d and deprived of his property right and liberty interest in his continued employment without due process of law or an opportunity to rebut defamatory accusations made against him. He also alleged Ms. McCreary's and Dr. Ehleringer's actions infringed his free speech to comment on Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of laboratory equipment. Finally, Dr. Lighton claimed Dr. Ehleringer \u201corally published\u201d statements, accusing him of unprofessional and unlawful conduct, which adversely affected his liberty interest in his good will and reputation.6 The district court issued a bench ruling accepting as uncontroverted their statement of undisputed material facts 7 and granting Dr. Ehleringer's and Ms. McCreary's motion for summary judgment. The district court determined qualified immunity barred Dr. Lighton's claims against Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary because no constitutional violation occurred and their actions were reasonable and necessary to protect the interests of the University. In support, the district court found no triggering of any due process right on the constructive termination claim because Dr. Lighton voluntarily resigned, as evidenced by: 1) his active quest in seeking employment elsewhere; 2) the fact he obtained a job before resigning, and 3) his leaving the University on his own terms and schedule. The court further found the May 14, 1995 letter, threatening possible termination if Dr. Lighton did not cease his retaliatory conduct, constituted the only adverse consequence, and merely an \u201cinterim imposition on [Dr.] Lighton's activities.\u201d As to Dr. Lighton's liberty interest in name and reputation, the district court found he did not meet any of the requisite requirements of showing Dr. Ehleringer's statements: 1) impugned his name, reputation, honor or integrity; 2) were false; 3) occurred in the course of his termination or foreclosed other 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 5/20 employment opportunities, or 4) were published. Finally, under the appropriate balancing test, the district court found no infringement of Dr. Lighton's free speech because it did not touch on a matter of public concern. The court also found the timing and nature of Dr. Lighton's allegations about Dr. Fielden's improperly taking equipment \u201csuspect\u201d and more of a \u201cpersonal vendetta\u201d than public speech in the public's interest. Even if his speech on this topic did meet the \u201cpublic concern\u201d requirement, the district court determined Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer possessed a right to restrict his speech to prevent the disruption of official function and insure effective employee performance On appeal, Dr. Lighton raises essentially the same claims addressed by the district court in its summary judgment determination. In their response, Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary fully support the district court's decision. A. Standard of Review In reviewing the district court's summary judgment decision, we follow the standard we articulated in Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir.1995). In so doing, we review the district court's finding of qualified immunity de novo, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Dr. Lighton as the nonmoving party. Id. at 1475. However, as we noted in Romero, we review summary judgment decisions involving qualified immunity somewhat differently than other summary judgment rulings. Id. To reach the question of whether Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer are entitled to qualified immunity, we must first ascertain, by de novo review, whether Dr. Lighton sufficiently asserted the violation of a constitutional right. Id. In order to carry his burden, Dr. Lighton must do more than abstractly identify an established right, but must specifically identify the right and conduct by Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer which violated that right. Id. Once Dr. Lighton sufficiently alleges the conduct violated clearly established law, then Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer bear the burden of showing no material issues of fact remain to defeat their claim of qualified immunity. Id. B. Constructive Termination With these standards in mind, we first turn to Dr. Lighton's claim Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary somehow denied him a property right or liberty interest in his continued employment at the University by constructively terminating him without due process of law. In support of his constructive termination claim, Dr. Lighton argues he never received any alternative to resignation because he was coerced into signing the settlement agreement on threat of termination. Specifically, Dr. Lighton relies on Dr. Ehleringer's May 14, 1995 letter to show the only choice given to him was to either submit to \u201ca gag order\u201d or face termination. 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 6/20 We begin by resolving whether Dr. Lighton possessed a property interest in his position with the University. It is well-established constructive discharge from employment is actionable under \u00a7 1983 if an employee possesses a protectable property or liberty interest in his employment. Woodward v. City of Worland, 977 F.2d 1392, 1401 (10th Cir.1992) (citing Bailey v. Kirk, 777 F.2d 567, 579 (10th Cir.1985)), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 923, 113 S.Ct. 3038, 125 L.Ed.2d 724 (1993). In the employment context, the Supreme Court defines a property interest \u201cas a legitimate expectation in continued employment.\u201d Lenz v. Dewey, 64 F.3d 547, 551 (10th Cir.1995) (relying, in part, on Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). We determine whether such a property interest exists by looking at state law. See Watson v. University of Utah Med. Ctr., 75 F.3d 569, 577 (10th Cir.1996). Under Utah law, an employment contract with no specified term of duration is an at-will relationship and the employer may terminate such employment at any time. Id. at 577-78 (citations omitted). In such instances, no property interest exists. In this case, the University employed Dr. Lighton as a non-tenured professor, even though the University characterized him as a \u201ctenure-track\u201d professor. Dr. Lighton fails to point to any contract showing a specific term of employment existed nor identify any Utah statutes or University policy on which his alleged property interest is grounded. 75 F.3d at 578. Because insufficient evidence exists in the record to show he possessed a property right to his continued employment, under either state law or some internal University policy, we cannot conclude any property right existed.8 Id.; see Lenz, 64 F.3d at 551-52. Even if Dr. Lighton did possess a property right or liberty interest in his continued employment, we hold the district court correctly determined he voluntarily resigned his position. In determining whether a resignation is voluntary or involuntary, we use a \u201creasonable person test.\u201d Yearous v. Niobrara County Mem'l Hosp., 128 F.3d 1351, 1356 (10th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1074, 118 S.Ct. 1515, 140 L.Ed.2d 669 (1998). The question is not whether working conditions become difficult or unpleasant. Id. at 1357. Rather, a resignation is only considered involuntary if the working conditions are viewed as so intolerable, a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Id. at 1356. In other words, Dr. Lighton must show he had \u201cno other choice but to quit.\u201d Id. (quoting Woodward, 977 F.2d at 1401, quoting Irving v. Dubuque Packing Co., 689 F.2d 170, 172 (10th Cir.1982) (quotation marks omitted)). We determine the voluntariness of Dr. Lighton's resignation under the totality of the circumstances, including whether he: 1) received some alternative to resignation; 2) understood the nature of his choice; 3) had a reasonable time in which to choose, and 4) was permitted to select the effective date of his resignation. See Yearous, 128 F.3d at 1356.9 In determining the voluntariness of Dr. Lighton's resignation, we point out Dr. Ehleringer's May 14, 1995 letter offered Dr. Lighton a choice of signing the settlement agreement or possibly facing disciplinary proceedings. The letter did not require mandatory termination or resignation if he did not sign the settlement agreement. Thus, under the first factor we consider, it is clear Dr. Ehleringer offered Dr. 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 7/20 Lighton something other than mandatory resignation. In situations even more explicit or denotative than here, \u201c[w]e have held that offering an employee a choice between resignation and termination does not violate an employee's due process of law, as long as the resignation is \u2018voluntary.\u2019 \u201d Lenz, 64 F.3d at 552 (citing Parker v. Board of Regents, 981 F.2d 1159, 1162 (10th Cir.1992)). In proceeding to examine the voluntariness of Dr. Lighton's resignation, we look at the second factor and find nothing shows Dr. Lighton did not understand his alternatives,10 even though he obviously considered one of the alternatives-the possibility of disciplinary proceedings-an unpleasant one.11 As to the other factors outlined above, Dr. Lighton took three weeks after receiving the May 14 letter to sign the settlement agreement, and an additional two weeks after signing the agreement to tender his resignation. Under these circumstances, Dr. Lighton received a reasonable length of time to make his choice and clearly selected his own resignation date. We do not end our discussion here, but continue to examine Dr. Lighton's constructive termination claim by looking at the totality of the circumstances. We find it important Dr. Lighton actively sought other employment well before the January 1995 meetings began over Dr. Fieldon's complaints and while he remained on a \u201ctenure track\u201d at the University and continued to receive superlative reviews. Equally telling is the fact Dr. Lighton gave academic and social reasons for leaving the University which are inconsistent with the reasons given during the course of this litigation. Under these circumstances, it is clear Dr. Lighton intended to leave the University long before the announcement or escalation of Dr. Fielden's charges and for reasons other than the settlement he allegedly felt compelled to enter. Because we find Dr. Lighton voluntarily resigned his position, we determine no constructive termination occurred and thus, no due process deprivation existed. C. Liberty Interest in Name and Reputation We next address Dr. Lighton's contention Dr. Ehleringer's statements affected his liberty interest in his good name and reputation.12 For the purpose of evaluating Dr. Lighton's argument, we assume he possessed a liberty interest in his continued employment at the University. However, in order to succeed, Dr. Lighton must show how Dr. Ehleringer infringed that interest. See Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475, 481 (10th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1015, 115 S.Ct. 1357, 131 L.Ed.2d 215 (1995). First, Dr. Lighton must show Dr. Ehleringer's statements impugned his \u201cgood name, reputation, honor or integrity.\u201d Id. Second, Dr. Ehleringer's statements must have been false. Id. Third, his statements must have occurred in the course of terminating Dr. Lighton or must have foreclosed other employment opportunities. Id. And finally, his statements must have been published. Id. We have said these four elements are not disjunctive-i.e., all four elements must be satisfied to demonstrate deprivation of Dr. Lighton's liberty interest. Id. 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 8/20 In this case, Dr. Ehleringer informed the biology department's executive committee a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint had been filed against the department, and later advised them of the withdrawal of that complaint. We find nothing to show Dr. Ehleringer's statements in anyway impugned Dr. Lighton's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity. This alone is sufficient reason to conclude no violation of Dr. Lighton's liberty interest occurred. Moreover, as the trial court found, nothing shows Dr. Ehleringer made untruthful statements about Dr. Lighton, or that his statements caused him to resign. We also reject Dr. Lighton's allegations Dr. Ehleringer's speech caused him to lose employment opportunities elsewhere for the reasons stated, and because we find Dr. Lighton's alleged loss of future employment too speculative and intangible to constitute a deprivation of a liberty interest. See Workman, 32 F.3d at 481. Under the circumstances presented, we hold Dr. Ehleringer clearly did not violate Dr. Lighton's liberty interest, and therefore, no due process violation occurred. D. Right of Free Speech In support of his protected speech argument, Dr. Lighton suggests Ms McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer failed to make a good faith effort to resolve his First Amendment concerns and in fact, violated his First Amendment rights by requiring him to remain silent on a matter of public concern regarding Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of equipment.13 It is well established a government employer, such as the University or its officials, \u201ccannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.\u201d Lytle v. City of Haysville, 138 F.3d 857, 863 (10th Cir.1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In evaluating a protected, freedom of speech argument, we rely on the Supreme Court's balancing test, first articulated in Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). The Pickering balancing test has developed into a four-step analysis, under which we must determine: 1) if Dr. Lighton's speech is of public concern; 2) if it is, we must balance the interest of his freedom of expression with the University's interest in preventing disruption of official function and promoting the efficiency of public service through its employees; 3) if the balance tips in Dr. Lighton's favor, he must prove the speech was substantial or a motivating factor in the detrimental employment decision; and 4) finally, we must give the University, or in this case, Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer, an opportunity to prove the same decision would have been reached, even absent the protected conduct. See Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d 803, 811 (10th Cir.1996). In order for Dr. Lighton to succeed, the first step of the Pickering balancing test must be established. In other words, we need not go further if we determine Dr. Lighton's speech, in accusing Dr. Fielden of unauthorized use of equipment, does not rise to \u201ca matter of public concern.\u201d We have defined matters of public concern as \u201cthose of interest to the community, whether for social, political, or other reasons.\u201d Lytle, 138 F.3d at 863. In analyzing whether speech constitutes a matter of public concern, we may focus on the motive of the speaker and whether the speech is calculated to disclose misconduct or 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 9/20 merely deals with personal disputes and grievances unrelated to the public's interest. See McEvoy v. Shoemaker, 882 F.2d 463, 466 (10th Cir.1989) (relying on Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 796 (10th Cir.1988)). For example, when the identified speech focuses on disclosing a public official's malfeasance or wrongdoing, it is most likely a matter of public concern. See Schalk v. Gallemore, 906 F.2d 491, 494 (10th Cir.1990). Conversely, it \u201cis generally not [considered] protected speech if [its] aim is simply to air grievances of a purely personal nature.\u201d Id. In applying these principles, it does not appear Dr. Lighton's speech about Dr. Fielden's alleged unauthorized use of property rose to that of \u201cpublic concern,\u201d but-as the district court said-was more of a \u201cvendetta.\u201d The record discloses Dr. Lighton knew about Dr. Fielden's alleged unauthorized use of the equipment, but did not report it until nine months later-immediately after Dr. Fielden raised sexual harassment and retaliation charges against him.14 Under these circumstances, we are persuaded Dr. Lighton did not disclose the information concerning the equipment for the principal aim or Good Samaritan purpose of disclosing \u201cgovernment misconduct,\u201d but for his own personal reasons for either getting even with, or using leverage against, Dr. Fielden.15 As to Dr. Lighton's characterization of Dr. Ehleringer's letter as placing a \u201cgag order\u201d on his free speech,16 we disagree. Long before Dr. Ehleringer's May 14, 1995 letter demanding Dr. Lighton not make disparaging remarks about Dr. Fielden, Dr. Lighton twice expressed an interest in an agreement which included a provision preventing third-party disclosures. With respect to Dr. Lighton's reporting unauthorized equipment use, the same letter simply demanded Dr. Lighton go through the proper channels by reporting it to the University, rather than the National Health Institute. In the event Dr. Lighton did not understand this distinction or the topics that might trigger disciplinary proceedings, he certainly should have understood them by the next day when his attorney acknowledged his understanding the sanction provision of the letter did not extend to Dr. Lighton's reporting Dr. Fielden's alleged misconduct to the University, or even to the National Institute of Health. In addition, the settlement allowed Dr. Lighton to disclose information about Dr. Fielden to third parties, provided he simultaneously notifies her, through her attorney, of such disclosure. Under the circumstances, we cannot say this constitutes a \u201cgag order.\u201d Having determined Dr. Lighton's speech on Dr. Fielden's actions did not rise to that of a matter of public concern, we need go no further to conclude his free speech argument lacks merit. E. Additional Disputed Facts As to the appropriateness of summary judgment disposition in this case, we point out Dr. Lighton did not contest the facts presented by Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary in their summary judgment motion and brief, other than to claim additional disputed facts existed to prevent summary judgment disposition, and to dispute whether Dr. Lighton received a \u201creasonable alternative\u201d to resignation and \u201cconcurred\u201d with the settlement agreement. On appeal, Dr. Lighton continues to contend additional, disputed facts 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 10/20 exist concerning: 1) the merit of Dr. Fielden's sexual harassment and retaliation claims; 2) his perceived view of Ms. McCreary's and Dr. Ehleringer's malice towards him as evidenced, in part, by their facial expressions and other intimations; 3) the inadequacy of their investigation into Dr. Fielden's claims; and 4) his subjective view he was constructively terminated. For these reasons, he purports the district court erred in granting summary judgment. Although we view the evidence and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to Dr. Lighton as the party opposing summary judgment, he must identify sufficient evidence of material disputed facts to require submission of the case to a jury. Langley v. Adams County, 987 F.2d 1473, 1476 (10th Cir.1993) (quotation marks and citation omitted). To determine what facts are material to summary judgment disposition, we look to the primary issues in this case, which involve Dr. Lighton's claims of constructive termination, a violation of his liberty interest in his name and reputation, and a restriction on his protected speech. In making a determination on these issues, we find the veracity of Dr. Fielden's sexual harassment and retaliation allegations against Dr. Lighton irrelevant or immaterial. Obviously, Dr. Fielden's allegations began the chain of events leading to the controversy over Dr. Lighton's signing the settlement agreement. As a consequence, any significance we attach to them stems merely from the fact they were made, resulted in Dr. Ehleringer reporting Dr. Fielden's formal complaint against the department to its executive committee, influenced Dr. Ehleringer's and Ms. McCreary's desire to settle the dispute between Dr. Lighton and Dr. Fielden, and resulted in the settlement agreement, containing a provision on reporting allegations of improper acts to third parties, which Dr. Lighton contends he felt compelled to sign. Thus, while Dr. Fielden's allegations lead to the instant litigation, we find the truth of those allegations does not affect resolution of the issues at dispute. Because we hold any disputed facts as to the merits of Dr. Fielden's claims are immaterial to our decision, we also hold the adequacy of Dr. Ehleringer's and Ms. McCreary's investigation into them is immaterial. We next direct our attention to Dr. Lighton's subjective perception Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer felt malice toward him and their actions caused him to involuntarily resign. In reviewing his allegations of constructive termination, Dr. Lighton's subjective view of the situation is clearly irrelevant. See Yearous, 128 F.3d at 1356. Therefore, his subjective views on Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary's perceived facial expressions and other intimations are irrelevant to our decision. Because we have already thoroughly discussed the undisputed facts we believe pertinent to making a summary judgment determination in this case, we will not repeat our analysis here. In sum, Dr. Lighton fails to identify evidence of additional undisputed, material facts sufficient to require submission of his case to a jury. See Langley, 987 F.2d at 1476. For these reasons, we hold the district court did not err in disposing of this matter by summary judgment decision. F. Ms. McCreary's Affidavit 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 11/20 As a procedural matter, the district court issued a bench ruling denying Dr. Lighton's motion to strike Ms. McCreary's supplemental affidavit, determining it did not violate \u201cstandard practice,\u201d and contained information \u201crelevant\u201d to Dr. Lighton's reply and admissible as evidence. According to Dr. Lighton, the district court erred in its ruling because Ms. McCreary's untimely affidavit constituted an attempt to \u201cpatch up \u2024 factual holes\u201d in her and Dr. Ehleringer's summary judgment brief. We begin by noting Ms. McCreary filed her affidavit three weeks prior to the summary judgment hearing in response to Dr. Lighton's memorandum opposing her summary judgment motion and brief. Her supplemental affidavit simply explains the University maintained an interim policy for investigation into research misconduct, and that Dr. Lighton did not file a formal complaint against Dr. Fielden under that policy, but instead filed his complaint with the National Institute of Health. It further verifies the Institute investigated Dr. Lighton's accusations and exonerated the University and Dr. Fielden. Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states \u201c[w]hen a motion is supported by affidavit, the affidavit shall be served with the motion.\u201d However, under Rule 56(e): \u201cThe court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories or further affidavits.\u201d Thus, the district court clearly has discretion to permit supplemental affidavits it finds useful for summary judgment determination. In this case, the district court found Ms. McCreary's supplemental affidavit contained information \u201crelevant\u201d and admissible as evidence review of the record convinces us the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dr. Lighton's motion to strike her affidavit. Moreover, even if we agreed with Dr. Lighton and considered only facts outside of Ms. McCreary's supplemental affidavit, it would not alter our decision the district court properly granted summary judgment Having conducted a de novo review of the district court decision granting summary judgment to Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer on the issue of qualified immunity, we hold Dr. Lighton has failed to make the requisite showing of a violation of any constitutional right. See Romero, 45 F.3d at 1475. As a result, we conclude Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Id. For these reasons, we the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer 1. Specifically, beginning in late November 1994, Dr. Fielden complained to Dr. Ehleringer that Dr. Lighton threatened to fire her and make her life difficult. In December, she complained Dr. Lighton posted an advertisement on her laboratory door seeking a replacement for her job and that Dr. Lighton accused her of spreading rumors about him. Later, in January 1995, she presented Dr. Ehleringer with a letter from Dr. Lighton, stating he would not tolerate complaints made behind his back. She also 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 12/20 presented Dr. Ehleringer with a letter dated December 26, 1994, in which Dr. Lighton requested she produce, within the next four days during the holiday season, a summary of all her work to date and plans for the next several months. Another letter from Dr. Lighton criticized her for not exchanging Christmas gifts with him. She also furnished Dr. Ehleringer a copy of the job advertisement Dr. Lighton posted on her laboratory door. 2. The equipment consisted of a gas analyzer allegedly taken from the University of Bophutatswana. 3. In her complaint, Dr. Fielden accused Dr. Lighton of continuing to retaliate against her after their affair concluded by: 1) failing to assist her with her experiments; 2) isolating her from the laboratory; 3) excluding her from interacting with other research colleagues; 4) interfering with her personal affairs; making verbal threats and telephone calls; 5) threatening to terminate her employment; 6) posting an opening for her job after threatening termination; and blocking funding for her to participate and deliver a paper at an international congress. 4. Besides the retaliatory actions cited by Dr. Fielden directly to Dr. Ehleringer and in her complaint, Ms. McCreary and Dr. Ehleringer also believed other actions taken by Dr. Lighton's could be perceived as retaliatory. These included Dr. Lighton's: 1) request the biology department's accountant obtain Dr. Fielden's long distance phone records and gather information on her use of National Institute of Health grant funds for supplies and travel; 2) timing in alleging Dr. Fielden stole equipment, which he did not raise until she brought sexual harassment and retaliation charges against him; 3) request to others to write a letter exonerating him over Dr. Fielden; 4) tone in his Christmas letter to Dr. Fielden chastising her for refusing to exchange gifts; 5) admission he was contacting associates of Dr. Fielden, raising question about her competence and mental stability; 6) attempt to get a mediation agreement canceling her three-year contract and placing her on six-months probation; 7) attempt to change the sick-leave policy to prevent Dr. Fielden from visiting her ill father; and 8) claim diseased ticks under Dr. Fielden's care escaped, which he knew was false and quickly recanted once the laboratory became quarantined. 5. Later, Dr. Ehleringer noted biology department members eventually figured out Dr. Lighton's involvement simply by making the \u201clinkage\u201d between Dr. Fielden's settlement and Dr. Lighton's resignation. 6. While Dr. Lighton brought additional allegations against the University, Dr. Ehleringer, and Ms. McCreary, those issues were resolved prior to the summary judgment determination at issue here and are not appealed. 7. The only \u201cfacts\u201d Dr. Lighton did not contest, as presented by Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary in their summary judgment motion and brief, involved whether Dr. Lighton received a \u201creasonable alternative\u201d to resignation and \u201cconcurred\u201d with the settlement agreement. He also alleged additional material facts existed to prevent summary judgment disposition. On appeal, Dr. Lighton continues to 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 13/20 contend additional disputed facts exist which must prevent summary judgment determination, which we examine later in this decision. 8. Moreover, during oral argument Dr. Lighton's counsel conceded Dr. Lighton may not have a property right in his non-tenure position with the University, but nevertheless argued Dr. Lighton's liberty interest in his continued employment was violated by his constructive termination without due process. Under either scenario, we hold Dr. Lighton's resignation did not constitute constructive termination. 9. In Yearous, hospital nurses quit their jobs after claiming their supervisor wanted them to compromise their ethics. 128 F.3d at 1357. We held they voluntarily resigned because they were given the choice of leaving or continuing their employment with the hospital while they attempted to resolve their problems with their supervisor through a formal hearing. Id. Dr. Lighton suggests his case is distinguishable from Yearous because the nurses were given an alternative of continuing to work, while the only alternative he received consisted of entering into a \u201cgag order\u201d or resigning. We disagree. As explained in our discussion, Dr. Lighton freely chose resignation, and his employment would have continued whether he signed the settlement agreement or not, even though the possibility of discipline proceedings may have loomed ahead. 10. This is supported by the fact legal counsel represented Dr. Lighton at the time in question. 11. The crux of Dr. Lighton's constructive termination claim centers mainly on the fact the May 14 letter indicated termination could result from discipline proceedings. While we acknowledge disciplinary proceedings may have ensued, it does not mean termination would automatically result, especially in light of the fact Dr. Ehleringer considered Dr. Lighton a valued member of his department and gave him superlative performance reviews. Moreover, even if Dr. Lighton did possess some property right in his continued employment, he fails to show he did not understand University procedures regarding his due process rights in such a disciplinary hearing. 12. We exercise our discretion to address this contention even though Dr. Lighton failed to set forth any authority supporting it. Cf. Primas v. City of Oklahoma City, 958 F.2d 1506, 1511 (10th Cir.1992). 13. In his appeal brief, Dr. Lighton also complains Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary prevented him from voicing his concerns to the National Institute of Heath on the University's mishandling of federal research funds and involvement in insurance fraud. The only reference Dr. Lighton points to in the record to support this allegation is one conclusory, self-serving sentence in his brief in opposition to the summary judgment motion claiming \u201cmisuse or misapplication of federal research monies at the University of Utah.\u201d In his complaint, Dr. Lighton also generally alleges Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary attempted to use federal funds to pay Dr. Fielden's settlement sum, but we are uncertain if this is the misuse of which Dr. Lighton complains of on appeal. Reviewing the record as a whole, we find Dr. Lighton's summary allegations insufficient to raise a protected speech claim on these issues. 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 14/20 Moreover, nothing in the record shows Dr. Ehleringer and Ms. McCreary ever attempted to restrict Dr. Lighton's speech on any topic concerning any mishandling of research funds or insurance fraud. Because we will not usually consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, Walker v. Mather (In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir.1992), or conclusory and unsupported allegations, Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1333 (10th Cir.1981), we decline to address these issues here. 14. Contrary to Dr. Lighton's contentions, the facts in his case are not similar to those in Powell v. Gallentine, 992 F.2d 1088 (10th Cir.1993). In Powell, unlike here, the professor's allegations of grade fraud did not stem from personal motives. Id. at 1090-91. 15. We also question, but do not decide, whether the unauthorized use of a foreign university's equipment by a subordinate, foreign contract researcher rises to a matter of public concern involving the community's, let alone this country's, social or political interest, especially when it also does not involve the misconduct of a government official. 16. Dr. Lighton contends the \u201cgag order\u201d on reporting Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of equipment restricted both his free speech to report criminal conduct and his ability to \u201csupervise and discipline.\u201dHowever, it is unclear how any restriction on Dr. Lighton's reporting Dr. Fielden's unauthorized use of equipment affected his ability to \u201csupervise and discipline,\u201d especially given Dr. Fielden left the University and no longer remained under his supervision. BRORBY, Circuit Judge. Was this helpful? Yes No 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 15/20 Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law v (2000) Docket No: No. 99-4070. Decided: April 24, 2000 Court: United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 16/20 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 For Legal Professionals 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 17/20 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * \uf105 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 18/20 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 19/20 Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles By Name Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/13/25, 10:58 v (2000) | FindLaw 20/20"} |
7,798 | Derek Rankins | University of North Texas – Denton | [
"7798_101.pdf",
"7798_102.pdf"
] | {"7798_102.pdf": "78cb-5d4b-ad7f-92ab4889cb22.html Lawsuit alleges mishandled sexual assault investigation Reporter Mar 4, 2016 Chelsea Watkins | Staff Writer @chelloo federal civil rights lawsuit alleges violated Title in the way it handled the investigation of a student who was sexually assaulted by a library employee. The lawsuit claims the university allowed the man, Derek Rankins, to remain employed after the alleged rape, causing the student, who is only named as Jane Doe in the lawsuit, to feel unsafe. The Denton Record-Chronicle first reported the lawsuit Friday. The alleged assault occurred on Jan. 8, 2015 and was reported formally to a senior investigator at UNT\u2019s Office of Equal Opportunity days later, on Jan. 12, according to the lawsuit. The morning after the incident, she received a rape exam at the hospital, according to reports. The student said she failed to receive answers on the status of her case\u2019s investigation after repeatedly seeking updates throughout the semester. By July, the university said the investigation was completed, but denied her the results. Rankins is said to be the perpetrator accused of sexually assaulting the victim, however, he is not named as a defendant in the federal suit. Instead president Neal Smatresk and regents are explicitly named as the defendants. The lawsuit claims the university failed to comply with Title IX, the reported, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs that receives federal funding. 2/13/25, 10:58 Lawsuit alleges mishandled sexual assault investigation | News | ntdaily.com 1/2 Reporter In the lawsuit, the student claimed to have been placed in the Santa Fe residence Hall for several days, where victims of sexual assault are directed to stay, but she was told by a official that she could no longer stay there for free as the university could not afford the expense. However, there is no official word that Santa Fe is the designated hall for sexual assault victims. 2/13/25, 10:58 Lawsuit alleges mishandled sexual assault investigation | News | ntdaily.com 2/2"} |
8,207 | James Goydos | Rutgers University | [
"8207_101.pdf"
] | {"8207_101.pdf": "Ex-Rutgers med school doctor accused of recording women in bathroom, identity theft, gun charge in 160-count indictment Updated: Feb. 27, 2019, 5:12 p.m. | Published: Feb. 27, 2019, 12:43 p.m. Dr. James Goydos, a former professor of surgery for Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, faces a 160-count indictment accusing him of photographing women in a bathroom, burglary and identity theft. By Amanda Hoover Advance Media For NJ.com Subscribe former Rutgers medical school professor and director at the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey has been accused of recording at least 26 women and three other people in various states of undress in a bathroom and breaking into his colleague\u2019s offices to commit identity theft, among other charges in a sweeping 160-count indictment of alleged illegal activity over a two year span. Dr. James Goydos, 58, a then-professor of surgery Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, was initially arrested in March 2018 and charged with having an unregistered and unlicensed assault rifle after police searched his East Brunswick home. At the time, Goydos was put on leave from Rutgers, where he specialized in melanoma treatment, and authorities declined to say what prompted the search. The indictment against Goydos issued in December, however, revealed a wide range of charges involving accusations at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey offices in New Brunswick and elsewhere in Middlesex County dating to April 2016. The charges include: invasion of privacy (more than 100 counts), official misconduct, burglary, computer theft, impersonation, wiretapping, falsely implicating another, coercion, hindering, possession of an assault rifle and possession of a prohibited device. He is next due in court in March. Goydos is no longer employed at Rutgers, Peter McDonough Jr., a Rutgers spokesman, confirmed in an email this week. McDonough said that none of the allegations were related to patient care. Goydos earned a $437,500 while working at Rutgers, according to public records. Top Rutgers prof will not teach while university investigates sexual misconduct allegations message left at Goydos\u2019s East Brunswick home was not returned and an attempt to reach him on social media was unsuccessful. His attorney did not return a message. According to the 41-page indictment, Goydos entered offices of four people in the Cancer Institute of New Jersey during 2016 and stole information from their computers in a \u201cscheme to defraud, or to obtain services, property, personal identifying information or money.\u201d He then impersonated the employees to get \u201cbenefit for himself or another, or to injure or defraud another,\u201d according to the indictment. Additional official misconduct charges have been brought against him for using his status as a Rutgers employee to access the computers and information. In 2017, Goydos is accused of filming or photographing, without their consent, 26 women and three others whose genders were not identified, obtaining images of them in various stages of undress, according to the indictment. Andrea Boulton, a spokeswoman for the Middlesex County Prosecutor\u2019s Office, said the victims were not photographed or filmed in Goydos\u2019s capacity as a physician, but in a bathroom at his workplace. McDonough said the university immediately contacted the Middlesex County Prosecutor\u2019s Office after learning of Goydos\u2019s activities. Goydos was indicted after a joint investigation from the Middlesex County Prosecutor\u2019s Office and the Rutgers University Police Department, according to the prosecutor\u2019s office. His LinkedIn profile lists his job as the director of the Melanoma and Soft Tissue Oncology Program at RWJ, and indicates he started working at Rutgers in 1995. He also studied medicine at during the 1980s. Amanda Hoover can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @amandahoovernj. Find NJ.com on Facebook. Get the latest updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.com\u2019s newsletters. If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy. About Us About NJ.com Advertise with us Contact Us Newsletters Jobs at Advance Media Accessibility Statement Subscriptions NJ.com The Star-Ledger The Times of Trenton South Jersey Times The Jersey Journal Newsletters Already a Subscriber Manage your Subscription Place a Vacation Hold Make a Payment Delivery Feedback NJ.com Sections N.J. News Local News N.J. Politics Sports High School Sports Entertainment Food & Recipes Events Business Opinion Jersey's Best Legal Notices Obituaries Jobs Autos Real Estate Rentals Classifieds Special Sections Local Life Contribute to NJ.com Submit an event Follow Us YouTube Facebook Twitter Instagram More on NJ.com Place an ad Sell your car Post a job Sell/rent your home Apartments & rentals Weather Site map Sponsor Content Search NJ.com Store Archives Newspaper stories and photos Learn more about our newspapers The Star-Ledger The Times of Trenton The Jersey Journal South Jersey Times Hunterdon County Democrat Mobile iPhone, Android apps | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Ad Choices Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement, (updated 8/1/2024) and acknowledgement of our Privacy Policy, and Your Privacy Choices and Rights (updated 1/1/2025). \u00a9 2025 Advance Local Media LLC. All rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local. Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. YouTube's privacy policy is available here and YouTube's terms of service is available here. Ad Choices"} |
7,601 | Robert Shindell | Texas Tech University | [
"7601_101.pdf"
] | {"7601_101.pdf": "0 Ex-Tech administrator no longer has contract with By Matt Phinney Posted: Oct. 01, 2008 Robert Shindell will not work for Angelo State University after all. University spokesman Preston Lewis confirmed Wednesday that Shindell, a former associate vice president for recruiting and admissions at Texas Tech University, no longer has a one-year contract to serve as special projects adviser for the school. Lewis said he could not provide details because it is a personnel matter. The contract caused a stir in some circles because of Shindell's employment history with Texas Tech University. This year, an employee who worked under Shindell while at a previous job at Texas Tech withdrew a harassment complaint against Texas Tech University in exchange for $20,000, a promotion and other perks Texas Tech report that came out in August 2007 concluded that Shindell had violated three university policies that exist to protect workers against discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation. Shindell, 36, has said he was looking forward to working in San Angelo but did not return calls seeking comment on Wednesday. He was to report to the vice presidents and the assistant to the university president. Word about the contract split came about a week after initial reports indicated Shindell had a one-year contract with for $120,000. Home News Sports Business Opinion Entertainment 2/13/25, 10:58 Ex-Tech administrator no longer has contract with 1/3 Shindell has denied the issues raised in the complaint. He left Texas Tech several months ago, saying it was for a reason unrelated to the complaint. Attempts to reach the Texas Tech University System Board of Regents through the system office were unsuccessful President Joseph C. Rallo was out of the office and could not be reached for comment, and Provost Donald Coers also couldn't be reached for comment. Rallo has said Shindell's expertise in certain areas would help in its quest to increase enrollment. He also said Shindell would work for the university for a fixed amount of time. \"There was an opportunity to take advantage of his experience,\" Rallo told the Standard-Times in September. \"That's what we looked at.\" No announcement was made about the contract, which took effect Sept. 8, and no one other than Shindell was interviewed for the work. His list of specific duties included working on a study to determine ASU's economic impact on San Angelo, ways to increase ASU's enrollment, and ways to increase educational quality while keeping the cost affordable to students history professor Charles Endress, who wanted to make clear he was not speaking for the university and was only stating his opinion, said he found it strange there was not a more public search for such an important and well-paid position. It's possible there was no search because Shindell would have been a consultant and not a permanent employee, Endress said. Still, he called the hiring process \"unseemly\" and the explanation given for his hiring \"not credible.\" \"We're sensitive about that at ASU,\" Endress said. \"Money wasn't an issue, and not having a search wasn't an issue because don't know how that works. The part that bothers me is, all the sudden, we have an employee that has resigned at Texas Tech under a cloud.\" 2/13/25, 10:58 Ex-Tech administrator no longer has contract with 2/3 0 Share Tweet Email Print 2/13/25, 10:58 Ex-Tech administrator no longer has contract with 3/3"} |
7,552 | Dennis R. Rasmussen | School for Field Studies | [] | {} |
8,658 | Tim Wakeham | Michigan State University | [
"8658_101.pdf"
] | {"8658_101.pdf": "fired a coach in February for a Title violation. He was initially granted retirement Megan Banta Lansing State Journal Published 10:00 p.m Dec. 20, 2020 Updated 11:45 a.m Dec. 27, 2020 \u2013 Michigan State University fired a coach early this year after an investigation found he had a nonconsensual sexual relationship with a female student-athlete in the late 1990s. But the school initially approved his request to retire after two years of unpaid leave. That only changed after the university upheld a hearing officer's decision and administrators exchanged dozens of emails. Tim Wakeham, who oversaw strength and conditioning for more than a dozen sports for more than 20 years, was fired in February, around three months after the Office of Institutional Equity upheld a hearing officer\u2019s decision that he had violated the school\u2019s Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy. The hearing officer found in the late 1990s, Wakeham \u201cmade unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature\u201d that either altered the educational experience or created a hostile or abusive environment. \u201cYour conduct in this situation displays a serious lapse in judgment,\u201d a February letter from Athletic Director Bill Beekman to Wakeham reads. \u201cThis behavior is unacceptable and the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics will not tolerate these actions.\u201d For months before that ultimate decision though, administrators actively worked to grant Wakeham\u2019s request to retire while he was still under investigation, said Elizabeth Abdnour, the athlete's attorney. The State Journal is not identifying the athlete or the sport in which she participated because she is a survivor of sexual abuse. 2/13/25, 10:59 fired a strength coach early this year for Title violation 1/6 The way the case progressed, despite the ultimate outcome, shows the university continues to enable abusers, Abdnour said. This situation was unique, university spokesperson Dan Olsen said. \"The university takes all allegations of sexual misconduct seriously and has worked hard to update its policies and practices to create a safer, more welcoming campus for all,\" Olsen said in a statement. \"At the time of his application for unpaid leave to retirement, Mr. Wakeham did not have a sustained finding. However, during his unpaid leave, he was found to have violated our then-sexual harassment policy, creating a unique circumstance the university had not encountered before.\" Brian Watkins, an attorney who represented Wakeham, said via email that he is unable to comment on the case at this time. The State Journal was unable to reach Wakeham. Interactions started while athlete was injured The investigation centered around Wakeham\u2019s interactions with a student-athlete who attended in the late '90s on scholarship. Because the athlete was on scholarship, weight training was mandatory. She trained with Wakeham, and he also helped with physical therapy after injuries. Wakeham was a daily fixture in her life and in many other student-athletes\u2019 lives. While she was recovering from one injury, they talked about her personal issues during sessions to supplement physical therapy. Wakeham said during the investigation that he thinks he became her \u201cgo to\u201d for seeking advice. Wakeham encouraged the athlete to seek counseling. When she did, he volunteered to take her to sessions and ended up doing so. At some point, he told her that he \u201cshould no longer take her to the appointments,\u201d the hearing officer report reads. At the end of the year, though, he drove her to the airport to go home. He claims he got permission from an employee, but that person wasn\u2019t working for yet and said even if she had been, she wouldn\u2019t have given permission. In the summer between the athlete\u2019s freshman and sophomore year, she and Wakeham exchanged calls and letters, and he sent her gifts. 2/13/25, 10:59 fired a strength coach early this year for Title violation 2/6 Both agree nothing sexual or otherwise inappropriate happened until after she returned to school. The agreement over the progress of their interactions mostly ends there. Wakeham, athlete disagree when sexual interactions started When the athlete returned sophomore year, she had mandatory strength training with Wakeham. She says she started going over to his apartment almost every night at the end of the summer then a few times a week once the semester started. He denies it was that frequently but says she did come over. She also says sexual acts started during those visits with back and shoulder rubs then progressed. The athlete says it was a gradual transition but that once it started, she would do anything he suggested. He denies it started that early, saying they didn\u2019t progress to sexual acts until she wasn\u2019t on the team or in his classes anymore and he no longer had as much of a power dynamic over her. Yet she says it started when there was an \u201cabsolute power dynamic which caused her to acquiesce to [Wakeham].\u201d She told investigators Wakeham had control over whether she could stay on the team and keep her scholarship, was the \u201cenforcer\u201d of penalties and punishment for the team and told her she couldn\u2019t tell anyone about the time they spent together outside interacting as athlete and coach graduate assistant who the university investigator interviewed remembered going with the student-athlete to dinner at Wakeham\u2019s house and noting the two were close. At one point, Wakeham was formally reprimanded for having the student-athlete over at his apartment and taking her to the airport as well as giving her an unprescribed medication. He was told by two colleagues \u201cit was not wise to have female athletes at his residence\u201d and says he didn\u2019t allow her to come back after that. She refutes that claim, saying she kept going back but \u201chad to go very late and park in another area of the apartment complex\u201d and was \u201cunder constant pressure\u201d to keep their interactions secret. 2/13/25, 10:59 fired a strength coach early this year for Title violation 3/6 Power dynamic 'inherently unequal' between student-athletes and coaches Much of the investigator\u2019s analysis focuses on the power difference and the effect the interactions had on the athlete. The relationship between student-athletes and coaches or teachers is \u201cinherently unequal,\u201d the hearing officer's report reads. That report indicates the disagreement between the former athlete and Wakeham over when the sexual acts began \u201cdoes not matter because the issue of \u2018consent\u2019 is still to be considered for the length of their relationship.\u201d It\u2019s \u201cvery difficult to believe\u201d the two of them \u201csuddenly developed feelings for each other\u201d the summer after her sophomore year, the hearing officer wrote. The report describes the events during their early interactions as \u201cgroundwork\" to the sexual interactions. The investigator found a greater amount of evidence pointed to sexual acts starting during the athlete's sophomore year and being nonconsensual. There\u2019s \u201cno bright line\u201d from when their interactions shifted from being defined \u201cinfluence and coercion\u201d to being consensual one, the report says. Even after the athlete was off the team and not in his class, Wakeham was \u201cstill in a position of real or perceived influence at the University, far greater than any influence or power [she] had,\u201d the report adds. Retirement approved during more than year-long investigation It took some time for investigators to come to that conclusion, and Wakeham initially wasn\u2019t going to face long-term punishment. Wakeham was told Oct. 3, 2018, that he was being placed on paid administrative leave following a complaint about his conduct that potentially violated university policy. The specific policy is redacted in documents the State Journal received via a public records request. But a copy the State Journal received independently says the conduct may be in violation of the university\u2019s policy on sexual harassment. 2/13/25, 10:59 fired a strength coach early this year for Title violation 4/6 The investigation dragged on for more than a year while he remained on paid leave. In August 2019, Wakeham applied for two-year unpaid leave as a bridge to retirement, which would have started Aug. 31, 2021. That request was quickly granted about a month before a resolution hearing in the case. Abdnour criticized the move, saying Beekman and \u201cworked against the clock to rush Mr. Wakeham to retirement prior to the completion of the Title process.\u201d She requested several public records related to the decision and received heavily redacted documents. Abdnour sued the school after university President Samuel Stanley denied her appeal. Abdnour said that denial makes Stanley complicit in a cover up by continuing \u201cto resist providing full access to the public records documenting\" actions to protect Wakeham. On Oct. 16, 2019, following a hearing, the resolution officer found Wakeham had violated policy. The officer noted that while the athlete answered questions from her attorney and from both Wakeham and his attorney, Wakeham \u201cdeclined to answer any questions at the hearing.\u201d Wakeham appealed the decision, which was upheld Nov. 25, 2019. At that point, he was still going to be allowed to retire after completing two years of unpaid leave, rather than face discipline. Indeed, at least nine university employees were included on an email chain in December 2019, reviewing a four-sentence explanation of Wakeham's status. It was an apparent attempt to explain that Wakeham's unpaid leave meant he was \u201cno longer an active employee\" and thus \"no disciplinary action can be taken.\" The intended use of the statement was not clear due to redaction. Following a later spate of emails between key university employees revoked the approval of Wakeham\u2019s retirement request and terminated him. That means he\u2019s \u201cno longer eligible for official retiree status and any applicable university contribution to retiree health care and dental coverage,\" according to the letter from Beekman. He also can't be rehired by MSU. 2/13/25, 10:59 fired a strength coach early this year for Title violation 5/6 And the approval of his leave prompted a change in practice, according to emails: Academic Human Resources must now approve requests for unpaid leaves as a bridge to retirement. The situation, which the university hadn't faced before, \"led the university to revise its practices on revoking leaves to retirement for those found in violation of university policy,\" Olsen said. Yet the university is still failing to hold abusers accountable, Abdnour said, despite \u201call the and fanfare\u201d about changes following the Larry Nassar scandal. \u201cThis case shows that in reality, very little has changed,\u201d she said in her emailed statement. \u201cAnd the question can't stop thinking about is, will anything ever change? What will it take for to stop enabling abusers?\u201d Contact reporter Megan Banta at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @MeganBanta_1. 2/13/25, 10:59 fired a strength coach early this year for Title violation 6/6"} |
7,263 | Steve Matheson | Calvin College | [
"7263_101.pdf",
"7263_102.pdf"
] | {"7263_101.pdf": "Calvin College letter says professor resigned after student alleged sexual relationship Published: Dec. 05, 2011, 11:22 p.m. By Zane McMillin | [email protected] File photo Steve Matheson \u2014 Calvin College leaders sent a letter to students, parents, faculty and staff Friday saying a professor resigned after a student claimed she had a \"multi-year sexual relationship\" with him, a college spokesman confirmed. Matt Kucinski said the letter was sent Friday afternoon. In it, Shirley Hoogstra, Calvin's vice president for student life, said the student alleged in May this year she had carried out the relationship with biology professor Steve Matheson. \"Calvin has strict policies against sexual harassment and this relationship violated Calvin's policies,\" Hoogstra said in the letter. \"These policies recognize there is a power differential between faculty and students. After being confronted by the college with this report, the professor resigned rather than face termination.\" Subscribe The letter goes on to say Calvin administrators launched an \"extensive internal review and investigation,\" which led to the formation of a task force on the matter. The task force was set up to \"educate and protect our community so we can learn together how to prevent and properly address allegations of sexual harassment,\" according to Hoogstra's letter. The task force's formation delayed the news being brought before students because it only recently began meeting, Hoogstra said in the letter Ann Arbor Black history film draws sold-out crowd at Michigan Theater Feb. 9, 2025, 2:46 p.m. Asking Eric good friend has cancer, but is asking for space and won\u2019t respond to my texts Feb. 12, 2025, 7:01 a.m meeting was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon so students could discuss the matter with Student Senate and school officials. FOX-17 first reported Friday's letter had been sent out. Zane McMillin can be reached through email and Twitter. If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy. About Us Contact Us Jobs at MLive MLive Media Group Our Team Advertise with us Accessibility Statement Subscriptions MLive.com Newsletters The Ann Arbor News The Bay City Times The Flint Journal The Grand Rapids Press Jackson Citizen Patriot Kalamazoo Gazette Muskegon Chronicle The Saginaw News Already a Subscriber Manage your Subscription Place a Vacation Hold Make a Payment Delivery Feedback MLive Sections Jobs Autos Real Estate Rentals Classifieds News Business Sports Advice High School Sports Betting Life Opinion Obituaries Your Regional News Pages Saginaw Jackson Kalamazoo Muskegon Ann Arbor Bay City Flint Grand Rapids Mobile Mobile apps More on MLive Video Weather Post a job Archives Classifieds Sell your car Sell/Rent your home Sponsor Content Follow Us Twitter Facebook YouTube | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Ad Choices Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement, (updated 8/1/2024) and acknowledgement of our Privacy Policy, and Your Privacy Choices and Rights (updated 1/1/2025). \u00a9 2025 Advance Local Media LLC. All rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local. Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. YouTube's privacy policy is available here and YouTube's terms of service is available here. Ad Choices", "7263_102.pdf": "Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop By Salvador Cordova On June 12, 2012 In Academic Freedom, Christian Darwinism HT: Jammer commenter The Clergy Letter Project was organized to help promote Darwinism in the churches. They maintained a directory of Scientists on call to help Clergy. However the clergy letter project has a checkered past of recruiting scientists with dubious ethical standards to help spread the Gospel according to Darwin. Were it not for the diligent reporting of news at Uncommon Descent it is possible that they might not have so swiftly removed the name of Darwin Day Slayer Amy Bishop from their list of Scientists on call to help Clergy. Amy Bishop was removed from their rolls, but they need to update their directory again as it currently reads: Name: Stephen Matheson, Ph.D. Title: Associate Professor of Biology Address: Department of Biology Calvin College Grand Rapids 49546-4403 Areas of Expertise: developmental biology, cell biology, neurobiology, genetics, evolution Email: [email protected] 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 1/18 That\u2019s no longer true. Here is a video and text from Fox News TV: Professor Resigns After Alleged Student Sex Scandal. Fox reported that Matheson resigned under threat of termination. Steve\u2019s own google-plus page previously reported that Steve Matheson lives with his wife and their 4 kids. The letter from Calvin College is here: Calvin College Letter to Students Matheson hasn\u2019t issued any public comment. He has debated members of the community like Dr. Stephen Meyer. Matheson has presented himself as a Christian who also accepts Darwinism. We learn here 17 received a letter from the college Monday that was sent out to the student body late last week. According to the letter, allegations of a relationship came to light this past may, when a student revealed to the Provost\u2019s office that Professor Steve Matheson had a sexual relationship with her. Calvin College initiated an internal review and investigation, and put a special task force together to handle such situations. The task force will aim to educate students on how to prevent and properly address allegations of sexual harassment. In the letter, the college says \u201cWe are deeply grieved by this news. We want to believe that such behavior doesn\u2019t occur in a Christian community such as ours, but it can. On behalf of the college, we are very sorry that this took place here.\u201d \u201c The college has an obligation to protect our students against sexual harassment that has or may occur and we want to assure you that we take that obligation seriously. Therefore, the task force believes it is necessary to share with you that the professor was Steve Matheson. \u201c Matheson feels it necessary not just to critique [Signature in The Cell] but to attack Meyer personally. Matheson smears the book as \u201cnot a serious \u201c 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 2/18 further as reported in The Discovery Institute Needs to be Destroyed, Matheson said: The point of me posting this is that many Darwinists present themselves as Christians and try to use their affiliation with the church as leverage to promote Darwinism respect their willingness to follow their conscience, but sometimes their own words and possibly their behavior (as in the case of Amy Bishop and possibly Steve Matheson), take them out of the debate support academic freedom for all scholars including Christian Darwinists, but for the debate to proceed they have to not take themselves out of the discussion in the manner that Amy Bishop and possibly Steve Matheson have taken themselves out of the debate hope for Steve\u2019s sake, the allegations are false and that he\u2019ll return to debating the and community. He has a fine intellect, and he was the source of many work of scholarship,\u201d not \u201cserious science,\u201d \u201cawfully bloated,\u201d potentially \u201ca joke,\u201d \u201cdisingenuous,\u201d \u201csad,\u201d \u201cpathetic,\u201d and \u201cfluffy and vacuous, simplistic at best and not infrequently wrong or misleading.\u201d In case you didn\u2019t get the point, Matheson accuses Meyer of \u201csome combination of ignorance, sloth, and duplicity,\u201d using tactics that require \u201clayers of dishonesty\u201d that are \u201csufficient to justify a charge of deliberate dishonesty.\u201d Your Discovery Institute is a horrific mistake, an epic intellectual tragedy that is degrading the minds of those who consume its products and bringing dishonor to you and to the church. It is for good reason that Casey Luskin is held in such extreme contempt by your movement\u2019s critics, and there\u2019s something truly sick about the pattern of attacks that your operatives launched in the weeks after the Biola event. It\u2019s clear that you have a cadre of attack dogs that do this work for you can\u2019t state this strongly enough: the Discovery Institute is a dangerous cancer on the Christian intellect, both because of its unyielding commitment to dishonesty and because of its creepy mission\u2026It needs to be destroyed, and will do what can to bring that about. Steve Matheson, Open Letter to Stephen Meyer \u201c 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 3/18 lively scientific exchanges Steve Matheson is also on the NCSE\u2019s list of Steve\u2019s. Although expect the to maintain Matheson\u2019s name on their list since the has no religious affiliation and to my knowledge, being under suspicion of sexual harassment doesn\u2019t disqualify Matheson from being listed by the NCSE: Update: Matheson was a contributing author to Pandas Thumb, the longtime rival blog of Uncommon Descent Stephen Matheson****** Associate Professor of Biology, Calvin College Ph.D., Neuroscience, University of Arizona \u201c Scordova, Got it, thanks for answering June 15, 2012 10:26 Jerad, One other thing really don't like the Clergy letter project. Any opportunity can get to report things that don't reflect well on the organization, I'm obviously eager to take June 15, 2012 03:08 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 4/18 It really was news to our side. What prompted the mention of Matheson was the June 3, 2012 publication in Nature that resovled a long running dispute had with him. See: Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson vs Then Jammer was curious to see Matheson's response, and then he found out about Matheson and reported it on that thread felt some obligation then, to make a separte post since this was big news of a Darwinist professor abusing his office. My side of the aisle was somewhat aware of Matheson's August 2011 departure, but not the December 2011 revelation when we learned that Matheson wasn't wholly forthcoming when he said that his departure was for \"personal reason\" when in fact it was for misconduct of a personal nature. That is a subtle but important distinction would have left it at that if it were merely a personal reason, but not if he vicitized a student at his school don't think we would be very wrong for not letting him off the hook in light of the student he victimized. My reporting of the incident doesn't at all compare to the scale of the campaign Calvin College waged to highlight Matheson's misconduct to the students at Calvin and the rest of the world. Most google hits for Steve Matheson will not reveal the Fox News article, so it was provident that Jammer found the news on him thought Matheson was fairly snotty toward other Christians, almost sanctimonious. He had the chutzpah to call a cesspool. My irony meter blew a circuit almost definitely would not have said anything if he were someone meek and who discussed the science like one would talk about chemistry and math. He was over the top, and think he deserved to be called on his behavior, especially since he seemed to look down his nose on Christians that had a different view of origins than he did. Others here at didn't feel that way, and it speaks well of them (even though not of me, but have no reputation to defend). Thanks for your comment and question Matheson left the college in August and the College published their letter in December. It\u2019s not really news anymore. June 15, 2012 03:07 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 5/18 I'm not saying agree but can see why you posted this. But what can't understand is why now? Matheson left the college in August and the College published their letter in December. It's not really news anymore June 15, 2012 02:10 By the way, Matheson was a member of PandasThumb which has been the longtime rival of Uncommon Descent June 15, 2012 01:32 Steve Matheson wrote on his blog a while back: Why One Should Wash Thoroughly After Reading Uncommon Descent have to agree. It's just terrible that at UD, I've reported on a professor who presented himself as an example of virtue at a Christian school and then abused his power so badly as to make the evening news over a multi year affair with a student at his school. By the way, did you thoroughly wash after you.... But you know Steve wouldn't have opportunity to report on such sordid stories if they didn't exist in the first place. Hey Steve, before you try take the speck out of my eye, try taking out the log stuck in yours. Considering how you've insulted the members of the community, you ought to take note how many here, despite your insults to them, showed a lot of compassion for your plight. Obviously don't have Uncommon Descent is a cesspool. I'm eager to discuss design and evolution with Christians of diverse persuasions, and know it can be done without the kind of desperate intellectual vandalism that characterizes Bill Dembski's writing at UD. But this much is clear: it can't be done at Uncommon Descent, as repeatedly noted when was there. It's hard to imagine a less apt forum for the serious consideration of Christian views of biological origins. 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 6/18 as big a heart as they do, but I'd suggest you take note of the grace that some of the people of have extended to you, the very same people you label as part of a cesspool came close to retracting this thread, but you know want to keep it. It shows that despite me, there are some really good guys here at UD. Their comments on this thread are evidence June 13, 2012 11:08 ForJah don\u2019t find it wise for a scientific blog to repay evil with evil false accusation of evil against Sal is exaggeration, foolishness to do so, lacking any wisdom. \u201c\u2026the man of broad discernment is one that keeps silent.\u201d Proverbs 11:12 So, why r u speaking? News is news and this blog reports on all aspects related to ID, whether scientific, academic opponent essays or smears and false accusations, hypocrisy and double- standards in trying to silence proponents. Whatever is noteworthy. Besides, quoting half a proverb, left unmatched, out of context has nothing to do with this news item. Just a convenient way to silence someone you disagree with. Proverbs are lessons and wisdom in daily living, not law. And if abused, leave a wrong impression that Sal did something wrong, when in fact he did not. Proverbs 11:9,12 9 With their mouths the godless destroy their neighbors, but through knowledge the righteous escape. 12 He(godless) who is devoid of wisdom despises his neighbor, But a man of understanding holds his peace. () emphasis mine Sal is not godless, not destroying his neighbor, nor devoid of wisdom and has held his peace well in correctly reporting this news. As to despising this individual suggest he is not that type of person. This is a news site. And this post is news. Proverbs 11 on unfaithful, wicked and righteous is interesting as well, esp. Pv 11:6, But I'll leave that to each readers discretion. Thanks Sal June 13, 2012 05:01 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 7/18 why push evolution? Just teach and insist the bible or the parts they don't think are true TRUE. Prove it! Preach it! Just teach the bible writers were liars! and just regular humans. Thats all they got to do and evolutionism or something will logically move into the peoples hearts and minds June 12, 2012 10:33 They were right, and reconsidered and almost removed the post based on their urging, because they were right in as much as was being uncharitable to Matheson. But then concluded, we have to stand up for the victims like Calvin did wouldn't have reported it if were merely a personal failing and secretly known, but when it crossed into abuse of power, the university intervened and they made the story public. It's true did review reasons in light of the protests and came up with reasons to keep the post. Yes, the original issue was Matheson's double standard, and in light of what our more gracious and charitable colleagues posted nearly retracted. But then thought about Calvin's determination to send a message to the world, and I'm glad to assist them. One thing I've learned in all this, the community has a strong conscience about not going after people personally. They were right to criticize me for being uncharitable to Matheson, but well, Matheson isn't the real victim here is he. The university stood up to defend a victim of Matheson's abuse of power respect the compassion expressed toward Matheson, but his accusations of dishonesty, creepiness, duplicity, etc. by the community are wrong pointed out, maybe he's not in the best position to be throwing around such accusations. Don't you agree? Then, after ForJah, Starbuck, and Timaeus call you out for your lack of Christian charity (to put it mildly), That is so transparently self-serving and such an obvious post-hoc rationalization, it boggles the mind. 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 8/18 June 12, 2012 07:37 Sal, you started out this thread by attacking Steve for a supposed double- standard: Then, after ForJah, Starbuck, and Timaeus call you out for your lack of Christian charity (to put it mildly), you, without even blinking, change tack and claim it was all about academic freedom and protecting students: That is so transparently self-serving and such an obvious post-hoc rationalization, it boggles the mind If Matheson left for personal reasons, he is entitled to privacy. But if he left for misconduct, and has been publicly called on it by a Christian College (Calvin College), and further if he has been accusing fellow Christians of being a \u201ccancer on the Christian intellect\u201d, we have some obligation to call him out on his double standard. Yes, Matheson is suffering immensely, and if it were only his personal suffering wouldn\u2019t have reported it. But at issue is the victimization of students, and Calvin vigorously reported and has taken action, and that is right thing to do, even if unpleasant. June 12, 2012 07:04 Timaeus, Thank you for your concern and kind words about my past contributions. Steve's private life is his private life. His private failings are his own, and respect that. What changed my mind to report this was Calvin College's (a Christian College) vigorous broadcasting of the incident to students and various media outlets like Fox News. What was at issue was not Steve's personal interactions but abuse of power and the infringement of students rights and academic freedom. We've pointed out before that Darwinists are willing to abuse their office and infringe on 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 9/18 students rights. This infringement has to be resisted in all its forms not just with respect to the debate. What he does with his private life is his business, but abuse of power in the university is the concern of all students thought his accusation of our colleagues was highly unfair, and what he has suffered is far out proportion to the harm his accusations have caused. But, imho, if instead of simply offering honest disagreement, and instead starts churning up accusations of dishonesty, he can be called out for possible double standards. But even then, that in and of itself doesn't justify posting his personal failings for all to see. However, to the extent students were victimized, something has to be said. Calvin College has chosen to do by going very public over the matter decided abuse of power shouldn't be something swept under the rug. We have some obligation to stand up for victim students... Yes, Matheson is suffering immensely, and if it were only his personal suffering wouldn't have reported it. But at issue is the victimization of students, and Calvin vigorously reported and has taken action, and that is right thing to do, even if unpleasant. If the incident were a tightly held secret would have left it as such. But a Christian colllege decided to make a very public campaign of highlighting the abuse of power, and respect them for that June 12, 2012 05:34 Scordova: I've often enjoyed your contributions to on biological matters, so write out of respect for your past entries, but must say, this is one column that wish you hadn't written take into account your explanation of your motives, and your sincere expressions of sympathy for Matheson's personal situation. And understand the frustration you feel with Matheson's constant accusations of dishonesty against fine Christian people like Behe and Meyer. Nonetheless think that Matheson's (real or alleged) moral failings are not something that should be devoting columns to. Even if he is guilty of a form of personal dishonesty himself, and even if it is somewhat inconsistent of him to lecture others on personal dishonesty given that fact still think we should let the subject go. Certain wrong acts carry their own \"natural punishment,\" and imagine that 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 10/18 Matheson has suffered enough of this without us \"piling on don't take your motivation here as malicious or spiteful, but think perhaps a certain overzealousness has overtaken your judgment. It's not for me to tell you what to do, but would recommend that you seriously consider removing this column from the site. As author believe you have the right and the power to do that. Steve is not one of my favorite TEs -- his abrasive manner of arguing puts me off. But think it would be the high road for us not to seek the slightest rhetorical advantage over him due to his personal actions in the non-scientific sphere June 12, 2012 03:23 By the way, this blog was posted also under \"academic freedom\". Calvin College sent out this letter to the students and media outlets to uphold students rights from abuse of office by professors. What I've failed to mentions is that the letter was to help uphold students rights, and there has been a violation of students rights and hence academic freedom feel very sorry for Steve, but there is a victim in this affair whose name is not known and whose academic freedom has been infringed on. Calvin published the story and made it widely available in the hope of furthering academic freedom. Calvin felt that reporting of this story would help protect students rights, and stand with them in that regard June 12, 2012 12:43 ForJah, Anyway we disagree, but thank you for offering you criticisms. They are valued here. And since we've never met before, despite the contentious topic at hand, let me extend my welcome. \"Welcome to UD\". If you are going to apply christian ethics to this professor, make sure you are applying the same ethics to yourself. \u201cReturn evil for evil to no one\u2026\u201d Romans 12:17 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 11/18 have no axe to grind with Matheson. We disagree. The posting was not a matter of retribution. I'm very very sorry for him. He has lost his career, possibly his marriage, his reputation, a source of income, etc. The matter is not really private since it involves a matter of misconduct which the Calvin College has vigorously reported to every student and faculty member and the media outlets. It had relevance also in as much as some speculated his departure was related to Christian Darwinism. This posting hopefully refutes that speculation. When was alerted of Matheson's departure didn't report it because he listed his departure based on \"personal matters\" and respected that. However in light of the fact that Calvin College has publicly identified it as a matter of misconduct versus a personal matter, if they found it appropriate to mention, then it is newsworthy. Even then probably would not have even mentioned it if Matheson's assault on were purely scientific. He could have simply stated the community was mistaken, but when he starts making accusations of dishonesty, creepiiness, duplicity felt it appropriate to point out the irony of such words coming from him. As a personal policy don't accuse people of lying simply disagree, Matheson chose to invoke issues of integrity and honesty. I'm very very sorry for him -- an excellent career down the drain. He acted unwisely. If he wanted to carry on with someone, that's his private business, but it was unwise to do that in the context of students at a University he taught at. This didn't have to happen. We were, as you can see, successfully refuting his scientific claims. We could have won the debate on evidential grounds, but now he's removed himself from the debate. Sal June 12, 2012 12:25 I'm not denying that it is news worthy. I'm just saying that the article is inappropriate for this blog. If you are going to apply christian ethics to this professor, make sure you are applying the same ethics to yourself. \"Return evil for evil to no one...\" Romans 12:17 Matheson accused the of dishonesty...and you react with...\"no you are!\" That was the incorrect response. 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 12/18 June 12, 2012 11:58 ForJah, If creationist Dr. Dino Kent Hovind goes to jail for tax fraud, that is news worthy. If a prominent Darwinist leaves his post that is news worthy whether it is a nice story or not. For example we have reported on an board member being ousted for lying. The fact that this story is ugly, does not disqualify it as news. If Matheson left for personal reasons, he is entitled to privacy. But if he left for misconduct, and has been publicly called on it by a Christian College (Calvin College), and further if he has been accusing fellow Christians of being a \"cancer on the Christian intellect\", we have some obligation to call him out on his double standard. I'm sorry for him, but I've done no worse for reporting it any more than Calvin College's public statements to students, faculty, and the rest of the world. Are you faulting me for information which was passed on by a Christian College to the rest of the world? If it were a purely private matter would have left it at that, but it no longer is in as much as it is a matter of serious miscounduct for someone affiliated with a religious institution, and it has bearing on Matheson representing himself as some example of integrity to be contrasted with the supposed dishonesty of the community June 12, 2012 11:34 By the way there was a lot of speculation that Steve Matheson's departure might have been related to the resignation of another Christian Darwinist from Calvin College around the same time. Calvin College: Religion professor's departure makes national news John Schneider, a longtime Calvin College theology professor until recently, has said there was no historical Adam and Eve. (His September 2010 discussion of the matter is available here.) \"Evolution makes it pretty clear that in nature, and in the moral experience of 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 13/18 and then we have this from Matheson: administration-not-truthful-over-colleagues-resignation-54046/ Well, thanks to Calvin College's letter sent to Fox News, we know Matheson's departure is unrelated to his Darwinism. The letter helped set the record straight that Matheson's departure was not because of his Darwinism. His academic freedom was thus maintained in that respect human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost,\" Schneider said in an interview with NPR, broadcast today. John Schneider \"So Christians think, have a challenge, have a job on their hands to reformulate some of their tradition about human beginnings.\" His departure is also being debated by Chronicle of Higher Education blogger Mike Ruse, who headlines his piece as \"The Shame of Calvin College.\" Steve Matheson, a research biologist at Calvin College, also recently left the college. Harlow thinks it could be related to the controversy surrounding him and Schneider. Harlow says he has no idea of what really happened, but \u201cin print and on campus [Matheson] was the most vocal and strident critic of our president, provost and college administration for their botching of this whole affair.\u201d June 12, 2012 11:26 don't find it wise for a scientific blog to repay evil with evil. \u201c...the man of broad discernment is one that keeps silent.\u201d Proverbs 11:12 June 12, 2012 11:22 Uncommon Descent has hit bottom with this post. 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 14/18 Share June 12, 2012 11:03 ForJah, This article was filed under \"Christian Darwinism\" not science. Don't blame the news reporter for the bad news that happens in the world. This story is relevant in as much as Matheson has accused the community of being dishonest, a cancer to the Christian intellect, duplicitous, etc. Isn't there irony in Matheson's words in light of subsequent events. What he does with his personal life is up to him, but if he is going to parade himself as an example of a Christian professor who espouses Darwin, certain standards of conduct are expected if one is part of a religious institution. If he doesn't want to abide by those standards, he shouldn't affiliate himself with a religious institution. And further, he should not preach to Christian creationists and proponents about honesty merely released what Calvin College has sent out to Fox News and the whole world. If you feel my reporting is foul, then what about the University alerting Fox News agree the events that transpired are foul, but don't shoot the messenger mean how irrelevant it is to any scientific argument June 12, 2012 10:37 This article is really foul...and don't mean what Matheson said mean how irrelevant it is to any scientific argument know you acknowledged this at the bottom but still leave the ad hominems for the Darwinists. The high level of intellectual discussions based on actual arguments are what drew me to this site. This is a crap article and should not have been posted June 12, 2012 10:17 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 15/18 Uncommon Descent holds that ... Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution \u2014 an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project. Host-Parasite Cospeciation: Evidence For Common Ancestry? Claim: Rats show regret At Evolution News: The Multiverse: From Epicurus to Comic Books and Beyond Most science findings wrong or useless? Oldest evidence for animals found at 635 mya 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Categories 'Junk DNA' Academic Freedom Adminstrative Agitprop Amorality Animal minds Artificial Intelligence Astronomy Atheism Big Bang Biology Biomimicry Biophysics Books of interest Cambrian explosion Canada Cell biology Chemistry Christian Darwinism Climate change Computing Constitution Contests Control vs Anarchy Convergent evolution Cosmology Courts Creationism Culture Darwinism Defending our Civilization Design inference Ecology Ediacaran Education Embryology Engineering Epigenetics Epistemology Ethics Search Random Archives \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 16/18 Evolution Evolutionary biology Evolutionary Incoherence Evolutionary psychology Exoplanets Expelled extinction Extraterrestrial life Eyes Rolling Fine tuning Fine-timing Food for thought Free Speech General interest Genetics Genomics Geo-strategic issues Geology Global Warming governance horizontal gene transfer Human evolution Humor Hype Informatics Information Information theory Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity Just For Fun knowledge language Laws Legal Lessons of History Logic and Reason Mathematics Media Medicine Mind mind and brain Multiverse Natural selection Naturalism Neuroscience News News Highlights Off Topic Origin Of Life Peer review Philosophy Physics Plants Politics Popular culture Proteome Psychology Racism Religion rhetoric Sci-Tech watch Science science education Science fiction Sciences and Theology Selective Hyperskepticism Self-Org. Theory Society speciation specified complexity stasis The Design of Life theism theistic evolution Tree of life Video Viruses worldview \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d \u066d Earth\u2019s early atmosphere impossible to recreate? \"Novak explains that this synthetic prelife approach is favorable for a host of reasons.Firstly, it's impossible to recreate the atmosphere that existed when life began four billions years ago.\" Evolutionists Just Invented a New Euphemism For Today\u2019s Evolutionary Tree Failure Now they\u2019re calling it \u201cdisplacement.\u201d An ubiquitous and fundamental binding protein is missing from a heat-loving 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 17/18 Topics News Desk Glossary About Comment Policy single cell organism. Instead, there is a novel protein in its place: Read \u2026 2/13/25, 10:59 Clergy Letter Project \u201cScientists on call to help Clergy\u201d \u2014 Steve Matheson and Amy Bishop | Uncommon Descent 18/18"} |
7,799 | John Ellis Price | University of North Texas – Dallas | [
"7799_101.pdf"
] | {"7799_101.pdf": "Ellis, Nathan John v. The State of Texas and Opinion Filed February 23, 2012 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas ............................ No. 05-10-01325 ELLIS, Appellant TEXAS, Appellee ............................................................. On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401-81123-09 Before Justices O'Neill, Richter, and Francis Opinion By Justice O'Neill Appellant Nathan John Ellis was indicted on two counts of online solicitation of a minor and pleaded guilty to both counts jury sentenced him to ten years' confinement, probated for ten years and a 2/13/25, 11:00 Ellis, Nathan John v. The State of Texas :: 2012 :: Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District Decisions :: Texas Case Law :: Texas Law :\u2026 1/4 suspended fine of $2500 on Count and to sixteen years' confinement and a $2500 fine on Count II. In a single issue, he challenges the constitutionality of Texas Penal Code section 33.021 under the Texas Constitution and the U.S. Constitution because it infringes upon his right to free speech, his right to privacy, and is void for vagueness. We affirm. Because appellant has not challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, only a brief recitation of the facts is necessary. In December of 2008, Sergeant Chris Meehan worked in the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force for the Collin County Sheriff's Office. He set up a Yahoo profile in which he portrayed himself as a thirteen-year-old girl from McKinney with the screen name of brooke-chick13. He entered the Yahoo chat room and waited for someone to engage him in conversation. Appellant, whose screen name was texascowboy1980, sent brooke-chick13 a message and a conversation ensued. Despite appellant believing brooke-chick13 was a minor and repeatedly saying he could get in trouble or go to \u201cthe slammer,\u201d he continued to chat with her and discussed what he would like to do with her, which included getting her naked, fingering her, and her wrapping his hand around his penis. Appellant and brooke-chick13 engaged in two more online conversations on March 24 and March 29, 2009, which again included discussions of sexual acts appellant wanted to perform on her and acts appellant wanted her to perform on him. During the March 29 discussion, the two made plans to meet at a 7-Eleven behind her house. Appellant agreed to drive from Fort Worth to McKinney to meet her. The next day, officers patrolled the neighborhood and pulled appellant over once they spotted him in the neighborhood. Officers found a map to the neighborhood inside his pocket and an open box of condoms in the car's center console. Appellant was arrested for online solicitation of a minor. In a single issue, appellant challenges the constitutionality of Texas Penal Code section 33.021. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. \u00a733.021 (West 2011). The State responds appellant waived his constitutional challenges to the online-solicitation-of-a-minor statute because he failed to raise those issues in the trial court. The State further argues, even if the 2/13/25, 11:00 Ellis, Nathan John v. The State of Texas :: 2012 :: Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District Decisions :: Texas Case Law :: Texas Law :\u2026 2/4 issues are preserved for review, the statute does not violate the Texas Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. We agree with the State that appellant has failed to preserve his arguments for review facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is a forfeitable right, that is, it may be lost by the \u201cfailure to insist upon it by objection, request, motion, or some other behavior.\u201d Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Ibenyenwa v. State, --- S.W.3d ---, 02-10- 00142-CR, 2011 6260874, at *1 (Tex. App-Fort Worth Dec. 15, 2011, no pet.); Askew v. State, 05-10-00633-CR, 2011 2993174, at *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 25, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Preservation of error is not merely a technical procedural matter by which appellate courts seek to overrule points of error in a cursory manner. Fairness to all parties requires a party to advance his complaints at a time when there is an opportunity to respond and cure them. Laredo v. State, 159 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Nothing in the record indicates appellant raised his challenges to the constitutionality of the statute to the trial court. Accordingly, we conclude and hold that appellant did not preserve his facial challenges to section 33.021 of the penal code. Appellant's sole issue is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47 101325F.U05 Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas ELLIS, Appellant No. 05-10-01325-CRV. 2/13/25, 11:00 Ellis, Nathan John v. The State of Texas :: 2012 :: Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District Decisions :: Texas Case Law :: Texas Law :\u2026 3/4 TEXAS, AppelleeAppeal from the 401st District Court of Collin County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 401-81123-09). Opinion delivered by Justice O'Neill, Justices Richter and Francis participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered February 23, 2012. /Michael J. O'Neill ------------------- Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 2/13/25, 11:00 Ellis, Nathan John v. The State of Texas :: 2012 :: Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District Decisions :: Texas Case Law :: Texas Law :\u2026 4/4"} |
7,430 | Gregory Black | Metro State University | [
"7430_101.pdf"
] | {"7430_101.pdf": "By By | | [email protected] [email protected] | The Denver Post | The Denver Post UPDATED: UPDATED: March 9, 2017 at 6:25 March 9, 2017 at 6:25 The former senate president and a former lecturer at Metropolitan State University of Denver The former senate president and a former lecturer at Metropolitan State University of Denver have sued the college claiming they were punished or fired after reporting alleged sexual have sued the college claiming they were punished or fired after reporting alleged sexual improprieties by the university\u2019s marketing chairman. improprieties by the university\u2019s marketing chairman. The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Denver on behalf of Kamran Sahami The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Denver on behalf of Kamran Sahami and Kristin Watson, accusing of retaliation and creating a sexually hostile work and Kristin Watson, accusing of retaliation and creating a sexually hostile work environment. environment. Although the lawsuit does not name Marketing Department Chairman Gregory Black as a Although the lawsuit does not name Marketing Department Chairman Gregory Black as a defendant, it revolves around claims that he retaliated against faculty including Watson who defendant, it revolves around claims that he retaliated against faculty including Watson who say they saw him masturbating at the university President Stephen Jordan reprimanded say they saw him masturbating at the university President Stephen Jordan reprimanded Sahami after Sahami reported the allegations against Black to his superiors. Sahami after Sahami reported the allegations against Black to his superiors. Sahami and Watson are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, according to the lawsuit Sahami and Watson are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, according to the lawsuit filed by Denver attorneys Todd McNamara and Mathew Shechter. filed by Denver attorneys Todd McNamara and Mathew Shechter Denver denies the allegations contained in this complaint, and we assert there are many Denver denies the allegations contained in this complaint, and we assert there are many factual errors and statements in the claim. The university will dispute these allegations in factual errors and statements in the claim. The university will dispute these allegations in court,\u201d according to an statement released Thursday. court,\u201d according to an statement released Thursday. The U.S. Department of Justice issued a right-to-sue notice on Dec. 5. The U.S. Equal The U.S. Department of Justice issued a right-to-sue notice on Dec. 5. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that there was reasonable cause to believe Employment Opportunity Commission determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that that retaliated against Sahami and subjected Watson to a sexually-hostile work environment retaliated against Sahami and subjected Watson to a sexually-hostile work environment Metro State University faculty sue Metro State University faculty sue college claiming a sexually hostile work college claiming a sexually hostile work environment environment 2/13/25, 11:00 Metro State University faculty sue college claiming a sexually hostile work environment \u2013 The Denver Post 1/3 \ue905 \ue905 Originally Published: Originally Published: March 9, 2017 at 11:31 March 9, 2017 at 11:31 hired Watson as a visiting professor in the communications department in 2005 and as a hired Watson as a visiting professor in the communications department in 2005 and as a lecturer in the school of business in 2009. Sahami, who has a doctorate in astrophysical, lecturer in the school of business in 2009. Sahami, who has a doctorate in astrophysical, planetary and atmospheric sciences from the University of Colorado, was elected president of planetary and atmospheric sciences from the University of Colorado, was elected president of the Denver faculty senate in 2010 and served three terms. the Denver faculty senate in 2010 and served three terms. Watson claims she saw Black masturbating in his office in the spring of 2011. She didn\u2019t report Watson claims she saw Black masturbating in his office in the spring of 2011. She didn\u2019t report the incident until 2014 to an equal employment supervisor. the incident until 2014 to an equal employment supervisor. \u201cWatson was completely shocked and emotionally traumatized by Black\u2019s behavior, and thus \u201cWatson was completely shocked and emotionally traumatized by Black\u2019s behavior, and thus was afraid to report the incident initially, and feared potential retaliation by Black,\u201d the lawsuit was afraid to report the incident initially, and feared potential retaliation by Black,\u201d the lawsuit says. says. Watson would later learn that another professor had witnessed Black masturbating in his office Watson would later learn that another professor had witnessed Black masturbating in his office more than once and reported it to Business School Dean Ann Murphy, the lawsuit says. more than once and reported it to Business School Dean Ann Murphy, the lawsuit says. In early 2014, a woman who said she was an student called Sahami anonymously and In early 2014, a woman who said she was an student called Sahami anonymously and claimed she had seen Black masturbating in the marketing department, the lawsuit says. The claimed she had seen Black masturbating in the marketing department, the lawsuit says. The student said she feared retaliation because she had heard that a faculty member had been student said she feared retaliation because she had heard that a faculty member had been fired after seeing Black masturbating, it says. The issue fell outside of Sahami\u2019s purview and he fired after seeing Black masturbating, it says. The issue fell outside of Sahami\u2019s purview and he urged the student to report the incident to Murphy, the lawsuit says. urged the student to report the incident to Murphy, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit says that after each of the three reports, Black either directly or someone working The lawsuit says that after each of the three reports, Black either directly or someone working at his behest retaliated against the three people who had reported the \u201cmisconduct.\u201d at his behest retaliated against the three people who had reported the \u201cmisconduct.\u201d At about the same time that the fired professor filed an sexual discrimination complaint At about the same time that the fired professor filed an sexual discrimination complaint in 2013, Black retaliated against Watson by removing her name from a list of candidates for a in 2013, Black retaliated against Watson by removing her name from a list of candidates for a senior lecturer position, the lawsuit says. Black also wrote new evaluation guidelines and used senior lecturer position, the lawsuit says. Black also wrote new evaluation guidelines and used them to find Watson\u2019s work deficient, it says. them to find Watson\u2019s work deficient, it says. At the time, Black told her he was looking for her replacement and later told her she would At the time, Black told her he was looking for her replacement and later told her she would have to re-apply for her job, the lawsuit says. Black allegedly changed job qualifications to have to re-apply for her job, the lawsuit says. Black allegedly changed job qualifications to ensure she would not be selected, it says. The university hired someone who was less qualified ensure she would not be selected, it says. The university hired someone who was less qualified to replace her, it says. to replace her, it says. Black filed a formal grievance against Sahami accusing him of unprofessional behavior after Black filed a formal grievance against Sahami accusing him of unprofessional behavior after Sahami reported the two allegations against Black to his superiors. Black accused Sahami of Sahami reported the two allegations against Black to his superiors. Black accused Sahami of not being objective, the lawsuit says. not being objective, the lawsuit says. \u201cThis was a ludicrous allegation, since Sahami had no relationship with Black,\u201d the lawsuit says. \u201cThis was a ludicrous allegation, since Sahami had no relationship with Black,\u201d the lawsuit says. Sahami was forced to hire an attorney, it says. Sahami was forced to hire an attorney, it says. Jordan hired a relative of MSU\u2019s general counsel to investigate Sahami, the lawsuit says. In the Jordan hired a relative of MSU\u2019s general counsel to investigate Sahami, the lawsuit says. In the meantime never \u201cinvestigated the underlying claims against Black,\u201d nor has he been meantime never \u201cinvestigated the underlying claims against Black,\u201d nor has he been disciplined, the lawsuit says campus ethics committee determined Sahami made improper disciplined, the lawsuit says campus ethics committee determined Sahami made improper professional judgments of Black and recommended his discipline, it says. professional judgments of Black and recommended his discipline, it says. 2/13/25, 11:00 Metro State University faculty sue college claiming a sexually hostile work environment \u2013 The Denver Post 2/3 2017 2017 \ue907 \ue907March March \ue907 \ue90799 2/13/25, 11:00 Metro State University faculty sue college claiming a sexually hostile work environment \u2013 The Denver Post 3/3"} |
8,274 | Eddie Hollins | Ohio State University | [
"8274_101.pdf",
"8274_102.pdf",
"8274_103.pdf",
"8274_104.pdf",
"8274_105.pdf"
] | {"8274_101.pdf": "Andre Vergara Ohio State fired two cheerleader coaches, the school confirmed this week, in response to allegations that the coaches had sexually harassed the school's cheerleaders. Now, one of the accusers says he was kicked off the cheerleading team by the head coach in retaliation College football coaching carousel tracker: Ohio State to mak Matt Patricia to Ohio State highlights top college football coaching hires offensive lineman Ben Christman found dead in off- campus apartment 2025 Draft No. 1 pick odds: Should Abdul Carter be the first pick Sports a Football 26' coming this College Foo Klatt's way- 2025 2025 Who will win tournament Former cheerleader got kicked off team for reporting sexual harassment Updated Mar. 5, 2020 2:04 a.m Follow your favorite teams, players, shows and more Get quick access to your favorite teams, players, shows and more. Add now Boston 500 6 Los Angele 2/13/25, 11:01 Former cheerleader got kicked off team for reporting sexual harassment Sports 1/3 Cody Ellis' lawyer says he was subjected to sexual comments from Eddie Hollins and Dana Bumbrey, who also slapped male students' butts and touched them inappropriately, and that the coaches also made inappropriate comments about the female cheerleaders. Furthermore, Ellis received sexually explicit text messages from Hollins after he revealed to the coach that he is gay, his lawyer said. Hollins told university investigators it was all just joking between jocks, though he admitted showering in front of male cheerleaders even though he'd been the subject of similar allegations in the past. \"Ohio State University has no tolerance for this type of behavior,\" said Gary Lewis Jr., an spokesman, who confirmed to the Columbus Dispatch that the coaches were fired in May. \"The university conducted a complete and thorough investigation and found that the behaviors of Hollins and Bumbrey were inconsistent with university values and violated university policies.\" However, Ellis was permanently suspended from the team in August \u00e2\u0000\u0094 allegedly for having a bad attitude, but he says it was retaliation by head coach Lenee Buchman, who was ordered to attend sexual harassment training for ignoring Ellis' complaints. But Lewis denies that Ellis' removal from the team had anything to do with the case; he would not reveal the reason, citing federal student- privacy laws. Buchman did not return calls by The Dispatch. Ellis says his removal was preceded by a July suspension over allegations that he sexually assaulted one of Hollins' friends. Ellis was cleared by investigators, but Buchman would not allow him back on the team. \"This retaliation by the head coach is despicable, and the university's unwillingness to protect students who come forward as victims of sexual misconduct is equally abhorrent,\" said Ellis' lawyer, John Camillus Follow your favorite teams, players, shows and more Get quick access to your favorite teams, players, shows and more. Boston 500 6 Los Angele 2/13/25, 11:01 Former cheerleader got kicked off team for reporting sexual harassment Sports 2/3 College Football Golf College Basketball The Herd with Colin Cowherd First Things First Speak Breakfast Ball The Facility Sports SPORTS\u2122, SPEED\u2122, SPEED.COM\u2122 & \u00a9 2025 Fox Media and Fox Sports Interactive Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Use of this website (including any and all parts and components) constitutes your acceptance of these Updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | Advertising Choices | Your Privacy Choices | Closed Captioning Help Press Adv FS1 News Fox Get more from College Football College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more Follow your favorite teams, players, shows and more Get quick access to your favorite teams, players, shows and more. Boston 500 6 Los Angele 2/13/25, 11:01 Former cheerleader got kicked off team for reporting sexual harassment Sports 3/3", "8274_102.pdf": "1 N. WATERS, Case No: 2:14-cv-1704 Plaintiff, Judge Graham v. Magistrate Judge Kemp V. DRAKE, M.D., et al., Defendants. Opinion and Order Plaintiff Jonathan Waters brings this employment discrimination action against his former employer, defendant The Ohio State University. Waters asserts a claim under Title of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681 et seq., alleging that Ohio State discriminated against him by terminating him from his position as Director of The Ohio State University Marching and Athletic Band because he is a man. Ohio State moves for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It argues that the evidence produced during discovery conclusively shows that Ohio State terminated Waters for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and not because of his gender. In response, Waters argues that Ohio State\u2019s discriminatory animus against him can be inferred from Ohio State\u2019s more favorable treatment of an allegedly similarly-situated female coach of the Spirit Squad and from the allegedly flawed and unfair investigation that Ohio State conducted regarding Waters. Waters further seeks relief under Rule 56(d) to conduct additional discovery. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies Waters\u2019s request for Rule 56(d) relief and grants Ohio State\u2019s motion for summary judgment. I. Background A. Waters, Director of the Band From 1995 to 1999, Waters was a student member of the Ohio State Marching Band. (Waters Dep. at 99-100, Doc. #79). He worked as a graduate assistant with the Band from 2000 to 2002 and then served as an Assistant Director from 2002 to 2012. (Id. at 100-102). Waters was 2 named interim Director of the Band in late June or early July 2012 and became the full-time Director in February 2013. (Waters Dep. at 103; Jan 30, 2013 Offer of Employment, Doc. #81-1 at 4086-87). In his position as Director of the Band, Waters was an unclassified employee in the School of Music, a department of the College of Arts and Sciences. (Jan 30, 2013 Offer of Employment). His employment with Ohio State was at-will. (Id.) Waters reported to Richard Blatti, Director of the School of Music, and Blatti was responsible for conducting annual evaluations of Waters\u2019s job performance. (Id.; 2013/14 Performance Review, Doc. #81-1 at 4089). The duties of Director of the Band had three components: administration, outreach and teaching. (Position Description, Doc. #81-1 at 4095). The Director oversaw \u201call aspects of\u201d the Band, including planning and overseeing Band performances, creating field show concepts, supervising and directing Band staff, overseeing the Band\u2019s finances and budget, serving as a liaison to other University departments (including the Department of Athletics) and to Ohio State alumni groups and donors, promoting the Band and supervising contacts with the media and public, coordinating the recruitment of high school students to the Band, and teaching Marching Band and Athletic Band classes. (Id.) The Marching Band has 225 student members each year, and the Athletic Band has between 250 and 300 members. (July 22, 2014 Investigation Report at 2 n.1, Doc. #8-8; Waters Dep. at 49). B. Title Complaints and Investigation Report In May 2014, Ohio State\u2019s Office of University Compliance and Integrity (\u201cOUCI\u201d) received two related Title complaints. The first was made by a female student member of the Marching Band. She claimed that Waters had retaliated against her after she reported having been raped by another member of the Band in the Fall of 2013. (Glaros Dep. at 115, 117, Doc. #80-4). The second complaint was made by the parent of the first complainant. The parent expressed concerns that the Marching Band had a culture of objectionable traditions and practices, many of which were \u201csexualized.\u201d (Investigation Report at 3 then began investigating each Title complaint, as required by federal law and University policy, with a 60-day period in which to complete the investigations. (Glaros Dep. at 115, 221; 34 C.F.R. \u00a7 106.8; U.S. Dep\u2019t of Educ., Office of Civil Rights Apr. 4, 2011 Guidance Documents, Doc. #80-6 at 3989-4060; University Policy 1.15 on Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Harassment, and Relationship Violence, Doc. #80-6 at 3967). The investigations were conducted by Compliance Investigator Jessica Tobias and overseen by Assistant Vice President 3 of Compliance and Investigations, Christopher Glaros, who also served as interim Title Coordinator.1 (Glaros Dep. at 28, 246; Tobias Dep. at 23, Doc. #118). Glaros and Tobias testified that no one exerted influence or control over how they conducted the investigation. (Glaros Dep. at 245-46; Tobias Dep. at 24). In accord with their standard practice, Glaros and Tobias \u201creview[ed] each complaint and develop[ed] a strategy [and] investigation plan\u201d and conducted interviews. (Tobias Dep. at 24-25). OUCI\u2019s investigation of the first complaint concluded with a finding that the available evidence did not substantiate the student\u2019s claim of retaliation by Waters. (Glaros Dep. at 161). Glaros informed Waters of this finding on July 22, 2014. (July 22, 2014 Letter, Doc. #80-6 at 4083). Regarding the parent\u2019s complaint of a sexualized culture in the Band interviewed Waters three times and received a written statement from him. (Waters Dep. at 130; Glaros Dep. at 220-21; Tobias Dep. at 159-60; Written Statement (undated), Doc. #81-1 at 4109). In the written statement, Waters stated that he was \u201cnot insinuating that the culture of the Marching Band is in a \u2018good place\u2019 currently,\u201d and he acknowledged his awareness of Midnight Ramp, \u201ctremendously offensive\u201d and \u201cinappropriate\u201d nicknames, and \u201cvulgar and inappropriate\u201d Trip Tics. (Written Statement at 4109, 4113, 4114 interviewed two witnesses suggested by Waters, both of whom were on the staff of the Band also interviewed the two complainants, Blatti, a physical therapist who had traveled with the Band, and nine current and former members of the Band. (Glaros Dep. at 220; Investigation Report at 3-4). OUCI\u2019s investigation culminated in an Investigation Report dated July 22, 2014.2 The 23- page Investigation Report made the finding that the Marching Band\u2019s culture \u201cfacilitated acts of sexual harassment, creating a hostile environment for students.\u201d (Investigation Report at 1). The Report described numerous Band practices, the existence of which the Report said had been corroborated by multiple witnesses. These practices included: \u201cFesler Night,\u201d an evening event 1 The position of Title Coordinator was under the supervision of Glaros. (Glaros Dep. at 35). At the time of OUCI\u2019s investigations into the complaints relating to Waters, the prior Title Coordinator, Andrea Goldblum, had recently resigned and Glaros acted as interim Coordinator. (Id. at 16-17). Goldblum herself filed a complaint of gender discrimination against OUCI, alleging that mistreated her because she was a woman \u2013 a claim that an independent investigator found to be unsubstantiated. (Apr. 25, 2014 Memo, Doc. #144-1 at 6624). 2 The Investigation Report has also been referred to as the Glaros Report in court documents. 4 where new members learned about Band traditions; \u201cMidnight Ramp,\u201d where members marched into the football stadium in their underwear after attending Fesler Night; nicknames, assigned by upperclassmen to new Band members and often sexually related; \u201cTricks\u201d that members were expected to perform, sometimes related to their nicknames and involving reference to or simulation of sexual acts; \u201cRookie Introductions,\u201d where new Band members were sometimes subjected to sexually explicit questioning and dirty jokes while on buses travelling to away football games; \u201cRookie Midterms\u201d and challenges, where members were given written questions and physical challenges that were sexually related, such as drawing a picture of a sexual position or act; \u201cTrip Tic,\u201d a newsletter for away game trips that contained sexually related content, sometimes about members of the Band; and \u201cSongbook,\u201d which contained sexually related, alternate lyrics to over 120 collegiate and various other songs. (Id. at 4-10). Attached as exhibits to the Report were examples of a Rookie Midterm and a Songbook. (Id., Exs. A, B). The Report also made the finding that Waters \u201cknew or reasonably should have known about this culture but failed to eliminate the sexual harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects.\u201d (Investigation Report at 1). The Report noted the practices that Waters acknowledged having at least some knowledge of (or for which there was evidence that he knew), including Midnight Ramp, nicknames, tricks and Trip Tics. (Id. at 17). The Report recited the applicable University policy on sexual harassment and the applicable guidance from the Department of Education\u2019s Office of Civil Rights. Under these standards, individuals who know or reasonably should know about sexual harassment that creates a hostile environment should act to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence and address its effects. (Investigation Report at 15-16). The Report concluded that Waters did not satisfy the applicable standards regarding a university official\u2019s response to reports of sexual harassment or a hostile environment. (Id. at 19). Noting that the standards require prompt corrective action from faculty and directors, the Report faulted Waters for taking an \u201cevolving\u201d approach to changing the Band\u2019s sexualized culture and for stating that the initiative for change should come from student leaders. (Id.) For instance, Waters allowed Midnight Ramp to occur under his direction for two years (2012 and 2013) before deciding in June 2014 to end the practice. (Id.) Though Waters had claimed to be making efforts to change the Band\u2019s culture, witnesses \u201cdid not, however, report any significant change, or effort to change.\u201d (Id.) The Report recommended that a course of training, counseling, and ongoing oversight be implemented for the Band\u2019s leaders and members in order to bring the Band program into 5 compliance with Title and University policies. The Report made no recommendations as to disciplinary action that might be taken against Waters. C. President Drake\u2019s Decision to Terminate Waters\u2019s Employment Dr. Michael Drake became President of Ohio State on June 30, 2014. He had previously served as Chancellor of the University of California, Irvine. Shortly after arriving at Ohio State, he was informed of \u201can investigation into behaviors and the culture in the marching band.\u201d (Drake Dep. at 21, Doc. #80-1). He received a draft version of the Investigation Report and later received the final version of the Report, as well as a copy of the Songbook. (Id. at 21, 23). Drake read through the Report and found its findings to be \u201cconvincing.\u201d (Id. at 22). He believed that the practices described in the Report reflected a \u201chostile\u201d and \u201chazing type\u201d environment. (Id. at 23). He believed that the lyrics in the Songbook would be \u201cextraordinarily offensive to many people.\u201d (Id.) Because he received the information about Waters and the Band shortly after becoming President, Drake tried to \u201cdevelop a context to weigh\u201d the information by speaking with senior-level individuals at the University, including the Vice President, members of the Board of Trustees, and General Legal Counsel. (Drake Dep. at 24-25, 33-34, 36-37, 52-53). Through these discussions, Drake learned of, or learned more about, certain issues within the Band during Waters\u2019s time as Director. (Id. at 22 (stating that he confined his considerations to \u201cthings that occurred during [Waters\u2019s] time as Director\u201d)). Drake became aware of an assault reported by a female Athletic Band member to Waters in March 2013.3 The alleged assailant was a male member of the Athletic Band. Waters decided not to allow the female student and male student to make an upcoming Band trip. (Glaros Dep. at 113; Waters Dep. at 111-13). Concerned that Waters\u2019s decision would constitute retaliation against the female student, the Office of Legal Affairs intervened to ensure that she would be allowed to make the trip. (Glaros Dep. at 113-14; Waters Dep. at 112-13). Drake spoke to certain individuals at the University about the matter, and he reached the conclusion that Waters handled the situation in the \u201cwrong\u201d fashion. (Drake Dep. at 32-33 (stating his belief that \u201ca negative response\u201d to an individual reporting to be the victim of a sexual assault \u201ccould be seen as being punishment or dissuading someone from coming forward\u201d)). 3 This incident is mentioned in a footnote to the Report. (Investigation Report at 12 n.7). 6 Based on his discussions with other individuals at the University, Drake formed the impression that Waters had been \u201cslow to respond\u201d to issues involving sexual assault.4 Drake believed that Waters had displayed \u201cat least a reluctance to address these issues in a forthright and immediate fashion which . . . they deserved or needed to be done.\u201d (Id. at 25). Drake was advised by the Vice President of Student Life that Waters had been reluctant to schedule Title training for the Band \u2013 that there were \u201cpromises of training\u201d but no \u201creal definitive steps taken\u201d to address how Title issues should be handled. (Id. at 32, 34). Moreover, Drake testified that he received information which led him to believe that Waters was not acting honestly in denying the existence of problems within the Band. Drake became aware of a meeting in October 2013 between Waters and a former communications employee at Ohio State who confronted Waters about the existence of a culture of misbehavior in the Band. (Drake Dep. at 101). Waters denied that such a culture existed, both to the employee and in an email to a public relations employee at Ohio State. (Id.; Oct. 31, 2013 email, Doc. #81-1 at 4098 (Waters stating that an employee \u201cshared with me that there are perhaps some concerns from the Board of Trustees and Administration regarding a culture within the band [am] exceptionally surprised about the rumors . . . .\u201d)). Drake understood Waters\u2019s statements to reflect a position that \u201cthere\u2019s not a problem in the band.\u201d (Drake Dep. at 101). Drake also spoke to Provost Joseph Steinmetz, who had spoken with Waters in November 2013 about the culture issues and October 2013 rape. (Waters Dep. at 118-19). Waters stated to Steinmetz that \u201cthe band was not the band it was 10 or 20 years ago in terms of its culture\u201d and that he was \u201cworking on culture issues within the band.\u201d (Id. at 120). Steinmetz told Drake about his conversation with Waters. Drake was troubled that Waters characterized the Band\u2019s problems as primarily a thing of the past and had not, in Drake\u2019s view, properly addressed those problems. (Drake Dep. at 68-69). Drake also became aware of an incident in which Waters verbally attacked a student drum major. The student had recorded the incident and Drake listened to the audio recording.5 In Drake\u2019s description, Waters used expletives \u201cthroughout the conversation\u201d and was \u201cvery harsh,\u201d \u201coffensive,\u201d \u201cdemeaning\u201d and \u201cthreatening\u201d toward the student. (Drake Dep. at 28-29). Waters 4 In October 2013, a male Band member committed a rape that resulted in his suspension and eventual expulsion from the University. (Waters Dep. at 118-19). 5 The incident is mentioned in the Investigation Report as an issue that was raised by a witness during the investigation. (Investigation Report at 20). 7 was asked about the incident during one of the interviews for the Investigation Report, but he denied ever having yelled or cursed at a student.6 (Investigation Report at 20). Drake believed that Waters made a \u201cfalse\u201d and \u201cdishonest\u201d statement when he denied having knowledge of the incident. (Id. at 24). In determining his response to the information provided to him, Drake weighed the evidence and \u201cwanted to be careful and thoughtful in approaching it in getting to the right outcome.\u201d (Drake Dep. at 39). He viewed the matter as one that was for him to decide. (Id. at 65 (\u201cThis felt like a decision that was mine to make. That was my approach from the very beginning.\u201d)). Drake considered the option of taking disciplinary action short of termination \u2013 of requiring training or a performance improvement plan.7 Drake determined that a performance improvement plan was not the appropriate course of action because he did not view the situation as \u201ccorrectable\u201d as long as Waters remained as the Director. (Drake Dep. at 71 (stating that improvement plans are frequently used where there is a \u201cparticular thing\u201d that can be corrected), 22 believe that a change in leadership was necessary to change that culture.\u201d)). In Drake\u2019s experience, such plans were not suited for situations where there is \u201cdishonesty involved, where we have been engaged with a senior leader who has misrepresented material facts to us.\u201d (Id.) Drake added find that to be something that\u2019s extraordinarily difficult to deal with because we have done a lot to destroy the trust that we need to move forward.\u201d (Id. at 72). Drake found that Waters had made denials of a sexually hostile and harassing culture, the existence of which the University had developed a \u201crecord of.\u201d (Id.) Drake acknowledged Waters\u2019s effort to stop Midnight Ramp and to curb the use of nicknames. (Drake Dep. at 100, 103). But he concluded that the efforts were \u201cinsufficient,\u201d particularly in light of Waters\u2019s leadership position and the reports of continued issues under Waters\u2019s time as Director. (Id. at 43, 101). In Drake\u2019s view, \u201cthe job of the Director wasn\u2019t to attempt. The job was to correct these things and make it a safe place for our students . . . .\u201d (Id. at 101; see also id. at 26 (\u201c[I]t was really the response of the person in charge, the Director, that was 6 It is now undisputed that Waters was the individual who can be heard talking to the student in the recording. (Waters Dep. at 141). 7 Drake testified that, at the time he decided to terminate Waters\u2019s employment, he was not yet familiar with Ohio State\u2019s \u201cPerformance Improvement Plan\u201d policy specifically, but he was familiar with the performance improvement concept from his time serving in the University of California system. (Drake Dep. at 72-73). 8 what led me to the decision that the Director needed to be replaced.\u201d)). Drake concluded that there were \u201cmany things that . . . reflected a failure of leadership . . . [and issues] were time and time again not addressed in an appropriate fashion.\u201d (Id at 68). Drake testified that Waters\u2019s gender \u201cplayed no part\u201d in his decision to terminate Waters\u2019s employment. (Id. at 115-17, 284). On July 24, 2014 Waters was notified by letter that his employment had been terminated. (July 24, 2014 Termination Letter, Doc. #80-2 at 2701). D. Lenee Buchman, the Alleged Similarly-Situated Individual Lenee Buchman, a female, became the Head Coach of the Spirit Program at Ohio State in 2009. (Buchman Dep. at 13, Doc. #128). Her position was an unclassified, at-will position in the Department of Athletics. (July 1, 2009 Offer of Employment, Doc. #144-1 at 6602). During her 4 years at Ohio State, Buchman reported to several different individuals, including to the Director of Fan Experience at first and later to Martin Jarmond, an Associate Athletics Director. (Buchman Dep. at 23, 30). Her supervisors ultimately reported to Director of Athletics Eugene Smith. (Id. at 191). Buchman directed the cheer, dance and mascot programs and her duties included: coaching students; supervising staff; managing the program\u2019s budget; assisting students with their schedules, academic responsibilities and medical needs; coordinating travel; and attending meetings regarding sporting events, such as football and basketball games. (Buchman Dep. at 20-21). She had approximately 60 students in her program each year. (Id. at 238). In July 2012, a male cheerleader reported to Buchman that he was \u201cconcerned\u201d about a text message he received from assistant cheerleading coach Eddie Hollins. (Buchman Dep. at 111). Buchman did not see the text or know the nature of its content. (Id. at 111, 133, 168). The student asked Buchman not to say anything or do anything about the matter. (Id. at 111, 169). Buchman was aware that her coaches employed a variety of motivational tactics and could leave students \u201cfeeling as if we\u2019re pushing too hard.\u201d (Id. at 169). Buchman had not previously been aware of Hollins privately sending text messages to students. (Id. at 168). She held a staff meeting with her coaches and told them to \u201ckeep all communications public\u201d and be \u201crespectful\u201d and \u201cthink before you are pushing somebody.\u201d (Id. at 169). Buchman later learned that the University\u2019s Office of Human Resources was investigating Hollins and another assistant cheerleading coach, Dana Bumbrey. (Buchman Dep. at 130, 170; Glaros Dep. at 97). In April 2013, complaints were made against Hollins and Bumbrey alleging that each of them had made sexually harassing comments to students and had engaged in sexual touching 9 of students. (Smith Supp. Aff. at \u00b6 6, Doc. #86-1; Buchman Dep. at 130-36). The investigation substantiated the allegations, and Hollins and Bumbrey were terminated on May 23, 2013. (Smith Supp. Aff. at \u00b6 7). Buchman was not the subject of the April 2013 complaints or the ensuing investigation, but the investigation revealed that the male cheerleader had advised Buchman of his having received a text message from Hollins. The investigation further revealed that the text message which Hollins sent to the male cheerleader was sexual in nature. (Smith Supp. Aff. at \u00b6 8; Buchman Dep. at 109, 133; Jarmond Dep. at 52, Doc. #124). This discovery caused Jarmond, in consultation with Kim Heaton, the Human Resources Director within the Athletics Department, to place Buchman on a performance improvement plan.8 (Jarmond Dep. at 46; Performance Improvement Plan, Doc. #144-1 at 6604). According to Jarmond, under University policy Buchman should have promptly notified her superior or Human Resources of the student\u2019s report of an inappropriate text message from Hollins. (Jarmond Dep. at 42). Buchman instead tried to handle it herself, internally with her staff. (Id. at 41-42). Heaton issued a letter of reprimand to Buchman on June 20, 2013. The letter stated that Buchman \u201cdid not follow the proper channels\u201d and instead \u201ctried to resolve the issue on [her] own.\u201d (June 20, 2013 Letter of Reprimand, Doc. #144-1 at 6603). The letter further stated, \u201cAs a coach you are required to report any complaints that a reasonable person would believe to be sexual harassment to human resources.\u201d9 (Id.) The letter notified Buchman that she and her staff would be required to attend sexual harassment training in July 2013. (Id.) Jarmond testified that the reasons for placing Buchman on a performance improvement plan were two-fold. The first was to provide her with guidance, in light of her failure to report the text message to her supervisor or to Human Resources. (Jamond Dep. at 47). The second was to properly educate the coaching staff on sexual harassment issues, in light of the findings made against the assistant coaches. (Id.) Under the performance improvement plan, Jarmond and Buchman were to meet biweekly for six months to discuss plans for improvement and to evaluate progress in the 8 Jarmond was not directly familiar with the University\u2019s formal guidelines pertaining to performance improvement plans and relied on Heaton\u2019s expertise in crafting the terms of the plan. (Jarmond Dep. at 49, 73). 9 Human Resources did not make a finding as to whether Buchman knew that the text was sexual in nature. Again, Buchman testified that she did not. (Buchman Dep. at 111, 133, 168). 10 areas of communication, culture, leadership and recruiting. (Performance Improvement Plan; Jarmond Dep. at 54-55). Jarmond did not contemplate terminating Buchman\u2019s employment because the April 2013 complaints were not made against her and she was not the subject of the investigation. (Jarmond Dep. at 52, 54 (stating that the performance improvement plan was not a condition for Buchman\u2019s continued employment \u2013 \u201cIt had nothing to do with firing. It was all about improving her program and performance.\u201d)). Jarmond had no reason to believe that Buchman knew anything about the misconduct in which Hollins and Bumbrey had engaged. (Jarmond Dep. at 57, 83-84). Jarmond testified that Buchman\u2019s gender played no role in his decision to place her on a performance improvement plan. (Id. at 84). In August 2013, a cheerleading student filed a complaint of retaliation against Buchman, alleging that he was excluded from the cheerleading team because he participated in the investigation of Hollins and Bumbrey. (Buchman Dep. at 184; Jarmond Dep. at 55). An investigation cleared Buchman of the charge of retaliation. (Buchman Dep. at 185; Jarmond Dep. at 55, 81). However, the investigation revealed that Buchman had participated in a cheerleading camp run by Bumbrey in August 2013, after Ohio State had terminated his employment. (Buchman Dep. at 185; Jarmond Dep. at 81). And it revealed that in September 2013, Hollins unexpectedly appeared at a cheerleading team practice and Buchman did not approach him or ask him to leave. (Id.) In October 2013, Human Resources prepared an investigation report on these two incidents, and Gene Smith terminated Buchman\u2019s employment a month later. (Nov. 22, 2013 email, Doc. #144-1 at 6607; Nov. 25, 2013 Termination Letter, Doc. #144-1 at 6609). Smith terminated Buchman on the grounds that she had not demonstrated the leadership expected of a head coach when she \u201caligned\u201d herself and Ohio State with Bumbrey at his camp and when she failed to eject Hollins from the team\u2019s practice. (Nov. 22, 2013 email). E. Interaction Between the Band and Spirit Program The Band and the Spirit Squad routinely appeared at the same events, including football and basketball games, fundraisers, alumni events and events surrounding football bowl games. (Buchman Dep. at 73-74, 76-77, 79, 81-82, 84-85, 89-93; Waters Dep. at 250). Each program controlled its own performances, such that Waters did not participate in determining the content or design of the Spirit Squad\u2019s performances, nor did Buchman participate in determining the content or design of the Band\u2019s performances. (Buchman Dep. at 202, 211-13, 216). The Band and Spirit Squad did not practice together. (Id. at 213-14). 11 In preparation for home football games, Waters and Buchman both attended operations meetings in which representatives of law enforcement, parking services, concessions and food services, stadium facilities, the University\u2019s Department of Fan Experience and others were in attendance. (Buchman Dep. at 200-02). About 50 people attended these meetings, the purpose of which was to plan for the logistics and timing of what happens during the course of a game day. (Id. at 201-07). During games, Waters and Buchman both wore headsets, as did members of the television crew, sound crew, light crew and Fan Experience. (Id. at 59-60). As a group, they kept in communication as to what would occur during timeouts, such as the Band playing, the cheerleaders performing and so forth. (Id. at 59-60, 209-10). On occasion, the Band and Spirit Squad traveled together to an away football game, bowl game or tournament basketball game. (Buchman Dep. at 41-42, 45-46, 86-106; Waters Dep. at 250). Such travel, particularly to bowl games, included joint travel arrangements for the entire University party, including University officials, donors and parents. (Buchman Dep. at 216-18). The Athletics Department handled the travel arrangements and paid per diems, including to members of the Band and the Spirit Squad. (Id. at 42, 46-47, 49-50, 218). Though Buchman and Waters sometimes communicated with each other concerning the logistics of travel, they each were responsible for the members of their own program in regards to travel. (Id. at 43-44, 48, 50 took care of my personnel. He took care of his.\u201d)). F. Office of Civil Rights Compliance Review In July 2010, the United States Department of Education\u2019s Office of Civil Rights (\u201cOCR\u201d) initiated a compliance review of Ohio State\u2019s Title program. (Glaros Dep. at 111 did not conduct the review based on any complaint, but rather initiated it as a proactive measure to \u201csurvey the landscape\u201d of the Title program in \u201cexpansive and comprehensive fashion\u201d to ensure its compliance with the law. (Id. at 146-47). In May 2013 informed Ohio State that its review was nearly complete. (Glaros Dep. at 148-49 provided Ohio State with \u201cpositive\u201d feedback and made only \u201cminor\u201d recommendations about changes that it should implement. (Id. at 149-50). In August 2013 sent Ohio State a draft resolution agreement. (Id. at 151; Aug. 5, 2013 email, Doc. #132-1 at 6233). Ohio State was \u201csurprised\u201d by the need to execute a resolution agreement, given the \u201cvery positive feedback\u201d it had received from OCR, and set up a meeting in December 2013 with to further discuss the matter. (Glaros Dep. at 151-52). 12 At the December 2013 meeting explained that the resolution agreement was necessary to formally bring a conclusion to the compliance review. (Glaros Dep. at 156 directed Ohio State to provide updated information for inclusion in a revised version of the draft resolution agreement. (Id. at 156-57 (stating that \u201cwanted to update the information that they had been collecting to date\u201d so they had \u201cfresh information as they finalized and tweaked\u201d the agreement)). Among the updates Ohio State provided was informing of the actions it had taken regarding the coaches in the Spirit Program. Ohio State reported that complaints had been filed against Hollins and Bumbrey for sexually harassing behaviors and that Ohio State had terminated their employment after an investigation substantiated the complaints\u2019 allegations. (Feb. 28, 2014 letter, Doc. #132-1 at 6248). Ohio State further reported that Buchman had been given a performance improvement plan for failing to respond effectively to a student telling her of his receipt of a private text message from an assistant coach. (Id.) Ohio State also reported that Buchman was later terminated for her \u201cfailures of leadership\u201d in continuing to associate with the terminated assistant coaches. (Id.) On July 24, 2014, shortly after Ohio State terminated Waters\u2019s employment, General Legal Counsel for Ohio State called to communicate that \u201csignificant Title problems\u201d had been found with the Marching Band. (Glaros Dep. at 158, 162 accepted the General Counsel\u2019s offer to make staff available to discuss the Marching Band investigation, and a meeting between University officials and took place on August 13, 2014. (Id. at 158-60). Glaros and Tobias attended the meeting, as did the new Title Coordinator at Ohio State and a Deputy General Counsel. The meeting lasted about one hour, and the representatives from Ohio State told about: our investigation, the nature of the complaints that we received, the process that we used to investigate these issues, the facts that we found, the analysis of those facts under University policy and Title IX, the findings that we made and the recommended corrective actions to address the systemic culture problems that we discovered in the marching band. We also told them that we had investigated the retaliation complaint against Mr. Waters comprehensively, and based on the available evidence, [we were] not able to substantiate that complaint. (Id. at 161; see also Tobias Dep. at 172 (testifying that they discussed \u201cthe culture of the band at length had already reviewed the Investigation Report and, at the meeting, indicated its agreement with the Report\u2019s analysis and findings. (Glaros Dep. at 162 came to the meeting with a revised version of the resolution agreement in hand. (Id. at 163). The revised agreement 13 included a section entitled \u201cUniversity\u2019s Investigation of Marching Band.\u201d (Sept. 8, 2014 Resolution Agreement at \u00a7 VII, Doc. #144-1 at at 6713). The revised agreement incorporated the language which appeared in the Investigation Report concerning the corrective action that was to be taken by the Ohio State.10 The corrective action included strengthening the Band\u2019s leadership, updating the Band\u2019s policies and procedures to ensure Title compliance, training Band staff on Title issues, providing counseling for victims of sexual harassment, distributing written materials on sexual harassment and sexual violence to Band staff and members, and conducting assessments of the effectiveness of efforts to change the Band\u2019s culture. (Id.) President Drake, on behalf of Ohio State, signed the revised resolution agreement on September 8, 2014 issued a letter to Drake on September 11, 2014 advising that had formally concluded its compliance review and would monitor Ohio State\u2019s compliance with the agreement. (Sept. 11, 2014 Letter, Doc. #144-1 at at 6717). G. New Director of the Band Named In February 2016, Ohio State announced that Dr. Christopher Hoch had been named as Director of the Band. (Feb. 24, 2016 Press Release, Doc. #144-1 at at 6747). Dr. Hoch, a man, became the first permanent Director since Waters was terminated. II. Standard of Review Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper if the evidentiary materials in the record show that there is \u201cno genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Longaberger Co. v. Kolt, 586 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009). The moving party bears the burden of proving the absence of genuine issues of material fact and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, which may be accomplished by demonstrating that the nonmoving party lacks evidence to support an essential element of its case on which it would bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Walton v. Ford Motor Co., 424 F.3d 481, 485 (6th Cir. 2005). The \u201cmere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.\u201d Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) 10 In the Investigation Report, the steps of corrective action were listed as recommendations and were stated to be modeled upon resolution agreements that had made with other educational institutions. (Investigation Report at 21). In the revised resolution agreement, the corrective steps were listed as requirements that Ohio State had to fulfill and provide quarterly progress reports on. 14 (emphasis in original); see also Longaberger, 586 F.3d at 465. \u201cOnly disputed material facts, those \u2018that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,\u2019 will preclude summary judgment.\u201d Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 544 F.3d 696, 702 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Accordingly, the nonmoving party must present \u201csignificant probative evidence\u201d to demonstrate that \u201cthere is [more than] some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.\u201d Moore v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 8 F.3d 335, 340 (6th Cir. 1993 district court considering a motion for summary judgment may not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations. Daugherty, 544 F.3d at 702; Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 379 (6th Cir. 1994). Rather, in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must determine whether \u201cthe evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.\u201d Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52. The evidence, all facts, and any inferences that may permissibly be drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 456 (1992). However, \u201c[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff\u2019s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.\u201d Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; see Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009). III. Discussion A. Prima Facie Case of Reverse Gender Discrimination 1. Elements Title provides that no person on the basis of sex shall \u201cbe excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.\u201d 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a). \u201cTitle proscribes gender discrimination [against employees and students] in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.\u201d North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 514 (1982). \u201cBecause Title does not provide an analytical framework for claims of gender discrimination by an educational institution, [most courts] have applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework used in analyzing discrimination claims arising under Title VII.\u201d Arceneaux v. Vanderbilt Univ., 25 Fed. App\u2019x 345, 347 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing cases). In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, McDonnell Douglas requires a plaintiff to establish a prima facie 15 case of discrimination by demonstrating that he (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) suffered an adverse employment action; (3) was qualified for the position; and (4) that \u201ca comparable non- protected person was treated better.\u201d Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 1992) (citing McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1972)). Ohio State makes two arguments as to why Waters cannot establish a prima facie case. The court will limit its decision to the second argument. Ohio State\u2019s first argument, which pertains to the first McDonnell Douglas factor, is that a plaintiff in a reverse discrimination case must satisfy a heightened standard of establishing that \u201c\u2018background circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.\u2019\u201d Murray v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 770 F.2d 63, 67 (6th Cir. 1985) (quoting Parker v. Baltimore and Ohio R.R. Co., 652 F.2d 1012, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). Ohio State\u2019s position has some support in the case law. See Sutherland v. Michigan Dep\u2019t of Treasury, 344 F.3d 603, 614 (6th Cir. 2003) (applying Murray). In response, Waters argues that the court should reject imposing a heightened standard in reverse discrimination cases. This position too has some support in the case law. See Zambetti v. Cuyahoga Cmty. Coll., 314 F.3d 249, 257 (6th Cir. 2002) (\u201c[W]e note that the \u2018background circumstances\u2019 prong, only required of \u2018reverse discrimination\u2019 plaintiffs, may impermissibly impose a heightened pleading standard on majority victims of discrimination.\u201d) (citing cases); Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796, 801 n.7 (6th Cir. 1994) (\u201cWe have serious misgivings about the soundness of a test which imposes a more onerous standard for plaintiffs who are white or male than for their non-white or female counterparts.\u201d). Because Ohio State has so clearly demonstrated that it is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of its second argument (concerning the absence of a similarly-situated individual), the court declines to decide whether it believes the heightened \u201cbackground circumstances\u201d standard remains good law in reverse discrimination cases in the Sixth Circuit. 2. Similarly-Situated Individual Ohio State\u2019s other argument is that Waters has failed to establish the existence of a similarly- situated female at Ohio State who received more favorable treatment than he did. In order to satisfy the fourth prong of McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must \u201cdemonstrate that he or she is similarly- situated to the non-protected employee in all relevant respects.\u201d Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 353 (6th Cir. 1998). Although the relevance of various aspects of an employment situation will depend on the circumstances of each case, courts generally consider such factors as whether the plaintiff and his proposed comparator dealt with the same supervisor or 16 decisionmaker, were subjected to the same standards and \u201cengaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer\u2019s treatment of them for it.\u201d Mitchell, 964 F.2d at 583; Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 352 (noting that these factors are relevant \u201cin cases alleging differential disciplinary action\u201d); McMillan v. Castro, 405 F.3d 405, 414 (6th Cir. 2005). \u201cThe plaintiff need not demonstrate an exact correlation with the employee receiving more favorable treatment in order for the two to be considered \u2018similarly- situated;\u2019 rather . . . the plaintiff and the employee with whom the plaintiff seeks to compare himself or herself must be similar in \u2018all of the relevant aspects.\u2019\u201d Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 352 (quoting Pierce, 40 F.3d at 802) (emphasis omitted). Waters argues that Lenee Buchman is a suitable comparator because both of them were employed by Ohio State in unclassified positions and both held the title of \u201cDirector.\u201d He emphasizes that Ohio State\u2019s sexual harassment policy applies to all departments within the University. He further argues that \u201c[i]t is common sense that marching bands and cheerleaders are similar units,\u201d given that they commonly appear at the same events, including athletic events, fundraisers and alumni events. (Pl.\u2019s Mem. in Opp\u2019n at 22, Doc. #144). Waters contends that the Band and Spirit Squad were both overseen by the Fan Experience Department on football game days. He argues that Ohio State treated Buchman more favorably than him because when acts of sexual harassment and misconduct were discovered to have occurred in the Spirit Squad, Buchman was given a performance improvement plan instead of terminated. The court finds as a matter of law that Waters and Lenee Buchman were not similarly situated in all relevant respects. As discussed below, the court concurs with Ohio State\u2019s assessment that Waters and Buchman \u201cdo not share in common any relevant employment aspects.\u201d (Defs.\u2019 Mot. for Summ. J. at 33, Doc. #132). The court begins with the undisputed fact that Waters and Buchman were employed in separate departments at Ohio State. Waters held a position in the School of Music, within the College of Arts and Science, while Buchman\u2019s position was within the Department of Athletics. They reported to different supervisors \u2013 Waters to Blatti and Buchman to Jarmond and Smith. Also undisputed is that different decisionmakers made the respective decisions to discipline Waters and Buchman. In Waters\u2019s case, Drake made the decision to terminate his employment. Drake did not consult with Jarmond, Heaton, Smith or any representative of the Athletics Department in deciding to terminate Waters\u2019s employment. (Drake Dep. at 138 (stating that his conversations about the Band were \u201cwith the Provost to whom the School of Music reported 17 because that was the proper reporting relationship\u201d)). In Buchman\u2019s case, Jarmond placed her on a performance improvement plan after consulting with Heaton, the Athletics Department\u2019s Human Resources Director. That Waters and Buchman worked in different departments and received discipline from different supervisors strongly indicates that they were not similarly situated. See Mitchell, 964 F.2d at 584; Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 219 F.3d 612, 618 (7th Cir. 2000) (\u201cDifferent employment decisions, concerning different employees, made by different supervisors, are seldom sufficiently comparable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for the simple reason that different supervisors may exercise their discretion differently.\u201d). Ohio State has also shown that Drake was not aware of the Buchman situation when he decided to terminate Waters. Buchman\u2019s placement on a performance improvement plan and her later termination predated Drake\u2019s arrival at Ohio State. (Drake Dep. at 285). And Drake did not learn about Buchman or the nature of her situation until the summer of 2015, one year after the termination of Waters. (Id. at 122-23, 142-43). Thus, Drake did not know about or consider Buchman\u2019s situation or the discipline she received when he was evaluating what action he would take in regards to Waters. Cf. Seay v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 339 F.3d 454, 480 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that plaintiff and comparator, who worked in different departments for different supervisors, could still be similarly situated if plaintiff could establish that his supervisor was \u201cwell- aware of the discipline meted out to past violators\u201d by the employer). Waters points out that Drake may have initially thought Waters worked for the Athletics Department. When Drake first arrived at Ohio State and learned of the Waters investigation, he approached Smith to check to see if the Band was part of the Athletics Department. (Drake Dep. at 123-25, 130). However, Smith informed him that the Band was not, and by the time Drake considered whether to terminate Waters, he knew that Waters was not employed by the Athletics Department. (Id. at 125; Smith Supp. Aff. at \u00b6 14). The evidence establishes beyond dispute that Drake did not treat Waters as though he were an Athletics Department employee at the time of the decision to terminate and that Smith did not provide any input to Drake about how to handle the situation regarding Waters and the Band. (Drake Dep. at 139 (stating that his conversation with Smith about Waters and the Band situation was \u201cvery brief\u201d and limited to \u201cthe reporting structure\u201d); Smith Supp. Aff. at \u00b6 14 did not speak to President Drake regarding the decision to terminate Mr. Waters and was not involved in the decision to terminate Mr. Waters.\u201d)). Waters also points out that he and Buchman both were unclassified employees who held the title of Director. But without more, these similarities are superficial, particularly for an institution as 18 large as Ohio State. Waters has not articulated what significance these similarities have in the context of this case. If anything, that he and Buchman were at-will employees who held leadership positions over programs in different departments suggests that each were subject to their own supervisors\u2019 discretionary evaluations of their leadership skills, and likely less subject to any common set of criteria regarding their job performance. Discovery indeed has established that Drake and Jarmond were not applying the same criteria, standard or policy in making their respective decisions. Cf. White v. Duke Energy- Kentucky, Inc., 603 Fed. App\u2019x 442, 448 (6th Cir. 2015) (finding that managerial employee and non- managerial employee could be similarly situated if a uniform company policy applied the same to both). Though Waters correctly notes that Ohio State has sexual harassment policies applicable to all University departments, Drake testified at length that the decision to terminate was uniquely his own and not pursuant to any policy. (Drake Dep. at 29-30, 39, 65, 72-73). Drake had just arrived at Ohio State when he received a draft version of the Investigation Report, and he was unfamiliar with specific University policies. Through conversations with senior-level individuals at Ohio State, he attempted to gain a sense of context, not about University policy, but about recent incidents and issues concerning Waters and the Band. Drake reached the opinion that the Investigation Report had a substantial basis in fact and he personally concluded that Waters had failed to act in a timely and forthright manner in response to the issues concerning the Band. Drake\u2019s decision to terminate stemmed from his view of the seriousness of the Band\u2019s culture problems and his belief that Waters had acted dishonesty and failed in leadership. In Buchman\u2019s case, by contrast, Jarmond consulted with a Human Resources Director who advised him of the University\u2019s policies regarding performance improvement plans and a coach\u2019s obligations to report inappropriate conduct between a student and staff. Jarmond\u2019s decision thus resulted from his application of University policy to a situation for which he believed education and training, rather than discipline, was the primary need. The court further finds as a matter of law that Waters and Buchman did not engage in the same or substantially similar conduct. \u201cIn order for the conduct of a comparable employee and the Title plaintiff to be considered the \u2018same conduct,\u2019 it must be similar in kind and severity.\u201d Barry v. Noble Metal Processing, Inc., 276 Fed. App\u2019x 477, 483 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Clayton v. Meijer, Inc., 281 F.3d 605, 611 (6th Cir. 2002)). It should be noted from the outset that the posture in which the respective actions of Waters and Buchman came under review differed greatly. Unlike 19 Buchman, Waters was the subject of two Title complaints, one of which led to the Investigation Report. Several key factors readily distinguish Waters\u2019s conduct from that of Buchman. The court starts with knowledge. Waters admitted he had knowledge of Midnight Ramp, \u201ctremendously offensive\u201d nicknames and \u201cvulgar\u201d Trip Tics. (Investigation Report at 17; Written Statement at 4113, 4114); Waters Dep. at 277-79 (acknowledging that he attended Midnight Ramp after he became Director and describing it as \u201cUndie Run type [of] antics\u201d); id. at 233 don\u2019t disagree that there were culture issues in the band.\u201d)). He knew of an assault reported by a female Athletic Band member to him in March 2013 and of a rape committed by a male Band member in October 2013. Steinmetz and a communications employee had both confronted Waters about culture problems within the Band. In contrast, Buchman knew only of the fact that one of her students had received a private text message from an assistant coach. She did not know or have reason to know of the message\u2019s content and the student expressly asked her not to do anything further about the matter. Next, Waters had a much greater level of involvement in the conduct at issue than did Buchman. Waters was present at Midnight Ramp and possessed a copy of a Band directory (updated June 2014) listing \u201csexually explicit nicknames, including some given to new members in 2013.\u201d (Investigation Report at 17). Witnesses stated that Waters had copies of Trip Tics and was present in September 2013 on a bus where students engaged in sexually suggestive conduct. (Id.). It was Waters who verbally attacked a student drum major in a recorded conversation and Waters who attempted to prevent a female member from traveling with the Band after she reported being the victim of sexual assault. In contrast, there is no evidence that Buchman ever participated in inappropriate conduct or witnessed such conduct by her staff or students prior to her placement on a performance improvement plan. The nature of misconduct on Buchman\u2019s part was in failing to report the text message to a superior or Human Resources. It is important to note that later when Buchman did have knowledge of what her assistants had done and chose to continue to associate them, she received the same disciplinary action as Waters did \u2013 termination of her employment. The slow and evasive responses of Waters to the Band\u2019s issues distinguish him from Buchman as well. Even prior to the filing of the Title complaints in May 2014, Waters had a record of being reluctant to address Title issues, failing to schedule Title training and denying to other University officials that the Band had a current culture problem. Drake saw those same tendencies continue as Waters responded to the investigation of the Title complaints. Waters 20 preferred an \u201cevolving\u201d approach to changing the Band\u2019s sexualized culture and believed the initiative for change should come from student leaders. He pledged to end Midnight Ramp and the use of nicknames only after began its investigation. (Investigation Report at 19; Written Statement at 4114). And Waters denied to an investigator that he had yelled or cursed at a student, despite the audio recording of his verbal attack of the drum major. By comparison, Buchman responded immediately to the report of the text message \u2013 calling a staff meeting and admonishing her coaches to \u201ckeep all communications public\u201d and \u201cthink before you are pushing somebody,\u201d though she did not further report the text to the proper channels. Finally, the court rejects plaintiff\u2019s argument that it is \u201ccommon sense that marching bands and cheerleaders are similar units.\u201d The public appearances that the Band and Spirit Squad made at football games and other such events have no relevance to the conduct at issue in this case. This is not a case, for instance, about the Band and Spirit Squad both failing to follow instructions from the Fan Experience Director during a game and Waters receiving more severe discipline than Buchman did. Nor is it a case where Waters and Buchman both falsified travel expenses to common events and Buchman was treated more leniently. Rather, the conduct at issue here \u2013 Waters\u2019s knowledge of, involvement in, and response to the Band\u2019s sexualized culture and Buchman\u2019s handling of the report of the text message \u2013 does not relate to their appearances at sporting events, fundraisers, and the like. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of a similarly-situated individual and thus has failed to establish a prima facie case of reverse gender discrimination. B. Legitimate, Non-discriminatory Basis for Termination and Pretext Even if plaintiff could establish a prima facie case, Ohio State would still be entitled to summary judgment. \u201cOnce the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action at issue.\u201d Sutherland v. Michigan Dep\u2019t of Treasury, 344 F.3d 603, 614-15 (6th Cir. 2003). Ohio State has satisfied this burden. Through the testimony of Drake and the related substantiating evidence, Ohio State has demonstrated beyond material dispute that Drake had a basis for determining that Waters had failed in leadership and destroyed any sense of trust that could have made his failings correctable. Waters argues that Ohio State\u2019s claimed basis for termination is pretext. When a defendant meets its burden, \u201cthen the burden of production shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the 21 proffered reason is a pretext.\u201d Sutherland, 344 F.3d at 615 plaintiff may establish pretext by showing that the proffered reason: \u201c(1) has no basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the adverse employment action; or (3) was insufficient to warrant the adverse action.\u201d Ladd v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., Inc., 552 F.3d 495, 502 (6th Cir. 2009). Under the third category, Waters argues that Buchman engaged in conduct that was substantially similar to his, yet she received a performance improvement plan. According to Waters, this shows that his conduct was insufficient to warrant termination. The court disagrees because, as explained above, the record establishes beyond genuine dispute that Waters engaged in more serious conduct than Buchman did. Waters next argues that his conduct was insufficient to warrant termination because Dr. Christopher Hoch, who began serving as an Associate Director of the Band in 2012, was equally aware of the Band\u2019s sexualized culture yet was retained and named as Waters\u2019s replacement. The record does contain evidence from which an inference could be made that Dr. Hoch had some knowledge of the Band\u2019s sexualized culture. (Investigation Report at 5-6, 10; Waters Dep. at 130- 31). Even so, Drake explained that he terminated Waters because as the Director he had the authority and responsibility to effect prompt change but failed to do so. (Drake Dep. at 26 (\u201c[I]t was really the response of the person in charge, the Director, that was what led me to the decision that the Director needed to be replaced.\u201d). Dr. Hoch was not in the Director role at the time of the events at issue and thus did not commit the failures in leadership which caused Drake to terminate Waters. (Id. at 43 (\u201c[W]hat was most important to me was what Mr. Waters himself did as Director.\u201d); id. at 101 (\u201c[T]he job of the Director wasn\u2019t to attempt. The job was to correct these things . . . .\u201d)). Finally, turning to the second category of pretext, Waters argues that the actual motivation for his termination was Ohio State\u2019s desire to appease the Office of Civil Rights. Waters contends that the timing of the May 2014 Title complaints and ensuing Investigation Report jeopardized the resolution of OCR\u2019s compliance review of Ohio State and that Ohio State made Waters into a scapegoat to prove to how swiftly it could respond to Title issues. Plaintiff\u2019s theory is not supported by the record. Glaros testified that no one at said or did anything to influence how conducted the investigation or what conclusions it reached. (Glaros Dep. at 245-46, 248). That is did not provide any advice on how should conduct the Waters investigation, nor did it suggest what action Ohio State should take against him. (Id. at 246, 250 did not threaten to fine Ohio State or take away funding or otherwise go 22 easier on Ohio State if it terminated Waters or male employees. (Id. at 249-50). Further, no one at or Ohio State exhibited any concerns about how might react to the Waters investigation or its resolution. (Id. at 247; Tobias Dep. at 90-91). Moreover, this theory offers no support to plaintiff as to the ultimate issue in this case \u2013 whether Ohio State terminated Waters because he is a man. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 153 (2000) (\u201cThe ultimate question in every employment discrimination case involving a claim of disparate treatment is whether the plaintiff was the victim of intentional discrimination.\u201d); Bobo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 741, 751 (6th Cir. 2012). Even if the real reason that Ohio State terminated Waters was to appease OCR, there is no evidence to support an inference that a discriminatory animus against men motivated the alleged effort to scapegoat Waters. Drake testified that gender played no role in his decision to terminate Waters. (Drake Dep. at 115-17, 284). Glaros testified that he does not have an animus against men and that the Waters investigation was not handled any differently because of Waters\u2019s gender. (Glaros Dep. at 243-44). And no one at communicated or conveyed to Ohio State that it had an animus against Waters or against men. (Id. at 250-51). Waters makes much of Ohio State\u2019s decision to wait until after-the-fact to inform of the investigation and his termination. He contends that Ohio State did this so it could control the narrative of the situation and that it did so successfully, as evidenced by simply accepting Ohio State\u2019s findings and recommendations without further scrutiny. Again, this contention in no way suggests gender-based animus. The example of the purported comparator, Buchman, is telling. When Buchman became the subject of a complaint and was terminated after an investigation found that she had continued to associate with Hollins and Bumbrey after she became aware that they had engaged in misconduct, Ohio State did not inform of the matter until after-the-fact. In other words, Ohio State took the same approach of informing of the terminated female employee as it did of the terminated male employee. Accordingly, the court finds as a matter of law that plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the evidence supports an inference that Ohio State\u2019s basis for termination was pretext for discrimination. C. Cat\u2019s Paw Theory Plaintiff argues that even if Drake did not act with discriminatory animus, he can show that Drake\u2019s decision to terminate was influenced by individuals who did act with such animus cat\u2019s paw theory refers to one who uses another to accomplish his improper purposes. See Staub v. 23 Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411, 415 n.1 (2011); Arendale v. City of Memphis, 519 F.3d 587, 604 n.13 (6th Cir. 2008). \u201cWhen an adverse hiring decision is made by a supervisor who lacks impermissible bias, but that supervisor was influenced by another individual who was motivated by such bias, . . . the employer may be held liable under a \u2018rubber-stamp\u2019 or \u2018cat\u2019s paw\u2019 theory of liability.\u2019\u201d Arendale, 519 at 604 n.13 (citing Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 355 plaintiff proceeding under a cat\u2019s paw theory must show: (1) a supervisor motivated by discriminatory animus; (2) who intended to cause an adverse employment action; and (3) proximately caused the adverse employment action. Staub, 562 U.S. at 422; Chattman v. Toho Tenax Am., Inc., 686 F.3d 339, 351 (6th Cir. 2012). Ohio State argues that a cat\u2019s paw theory, though accepted in Title cases, should not be allowed in Title cases. It argues that a theory resting on vicarious liability is not available because Title IX, unlike Title VII, does not include the actions of an \u201cagent\u201d in defining the scope of liability. See Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 283 (1998) (\u201cTitle contains no comparable reference to an educational institution\u2019s \u2018agents,\u2019 and so does not expressly call for application of agency principles.\u201d). In response, Waters contends that Ohio State\u2019s distinction regarding agency law makes sense only for harassment claims, as in Gebser, and not for claims based on an adverse disciplinary action by the educational institution. See David S. Cohen, Limiting Gebser: Institutional Liability for Non-Harassment Sex Discrimination Under Title IX, 39 Wake Forest L. Rev. 311 (2004) (arguing that agency principles should be applied to determine institutional liability in non- harassment Title cases). The court declines to address this issue of law because Ohio State has thoroughly established that it is entitled to summary judgment on the facts of the cat\u2019s paw theory. Plaintiff asserts that Glaros and Tobias influenced Drake\u2019s decision by way of the Investigation Report they prepared.11 There is no dispute that the Investigation Report influenced Drake\u2019s decision, even if he did consider other conduct not addressed in the Report. (Drake Dep. at 21-22). However, the record is devoid of any evidence to support an inference that either Glaros or Tobias acted with discriminatory animus towards Waters. Both individuals testified that they did not have gender animus against men and were not motivated by such animus when conducting the investigation or preparing the Investigation Report. (Glaros Dep. at 243-44, 248, 251; Tobias Dep. at 25, 90, 100, 108, 114-15, 130, 139, 143, 146-47, 149, 204). Nor did anyone with gender animus influence them. (Glaros Dep. at 245-46, 248; Tobias Dep. at 25, 90). Further, Glaros and Tobias 11 Plaintiff does not assert that Glaros or Tobias communicated with Drake outside of the Investigation Report. Glaros did not speak to Drake about the Report (Glaros Dep. at 237; Drake Dep. at 65), and Drake did not identify Glaros or Tobias as individuals with whom he spoke as he gathered information about Waters and the Band. 24 were the same individuals whose investigation cleared Waters of the Title claim that he had retaliated against a female student for having reported a rape. Cf. Voltz v. Erie Cnty., 617 Fed. App\u2019x 417, 425 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that a cat\u2019s paw theory failed where the purported influencer had drafted a report exonerating the plaintiff of wrongdoing). In the course of discovery, the court ordered Ohio State to produce over 800 pages of draft or \u201credline\u201d versions of the Investigation Report. (Doc. #145). The drafts show the many changes that were made prior to the final Investigation Report. Plaintiff has not cited any of the changes as constituting evidence of a discriminatory motive. Instead, Waters contends that the Investigation Report is flawed because it is the product of an \u201cinept investigation\u201d and \u201cfaulty methodology.\u201d Waters argues that: Glaros had never before supervised a Title investigation; Tobias had never before conducted a Title investigation; they improperly confined the number of interviews to a relative handful of witnesses when thousands of current and former Band members could have been interviewed; Tobias failed to record witness interviews; and they included irrelevant and disparaging content in the Investigation Report. This critique of the Investigation Report does not in any way show a gender-based animus on the part of Glaros or Tobias. Waters has not demonstrated that the investigation was such a sham that one could conclude that it was pretext for discriminatory animus. See Fiely v. Essex Healthcare Corp., No. 3:13CV2005, 2015 370093, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2015) (rejecting plaintiff\u2019s argument that defendants\u2019 \u201cincomplete\u201d investigation and \u201cfailure to interview\u201d certain individuals supported a cat\u2019s paw theory \u2013 \u201c[w]hile with hindsight one may identify imperfections in the investigation . . . plaintiff has not shown that the investigation was a sham, much less that it in any way manifested or sought to cover up age discrimination\u201d). Rather, Waters has submitted hearsay statements, in the form of letters addressed to Drake and authored by three individuals who were interviewed by OUCI. (Doc. #144-1, Exs at 6682, 6688, 6694). In these letters, one interviewee stated that not all of his comments were included in the Investigation Report (Ex at 6682), another stated that she was not asked about the circumstances under which she was assigned a certain nickname, which she was not personally offended by (Ex at 6689), and the last stated that she did not feel sexually harassed in the Band (Ex at 6695). Even if considered, these hearsay statements do not disprove the existence of the sexualized culture described in the Investigation Report. (Ex at 6684 (\u201cOn the topic of \u2018nicknames,\u2019 these names happen.\u201d . . . \u201cThe tradition of Midnight Ramp took place in a lighthearted atmosphere.\u201d). 25 In the final analysis, the record contains no genuine dispute that OUCI, in discharging its legal obligation to investigate the Title complaint in timely fashion, conducted interviews of the parties involved and others likely to have relevant knowledge, objectively reported its findings on the basis of corroborated evidence and Waters\u2019s own admissions, accurately stated the applicable Title standards, and made recommendations within a reasonable range of the application of those standards to the findings. The record contains no evidence from which an inference could be made that the Investigation Report was the product of a discriminatory animus against men on the part of Glaros or Tobias. Accordingly, the court finds that Ohio State is entitled to summary judgment against plaintiff\u2019s cat\u2019s paw theory. D. Summary Because Waters has not established a prima facie case, has not submitted evidence supporting an inference that the legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for his termination was pretext, and has failed to support his cat\u2019s paw theory, Ohio State is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff\u2019s Title claim for reverse gender discrimination. IV. Motion for Rule 56(d) Relief A. Prefatory Statement 1. Rule 26(b) Recently-amended Rule 26(b) provides: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party\u2019s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties\u2019 relative access to relevant information, the parties\u2019 resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure \u201care the product of five years of intense study, debate, and drafting to address the most serious impediments to just, speedy, and efficient resolution of civil disputes.\u201d Chief Justice Roberts, 2015 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary at 4. They \u201cmake express the obligation of judges and lawyers to work cooperatively in controlling the expense and time demands of litigation.\u201d Id. at 6. Under amended Rule 1, the Rules 26 \u201cshould be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (emphasis added). Amended Rule 26(b) brings an end to the days of nearly unlimited discovery and \u201cencourage[s] judges to be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging discovery overuse.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment. The proportionality standard is the instrument by which judges and practitioners are to bring about a change in the culture of discovery, requiring lawyers, with the guidance of involved judges, to \u201csize and shape their discovery requests to the requisites of a case.\u201d C.J. Roberts, 2015 Year-End Report at 7; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment (encouraging district courts to be actively involved in managing discovery \u201cwhen the parties are legitimately unable to resolve importance differences\u201d). The proportionality standard is not one behind which lawyers may simply offer boilerplate arguments. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment. Rather, the parties should explain why the information being sought \u201cis important to resolving the case and why it would be a good use of [resources] to search for it,\u201d as well as explain the burden or expense of complying with a discovery request. Wilmington Trust Co. v Generating Co., No. 2:13-cv- 1213, 2016 860693, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2016). \u201cThe court\u2019s responsibility, using all the information provided by the parties, is to consider these and all the other factors in reaching a case- specific determination of the appropriate scope of discovery.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment. 2. Applying the New Discovery Principles to the Course of Discovery Chief Justice Roberts commented that the \u201cpractical implementation of the [2015 civil rule amendments] may require some adaption and innovation.\u201d C.J. Roberts, 2015 Year-End Report at 9. This need for adaption and innovation is one that the court has taken to heart. The court believes that implementation of the new discovery rules will require improved case management by district judges, a culture of cooperation among lawyers, and active and early involvement by judges to fashion discovery that is proportional to the needs of the case. The adoption of certain protocols or measures will advance this effort and may include: case management conferences early in the litigation; requiring parties to submit joint discovery plans; the judge being available to timely resolve disputes; regular discovery conferences or hearings; stays of discovery to resolve pure legal issues; the use of affidavits to determine whether more costly avenues of discovery, such as depositions, would be justified; and the rolling submission of information produced during discovery to the court 27 so that it can better evaluate the need for additional discovery in light of the discovered facts. Below is a review of the tools the court has employed in this action in an effort to implement the new discovery rules, and particularly to tailor discovery so as to make it proportional to the needs of the case. The court engaged in an early case review, identifying the legal issues implicated by the claims asserted in the complaint. On the same day it filed an answer, Ohio State moved for judgment on the pleadings, which sought to dismiss all of plaintiff\u2019s due process claims and his Title claim. The court stayed discovery pending consideration of Ohio State\u2019s motion, doing so because the motion presented several threshold challenges to plaintiff\u2019s due process claims and because plaintiff had made clear his intention to seek wide-ranging discovery. It was apparent that the discovery sought could impose a substantial burden on Ohio State and third parties, not only in terms of time and resources, but also raising attorney-client privilege and privacy concerns. For instance, in his initial Rule 26 disclosures, plaintiff named 40 individuals he claimed might have discoverable evidence, including President Drake\u2019s predecessor at Ohio State, the General Legal Counsel and Deputy Legal Counsel, members of the Board of Trustees, and the Title complainants and witnesses involved in the investigation. The court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings in large part, leaving plaintiff\u2019s reverse gender discrimination claim as the sole remaining claim in the case. (Apr. 24, 2015 Opinion and Order, Doc. #27). The court soon thereafter conducted a discovery conference with the parties on May 1, 2015 to determine the proper scope and timeframe for discovery. It was the court\u2019s goal to identify and promptly resolve legal issues that would affect the scope of discovery, as well as to tailor discovery to the elements of the remaining claim. See C.J. Roberts, 2015 Year-End Report at 10 (encouraging judges \u201cto take on a stewardship role, managing their cases from the outset rather than allowing parties alone to dictate the scope of discovery and pace of litigation\u201d). At the May 1 discovery conference, the parties staked out positions that reflected a fundamental tension which carried forward though numerous discovery disputes and continues to the pending motion for Rule 56(d) relief. On one hand, Ohio State asserted that it could readily demonstrate that Buchman, the only comparator identified to that point, was not similarly situated to Waters because they worked in different departments and were disciplined by different supervisors. Ohio State argued that targeted, expedited discovery was appropriate. On the other hand, Waters argued that he had a much broader right to discovery, one not bounded by the department Waters worked for or the narrow time period beginning with Drake\u2019s arrival at Ohio 28 State and ending with Waters\u2019s termination. At a minimum, Waters sought to discover whether there was any direct evidence of discrimination, whether any individuals besides President Drake were involved in the decision to terminate and whether any other potential comparators existed. The court found that Waters was entitled to initial discovery that was somewhat limited in scope, but which could be expanded should the information gathered point to other relevant areas of inquiry. The court permitted \u201cdiscovery of direct and circumstantial evidence of reverse gender discrimination related to: (1) Lenee Buchman; (2) the School of Music; (3) adverse employment actions taken by President Drake; and (4) adverse employment actions taken by other departments or entities involved in the decision to terminate the Plaintiff.\u201d (May 1, 2015 Order, Doc. #29). These limitations were designed, in light of certain undisputed facts alleged in the complaint and answer, to tie the course of discovery to the elements of plaintiff\u2019s disparate treatment claim. The court sought to monitor the case closely and hold hearings or conferences as needed. To that end, the May 1, 2015 order instructed the parties to promptly seek the court\u2019s assistance in resolving any ensuing discovery disputes. The parties also were instructed to submit a joint discovery plan and schedule before June 29, 2015. In so requiring, the court intended to prompt counsel to perform their roles in working cooperatively to control the expense and time demands of litigation. Several discovery disputes soon arose, each stemming from the \u201cbreadth and complexity of plaintiff\u2019s initial requests\u201d and the \u201cnarrow responses of the defendants.\u201d (July 15, 2015 Order at 1, Doc. #42). The court found that the disputes \u201cdef[ied] the substance and spirit of the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which were intended to simplify and expedite discovery in civil cases\u201d and necessitated the court\u2019s being \u201cactively involved in the discovery process in order to ensure that this matter proceed[ed] efficiently, economically and expeditiously.\u201d (Id.) Upon reviewing the plaintiff\u2019s requests and defendant\u2019s responses, the court reiterated the importance of identifying the decisionmaker[s] involved in terminating Waters\u2019s employment: . . . Here the defendants\u2019 response to the plaintiff\u2019s initial discovery requests identifies the decision-maker as the president of the university, Dr. Michael V. Drake. Plaintiff should proceed with Dr. Drake\u2019s deposition forthwith. The scope of his examination would, of course, include his reasons for terminating plaintiff\u2019s employment, as well as any actions or statements he may have taken or made which would tend to show that he harbors a gender-based animus against men, the identity of anyone he communicated with or received communications from regarding his decision to terminate plaintiff\u2019s employment, and the role, if any, those communications had in his decision to terminate plaintiff\u2019s employment. 29 (July 15, 2015 Order at 2). While allowing plaintiff to depose Drake, the court determined not to allow the depositions of the Board of Trustees. The Board has 15 voting trustees, as well as 2 non-voting student trustees and 3 non-voting charter trustees. Its members include business executives, civic and community leaders, and leaders in the legal community. The court wanted to avoid the potential of numerous depositions becoming a fishing expedition requiring undue time of the witnesses and counsel. The critical initial inquiry was simply whether members of the Board played a role in the decision to terminate. Because early discovery indicated that the decision was one made by Drake and not by an action of the Board, the court found that the inquiry could be addressed by way of producing minutes of the Board and submitting affidavits from the Board members: Defendants shall forthwith provide plaintiff with the minutes of the Board of Trustees for the six-month period immediately preceding plaintiff\u2019s termination, which shall be accompanied by an affidavit from the secretary of the Board that they are a true and accurate account of what occurred at those meetings, and, if not, an explanation of any discrepancies. . . . Defendant shall also provide an affidavit from each member of the board of trustees describing his or her role, if any, in the termination of plaintiff\u2019s employment including any communications he or she may have had with President Drake regarding the termination of plaintiff\u2019s employment. (July 15, 2015 Order at 2). After the filing of the affidavits from these individuals, who stated that they did not participate in the decision to terminate Waters\u2019s employment, the court found no rationale to further involve them in discovery. The court took the same approach with Provost Joseph Steinmetz and Richard Blatti, Director of the School of Music \u2013 two individuals who had supervisory authority over Waters and potentially could have participated in the decision to terminate \u2013 and ordered that Ohio State produce affidavits in which they described their role, if any, in the termination of Waters\u2019s employment. (July 15, 2015 Order at 2-3). The court also instructed Ohio State to produce the affidavit of Athletics Director Gene Smith regarding the discipline and termination of Buchman and what role, if any, he played in the decision to terminate Waters. (July 30, 2015 Order, Doc. #45). Because of the likely influence that the Investigation Report had on the termination decision, the court permitted the deposition of Christopher Glaros: . . . Plaintiff shall proceed with the taking of Mr. Glaros\u2019s deposition. Plaintiff may inquire regarding any actions Mr. Glaros may have taken or any statements he may have made which would tend to indicate that he harbors a gender-based animus against men. The scope of the deposition will include any other investigations Mr. Glaros may have been involved with which concerned complaints similar to those lodged against plaintiff. The scope of this deposition shall not include a review or 30 examination of the findings made in Mr. Glaros\u2019s report, the procedures involved in the investigation, or the grounds for those findings. (July 15, 2015 Order at 3). Plaintiff soon thereafter moved to expand discovery to include discovery on the existence of cat\u2019s paw individuals and \u201ca review and examination of the findings made in the [Investigation Report], the procedures involved in the investigation, and the grounds for those findings.\u201d (Pl.\u2019s Aug. 3, 2015 Mot. to Expand the Scope of Discovery at 2, Doc. #46). As to cat\u2019s paw individuals, the court found that it had already directed such discovery \u2013 of Drake, the Board of Trustees, Steinmetz, Blatti and Glaros \u2013 and would continue to permit such discovery as the discovered facts warranted. (Aug. 14, 2015 Order, Doc. #52). As to the Investigation Report, the court reiterated that Glaros could be examined about his \u201cown attitudes and beliefs, as well as any other investigations of similar allegations that he has been assigned to, specifically any similar investigations involving females and, if there were any investigations involving females, whether there were any differences in his approach or the way he conducted the investigation or the standards that he applied or any other matters that would be related to the issue of whether he treated women differently than men in the course of such investigations.\u201d (Id. at 2). However, the court refused to permit plaintiff \u201cto conduct an examination consisting of a line by line review of the [Investigation Report] in an effort to identify every procedural or substantive part of the investigation which the Plaintiff disagrees with or every discrete finding or conclusion which the Plaintiff may dispute.\u201d (Id.). Finally, the court set a discovery deadline of September 15, 2015. On September 15, plaintiff moved to expand the scope of discovery to include, among other things, the production of redline drafts of the Investigation Report, the deposition of Jessica Tobias, the deposition of Lenee Buchman, the deposition of a representative of and communications between Ohio State and OCR. In order to better measure the proportionality of these requests, the court instructed the parties to submit summaries of the depositions of Waters, Drake and Glaros and identify testimony that the parties believed was relevant to the Title claim and any defense to that claim. (Sept. 22, 2015 Order, Doc. #69). The court granted the requests for production of redline drafts and to depose Tobias. (Oct. 21, 2015 Order, Doc. #82). The deposition testimony of Glaros made clear that Tobias had played an important role in conducting the investigation and preparing the Investigation Report and that the Report had undergone numerous revisions by Glaros and Tobias. Thus, the requests were proportional to the needs of the case. 31 The remainder of plaintiff\u2019s requests required further analysis and the court instructed the parties to submit expedited briefing. (Oct. 21, 2015 Order). Though Buchman was identified in the May 1 order as a proper subject of discovery, plaintiff did not depose her during the discovery period and did not obtain an affidavit from her. (Buchman Dep. at 161 (testifying that she refused to sign an affidavit that plaintiff\u2019s counsel had presented to her because she \u201cwas not comfortable putting something in writing that was not what said\u201d)). By that stage in the litigation, Ohio State had built a factual basis on which to present a substantial legal argument that Buchman, as a matter of law, was not similarly situated to Waters because they were employed in different department and were disciplined by different supervisors. The court, however, determined that under the law of the Sixth Circuit, these factors alone were not determinative and that \u201c[w]hether the same supervisor criterion \u2018is relevant depends upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case.\u2019\u201d (Jan. 20, 2016 Order at 2, Doc. #110 (quoting McMillan v. Castro, 405 F.3d 405, 414 (6th Cir. 2005)). Because there had been so little discovery concerning the circumstances and reasons why Buchman had been placed on a performance improvement plan, the court not only permitted plaintiff to take her deposition, but advised that Martin Jarmond (whom Smith identified as the individual who gave Buchman the performance improvement plan) could be deposed as well. (Id. (citing Smith Supp. Aff. at \u00b6 8)). As to the OCR-related requests, the court noted that Waters had already obtained a substantial number of documents through both a Freedom of Information Act request and Ohio State\u2019s production of documents between the date of termination and the date of the final, signed Resolution Agreement. The court found that further document production by Ohio State and a deposition of a nonparty representative of would not likely lead to relevant evidence or be proportional to the needs of the case. (Jan. 20, 2016 Order at 3). B. Analysis of the Rule 56(d) Motion Plaintiff argues that the course of discovery in this case was unduly limited, such that he is unable to properly oppose Ohio State\u2019s motion for summary judgment. Under Rule 56(d), \u201c[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition\u201d to a motion for summary judgment, the court may defer consideration of the motion and allow time for the nonmovant to take discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The party seeking Rule 56(d) relief must \u201cindicate to the district court its need for discovery, what material facts it hopes to uncover, and why it has not previously discovered the information.\u201d Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483, 488 (6th Cir. 2000). \u201cRule 56(d) requires more than 32 speculation that, if it could obtain more discovery, a party might find some way to support a claim. It requires a specific explanation of what a facts the movant would assert are true and why it cannot yet prove them.\u201d Redhawk Glob v. World Projects Int\u2019l, No. 2:11-CV-666, 2012 2018528, at *5 (S.D. Ohio June 5, 2012). Plaintiff\u2019s motion for relief seeks discovery in three areas: (1) \u201call findings of misconduct by assistant cheerleading coaches Eddie Hollins and Dana Bumbrey\u201d; (2) Ohio State\u2019s answer to the following interrogatory: \u201cIdentify any and all employees to whom issued a performance improvement plan or whom terminated following a discovery of a sexualized culture and/or sexual harassment in an organization overseen, managed, or otherwise supervised by an employee(s) during the five (5) years preceding the termination of Plaintiff\u2019s employment\u201d; and (3) the facts forming the basis for the findings in the Investigation Report, \u201cas well as the methodology and procedures involved in the investigation.\u201d (Pl.\u2019s Mot. for Rule 56(d) Relief at 16, Doc. #143). 1. Hollins and Bumbrey Plaintiff argues that discovery concerning the misconduct in which Hollins and Bumbrey engaged will assist him in proving that the behavior in the Spirit Squad prior to Buchman\u2019s performance improvement plan was similar to that in the Band prior to Waters\u2019s termination. Ohio State counters that the discovery request is untimely and is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. The court agrees with Ohio State that the request is untimely. Plaintiff, from the beginning of this case, knew of Buchman as a potential comparator and alleged in the complaint the occurrence of \u201csexualized behavior in the cheerleading crew.\u201d (Compl. at \u00b6 147, Doc. #1)). In a discovery response dated June 8, 2015, Ohio State informed plaintiff that the University had terminated two assistant cheerleading coaches for \u201cinappropriate sexualized conduct.\u201d (Response to Request for Production No. 5, Doc. #143 at 6369). Plaintiff even obtained a declaration from Bumbrey on August 17, 2015. (Doc. 144-1, Ex at #6813). Despite this, and despite the court\u2019s May 1, 2015 grant of discovery relating to Buchman, plaintiff failed to seek the information during the discovery period and has also failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for his delay. The court further agrees that the requested discovery is not appropriate under Rule 26(b). Plaintiff seeks discovery on the \u201cfindings of misconduct\u201d committed by Hollins and Bumbrey, but 33 Ohio State has never disputed (for purposes of this case) that both individuals engaged in sexual misconduct that warranted their immediate terminations. (Smith Supp. Aff. at \u00b6\u00b6 6-7). At best for plaintiff, further discovery into what exactly these individuals did would only prove an assertion that Ohio State already concedes \u2013 that the misconduct was serious. What plaintiff is not asking for is discovery into the area of inquiry that is critical to his claim: whether Buchman endorsed, participated in or otherwise knew or had reason to know of the misconduct. Buchman\u2019s level of knowledge of the misconduct and response to it are relevant when comparing her situation to that of Waters. Buchman testified that she did not know of the nature of the misconduct until after she was placed on a performance improvement plan. Her testimony is unrebutted and the discovery plaintiff now seeks would not create a genuine dispute as to this material fact.12 2. Proposed Interrogatory Plainitiff\u2019s proposed interrogatory \u2013 concerning individuals at Ohio State who, for a five year period prior to plaintiff\u2019s termination, were placed on performance improvement plans following the discovery of sexual harassment or a sexualized culture \u2013 is likewise both untimely and not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiff again fails to justify why he waited until after the filing of defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment to propose the interrogatory, particularly when it was well known to plaintiff that a performance improvement plan is what Ohio State used for Buchman. (Response to Request for Production No. 5 (Ohio State agreeing to produce Buchman\u2019s personnel file); Drake Dep. at 70-73 (plaintiff\u2019s counsel questioning Drake about performance improvement plans during a September 4, 2015 deposition)). More importantly, the facts discovered early in the case indicated that Waters was employed by the School of Music and that Drake made the decision to terminate Waters just a few weeks after he took office at Ohio State. Yet Waters has persisted, including in this latest proposed interrogatory, in seeking University-wide discovery of information that substantially predates the arrival of Drake at Ohio State. The requested discovery does not bear a reasonably close factual relationship to the undisputed circumstances of Waters\u2019s termination and is not proportional to the needs of this case. 12 Plaintiff does not contend that the misconduct of Hollins and Bumbrey was so pervasive that Buchman must have known of it. Indeed plaintiff admits that Buchman, even after her termination, \u201clacked personal knowledge\u201d about the precise conduct in which they engaged. (Pl.s Reply at 6 n.3, Doc. #153). 34 3. Methodology and Basis of the Investigation Report Plaintiff\u2019s final request has been presented several times before. As to methodology, Ohio State correctly observes that plaintiff has received adequate discovery on the matter. Even though the court\u2019s July 15, 2015 Order did not require Glaros to answer questions about the procedures involved in the investigation, Glaros testified to the following: the intake meetings for the Title complainants; the timetable for the investigation; the assignment and role of Tobias in the investigation; his own role in the investigation; whether other individuals at Ohio State exerted influence on how he or Tobias conducted the investigation; the selection of witnesses and the witness interview process; the evaluation of witness credibility; the questions asked of Waters; the documents from Waters\u2019s personnel file that were, or were not, relied upon; and the drafting and editing of the Report. (Glaros Dep. at 28-30, 84-86, 116-18, 121-25, 130-37, 192-93, 196-206, 220- 22, 226-31). Tobias offered similar testimony, as well as testimony on the receipt of the written statement from Waters and the efforts made to corroborate evidence. (Tobias Dep. at 23-25, 55-61, 65-66, 69, 74-88, 93-164). In deposing Tobias, plaintiff\u2019s counsel prefaced a line of examination by stating, \u201c[I]t is my intention to ask a whole series of questions about the methodology used in the investigation with the intention of inquiring and investigating whether the methodology was influenced by gender based animus.\u201d (Tobias Dep. at 92). After having examined Glaros and Tobias on the matter, having received 800 pages of drafts of the Investigation Report, and having made a critique of the Report\u2019s methodology (described in Section above), plaintiff has been unable to point to a single fact that would support an inference that \u201cthe methodology was influenced by gender based animus.\u201d Proportionality demands that no further discovery on the subject be permitted. Turning to the factual basis for the Report\u2019s findings, plaintiff argues that such discovery should be allowed in order to determine whether Ohio State\u2019s reasons for termination had no basis in fact and thus were pretext for discrimination. However, the Sixth Circuit provides that a \u201cplaintiff must allege more than a dispute over the facts upon which his discharge was based. He must put forth evidence which demonstrates that the employer did not \u2018honestly believe\u2019 in the proffered non-discriminatory reason for its adverse employment action.\u201d Braithwaite v. Timken Co., 258 F.3d 488, 493-94 (6th Cir. 2001). Discovery of the factual basis for the Report\u2019s findings would add no support to plaintiff\u2019s claim that Drake acted with discriminatory animus against men. Regardless of whether the Report was true or false, plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence that would support an inference that 35 Drake did not honestly believe the findings stated in the Report. Drake testified that he found the Report to be \u201cdetailed,\u201d \u201cconsistent\u201d and \u201cconvincing.\u201d (Drake Dep. at 21-22). Drake gathered additional information about the Band\u2019s culture (for example, through discussions with senior-level individuals at Ohio State and receipt of a copy of the Songbook) which supported the Report\u2019s findings. Plaintiff has noted that in an August 21, 2014 meeting with squad leaders of the Band, Drake stated believe the report is largely historical.\u201d (Tr. of Aug. 14, 2014 Meeting at 28, Doc. #1-1). Plaintiff interprets this statement as reflecting Drake\u2019s belief that many or most of the Band\u2019s sexualized practices had roots in the past and as reflecting Drake\u2019s belief that the persons to whom he spoke in the meeting had not personally engaged in those practices. But even accepting this interpretation, it does not undermine the proposition that Drake honestly believed that at least some of the practices continued into Waters\u2019s tenure as the Band\u2019s Director. And Ohio State has proved that proposition by uncontroverted evidence. The requested discovery also would not enable plaintiff to prevail on his cat\u2019s paw theory. To make a showing that the proffered reasons for termination had \u201cno basis in fact,\u201d a plaintiff \u201cmust put forth evidence that the proffered bases for the plaintiff\u2019s discharge never happened, i.e., that they are factually false.\u201d Abdulnour v. Campbell Soup Supply Co., LLC, 502 F.3d 496, 502 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Kline v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 128 F.3d 337, 356-57 (6th Cir. 1997); Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 29 F.3d 1078, 1084 (6th Cir. 1994). This is an insurmountable hurdle for plaintiff. Though plaintiff argues that additional discovery could show that the findings were based on false and inaccurate claims by witnesses, Waters\u2019s own concessions establish that at least some portion of the findings had some basis in fact and were not factually false. (Written Statement at 4113, 4114 (acknowledging his knowledge of Midnight Ramp, \u201ctremendously offensive\u201d and \u201cinappropriate\u201d nicknames, and \u201cvulgar and inappropriate\u201d Trip Tics); Waters Dep. at 233 don\u2019t disagree that there were culture issues in the band.\u201d); id. at 277-79 (Midnight Ramp)). Further, Waters conceded that upon becoming Director, he did not immediately eliminate Midnight Ramp or the use nicknames, and he endeavored to do so only after the investigation commenced. (Written Statement at 4113, 4114). The court thus finds that plaintiff is not entitled to the proposed discovery because it would not serve to resolve the issues relating to pretext. 36 V. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Ohio State\u2019s motion for summary judgement (Doc. #132) is and Waters\u2019s motion for Rule 56(d) relief (Doc. #143) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of the defendant. s/ James L. Graham United States District Judge DATE: August 12, 2016", "8274_103.pdf": "Ohio St. fired cheer coaches for harassment 11y Everything you need to know for the 2025 Clearwater Invitational: Players to watch, schedule, stats 17h - Erika LeFlouria College softball rankings: The top 25 teams after Week 1 2d Previewing the 2025 college softball season: Players to watch, key storylines and predictions 8d The 'underdog' Sooners are back for redemption 14h - D'Arcy Maine Judge denies slugger Osuna's injunction request 2h Women's flag football endorsed as emerging sport 1d Dept. of Ed: Title does not apply to athlete pay 1d - Paula Lavigne Holmoe retiring as after 20- plus years 2d Caps prospect Hutson upset BC, win Beanpot 3d Ex coach Tressel nominated as Ohio lt. gov. 4d Ex player Ciulla-Hall denied bid for 5th year 6d ll b b ll t 25 Nov 17, 2013, 02:43 Share Ohio State fired two assistant cheerleading coaches in May after sexual harassment accusations from cheerleaders, the Columbus Dispatch reported. The newspaper cited public records that said Eddie Hollins and Dana Bumbrey violated university policies following two anonymous tips to Ohio State's ethics hot line. ESPN.com news services Ohio St. fired 2 cheerleading coaches 2/13/25, 11:02 Ohio State Buckeyes fired two cheerleading coaches for sexual harassment 1/2 Hollins made sexual jokes toward male cheerleaders and and slapped their butts, while Bumbrey made suggestive remarks to female cheerleaders, investigators found. One male cheerleader said he was removed from the squad after complaining of receiving sexually explicit text messages, his lawyer told the Dispatch. \"Ohio State University has no tolerance for this type of behavior spokesman Gary Lewis Jr. said in the newspaper report. \"The university conducted a complete and thorough investigation and found that the behaviors of Hollins and Bumbrey were inconsistent with university values and violated university policies.\" The university also ordered head cheerleading coach Lenee Buchman to attend sexual- harassment training for failing to report the male cheerleader's complaints. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/13/25, 11:02 Ohio State Buckeyes fired two cheerleading coaches for sexual harassment 2/2", "8274_104.pdf": "FORMS. Close Follow Us Search Home Our Attorneys Employment Law Small Business Services Testimonials Blog Welcome to Michel Allen & Sinor I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call Email Chat Connect 2/13/25, 11:02 Cheerleaders Sexually Harassed at | Michel | King 1/7 December 17, 2013 By Michel Allen & Sinor If you follow college football, you may have heard about the scandal at Ohio State had its second consecutive championship-caliber season, and its marching band has received national acclaim for its halftime routines. Unfortunately, the latest cheerleading scandal has put the Buckeyes back in the spotlight for a less-than-flattering reason. Cheerleaders Sexually Harassed by Coaches According to a Fox News article, Ohio State has let two cheerleading coaches go after allegations that these coaches were sexually harassing the school's cheerleaders. What is interesting about this story is the fact that the allegations of harassment are coming from both female and male cheerleaders. According to the accusations, Coaches Eddie Hollins and Dana Bumbrey slapped male cheerleaders' butts and touched them inappropriately and also made inappropriate sexual comments to Welcome to Michel Allen & Sinor I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/13/25, 11:02 Cheerleaders Sexually Harassed at | Michel | King 2/7 the female cheerleaders. Their defense? We were just joking and that's the kind of environment we have around here. Luckily, school officials didn't buy it spokesman for OSU, Gary Lewis, Jr., had this response: Ohio State University has no tolerance for this type of behavior. The university conducted a complete and thorough investigation and found that the behaviors of Hollins and Bumbrey were inconsistent with university values and violated university policies. As a result, Hollins and Bumbrey were terminated in May of this year. The head cheerleading coach, Lenee Buchman, was later fired as well. Although not directly involved in the harassing conduct, Buchman was aware of the allegations of sexual misconduct but did not take any action against the two assistant coaches. Not only that, Buchman removed Cody Ellis, one of the complaining cheerleaders, from the squad after his accusations of harassment Welcome to Michel Allen & Sinor I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/13/25, 11:02 Cheerleaders Sexually Harassed at | Michel | King 3/7 Ellis hired an attorney after he was dismissed from the squad, and alleged that the head coach was retaliating against him for his complaints. Ellis had complained that one of the two terminated assistant coaches sent him sexually explicit text messages after Ellis had disclosed that he was gay. When Ellis was let go from the squad, Buchman claimed it was because of his \"bad attitude.\" As a result of his dismissal from the squad, Ellis lost benefits, including his scholarship. Avoiding Liability for Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment in the school setting, much like in the workplace, is illegal. What it takes to establish a claim also requires a showing that the harasser's employer knew of the misconduct, but did not take appropriate action. If the employer can establish that it exercised reasonable care to promptly correct the sexual harassment, then the employer may be able to assert a defense and stave off liability. In this case, according to news reports, Ohio State University took appropriate action by investigating Welcome to Michel Allen & Sinor I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/13/25, 11:02 Cheerleaders Sexually Harassed at | Michel | King 4/7 the accusations and promptly terminating the individuals involved. Not all employers are as diligent or even concerned about doing away with sexual harassment. Because of that reality, it is important for any employee who believes they may be the victim of sexual harassment to report the behavior immediately. If you have any questions about sexual harassment claims, or if you have reported harassment and believe you are being retaliated against because of your complaint, give us a call and we can discuss your rights with you. Categories: Harassment, Employment Law, Sexual Harassment Share To: Related Posts + Feb 4, 2025 Reporting Sexual Harassment Step-by- Step Guide Welcome to Michel Allen & Sinor I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/13/25, 11:02 Cheerleaders Sexually Harassed at | Michel | King 5/7 1 / 3 Contact 205-265- 1880 Address 1900 International Park Drive Suite 140 Birmingham 35243 Map & Directions Links Home Our Attorneys Employment Law Small Business Services Testimonials Blog Contact Us Welcome to Michel Allen & Sinor I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/13/25, 11:02 Cheerleaders Sexually Harassed at | Michel | King 6/7 Follow Us The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney- client relationship. \u00a9 2025 All Rights Reserved. Site Map Privacy Policy Welcome to Michel Allen & Sinor I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/13/25, 11:02 Cheerleaders Sexually Harassed at | Michel | King 7/7", "8274_105.pdf": "1 FALER, and 1-77, Plaintiffs, v UNIVERSITY, Defendant Case No. 2:18-cv-00736 Plaintiffs Steve Snyder-Hill, Ronald McDaniel, David Mulvin, Kelly Reed, William Rieffer, William Brown, Kurt Huntsinger, Steve Hatch, Melvin Robinson, Douglas Wells, James Khalil, Hugh (Joseph) Dyer, Jerrold L. Solomon, Joseph Bechtel, Michael Murphy, John David Faler, and John Does 1-77, by and through their counsel, state the following as their Second Amended Complaint against Defendant, The Ohio State University 1. The Ohio State University (\u201cOSU\u201d or \u201cUniversity\u201d) let a monster sexually abuse hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young men for two decades employed this monster gave him a position of authority promoted him even honored him let him perpetrate, at last count, \u201c1,429 instances of fondling and 47 instances of rape.\u201d1 This is perhaps 1 University issues annual crime report, Ohio State News (Oct. 1, 2019), (last visited Oct. 23, 2019). Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 1 of 371 #: 1988 2 the greatest sex abuse scandal in American history. It is without question the greatest scandal in the history of American higher education. 2. This civil rights case is brought by 93 of the men sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Richard Strauss, the physician, athletic team doctor, and serial sex abuser employed from 1978 to 1998. 3. That Dr. Strauss abused Plaintiffs and hundreds of other young men at is not open to reasonable debate: He committed 1,429 sexual assaults and 47 rapes by OSU\u2019s admission. An OSU-commissioned investigative report found that Dr. Strauss \u201csexually abused at least 177 male student-patients he was charged with treating as a University physician.\u201d2 Report at 1. Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse of students included fondling their testicles and penises, masturbating men to erection and ejaculation, drugging and anally raping them, digitally penetrating their rectums, touching their bodies in other inappropriate ways, making inappropriate comments about their bodies, and asking improper, sexualized questions\u2014all in the guise of providing needed medical evaluation and care. 4. Equally undebatable is OSU\u2019s knowledge, deliberate indifference, and culpability. 5. From the beginning knew Dr. Strauss was abusing male students: \u201cUniversity personnel had knowledge of Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive treatment of male student-patients as early as 1979.\u201d Id. at 1. As Governor DeWine\u2019s Working Group on Reviewing the Medical Board\u2019s Handling of the Investigation Involving Richard Strauss (\u201cMedical Board Report\u201d) found, \u201cDespite multiple supervising and colleague physicians who were aware of complaints/rumors 2 Caryn Trombino & Markus Funk, Perkins Coie LLP, Report of the Independent Investigation: Sexual Abuse Committed by Dr. Richard Strauss at The Ohio State University, (May 15, 2019) [hereinafter \u201cReport\u201d]. cont\u2019d on next page Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 2 of 371 #: 1989 3 about Strauss as far back as 1979, no Ohio State University physician reported any wrongdoing by Strauss to the State Medical Board of Ohio. More troubling, it appears the abuse was never reported to law enforcement by anyone at the University or the Medical Board.\u201d3 Medical Board Report at 2. 6. \u201cDespite the persistence, seriousness, and regularity of such complaints [from male students], no meaningful action was taken by the University to investigate or address the concerns until January 1996.\u201d Report at 3. For decades, Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse was well known among at least fifty employees in the athletic department. Id. at 88, 100-22. Multiple Student Health Directors were also told about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse for years, as were OSU\u2019s counsel and multiple administrators in Student Affairs (including Vice Presidents Mary Daniels and David Williams). Id. at 115-44. Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate touching was a frequent topic of discussion and well known among OSU\u2019s trainers, coaches, and athletic directors. This was reflected in the commonly- used nicknames for Dr. Strauss, including \u201cDr. Balls,\u201d \u201cDr. Nuts,\u201d \u201cDr. Jelly Paws,\u201d \u201cDr. Soft Hands,\u201d and \u201cDr. Cough.\u201d 7. Instead of stopping Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse facilitated it employed Dr. Strauss for nearly two decades put Dr. Strauss in Student Health Services, exposing thousands of students to him made Dr. Strauss the official doctor for no fewer than five sports teams and gave him regular access to student-athletes in at least 16 sports forced student-athletes to see Dr. Strauss for annual physicals and medical treatment in order to participate in university sports and maintain their athletic scholarships\u2014even after student-athletes 3 Report of the Working Group on Reviewing the Medical Board\u2019s Handling of the Investigation Involving Richard Strauss (Aug. 30, 2019), 20Group%20Strauss%20Report.pdf?ver=2019-09-30-142900-270 [hereinafter \u201cMedical Board Report\u201d]. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 3 of 371 #: 1990 4 complained to their coaches about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. At least one coach threatened athletes with having to see Dr. Strauss if they did not listen to the coach. 8. There was an \u201castounding failure of anyone in a position of authority to come forward to initiate a Medical Board or criminal investigation into Strauss\u2019 conduct.\u201d Medical Board Report at 2. \u201cStrauss\u2019 repeated sexual abuse of his patients went effectively unaddressed for nearly the length of his tenure at Ohio State. Although many were aware of complaints or rumors about the abuse, no one advanced concerns raised by students or unraveled Strauss\u2019 \u2018medical\u2019 defenses of his abuse.\u201d Id. at 1. 9. According to Dr. Ted Grace, the director of Student Health Services, the decision not to report Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse to the Medical Board was made by administrators. 10. Not one administrator or employee contacted the police. No one called 911. No one contacted the State Medical Board. No one contacted a prosecutor or district attorney. No one fulfilled their duties as a mandated reporter of sexual abuse. This was a complete and utter collapse of OSU\u2019s duty to protect its students. 11 administrators and employees of Student Health Services facilitated Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse in yet other ways. For example, after a student lodged a complaint detailing Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate sexual touching and comments during an examination, the Director of Student Health Services legitimized the abuse by telling the student (falsely) that no one had complained about Dr. Strauss before and that Dr. Strauss had said the examination was medically appropriate. The Director of Student Health also failed to report Dr. Strauss to law enforcement or to the State Medical Board, despite being required to do so. 12. Plaintiffs, and many other young men, would have been spared Dr. Strauss\u2019 horrific Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 4 of 371 #: 1991 5 abuse had the University investigated and terminated Dr. Strauss when the complaints began. 13. Yet \u201c[d]espite the persistence, seriousness, and regularity of such complaints\u201d\u2014 from 1979 to 1996\u2014\u201cno meaningful action was taken by the University to investigate or address the concerns until January 1996.\u201d Report at 3. 14. When belatedly took action in 1996, it did far too little. Although removed Dr. Strauss as a treating physician in that year, it did little else. \u201c[N]one of the physicians working with Strauss found occasion to report him to the Medical Board or to law enforcement \u2013 even after the University suspended him from seeing patients through Student Health. Nor did the University or any of its administrators involve campus or outside law enforcement, even after recognizing that the severity and pervasiveness of Strauss\u2019 abuse compelled the withdrawal of authority to see patients and the nonrenewal of his contract.\u201d Medical Board Report at 3. 15. Not only did not report Dr. Strauss, it concealed his abuse and enabled him to continue seeing patients. 16 continued Dr. Strauss\u2019 faculty appointment even after determined that Dr. Strauss\u2019 misconduct required removing him as a treating physician, and even after the State Medical Board had \u201cbrought to the attention of officials at the university\u201d \u201cthat Dr. Strauss ha[d] been performing inappropriate genital exams on male students for years.\u201d Id allowed Dr. Strauss to retire voluntarily in 1998. When Dr. Strauss retired gave him emeritus status also allowed Dr. Strauss to open an off-campus men\u2019s clinic in 1996, advertise for patients in OSU\u2019s student newspaper in 1996 and 1997, and even offer a student discount\u2014enabling Dr. Strauss\u2019 continued abuse of young men in Columbus. Report at 5, 85. 17. OSU\u2019s investigation in 1996 also never sought to identify, counsel, or support Dr. Strauss\u2019 victims. Even after the Medical Board told in 1996 that Dr. Strauss had been Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 5 of 371 #: 1992 6 \u201cperforming inappropriate genital exams on male students\u201d at \u201cfor years did nothing to identify those whom Dr. Strauss abused. Report at 4. Sworn testimony by doctors from both Student Health and the Athletics Department confirms that failed to take \u201cadditional steps to identify other students who had previously complained about Strauss,\u201d even as falsely claimed to the Medical Board that it was working to do so. Id. Had made any effort to identify others Dr. Strauss had abused, it would have had no difficulty identifying scores of male students. OSU\u2019s concealment of Dr. Strauss\u2019 pervasive sexual abuse meant that those students needlessly suffered for decades, alone. 18. Even after it knew that Dr. Strauss had been \u201cperforming inappropriate genital exams on male students\u201d at \u201cfor years,\u201d Medical Board Report at 3 destroyed patient health records of those examined by Dr. Strauss\u2014as sworn testimony has confirmed. Those records would have helped identify whom Dr. Strauss abused. Those records would have substantiated survivors\u2019 complaints about Dr. Strauss\u2019 unnecessary medical exams. By destroying those health records further concealed Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse. 19. OSU\u2019s culture of institutional indifference to the rights and safety of its students has permitted serial sexual predators and harassers to thrive at the university for the last four decades has not only been indifferent to the abuse inflicted by Dr. Strauss but on information and belief, at least two employees since Dr. Strauss systematically committed sexual abuse and/or facilitated rampant sexual harassment: a former Director of OSU\u2019s Marching Band, Jonathan Waters, and an assistant diving coach, Will Bohonyi. 20. In 2014, after investigated a complaint against Jonathan Waters alleging a sexualized culture within the Marching Band found \u201ca sexually hostile environment for students in the Marching Band of which the University had notice and failed to adequately Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 6 of 371 #: 1993 7 address.\u201d4 21. In response to its findings of sexual harassment within the Marching Band adopted a new plan for combatting sexual misconduct so that it could become \u201ca national leader\u201d in preventing and responding to sexual misconduct.5 22. But is an offender, not a \u201cnational leader.\u201d After receiving a report during a meet in 2014 that assistant diving coach Will Bohonyi sexually abused a minor in OSU\u2019s Diving Club allegedly sent the victim, not Bohonyi, home from the meet.6 In addition allegedly failed to address hundreds of naked photographs Bohonyi forced a 16-year old victim to take of herself and that were in OSU\u2019s possession for approximately four years.7 23. In 2018 dissolved its comprehensive sexual assault prevention and response unit after revelations that employees within the unit had failed to handle students\u2019 reports of sexual assault properly and told some victims that they were \u201clying\u201d and \u201cdelusional.\u201d8 An 4 Letter from Meena Morey Chandra, Regional Director, Reg. XV, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Dep\u2019t Educ., to Dr. Michael V. Drake, President, Ohio State University 2 (Sept. 11, 2014), (last visited July 24, 2018) [hereinafter Findings Letter\u201d] (describing results of OSU\u2019s investigation of alleged sexual harassment within Marching Band). 5 Ohio State announces comprehensive plan to combat sexual misconduct and relationship violence Ohio State News (September 17, 2015), comprehensive-plan- to-combat-sexual-misconduct-and-relationship-violence/ (last visited July 21, 2018) [hereinafter Plan\u201d]. 6 See Complaint at \u00b6\u00b6 267-75, Pryor v Diving, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-2113 (S.D. Ind. July 11 2018 No. 1, available at 85736/gov.uscourts.insd.85736.1.0_2.pdf [hereinafter \u201cDiving Complaint\u201d]. 7 Id. at \u00b6\u00b6 176-80, 260-61. 8 Jennifer Smola, Ohio State closes \u2018failed\u2019 program, takes another hard look at Title policies, The Columbus Dispatch (June 24, 2018), available at 20180624/ohio-state-closes-failed-program-takes-another-hard-look-at-title-ix-policies (last visited July 21, 2018); see also Jeremy Bauer-Wolf broken system at Ohio State, Inside Higher Ed (July 10, 2018), available at state-closes-sexual-assault-unit-after-complaints-mismanagement-poor-reporting (last visited cont\u2019d on next page Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 7 of 371 #: 1994 8 independent audit found that the unit failed to report 57 potential felonies to law enforcement.9 24. It is not surprising that, within this ingrained culture of institutional indifference succeeded in keeping Dr. Strauss\u2019 two decades of serial sexual abuse buried until 2018. 25 has admitted the University\u2019s \u201cfundamental failure at the time to prevent this abuse.\u201d10 Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit in the hope that will fulfill its goal of becoming \u201ca national leader\u201d in preventing and responding to sexual misconduct by making the systemic changes needed to ensure that students can obtain their education in a safe environment, free from sexual harassment and abuse by employees. Plaintiffs also seek compensation for their injuries caused by OSU\u2019s failure to take appropriate action to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 known sexual predation, in violation of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 26. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1331 and 1343 because the matters in controversy arise under the laws of the United States. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert claims under Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681, et seq. 27. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1391(b) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs\u2019 claims occurred within this district July 21, 2018). 9 Jennifer Smola, Ohio State\u2019s troubled sexual assault center failed to report 57 potential felonies, audit finds, The Columbus Dispatch (July 30, 2019), available at report-57-potential-felonies-audit-finds (last visited Oct. 23, 2019). 10 See Michael V. Drake Message from President Drake: Strauss Investigation Report, The Ohio State University (May 17, 2019), notes/2019/strauss-investigation-report-campus-wide-email.html (last visited Oct. 23, 2019). cont\u2019d on next page Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 8 of 371 #: 1995 9 28. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all previous paragraphs as if fully stated here. 29. Because this Complaint addresses issues of sexual harassment and abuse, which are matters of the utmost intimacy, with the exception of certain Plaintiffs who have agreed to be publicly identified, the names of the Plaintiffs have been withheld from the public version of the Second Amended Complaint to protect their identities.11 30. Plaintiff Steve Snyder-Hill is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1991 through 2000. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during an examination in 1995. 31. Plaintiff Ronald McDaniel is an adult male and a resident of Illinois. He attended The Ohio State University from 1981 through 1987. McDaniel was a member of OSU\u2019s tennis team from 1981 through 1986. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss twice during examinations from 1981 through 1983. 32. Plaintiff David Mulvin is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1975 through 1979 and was a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during an examination during Dr. Strauss\u2019 first year of employment. 33. Plaintiff Kelly Reed is an adult male and a resident of Illinois. He attended The Ohio State University from 1986 through 1988 and was a member of OSU\u2019s track and field team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at a medical appointment in the fall of 1986. 11 Plaintiffs will file under seal a version of the Second Amended Complaint that identifies each of the John Doe plaintiffs to this Court. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 9 of 371 #: 1996 10 34. Plaintiff William Rieffer is an adult male and a resident of Missouri. He attended The Ohio State University from 1984 through 1989. Rieffer was a member of OSU\u2019s track and field team from 1984 through 1985. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during an examination in the fall of 1984. 35. Plaintiff William Brown is an adult male and a resident of Minnesota. He attended The Ohio State University from 1984 through 1989 and was a member of OSU\u2019s hockey team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during annual examinations from 1984 through 1989. 36. Plaintiff Kurt Huntsinger is an adult male and a resident of Illinois. He attended The Ohio State University from 1984 through 1989 and was a member of OSU\u2019s swim team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at every annual examination and at approximately ten other examinations from 1984 through 1989. 37. Plaintiff Steve Hatch is an adult male and a resident of Connecticut. He attended The Ohio State University from 1981 through 1985 and was a member of the track and field team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at least twice during annual and other examinations from 1981 through 1985. 38. Plaintiff Melvin Robinson is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1980 through 1984 and was a member of OSU\u2019s track and field team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1980 through 1984. 39. Plaintiff Douglas Wells is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University in the fall of 1983 and tried out for the track and field team. He was sexually Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 10 of 371 #: 1997 11 assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss in 1983 during an examination for a hamstring injury. 40. Plaintiff James Khalil is an adult male and a resident of Oregon. He attended The Ohio State University from 1989 through 1994 and was a member of OSU\u2019s club hockey team in 1989, 1992, and 1993. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss once during an examination in 1991. 41. Plaintiff Hugh (Joseph) Dyer is an adult male and a resident of Nevada. He attended The Ohio State University from 1996 through 1998 and was a member of the cheerleading team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss several times during annual and other examinations in 1996. 42. Plaintiff Jerrold L. Solomon is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1984 through 1988 and was a member of OSU\u2019s tennis team from 1985 through 1986. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss once during a pre-season physical examination in 1985. 43. Plaintiff Joseph Bechtel is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1979 through 1983 and was a member of OSU\u2019s hockey team from fall of 1979 through fall of 1982. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during medical appointments in 1980. 44. Plaintiff Michael Murphy is an adult male and a resident of Florida and Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1987 through 1991 and was a member of OSU\u2019s track and field team from 1987 through 1989. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss twice during annual and other examinations between 1987 and 1989. 45. Plaintiff John David Faler is an adult male and a resident of Florida. He attended Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 11 of 371 #: 1998 12 The Ohio State University from 1982 through 1985 and was employed by as a lifeguard at OSU\u2019s Larkins Hall from 1984 through 1985. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss once in or about January or February 1985. 46. Plaintiff John Doe 1 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1992 through 1997. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during a medical examination in 1993 or 1994. 47. Plaintiff John Doe 2 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1990 to 1995. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at multiple medical appointments from 1990 to about 1995. 48. Plaintiff John Doe 3 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1984 through 1989 and was a member of OSU\u2019s tennis team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1984 through 1989, and was a minor the first time this occurred. 49. Plaintiff John Doe 4 is an adult male and a resident of California. He attended The Ohio State University from 1982 through 1986 and was a member of OSU\u2019s tennis team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1982 through 1986. 50. Plaintiff John Doe 5 is an adult male and a resident of Maryland. He attended The Ohio State University from 1986 through 1990 and was a member of OSU\u2019s tennis team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1986 through 1990. 51. Plaintiff John Doe 6 is an adult male and a resident of New York. He attended The Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 12 of 371 #: 1999 13 Ohio State University from 1984 through 1988. John Doe 6 was a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team from 1984 through 1986. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1984 through 1986. 52. Plaintiff John Doe 7 is an adult male and a resident of Florida. He attended The Ohio State University from 1982 through 1986 and was a member of OSU\u2019s tennis team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1982 through 1986. 53. Plaintiff John Doe 8 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1984 through 1988 and was a member of OSU\u2019s lacrosse team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss several times between the fall of 1984 and the fall of 1987. 54. Plaintiff John Doe 9 is an adult male and a resident of New York. He attended The Ohio State University from 1991 through 1996. John Doe 9 was a member of OSU\u2019s gymnastics team from 1991 through 1995. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss between ten and twelve times during examinations from 1991 through 1995. 55. Plaintiff John Doe 10 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1990 through 1996. John Doe 10 was a member of OSU\u2019s fencing team from 1991 through 1994. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss dozens of times during examinations from the fall of 1991 through the fall of 1994. 56. Plaintiff John Doe 11 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1978 through 1981 and was a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss five times during examinations from 1978 through 1981. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 13 of 371 #: 2000 14 57. Plaintiff John Doe 12 is an adult male and a resident of California. He attended The Ohio State University from 1994 through 1995 and was a member of OSU\u2019s golf team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at a medical appointment in the fall of 1994. 58. Plaintiff John Doe 13 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1992 through 1997. John Doe 13 was a member of OSU\u2019s fencing team from the fall of 1993 through the spring of 1997. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at two separate medical appointments in the fall of 1993 and the fall of 1994. 59. Plaintiff John Doe 14 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1984 through 1987 and was a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at least eight times during annual physicals and medical appointments. 60. Plaintiff John Doe 15 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1992 through 1997. John Doe 15 was a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team from 1992 through 1993. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during twice, once during a physical and once during a medical appointment for an injury. 61. Plaintiff John Doe 16 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1989 through 1994. John Doe 16 was a member of OSU\u2019s gymnastics team from 1989 through 1993. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during annual physicals and several medical appointments. 62. Plaintiff John Doe 17 is an adult male and a resident of New York. He attended The Ohio State University from 1989 through 1994. John Doe 17 was a member of OSU\u2019s gymnastics Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 14 of 371 #: 2001 15 team from 1989 through 1993. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1989 through 1993. 63. Plaintiff the Estate of John Doe 18 represents the estate of John Doe 18, who was adult male and a resident of New York. He attended The Ohio State University from 1987 through 1990 and was a member of the wrestling team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during an examination in 1987. 64. Plaintiff John Doe 19 is an adult male and a resident of Georgia. He attended The Ohio State University from 1986 through 1990 and was a member of the swim team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1986 through 1990. 65. Plaintiff John Doe 20 is an adult male and a resident of Pennsylvania. He attended The Ohio State University from 1983 through 1985 and was a member of the gymnastics team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during annual and other examinations from 1983 through 1985. 66. Plaintiff John Doe 21 is an adult male and a resident of West Virginia. He attended The Ohio State University from 1982 through 1983 and was a member of OSU\u2019s gymnastics team during that academic year. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during an annual examination in the fall of 1982. 67. Plaintiff John Doe 22 is an adult male and a resident of Texas. He attended The Ohio State University from 1987 through 1992 and was a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team from 1987 through 1989. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during an annual examination in 1987. 68. Plaintiff John Doe 23 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 15 of 371 #: 2002 16 State University from 1990 through 1995 and was a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team from 1990 through 1994. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at every annual examination and at other examinations between 1990 and 1992. 69. Plaintiff John Doe 24 is an adult male and a resident of Florida. He attended The Ohio State University from 1990 through 1994 and was a member of OSU\u2019s lacrosse team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at three annual examinations between 1990 and 1993. 70. Plaintiff John Doe 25 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1977 through 1980 and was a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during annual and other examinations while he was a student-athlete at OSU. 71. Plaintiff John Doe 26 is an adult male and a resident of New Jersey. He attended The Ohio State University from 1990 through 1993 and was a member of OSU\u2019s swim team throughout those years. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during annual and other examinations while he was a student-athlete at OSU. 72. Plaintiff John Doe 27 is an adult male and a resident of California. He attended The Ohio State University from 1982 through 1991 and was a member of OSU\u2019s volleyball team from 1982 through 1984. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during annual examinations in 1983 and 1984. 73. Plaintiff John Doe 28 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1981 through 1985 and was the manager for OSU\u2019s gymnastics team from 1983 through 1984. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during an examination in 1983 or 1984 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 16 of 371 #: 2003 17 74. Plaintiff John Doe 29 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1983 to 1987. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at two medical appointments, the first in 1983, and the second between 1984 and 1987. 75. Plaintiff John Doe 30 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss once when he refereed a wrestling dual meet on OSU\u2019s campus in the 1987-1988 academic year. 76. Plaintiff John Doe 31 is an adult male and a resident of Illinois. He attended The Ohio State University from 1986 through 1987 and was a member of OSU\u2019s gymnastics team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during a pre-season physical examination in 1986. 77. Plaintiff John Doe 32 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1990 to 1995. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at a medical appointment in late 1992 or early 1993. 78. Plaintiff John Doe 33 is an adult male and a resident of West Virginia. He attended The Ohio State University from 1995 through 1997. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss twice during medical appointments while a student at OSU. 79. Plaintiff John Doe 34 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University as an undergraduate from 1974 through 1978, and as a medical student from 1979 through 1982. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during a medical appointment in 1979. 80. Plaintiff John Doe 35 is an adult male and a resident of Florida. He attended The Ohio State University from 1988 through 1992 and was a member of OSU\u2019s volleyball team from Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 17 of 371 #: 2004 18 1988 through 1989. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1988 through 1992. 81. Plaintiff John Doe 36 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1978 through 1985. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during a medical appointment between 1984 and 1985. 82. Plaintiff John Doe 37 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1989 through 1993 and was a member of OSU\u2019s cheerleading team from 1990 through 1992. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1990 through 1993. 83. Plaintiff John Doe 38 is an adult male and a resident of Florida. He attended The Ohio State University from 1976 through 1981 and was a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations while John Doe 38 attended The Ohio State University. 84. Plaintiff John Doe 39 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1986 through 1991 and was a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team in 1986. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during a pre-season physical examination in 1986. 85. Plaintiff John Doe 40 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1986 through 1989 and was a member of OSU\u2019s intramural hockey team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during a pre-season physical examination. 86. Plaintiff John Doe 41 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 18 of 371 #: 2005 19 State University from 1987 through 1992 and was a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team from 1988 through 1992. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1988 through 1992. 87. Plaintiff John Doe 42 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss once after he refereed a wrestling match on OSU\u2019s campus in 1994 or 1995. 88. Plaintiff John Doe 43 is an adult male and a resident of New York. He attended The Ohio State University from 1988 through 1992 and was a member of OSU\u2019s lacrosse team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1988 through 1992. 89. Plaintiff John Doe 44 is an adult male and a resident of California. He attended The Ohio State University from 1992 to 1996. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at multiple medical appointments in the fall of 1992. 90. Plaintiff John Doe 45 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1992 through 1996. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during examinations between 1993 and 1994. 91. Plaintiff John Doe 46 is an adult male and a resident of Florida. He attended The Ohio State University from 1979 through 1984 and was a member of OSU\u2019s outdoor track, indoor track, and cross-country teams during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual examinations from 1979 through 1981. 92. Plaintiff John Doe 47 is an adult male and a resident of Nevada. He visited The Ohio State University in 1981 when he was only 15 years old. He was sexually assaulted, abused, Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 19 of 371 #: 2006 20 molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during that visit. 93. Plaintiff John Doe 48 is an adult male and resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1990 through 1995. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested, and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss once during a medical examination in 1993 or 1994. 94. Plaintiff John Doe 49 is an adult male and a resident of Mississippi. He attended a high school wrestling summer camp at The Ohio State University in 1998. He was 14 or 15 years old when he was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during an examination at the summer camp. 95. Plaintiff John Doe 50 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1988 through 1992 and was a member of OSU\u2019s hockey team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1988 through 1991. 96. Plaintiff John Doe 51 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1992 through 1996 and was a member of OSU\u2019s volleyball team from 1992 through early 1993. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss twice during annual and other examinations in 1992 and 1993. 97. Plaintiff John Doe 52 is an adult male and a resident of Illinois. He attended The Ohio State University from 1993 through 1997 and was a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team from 1993 through 1996. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1993 through 1996. 98. Plaintiff John Doe 53 is an adult male and a resident of Michigan. He attended The Ohio State University from 1982 to 1986 and was a member of OSU\u2019s track and field team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at two Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 20 of 371 #: 2007 21 separate medical appointments in 1982 and 1983. 99. Plaintiff John Doe 54 is an adult male and a resident of California. He attended The Ohio State University from 1987 to 1992. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at a medical appointment in February of 1989. 100. Plaintiff John Doe 55 is an adult male and a resident of Arizona. He attended The Ohio State University from 1978 through 1982 and was a student athletic trainer during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1978 through 1982. 101. Plaintiff John Doe 56 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1983 through 1988 and was a member of OSU\u2019s baseball team from 1984 through 1988. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss once during an annual examination while a student at OSU. 102. Plaintiff John Doe 57 is an adult male and a resident of California. He attended The Ohio State University from 1994 through 1995. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss once during an examination in 1994. 103. Plaintiff John Doe 58 is an adult male and a resident of Indiana. He attended The Ohio State University from 1974 to 1979. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at a medical appointment in the fall of 1978. 104. Plaintiff John Doe 59 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1980 through 1985 and was a member of OSU\u2019s gymnastics team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1980 through 1985. 105. Plaintiff John Doe 60 is an adult male and a resident of Georgia. He attended The Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 21 of 371 #: 2008 22 Ohio State University from 1988 through 1992 and was a member of OSU\u2019s football team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss twice during annual and other examinations from 1988 through 1992. 106. Plaintiff John Doe 61 is an adult male and a resident of Georgia. He attended The Ohio State University from 1988 through 1992 and was a member of OSU\u2019s swim team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss twice during annual and other examinations from 1988 through 1992. 107. Plaintiff John Doe 62 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1984 through 1989 and was a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team from between 1984 and 1986. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss during pre-season physical examinations in 1984 and 1985. 108. Plaintiff John Doe 63 is an adult male and a resident of California. He attended The Ohio State University from 1977 through 1983 and was a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team from between 1977 and 1981. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss once during a pre-season physical examination when he was 19 years old 109. Plaintiff John Doe 64 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1993 to 1998 and was a member of OSU\u2019s gymnastics team during that time. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss numerous times during annual and other examinations from 1993 to 1996. 110. Plaintiff John Doe 65 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1996 to 2000. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at a medical appointment in 1996. 111. Plaintiff John Doe 66 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 22 of 371 #: 2009 23 State University as an undergraduate from 1978 to 1982 and was a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team from 1978 to 1979. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at a medical appointment in either 1978 or 1979. 112. Plaintiff John Doe 67 is an adult male and a resident of New York. He attended The Ohio State University from 1987 to 1989. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at a medical appointment in the fall of 1987. 113. Plaintiff John Doe 68 is an adult male and a resident of California. He attended The Ohio State University from 1995 to 1996. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at a medical appointment in the fall of 1995. 114. Plaintiff John Doe 69 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1991 to 1997. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at two medical appointments and multiple physical therapy treatments from 1991 to 1993. 115. Plaintiff John Doe 70 is an adult male and a resident of Delaware. He attended The Ohio State University from 1994 to 1996. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss multiple times at and at Dr. Strauss\u2019 home from 1994 to 1995. 116. Plaintiff John Doe 71 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1993 to 2002. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at multiple medical appointments from 1995 to 1996. 117. Plaintiff John Doe 72 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1986 to 1991. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss multiple times at from 1986 to 1991. 118. John Doe 73 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 23 of 371 #: 2010 24 University from 1989 to 1991. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss multiple times at from 1989 to 1991. 119. Plaintiff John Doe 74 is an adult male and a resident of Maryland. He attended The Ohio State University from 1994 through 1999 and was a member of the gymnastics team from 1994 to 1997. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss on four occasions during annual and other examinations from 1994 through 1996. 120. Plaintiff John Doe 75 is an adult male and a resident of North Carolina. He attended The Ohio State University from 1981 to 1985. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss multiple times at from 1981 to 1984. 121. Plaintiff John Doe 76 is an adult male and a resident of Washington. He attended The Ohio State University from 1981 to 1985. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss multiple times at from 1981 to 1984. 122. Plaintiff John Doe 77 is an adult male and a resident of Ohio. He attended The Ohio State University from 1980 to 1981, 1989 to 1990, and 1992 to 1995. He was sexually assaulted, abused, molested and/or harassed by Dr. Strauss at a medical appointment in the 1992-1993 school year. 123. Defendant The Ohio State University (\u201cOSU\u201d) was at all relevant times and continues to be a public university organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio. 124. Defendant receives, and at all relevant times received, federal financial assistance and is therefore subject to Title of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a71681, et seq 125. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all previous paragraphs as if fully stated here. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 24 of 371 #: 2011 25 Dr. Strauss\u2019 History of Employment and Sexual Predation at 126 employed Dr. Strauss from approximately September 1978 through March 1998. Dr. Strauss served in various positions at OSU, including, but not limited to: assistant professor of medicine, tenured associate professor, and full professor; associate director of the Sports Medicine Program; responsibilities in the Sports Medicine Clinic in OSU\u2019s Student Health Services; treating physician at OSU\u2019s Student Health Services; and team physician for at least five sports teams. 127. Dr. Strauss was appointed to the faculty as an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Pulmonary Disease Division of the Department of Medicine in September 1, 1978 promoted him to tenured Associate Professor in July 1983, and, in July 1992 promoted him again from Associate Professor to Professor. He remained an faculty member until he retired on March 1, 1998. While on the faculty he had concurrent responsibilities in other roles. 128. \u201cWithin months\u201d of his September 1978 appointment, Dr. Strauss \u201cbegan serving as a team physician to student-athletes on an informal, volunteer basis. By October 1980, Strauss was appointed Associate Director of Sports Medicine in the Department of Preventive Medicine (unpaid), at which point he was spending approximately 20% of his time practicing clinical sports medicine with varsity athletes at the Sports Medicine Clinic in Student Health, and worked daily in the late afternoon at the Larkins Hall training room.\u201d Report at 34. 129. Dr. Bob Murphy, the Head Team Physician, \u201crequested that the Athletics Director (Hugh Hindman) formally appoint Strauss as a team physician\u201d in August 1981. Id. 130. Dr. Strauss served as a team physician until July 1996. 131. As a team physician, Dr. Strauss had regular contact with male student-athletes in baseball, cheerleading, fencing, football, gymnastics, ice hockey, lacrosse, soccer, swimming, Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 25 of 371 #: 2012 26 diving, water polo, tennis, track and field, cross country, volleyball, wrestling, and golf. 132. Dr. Strauss also worked as a physician at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center, where he had access to the entire student population, not just student-athletes. According to the OSU- commissioned report, \u201cStrauss provided medical treatment to students in the Student Health Center from roughly 1980 through early 1996, primarily in conjunction with the Sports Medicine Clinic and his role as a team physician.\u201d Id. at 36. Dr. Strauss was formally appointed as a Student Health staff physician in the Men\u2019s Clinic in July 1994. Id. 133. In January 1996 placed Dr. Strauss on administrative leave and conducted an investigation. The investigation was based on sexual misconduct complaints from three students (one of whom was Plaintiff Snyder-Hill) that had received between November 1994 and January 1996. In June 1996 held a disciplinary hearing into these complaints without notifying the student complainants or permitting them to participate. See id. at 4, 145. 134. In August 1996 declined to renew Strauss\u2019 appointment with Student Health. OSU\u2019s Student Health Services did not renew his contract and the Athletic Department terminated his employment agreement with the Athletics Department. Id. at 3-4. OSU, however, kept Dr. Strauss as a tenured faculty member and, after he voluntarily retired in 1998 gave him emeritus status. Id. at 154. 135. Beginning his very first year of employment at OSU\u2014and spanning his entire two- decade tenure\u2014Dr. Strauss preyed on male students, voyeuring, fondling, groping, sexually assaulting, abusing, harassing, and raping them. He did so with OSU\u2019s knowledge and support. 136 facilitated Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of male student-athletes by requiring them to undergo annual physical exams with Dr. Strauss in order to participate in athletics and maintain their scholarships also facilitated Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of male students in the general Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 26 of 371 #: 2013 27 student population by making Dr. Strauss a treating physician at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center also facilitated Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of those who worked at during athletic events. 137 also facilitated Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of underage boys, including underage boys who participated in athletics, in OSU\u2019s summer sports camps for high school students and underage boys who visited OSU, by providing Dr. Strauss free access to underage boys with no supervision or oversight. 138. No matter the illness or injury, Dr. Strauss\u2019 modus operandi during medical exams was always similar. 139. He required students to remove their pants so that he could perform invasive and medically unnecessary examinations of their genitals and/or rectum. 140. He groped and fondled students\u2019 genitalia, often without gloves. 141. He performed unnecessary rectal examinations and digitally penetrated students\u2019 anuses. 142. He pressed his erect penis against students\u2019 bodies. 143. He drugged and anally raped students. 144. He moaned while performing testicular exams. 145. He masturbated during or after the exams. 146. He made inappropriate and medically unnecessary comments about students\u2019 bodies, including comments on their physical appearance, heritage, skin tone, and physique. And he took pictures of students, purportedly for a musculature book he was writing. 147. During Dr. Strauss\u2019 first year of employment, when an attending physician at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center asked a wrestling team captain, Plaintiff David Mulvin, why he came to the Student Health Center instead of seeing Dr. Strauss, the wrestler explained that Dr. Strauss Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 27 of 371 #: 2014 28 had examined his genitals for 20 minutes and appeared to be trying to get him excited. 148. Another student-athlete\u2019s experience exemplifies the pattern of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual predation. The student recalled a physical exam with Dr. Strauss: \u201cI\u2019m sitting, and he straddled my thigh, mounted my thigh. Rubbed on my thigh was just frozen.\u201d Dr. Strauss then told the athlete to undress so that he could check, purportedly, for a hernia. Dr. Strauss proceeded to inspect the student\u2019s penis \u201cin detail.\u201d12 149. The next year, the student-athlete received his physical, yet again, from Dr. Strauss. Most of the 20-minute exam involved Dr. Strauss inspecting the student\u2019s genitalia.13 150. The following year, the student-athlete received his physical from a different doctor. That physical lasted five minutes. There was no hernia test. The doctor did not make the student fully undress. Afterward, the student was perplexed: \u201cIs that it?\u201d14 151. The student-athlete was confused by Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior. But Dr. Strauss\u2019 authority as a medical professional and OSU\u2019s official team doctor caused the student to doubt his instincts. And Dr. Strauss\u2019 elevated position at made him feel powerless to stop it. 152. Only after publicly announced in 2018 that it was investigating allegations of sexual misconduct raised against Dr. Strauss (the \u201cInvestigation\u201d) did the student realize that his discomfort had been justified, his instincts correct: Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. He was relieved to learn that he wasn\u2019t \u201ccrazy\u201d for thinking something had been wrong.15 12 Kevin Stankiewicz, Former Ohio State athlete says he was sexually assaulted twice by former team doctor Richard Strauss, The Lantern (Apr. 6, 2018), available at twice-by-former-team-doctor-richard-strauss/ (last visited July 26, 2018). 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 28 of 371 #: 2015 29 Most Students Did Not Know They Were Sexually Abused 153. The insidious nature of sexual abuse by a healthcare provider explains the Plaintiffs\u2019 struggle to come to terms with Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse\u2014and why this struggle is all too common among victims of physician-patient abuse. Most of Dr. Strauss\u2019 victims did not realize these exams were sexually abusive until after publicized its Investigation in 2018. 154. As the OSU-commissioned Report concedes, \u201c[t]his case present[s] an intersection of two specific types of sexual abuse, both of which have generally not been associated with common conceptions of sexual abuse. Specifically, this case involve[s] doctor-patient sexual abuse and the sexual abuse of adult males.\u201d Id. at 11 (emphasis in original). 155. The Report also acknowledges that \u201c[p]atients often do not report sexual abuse committed by their doctors due to . . . confusion as to whether sexual abuse, in fact, occurred.\u201d Id. Even as late as 2018/2019, 22 of the 177 students interviewed for the OSU-commissioned investigation still did not understand Strauss\u2019 conduct constituted abuse, though the Report found they were abused. Id. at 38. 156. Multiple witnesses, including former doctors, have already conceded in sworn testimony that students could not have known Dr. Strauss was abusing them. They admit that patients do not know what is a \u201cnormal exam\u201d because patients have a \u201clack of information\u201d about what is medically appropriate, that it is normal for patients to be naked in front of doctors and for doctors to touch them, that \u201cdoctors are in a position of superior knowledge and authority\u201d to patients, and that patients including students trusted their doctor to do what was medically appropriate. For example, when a doctor tells a patient with a sore throat that he needs to check the lymph nodes in the patient\u2019s genitals, the patient trusts the doctor\u2019s experience and medical training; he trusts that it is medically appropriate to touch his genitals. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 29 of 371 #: 2016 30 157. Because laypersons can find it difficult to ascertain what conduct constitutes physician sexual abuse, Perkins Coie LLP\u2014the law firm that prepared the OSU-commissioned Report\u2014determined that it was \u201cessential\u201d to its investigation that it \u201cconsult with suitably qualified medical experts.\u201d Those external experts were essential to \u201cdiscern whether, and to what extent, Strauss\u2019 physical examinations of student-patients exceeded the boundaries of what was appropriate or medically necessary.\u201d Id. at 24. 158. As Dr. Grace testified: Q. Because this investigative team, a bunch of lawyers at a law firm, they\u2019re not going to know what's medically appropriate or what's not medically appropriate, correct? A. Yes. Q. They need to consult medical experts to make that determination? A. Yes. 159. Dr. Lombardo confirmed don\u2019t think the attorneys know what\u2019s appropriate\u201d\u2014 \u201cmedically appropriate\u201d\u2014because they are not \u201ctrained in medicine students are similarly not trained in medicine and did not know what was medically appropriate. 160 law firm with millions of dollars and experienced investigators could not determine whether patients were abused, without consulting \u201csuitably qualified medical experts.\u201d It is little wonder that so many Plaintiffs, most of whom were just college-aged men, did not know either. OSU\u2019s Knowledge and Facilitation of Dr. Strauss\u2019 Sexual Predation 161 played a key role in normalizing and perpetuating Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse. 162. For instance, when Plaintiff Steve Snyder-Hill, a former student sexually assaulted by Dr. Strauss, lodged a complaint about Dr. Strauss\u2019 misconduct, the director of OSU\u2019s Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 30 of 371 #: 2017 31 Student Health Services, Ted W. Grace, M.D., told him\u2014falsely\u2014that had \u201cnever received a complaint about Dr. Strauss before.\u201d16 163. In fact had received many complaints about Dr. Strauss before. 164 learned of the abuse within Dr. Strauss\u2019 very first year of employment. During the 1978-1979 wrestling season, Dr. Strauss fondled Plaintiff David Mulvin, a wrestling team captain, during a medical exam. Mulvin reported the incident to a doctor at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center.17 165. The doctor did nothing.18 166 did nothing.19 167. The abuse was well known within the athletics community at OSU. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate sexual behavior was \u201cbroadly witnessed and discussed in the Athletics Department.\u201d Id. at 88. Perkins Coie found that \u201c[m]ore than 50 individuals who were members of the Athletics Department staff\u201d knew about Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate sexual conduct. Id. (emphasis added). 168. Student complaints about Dr. Strauss poured in over the years. Male student after male student complained: \u201cFrom roughly 1979 to 1996, male students complained that Strauss routinely performed excessive\u2014and seemingly medically unnecessary\u2014genital exams, regardless 16 Jennifer Smola, Complaint from former Ohio State student details abuse by Strauss in 1995, The Columbus Dispatch (July 19, 2018), available at complaint-from-former-ohio-state-student-details-abuse-by-strauss-in-1995 (last visited July 26, 2018). 17 Jean Casarez, Former wrestler says Richard Strauss molested him in late 1970s, earliest such allegation (July 19, 2018), available at osu-wrestler-richard-strauss-molestation-allegation/index.html (last visited July 22, 2018). 18 See id. 19 See id. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 31 of 371 #: 2018 32 of the medical condition the student-patients presented.\u201d Id. at 2-3. 169. It was also \u201cbroadly known within the Athletic Department that Strauss showered alongside the male students.\u201d Id. at 2. 170. \u201c[B]eing examined by Strauss was akin to being \u2018hazed\u2019 or was a \u2018rite of passage.\u2019\u201d Id. at 88. 171. Older students told younger students to watch out for Dr. Strauss, giving him nicknames such as Dr. Jelly Paws, Dr. Nuts, Dr. Cough, and Dr. Levi\u2019s (because he would tell the student to remove or pull down his jeans to access the student\u2019s genitalia). 172. Student-athletes informed athletic administrators and staff, including, but not limited to, Athletic Director Andy Geiger, Athletic Director Jim Jones, Athletic Director Hugh Hindman, Assistant Athletic Director Archie Griffin, Senior Associate Athletic Director Paul Krebs, Assistant Athletic Director Larry Romanoff, Assistant Athletic Director Richard Delaney, Assistant Director of Student Athlete Support Services John Macko, Track and Field Coach Frank Zubovich, Tennis Coach John Daly, Swimming Coach Dick Sloan, former Head Wrestling Coach Chris Ford, former Head Gymnastics Coach Peter Kormann, and Fencing Coach Charlotte Remenyik, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct seemed inappropriate and made them uncomfortable. 173. Other than Remenyik, these administrators did not take any action in response to the athletes\u2019 complaints about Dr. Strauss. 174. Staff at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center\u2014including multiple Student Health Directors\u2014were also aware of serious concerns about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of male students. 175 1982 draft report by the primary physician in the Student Health Center\u2019s Sports Medicine Clinic, Dr. David Henderson, stated that \u201c[Dr. Strauss] works for no one, answers to no one, and is accountable to no one.\u201d Id. at 116. Dr. Henderson\u2019s concerns, though admittedly Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 32 of 371 #: 2019 33 oblique, were serious enough to be escalated to Dr. Bob Murphy, the Head Team Physician and Director of OSU\u2019s Sports Medicine Division, and to University President Edward Jennings. Dr. Forrest Smith\u2014who served as acting director of Student Health from 1990 to 1991 and assistant medical director beginning in 1992\u2014admitted that though Dr. Strauss was nominally under his \u201ccommand,\u201d Dr. Smith \u201cdidn\u2019t control him.\u201d 176. In fact, Dr. Murphy received at least five written reports about Dr. Strauss\u2019 misconduct\u2014four from Athletics Department staff and one from a student-athlete: (i) Assistant Athletic Director Larry Romanoff told Dr. Murphy in the late 1980s or early 1990s that there were rumors that Strauss was showering with the student-athletes; (ii) after a student announced to the training room in 1989 that Dr. Strauss administrated an inappropriate genital exam, an athletic trainer reported the student\u2019s complaint to Dr. Murphy; (iii) in 1992 or 1993, Dr. Murphy asked a Team Physician to perform the wrestling team\u2019s annual physical instead of Dr. Strauss due to \u201cissues\u201d about how Dr. Strauss performed genital exams and his continued presence in the showers; (iv) a student trainer reported concerns about Strauss\u2019 examination methods to Dr. Murphy, apparently in 1979 or 1980; and (v) a student-athlete complained to Dr. Murphy that Dr. Strauss fondled his penis for an extended time during a routine annual physical. Id. at 100\u201302. 177. There is no documentation or information that Dr. Murphy did anything in response to any of the five complaints. 178. Instead, Dr. Murphy advised Dr. Strauss in approximately 1986 that there were persistent rumors about him. Id. at 95. Still, Dr. Murphy did not take action on student-athletes\u2019 complaints. 179. Dr. John Lombardo, the Head Team Physician/Medical Director of the Sports Medicine and Family Health Center, testified that Dr. Murphy also knew that Strauss showered Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 33 of 371 #: 2020 34 with athletes and maintained a locker at Larkins Hall. Dr. Murphy knew athletes were uncomfortable that Dr. Strauss showered naked with them. Yet Dr. Murphy did not want to confront Dr. Strauss. 180. In the winter of 1992 or spring of 1993, according to Dr. Lombardo\u2019s sworn testimony, Dr. Murphy informed Dr. Lombardo that Dr. Strauss was showering with athletes in communal showers with eight or more men potentially showering at the same time. Dr. Murphy instructed Lombardo to \u201ctake care of this.\u201d At that point, Dr. Murphy was Strauss\u2019 supervisor; Dr. Lombardo was not. 181. Dr. Lombardo testified that he had a single conversation with Dr. Strauss. He claims he told him that it was \u201cinappropriate\u201d for him to be showering with students in communal showers and directed him to stop. Other than that single conversation, Dr. Lombardo took no further action. He admitted that he never spoke to the athletes, never spoke to the coaches, never conducted an investigation, and never reported the athletes\u2019 concerns. 182. Dr. Lombardo admitted he never verified if Dr. Strauss did, in fact, stop showering with athletes after their single conversation. Dr. Strauss did not stop. Dr. Strauss continued to shower with athletes after winter 1992/spring 1993, as numerous athletes have reported. 183. Dr. John Lombardo also received and discarded other complaints about Dr. Strauss. An athletic trainer also told Dr. Lombardo in the early 1990s that Dr. Strauss made athletes uncomfortable and it was inappropriate for him to shower with students Graduate Assistant Trainer reported to Dr. Lombardo her \u201cconcerns about the rumors regarding Strauss\u201d performing seemingly unnecessary genital exams and the fact that Strauss insisted on one-on-one exams with the students.\u201d Id. at 103. 184. One nurse reported to Perkins Coie that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of male student- Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 34 of 371 #: 2021 35 patients were so much \u201clonger than normal\u201d that Student Health staff speculated \u201cthat Strauss was engaged in \u2018sexual interaction\u2019 with the male student-patients.\u201d Id. at 121. In that time period, she also reported to two Student Health Directors (Dr. Doris Charles and Dr. Forrest Smith) that Strauss took longer than normal to conduct his examinations with student patients and raised concerns that \u201cStrauss would bring students in without scheduling any appointments and would not create any records from the visit.\u201d Id. Both directors dismissed her concerns, though excessively long exams and unscheduled and unrecorded visits are a red flag for inappropriate conduct. Id. at 121-22. Dr. Grace, the Student Health Director at beginning in 1992, knew before he even joined that Dr. Strauss was rumored to have engaged in \u201cinappropriate sexual touching of athletes.\u201d Id. at 141. Dr. Grace admitted that he came to \u201csuspicious\u201d of Dr. Strauss and was \u201csurprised\u201d to learn Dr. Strauss was assigned to Student Health. Id. Nonetheless, Dr. Grace allowed Dr. Strauss to staff the Student Health Men\u2019s Clinic. Dr. Grace testified that he did not look into the \u201crumor\u201d he heard about an doctor sexually touching athletes: \u201cthat\u2019s not the type of person am just don\u2019t engage.\u201d 185. Dr. Grace further testified that Dr. Forrest Smith never told him about the nurse\u2019s complaint about Dr. Strauss\u2014which he admitted was a \u201cpretty large failure.\u201d 186. Dr. Grace admitted that he knew that Dr. Strauss\u2019 practice was to do a genital exam on every male patient: Q. In fact, Dr. Strauss is the one and only doctor you had, according to you, who did this full body inspection for every complaint, right? A. Correct. Q. That's highly unusual medical practice, right? A. It's unusual. Q. Someone comes in with a, you know, bloody nose, you're not supposed to check the genitals, right? Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 35 of 371 #: 2022 36 A. Correct. 187. Dr. Grace ignored this red flag. As Dr. Smith confirmed: Q. Okay. If you learned as a physician during your tenure at that another doctor was doing a complete genital exam for a person that came in and complained of a sore elbow, would that be appropriate? A. No. Q. Would that be a red flag? A. Yeah. Q. That\u2019d be something that's worthy of investigation; correct? A. Big time. 188. Dr. Grace claimed to require Dr. Strauss to \u201ccall for a chaperone every time he was going to conduct a genital examination on a student in the Men\u2019s Clinic.\u201d Id. at 142. But \u201cit is unclear why Grace believed that a \u2018self-enforcing\u2019 chaperoning requirement was an appropriate solution for Strauss, given that virtually every examination in the Men\u2019s Clinic was likely to require a genital examination, due to the nature of the services offered there.\u201d Id. at 143-144. In any event, Dr. Strauss stopped calling the chaperone, and Dr. Grace \u201cnever checked in with [the assigned chaperone] to determine whether Strauss was complying with the requirement, or to solicit [the chaperone\u2019s] views on how the examinations were proceeding.\u201d Id. at 142. 189. No later than 1994, Remenyik, the head coach for fencing, reported that male fencers were uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss and she complained that Dr. Strauss was \u201cperforming improper or unnecessary genital exams on her male student-athletes.\u201d Id. at 92\u201393. Dr. John Lombardo, OSU\u2019s Medical Director/Head Team Physician, recognized Remenyik\u2019s concerns in a November 1994 letter to Senior Associate Athletic Director Paul Krebs. Dr. Lombardo\u2019s letter stated he \u201cinvestigated\u201d Remenyik\u2019s concerns, and concluded they were \u201cbased on rumors\u201d that had been \u201cgenerated for 10 years with no foundation.\u201d Id. at 93. He described the \u201crumors\u201d as Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 36 of 371 #: 2023 37 \u201cpervasive.\u201d Id. at 94. 190 then had another physician\u2014Dr. Trent Sickles\u2014\u201cassume the primary role as physician for the fencers.\u201d Id. But still Dr. Strauss continued to serve as the team doctor for other sports. Dr. Lombardo he did not even ask the coaches or student athletes for those sports whether they had any concerns about Dr. Strauss. 191. According to Dr. Sickles\u2019 sworn testimony, no one ever told him why he was replacing Dr. Strauss as the fencers\u2019 team doctor. Dr. Sickles was kept in the dark about Remenyik\u2019s concerns, the student-athletes\u2019 concerns about Dr. Strauss showering with them, or the complaints about Dr. Strauss that Dr. Lombardo received from trainers. Dr. Lombardo and Dr. Murphy deliberately withheld that information to protect Dr. Strauss. 192. Dr. Lombardo claimed that Remenyik\u2019s concerns were merely rumors, even though\u2014according to his own testimony\u2014 Remenyik raised her concerns after Dr. Lombardo knew that Dr. Strauss was showering with student athletes. 193. But did nothing to protect all of the other athletes and students who were being abused by Dr. Strauss did not do a formal investigation or take any disciplinary action against Dr. Strauss did not report the complaint to the State Medical Board of Ohio imposed a culture of silence: according to sworn testimony, complaints about Dr. Strauss in the Athletics Department could not be shared with Student Health\u2014and vice versa. The Athletics Department received complaint after complaint, removed Dr. Strauss from treating the fencers, warned him not to shower with student athletes\u2014yet never told anyone at Student Health about these glaring red flags. Likewise (as detailed further below), Student Health suggested (but did not require) a chaperone, received formal complaints that were so serious that Student Affairs administrators were involved\u2014yet no one at told Dr. Strauss\u2019 supervisors at the Athletics Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 37 of 371 #: 2024 38 Department that they had any concerns about Dr. Strauss. 194. Multiple doctors testified that, while Dr. Strauss worked at had no policies or procedures to address, investigate, or report allegations of sexual assault. 195 did not provide its employees with any training on sexual assault. 196. Dr. Strauss\u2019 unorthodox touching during medical exams was such common knowledge that OSU\u2019s coaching staff, trainers, and student-athletes knew him as \u201cDr. Jelly Paws,\u201d \u201cDr. Nuts,\u201d \u201cDr. Soft Hands,\u201d and \u201cDr. Cough\u201d\u2014names that reflect his sexual predation. 197. OSU\u2019s coaching staff, including tennis coach John Daly, regularly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of male athletes. Daly threatened student-athletes that they would have to see Dr. Strauss, if they did not do what the coach asked. He also laughed about it being a student\u2019s \u201cturn to see Dr. Strauss.\u201d 198. Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate examinations were well-known and discussed openly by administrators and staff. 199. Rather than take the flood of complaints about Dr. Strauss seriously continued to require students to be treated by him, thereby supplying him an endless trough of victims. 200. Indeed told student-athletes that if they wanted to keep their scholarships or continue playing for OSU, they had to go to Dr. Strauss for their annual physical exams and medical treatment. 201. Many of Dr. Strauss\u2019 victims were student-athletes on full scholarship, making them particularly vulnerable to his abuse. OSU\u2019s requirement that athletes be examined and treated by Dr. Strauss forced them into an impossible Hobson\u2019s choice: either suffer through Dr. Strauss\u2019 deeply uncomfortable, questionable examinations or forego their scholarships and educations. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 38 of 371 #: 2025 39 202. OSU\u2019s requirement also put student-athletes in the unbearable position of choosing between their physical health in the short term and their psychological, emotional, and physical well-being in the long-term. 203. For instance, one student-athlete\u2014an All-American wrestler\u2014recalled that whenever he was injured, he had to decide: \u201cIs this injury bad enough that I\u2019m going to get molested for it?\u201d20 204. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse\u2014which allowed to continue unchecked throughout his long tenure\u2014has traumatized many survivors for decades. Indeed, many survivors continue to be afraid to see doctors to this day, causing them to jeopardize their health and receive dangerous diagnoses late. 205. Dr. Strauss did not limit his abuse to the privacy of the exam room. He reigned over the locker rooms of Larkins Hall, the former recreation center, where\u2014in full view of OSU\u2019s coaching staff and other employees\u2014he harassed male student-athletes. 206. He read the newspaper naked in the male locker room, so that he could stare at student-athletes\u2019 bodies. 207. He showered with student-athletes for hours at a time and several times a day. 208. On one occasion, he finished showering and was preparing to leave the locker room when one of his \u201cfavorite\u201d wrestlers began to shower. Dr. Strauss undressed and joined the wrestler in the shower.21 20 Kantele Franko, Ex-athletes say Ohio State doc groped, ogled men for years News (July 7, 2018), available at (last visited Oct. 23, 2019). 21 See First Amended Class Action Complaint at \u00b6 135, John Doe, et al. v. The Ohio State University, No. 2:18-cv-00692 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2018 No. 33 [hereinafter \u201cClass Action Complaint\u201d]), \u00b6 135. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 39 of 371 #: 2026 40 209. Yet again, male student-athletes complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. 210. Yet again had an opportunity to stop the abuse, but did nothing. 211. And so, Dr. Strauss continued to terrorize students with impunity. 212. Following Dr. Strauss\u2019 lead, other employees took full advantage of OSU\u2019s indifference to sexual harassment and abuse. 213. For instance, some trainers were so \u201ctouchy feely\u201d with the student-athletes that the athletes developed a practice of informing each other about which trainers to avoid. 214 cohort of \u201cvoyeurs\u201d flocked to Larkins Hall to gawk at the student-athletes and masturbate while watching them shower.22 215. One wrestling head coach, Russ Hellickson, described the toxic culture at as a \u201ccesspool of deviancy.\u201d23 He recalled, \u201cCoaching my athletes in Larkins Hall was one of the most difficult things ever did.\u201d24 216. At times, Coach Russ Hellickson had to physically drag the voyeurs out of Larkins Hall.25 Although he pleaded with to move the athletes to a private building,26 his pleas fell went unheard. Yet again did nothing to stop the abuse and harassment. 217. Though students and staff complained about Dr. Strauss for decades, it was not until 1996 that the complaints let to a formal investigation. 218. Shortly after Dr. Lombardo\u2019s November 1994 finding that the fencing team\u2019s 22 Rachael Bade & John Bresnahan cesspool of deviancy\u2019: New claims of voyeurism test Jordan denials (July 6, 2018), available at 2018/07/06/jim-jordan-harassment-ohio-state-wrestling-699192 (last visited July 26, 2018). 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 40 of 371 #: 2027 41 complaints were \u201cunfounded,\u201d two male patients of the Student Health Men\u2019s Clinic\u2014Plaintiff Snyder-Hill (\u201cStudent B\u201d in the Perkins Coie Report) and another student (\u201cStudent A\u201d in the Perkins Coie Report)\u2014separately complained about Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate genital exams in January 1995. 219. Dr. Ted Grace, the Director of Student Health, wrote a report stating he had created a consent form as a result of Student A\u2019s complaint. 220. Snyder-Hill reported to Student Health that, Dr. Strauss, among other things, pressed his erect penis against him during his medical examination. 221. After Plaintiff Snyder-Hill complained about Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate exams (detailed further below), shortly after Student A\u2019s complaint, Dr. Grace falsely claimed that Student Health had never received a complaint about Dr. Strauss and claimed all complaints were maintained in a quality assurance file. He also falsely claimed that, as a result of Plaintiff Snyder- Hill\u2019s complaint, Student Health was creating a consent form, but apparently Dr. Grace was already creating this form as a result of Student A\u2019s complaint. 222. Despite the two complaints brought against Strauss in January 1995, neither Dr. Grace nor anyone at Student Health or at took any meaningful action to stop this sexual predator. No one at called police, 911, or the Medical Board. No one took any disciplinary action. No one informed students or the public. No one informed anyone in the Athletics Department, where Strauss was still the team doctor for a number of teams. No one did any meaningful investigation, for example inquiring whether any other student or patient had been sexually abused. No one made any serious attempt to monitor Strauss with other students or patients. Dr. Grace never even thought to observe one of Strauss\u2019 examinations. No one followed up with Strauss to see if he was doing appropriate examinations. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 41 of 371 #: 2028 42 223. To this day, Dr. Grace insists he did the right thing in not reporting Dr. Strauss to law enforcement. 224. However, Dr. Grace regularly informed Vice President of Student Affairs Mary Daniels about Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse in their weekly meetings. 225. Dr. Sickles testified that an doctor should have reported this conduct to the Medical Board: Q. And would you report that to the Medical Board? A. Yes. Q. And you'd do that immediately? A. Yes. Q. And any doctor in Ohio should have known that, right? A. Yes. Q. Back in the seventies, the eighties and the nineties, right? A. Yes. Q. And any doctor who failed to do that failed their obligations, right? A. Yes. Q. And so is there any excuse for a medical doctor at Ohio State University, learning about a patient who had Dr. Strauss press his erect penis against him in January 1995, is there any excuse for that doctor not reporting that to the Medical Board any time in 1995? It's pretty outrageous, isn't it? A. It sounds outrageous to me, yes. 226. To the contrary, not only did no one report Dr. Strauss in 1995 gave Dr. Strauss \u201cExceptional\u201d and \u201cExcellent\u201d ratings on his 1995 Administrative & Professional Staff Performance. 227. Why would give a known sexual predator an exceptional performance evaluation? In a June 1996 memo to OSU\u2019s counsel and to administrator David Williams (who reported directly to the OSU\u2019s President), Dr. Grace explained: \u201cFor legal reasons, we would Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 42 of 371 #: 2029 43 never mention a serious allegation against a physician on their evaluation form, which was a permanent part of their personnel record.\u201d 228. As Dr. Grace testified, it was \u201cthe policy in student health that you would not mention a serious allegation, such as sexual misconduct, in an evaluation form.\u201d 229. The reason, Dr. Grace admits, was to cover-up the abuse, prevent the public (including students) from learning about the abuse, and protect the doctor, in this case, Dr. Strauss. Personnel evaluations, Dr. Grace noted, were potentially accessible via a public records request. 230. Not only did Dr. Grace hide Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse from the public, Dr. Miller\u2014Dr. Strauss\u2019 direct supervisor who performed the 1995 performance evaluation\u2014testified that Dr. Grace intentionally \u201ckept him in the dark\u201d about students\u2019 complaints about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. According to Dr. Miller, Dr. Grace had never told him that students had complained about inappropriate sexual conduct and he would not have provided the exemplary performance review had he known. 231. Dr. Strauss never received a bad performance review at Student Health and no sexual abuse allegation was ever mentioned. 232 year later, in January 1996, a third student complained in January 1996 that Dr. Strauss fondled his genitals and asked him sexually inappropriate questions. 233. Finally, after years of complaints, this cluster of complaints caused to place Dr. Strauss on administrative leave in January 1996 and launch a Student Affairs investigation into the November 1994 complaints from the fencing team, the two January 1995 complaints, and the January 1996 complaint. As part of its investigation apparently did not investigate the history of complaints about Strauss in the Athletics Department. Id. at 147-148. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 43 of 371 #: 2030 44 234. Still, no one at reported Dr. Strauss to the Medical Board. 235. To the contrary, in April 1996, Dr. Strauss filed a complaint against Dr. Grace with the Medical Board. 236. While investigating Dr. Strauss\u2019 complaint, the Medical Board on its own learned of sexual abuse complaints against Strauss, and self-initiated an investigation into Strauss. 237. The Medical Board then interviewed Dr. Grace, who admitted that \u201cthere are many male athletes that have been abused by Dr. Strauss.\u201d 238. Dr. Grace later testified that, by \u201cmany,\u201d he meant: \u201cthree, four, five, six. Whatever.\u201d 239. In June 1996 held a disciplinary hearing into these complaints without notifying the student complainants or permitting them to participate. 240 few weeks after the hearing, in July 1996, Dr. Lombardo informed Dr. Strauss that OSU\u2019s Athletics Department was terminating his employment. In August 1996 decided not to renew his Student Health Services Appointment \u201cbased on three complaints by students in a period of 13 months.\u201d Id. at 150. 241. When informing Dr. Strauss that his Student Health Services Appointment was not being renewed was clear to Dr. Strauss that his faculty appointment would continue. 242. \u201cStrauss remained employed at the University as a tenured professor in the School of Public Health.\u201d Id. at 146. 243 concealed the reason that it did not renew Dr. Strauss\u2019 Student Health Services contract and terminated Dr. Strauss\u2019 employment in the Athletics Department administrators did not document the findings of the June 1996 disciplinary hearing, according to sworn testimony\u2014though it would have been standard to do so. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 44 of 371 #: 2031 45 244. Even after OSU\u2019s Student Health suspended Dr. Strauss in January 1996 as a treating physician administrators hid the reason why it was investigating Strauss and placing him on leave, according to Dr. Lombardo\u2019s and Dr. Miller\u2019s sworn testimony administrators did not inform the Athletics Department why his Student Health contract was not renewed. 245. Dr. Lombardo testified that it would have been \u201cimportant to know\u201d that Dr. Strauss was being investigated for sexual misconduct, because it would have helped him \u201cprotect the athletes.\u201d But hid that information to protect Dr. Strauss and itself. 246. Dr. Lombardo testified that students never even knew that terminated Dr. Strauss from the Athletics Department over the summer: \u201cdoctors come and go,\u201d so it would not have been \u201cunusual\u201d for students to \u201chave a new doctor\u201d in the fall of 1996. 247 also actively concealed Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse by not investigating or attempting to identify the students Dr. Strauss harmed. Dr. Grace told the Medical Board that \u201cthere are many male athletes that have been abused by Dr. Strauss.\u201d Yet numerous doctors confirmed that took no action to identify the students victimized by Dr. Strauss did not attempt to identify these \u201cmany\u201d male athletes so it could conceal the extent of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and how the university had enabled his predation. 248 further concealed Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse by destroying medical records. Even after determined that Dr. Strauss was a sexual predator, it destroyed evidence of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual predation. OSU\u2019s standard policy at the time was to preserve patient records for seven years, unless there was a reason to maintain the patient records. Yet at no point in 1995 (when Student and complained), in 1996 (when suspended Dr. Strauss and then terminated his contract), or thereafter did stop its policy of destroying records once they were seven years old, according to the testimony by numerous doctors. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 45 of 371 #: 2032 46 249. As late as February 1997, Dr. Strauss was a member of the appointments, promotion, and tenure committee of the School of Public Health, which, among other things, was reviewing a faculty appointment for Dr. Grace. 250. Here is how Dr. Grace put it: Q. Should Dr. Strauss have any position of authority whatsoever at Ohio State after January 1996, in your opinion? A. Not in my opinion. Q. Why not? A. Because he was found not fit for clinical practice. Q. Because he was a sexual predator, right? A. Yes. Q. So you had this sexual predator who was employed by Ohio State University for a couple of years after it was clear to you that he was a sexual predator, right? A. Yes. Q. And that is -- what word would you use to describe OSU\u2019s decision to keep this man for all of those years? A. Unfortunate. 251. In October 1997, Dr. Strauss announced that he intended to retire. 252. Randall Harris, the Acting Director of the School of Public Health, recommended that Dr. Strauss receive emeritus status upon retirement \u201cbased on his long-standing service, commitment, and national and international achievements.\u201d Id. at 6. 253. Harris recommended that Dr. Strauss receive emeritus status upon retirement, though he was aware that a student-patient at Student Health had complained about Dr. Strauss\u2019 treatment of his STD, that the complaint was serious enough to result in a hearing, and that Dr. Strauss was removed from Student Health and Athletics. 254. Ronald St. Pierre, the Vice Dean and Secretary for the College of Medicine and Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 46 of 371 #: 2033 47 Associate Vice President of Health Sciences and Academic Affairs, also recommended Dr. Strauss receive an emeritus appointment, though he was aware of the 1996 Student Affairs disciplinary action against Dr. Strauss. 255. Dr. Strauss retired effective March 1, 1998. 256. Upon his retirement, OSU\u2019s Board of Trustees bestowed on him the honorific appointment of Faculty Emeritus in the University's School of Public Health. Id. at 154. 257. Even Dr. Grace calls that decision \u201ccrazy.\u201d 258. In allowing Dr. Strauss to retire and receive a Faculty Emeritus appointment actively concealed both Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and the university\u2019s role in enabling his predation. 259. As Dr. William Malarkey testified, terminating Dr. Strauss or revoking his tenure would have alerted students that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct may not have been appropriate student hearing that a professor retired would have no cause for alarm, correct? A. Yes. Q. And a student hearing that a professor received emeritus status would have no cause for alarm? A: Yes. Q. And to the contrary, if a student hears that a professor's tenure was revoked, that could create cause for alarm, right? A: Yes. 260. While Dr. Strauss was on administrative leave in March 1996, he began considering opening a private, off-campus medical clinic specializing in men\u2019s issues. 261. Dr. Strauss spoke to St. Pierre about his plans for opening this men\u2019s clinic. St. Pierre said \u201cthere would be no problem\u201d with Dr. Strauss opening that private men\u2019s clinic. Id. at 151. 262. Dr. Strauss did, in fact, open that men\u2019s clinic off-campus clinic near OSU\u2019s Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 47 of 371 #: 2034 48 campus to treat \u201ccommon genital/urinary problems\u201d\u2014even though he was trained as a pulmonologist\u2014and solicited male students for sexual health treatment in OSU\u2019s student newspaper. He began seeing patients there in September 1996. 263 did nothing to protect students from being abused by Dr. Strauss at the men\u2019s clinic, though it had removed him from working at the Student Health Center because of a sexual misconduct complaint. 264. OSU\u2019s deliberate indifference is beyond dispute. \u201cDespite the persistence, seriousness, and regularity of such complaints [from male students between 1979 and 1996], no meaningful action was taken by the University to investigate or address the concerns until January 1996 . . . .\u201d Id. at 3. No Student Could Have Known OSU\u2019s Responsibility For The Abuse 265 hid the extent of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, the repeated complaints received, and its indifferent response from its students. Dr. Grace, who was in an important position at OSU, claimed to have no knowledge of these widespread complaints about Dr. Strauss. He admitted that an student would be even more in the dark: Q. Is there any way any Ohio State student could have known that their university failed on the job for 20 years to get rid of this sexual predator don\u2019t know of any way. 266. Similarly, Dr. Miller testified: Q. And is there any way \u2013 any student could have known that Dr. Strauss was a sexual predator against students for over 20 \u2013 for approximately 20 years before got rid of him don\u2019t believe they would have known. 267. None of the Plaintiffs knew, or had reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examinations. None of the Plaintiffs knew, or had reason to know, that Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 48 of 371 #: 2035 49 had received complaints\u2014for years\u2014about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. None of the Plaintiffs knew, or had reason to know, that failed to appropriately investigate, remedy, and respond to years of complaints. None of the Plaintiffs knew, or had reason to know, that failed to adequately supervise Dr. Strauss, even after learning that he posed a substantial risk to the safety of male students and student-athletes. None of the Plaintiffs knew, or could have known, that in 1996 declined to renew Strauss\u2019 appointment with Student Health and the Athletic Department terminated his employment agreement because \u201crecogniz[ed] . . . the severity and pervasiveness of Strauss\u2019 abuse.\u201d Medical Board Report at 3. None of the Plaintiffs knew, or had reason to know, that administrators were on notice of Dr. Strauss\u2019 pervasive sexual abuse, or that administrators were deliberately indifferent to that pervasive sexual abuse. 268. Dr. Strauss committed suicide in 2005. After Dr. Strauss committed suicide, Dr. Lombardo lauded him as \u201cone of the leaders in sports medicine,\u201d and highlighted \u201chis care and concern for athletes.\u201d 269. The effects of his abuse, and OSU\u2019s complicity in it, survive in the lives of his victims. OSU\u2019s Commissioned Investigation 270. In April of 2018, approximately forty years after students first began complaining about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse announced that it was opening an investigation into student- athletes\u2019 allegations of sexual misconduct by Dr. Strauss dating back to the late-1970s. 271 opened this investigation in 2018 after one or more former student-athletes (again) informed of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse. 272. Until opened its investigation in April of 2018, most of the Plaintiffs did not understand that Dr. Strauss had sexually assaulted and harassed them in the guise of providing Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 49 of 371 #: 2036 50 necessary and appropriate medical care. And none of them knew, or had any reason to know, of the role that played in facilitating Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. This is because ignored, rebuffed, and concealed complaints about Dr. Strauss, preventing the Plaintiffs from discovering their claims against OSU. 273. The appointed Special Counsel to OSU, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, retained Perkins Coie (\u201cPerkins Coie\u201d) on April 27, 2018. Id. at 1. 274. On OSU\u2019s behalf, Perkins Coie conducted a massive factual investigation of sexual misconduct allegations raised against Dr. Strauss. Perkins Coie evaluated, first, \u201callegations that Strauss committed acts of sexual misconduct against members of the community.\u201d Id. at 1. Second, Perkins Coie evaluated \u201cwhether \u2018the University\u2019 had knowledge of such allegations against Strauss\u201d while he was employed by OSU. Id. 275. Perkins Coie spent $6.2 million and 12 months on their investigation. 276. Perkins Coie reviewed 825 boxes of records from and collected records from sources outside the University. They interviewed 520 witnesses, including 177 survivors. 277. Perkins Coie\u2019s 182-page Report reaches two striking conclusions: First, finding the survivors uniformly credible, it found that \u201cStrauss sexually abused at least 177 male student- patients he was charged with treating as a University physician.\u201d Id. Perkins Coie concluded that \u201cat least\u201d 177 men were abused because they only interviewed 177 male students\u2014had they interviewed more survivors they undoubtedly would have concluded that Dr. Strauss abused far more than 177 men. Perkins Coie did not interview the majority of the Plaintiffs in this action. 278. Second, Perkins Coie found that \u201cpersonnel had knowledge of Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive treatment of male student-patients as early as 1979.\u201d Id. 279. The Perkins Coie report provides detailed, credible evidence of Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 50 of 371 #: 2037 51 sexual predation and OSU\u2019s institutional indifference to complaints about Dr. Strauss. 280. Yet is in \u201cdamage control mode.\u201d It does not want to be held fully accountable for employing a serial sexual predator and perpetuating his abuse of students for two decades. 281. But enough is enough. Remedial action to help the survivors of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual predation is long overdue, as is systemic institutional change to ensure that something like this never happens again to another student. OSU\u2019s Pattern of Indifference to Sexual Harassment and Abuse 282. OSU\u2019s culture of indifference to the safety and well-being of its students has caused sexual violence to flourish at for the last four decades. This toxic culture, which has drawn the attention and censure of the federal government, continues to thrive to this day. 283. On June 23, 2010, the United States Department of Education\u2019s Office for Civil Rights (\u201cOCR\u201d) initiated a review of OSU\u2019s compliance with Title IX. With the federal government peering over its shoulder rushed to revise its sexual abuse policies and procedures.27 Nevertheless, on September 11, 2014, after a four-year-long review of announced that the university had violated Title IX.28 284. Specifically found that OSU\u2019s policies and procedures were confusing and inconsistent, failed to designate timeframes for the completion of major stages of sexual abuse investigations, and failed to ensure that complainants were afforded equal opportunity to participate in the grievance process, in violation of Title IX.29 285 also found that students were confused about how and where to report 27 Findings Letter, supra note 4, at 24. 28 Id. at 1. 29 Id. at 1, 9, 26. cont\u2019d on next page Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 51 of 371 #: 2038 52 incidents of sexual harassment and assault.30 286 likewise found that OSU\u2019s procedures \u201cinappropriately suggest and, in some instances, seem to require that parties work out alleged sexual harassment directly with the accused harasser prior to filing a complaint with the University.\u201d31 287. In some cases was unable even to reach a determination about whether adequately responded to complaints because OSU\u2019s complaint files were so sloppy and indecipherable.32 288. In order to close the federal government\u2019s review entered into a resolution agreement with OCR. That agreement required OSU, in part, to disseminate information to educate students and staff about Title IX\u2019s prohibition against sexual abuse and harassment, and how to report incidents. It also required to revise its policies and procedures to eliminate the requirement that students \u201cwork out\u201d sexual harassment and abuse directly with their abuser. And it required to provide mandatory training on sexual abuse to students and staff.33 289. After the federal government initiated its investigation into OSU\u2019s practices began its own investigation into a sexual harassment complaint concerning its Marching Band. 290. OSU\u2019s internal investigation found that the Marching Band\u2019s culture facilitated sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile environment for its students.34 Students in the 30 Id. at 10. 31 Id. at 25. 32 Id. at 19, 27. 33 Id. at 27-29; see also Resolution Agreement, Ohio State University Docket #15-10- 6002, available at (last visited July 24, 2018). 34 Ohio State University Investigation Report, Complaint against Jonathan Waters, Director of the Marching Band 1 (July 22, 2014), available at documents/1235398-osu-investigation-report-complaint- against.html (last visited July 21, 2018) cont\u2019d on next page Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 52 of 371 #: 2039 53 Marching Band were called sexual nicknames, like \u201cBoob Job\u201d and \u201cTwinkle Dick,\u201d and pressured to participate in an annual nude Marching Band tradition.35 Students felt that the Marching Band\u2019s culture was sexualized and an \u201cold guys\u201d club, and that it operated under a \u201cculture of intimidation,\u201d which culminated in at least one known sexual assault as well as sexual harassment.36 Most damningly, the investigation found that had notice of the hostile environment but had failed to do anything about it.37 291 year after found non-compliant with Title IX, the University launched an initiative designed to \u201censure Ohio State is a national leader\u201d in preventing and responding to sexual abuse.38 292. If only OSU\u2019s actions were as good as its words. 293. In 2014, during a diving meet received a report that assistant diving coach Will Bohonyi was sexually abusing a minor in OSU\u2019s Diving Club. Inexplicably allegedly sent the victim\u2014not the perpetrator\u2014home from the meet.39 294 then allegedly failed to take action to address the hundreds of naked photographs of the victim engaged in sexual acts that Coach Bohonyi had forced her to take.40 These photographs\u2014child pornography\u2014allegedly sat in OSU\u2019s possession for some four years.41 [hereinafter Report regarding Complaint against Waters\u201d]. 35 Id. at 4-5. 36 Id. at 11-12. 37 Findings Letter, supra note 4, at 2 Report regarding Complaint against Waters, supra note 35, at 1. 38 Plan, supra note 5. 39 Diving Complaint, supra note 6, at \u00b6\u00b6 272, 274-75. 40 Id. at \u00b6\u00b6 176-180, 260-62. 41 Id. at \u00b6 180. cont\u2019d on next page Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 53 of 371 #: 2040 54 295. Revelations of OSU\u2019s ongoing culture of abuse continue to accumulate. For instance, in June of 2018 was forced to shutter its sexual assault prevention and response unit after concerns emerged that unit employees had told victims of abuse they were \u201clying,\u201d \u201cdelusional,\u201d and had \u201can active imagination.\u201d42 Other victims were denied services because they would not disclose the identity of their attackers.43 An independent audit of that unit revealed that it failed to report 57 potential felonies that it was required to report to law enforcement\u2014felonies that likely involve sexual assault.44 296. On August 8, 2018 initiated yet another investigation into OSU\u2019s compliance with Title IX\u2014this time involving OSU\u2019s response to students\u2019 allegations of sexual misconduct by Dr. Strauss, the subject of this lawsuit. 297. Despite all evidence to the contrary\u2014a federal investigation finding Title violations, numerous student complaints, internal reports, witnesses, and more persists in claiming it is and has been \u201ca leader\u201d on issues of sexual abuse.45 The survivors of its four decades of indifference beg to differ 298. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all previous paragraphs as if fully stated here. 42 Jennifer Smola, Ohio State closes sexual-assault center, fires 4 after complaints, The Columbus Dispatch (June 20, 2018), sexual-assault-center-fires-4-after-complaints (last visited July 26, 2018); Bauer-Wolf, supra note 8.. 43 See Bauer-Wolf, supra note 8. 44 Smola, Ohio State\u2019s troubled sexual assault center failed to report 57 potential felonies, audit finds, supra note 9. 45 Smola, Ohio State closes \u2018failed\u2019 program, takes another hard look at Title policies, supra note 8. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 54 of 371 #: 2041 55 299. Steve Snyder-Hill (then named Steve Hill) was a student at from 1991 through 2000. He was also a student-employee in graduate school at from 1998-2000. 300. Snyder-Hill was examined by Dr. Strauss once, on or about January 5, 1995, at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center (\u201cStudent Health\u201d). 301. Snyder-Hill went to Student Health to have a lump in his chest checked. 302. The triage nurse there recommended that Snyder-Hill see Dr. Strauss, which he did. 303. Snyder-Hill was alone in the room with Dr. Strauss. 304. Dr. Strauss told Snyder-Hill that he needed to remove all of his clothes, so that Dr. Strauss could perform a full medical exam. 305. Snyder-Hill complied with this request. 306. During the examination, Dr. Strauss made inappropriate comments to Snyder-Hill and asked inappropriate questions about Snyder-Hill\u2019s sexual and personal desires, which made Snyder-Hill very uncomfortable. These comments and questions included asking Snyder-Hill if he was gay, whether he had trouble sleeping with just one person, and whether he sexually desired to do something else; and telling Snyder-Hill that he worked with patients and was the doctor for the athletic department. Snyder-Hill felt as if Strauss was testing him to see how he would react to being in an uncomfortable position. 307. When Dr. Strauss told Snyder-Hill that he needed to check Snyder-Hill\u2019s testicles, Snyder-Hill felt very uncomfortable and said this was not necessary because his regular doctor had recently done this. 308. Dr. Strauss insisted on doing both testicular and rectal examinations, ignoring Snyder-Hill\u2019s statements that he did not need those exams, and Dr. Strauss performed both exams on Snyder-Hill before checking the lump in Snyder-Hill\u2019s chest. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 55 of 371 #: 2042 56 309. Dr. Strauss fondled Snyder-Hill for an unnecessarily long period of time. Dr. Strauss put his face so uncomfortably close to Snyder-Hill\u2019s genital area during the prolonged examination that Snyder-Hill could feel Dr. Strauss breathing on his genitals. The rectal exam involved Dr. Strauss digitally penetrating Snyder-Hill\u2019s rectum with his finger. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves at any point during the examination. 310. Snyder-Hill felt very uncomfortable and powerless throughout Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination. Snyder-Hill felt intimidated and became afraid to voice a concern. 311. This escalated when Dr. Strauss asked Snyder-Hill to lay down on the table, then leaned over to finally check the lump in Snyder-Hill\u2019s chest\u2014the only reason Snyder-Hill sought medical attention. Dr. Strauss massaged Snyder-Hill\u2019s chest for a prolonged time, initially brushing his groin against Snyder-Hill\u2019s side, but as he kept rubbing Snyder-Hill\u2019s chest, Dr. Strauss got much more aggressive, pushing his pelvic area up against Snyder-Hill\u2019s side and holding it there. Snyder-Hill could feel Dr. Strauss\u2019 erect penis pressed against him. Dr. Strauss kept himself pressed against Snyder-Hill for a prolonged time while rubbing and fondling his chest. 312. Snyder-Hill was shocked by this and felt that Dr. Strauss was trying to manipulate and intimidate him. As a result, Snyder-Hill could not look Dr. Strauss in the eyes during the exam or afterwards. Snyder-Hill felt very intimidated by Dr. Strauss. 313. The examination by Dr. Strauss weighed heavily on Snyder-Hill afterwards. He felt very uncomfortable and upset, and thought the examination was inappropriate. He also felt guilty that he had let Dr. Strauss touch him. He thought Dr. Strauss\u2019 topics of conversation were flirty and that, if Snyder-Hill had given Dr. Strauss a signal to proceed sexually, Dr. Strauss would have acted on it. 314. The next day, on January 6, 1995, Snyder-Hill called Student Health to lodge a Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 56 of 371 #: 2043 57 complaint about Dr. Strauss. He spoke with the Assistant Director of Student Health, Judy Brady, who took notes on his oral complaint. The complaint is memorialized in a \u201cPatient Comment\u201d form dated January 6, 1995. 315. Brady told Snyder-Hill that someone would get back to him. Snyder-Hill said he wanted to speak with the top person at Student Health. 316. Dr. Ted Grace, Director of Student Health, called Snyder-Hill in response to the complaint Snyder-Hill made with Judy Brady. Dr. Grace said he had spoken with Dr. Strauss about Snyder-Hill\u2019s complaint, Dr. Strauss denied rubbing against Snyder-Hill with an erection, and Dr. Strauss said he was just doing his job during the examination. Snyder-Hill said Dr. Grace was taking Dr. Strauss\u2019 side and that Snyder-Hill felt helpless and powerless in this situation because it was his word against Dr. Strauss\u2019. Snyder-Hill demanded further action, so Dr. Grace arranged a meeting. 317. At some point between January 5 and January 24, 1995, Snyder-Hill, accompanied by his then-boyfriend, participated in a two-hour, in-person meeting with Dr. Grace, Dr. Strauss, and Dr. Louise Douce, OSU\u2019s Director of Counseling and Consulting Services. Snyder-Hill brought his boyfriend as a witness, which he felt was necessary because Dr. Strauss had denied any wrongdoing and Dr. Grace had supported Dr. Strauss\u2019 position during their prior telephone conversation. During the in-person meeting, Drs. Grace and Douce required that Snyder-Hill recount his allegations about Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate and abusive conduct during the January 5, 1996 examination. OSU\u2019s insistence that Snyder-Hill detail his abuse in the presence of his abuser was traumatic and psychologically harmful for Snyder-Hill. 318. After Snyder-Hill explained what Dr. Strauss had said and done in the examination, Dr. Strauss responded with pretextual and false explanations for his inappropriate statements and Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 57 of 371 #: 2044 58 conduct. Snyder-Hill replied that he did not believe Dr. Strauss\u2019 explanations. As the meeting progressed, Dr. Strauss\u2019 demeanor escalated to anger, then rage. When Snyder-Hill explained that Dr. Strauss had pressed his erect penis into him, Dr. Strauss slammed his hand on the table and screamed directly at Snyder-Hill that Snyder-Hill was trying to destroy his reputation and career. Dr. Grace and Dr. Douce looked shocked by Dr. Strauss\u2019 outburst, but said nothing. At the end of the meeting, Dr. Douce said it appeared that the incident was just a misunderstanding, she was very confident that \u201cDr. Strauss was not guilty of any wrongdoing,\u201d and Snyder-Hill had just been confused and mistaken about Dr. Strauss\u2019 intentions. Id. at 129. Snyder-Hill told them that he didn\u2019t accept their conclusion, was unhappy with the result, and needed to go home and consult with his boyfriend on what to do next. 319. Dr. Grace called Snyder-Hill on January 24, 1995, as a follow-up to the meeting. Snyder-Hill told Dr. Grace that he still was not happy with the results of the meeting and did not accept it. Snyder-Hill also demanded that changes be made, so other students would not experience what he had experienced with Dr. Strauss. Snyder-Hill also voiced concern about where his complaint would go or be retained, in case Dr. Strauss acted this way with another patient. Snyder- Hill demanded that students be permitted to opt out of testicular and rectal examinations (or anything that might make them uncomfortable) and, at a minimum, have someone else present in the room during examinations (to avoid a situation where it would be the doctor\u2019s word against the student\u2019s). Snyder-Hill also demanded that he be notified if anyone else complained about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. Dr. Grace agreed to Snyder-Hill\u2019s demands, and then Snyder-Hill asked Dr. Grace to document their conversation in writing. 320. Per Snyder-Hill\u2019s request, Dr. Grace wrote a follow up letter to Snyder-Hill, dated January 26, 1995, in which he represented that \u201cwe had never received a complaint about Dr. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 58 of 371 #: 2045 59 Strauss before, although we have had several positive comments.\u201d 321. Dr. Grace\u2019s statement was false. In fact, \u201cStudent A\u201d had complained about Dr. Strauss three days before Snyder-Hill\u2019s complaint, and many other students had complained about Dr. Strauss for many years before that to numerous officials. 322. Dr. Grace\u2019s letter also assured Snyder-Hill that \u201c[a]ny future complaints would include consideration of all prior complaints of a similar nature.\u201d This statement upset Snyder-Hill because it fell short of what Dr. Grace had agreed to during their phone conversation: Dr. Grace had told Snyder-Hill he would contact Snyder-Hill if received another complaint about Dr. Strauss. As a result, Snyder-Hill felt slighted by this statement in Dr. Grace\u2019s letter. At the same time, Snyder-Hill believed this was probably the best he could get from and Dr. Grace. 323. Dr. Grace also stated in the letter that \u201call patient comments\u2014both positive and negative\u2014are maintained in a quality assurance file that is available for review by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.\u201d 324. The letter also mentioned suggestions from Snyder-Hill about improvements to Student Health that resulted in a new form that \u201casks every patient if he or she would like to have a chaperone present during the office visit,\u201d and provides an opportunity for students to opt out of potential genital exams or touching in certain areas. This statement was also a misrepresentation because, \u201cStudent Health had already been developing an intake form to address Student A's concerns,\u201d before Snyder-Hill\u2019s conversation with Dr. Grace. Id. at 132. 325. Snyder-Hill felt that Dr. Grace had indirectly addressed some of his concerns and that the proposed changes to Student Health\u2019s protocols would prevent Dr. Strauss from abusing other students. 326. Neither Dr. Grace nor any other administrator or employee informed Snyder- Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 59 of 371 #: 2046 60 Hill of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. Nor did Dr. Grace, Dr. Douce, or any other administrator or employee inform Snyder-Hill that he could report the incident with Dr. Strauss to law enforcement or other authorities. 327. Dr. Strauss\u2019 personnel file contains no mention of Snyder-Hill\u2019s complaint, or any disciplinary action or internal investigation stemming from the complaint.46 In fact, Dr. Grace\u2019s June 27, 1995 performance review of Dr. Strauss rated Dr. Strauss as excellent and did not mention Snyder-Hill\u2019s (or Student A\u2019s) complaint. 328. When learned in 1996 from the Medical Board that its investigator had concluded that Dr. Strauss had been \u201cperforming inappropriate genital exams on male students\u201d at \u201cfor years,\u201d no one at informed Snyder-Hill about this conclusion. Id. at 4. 329. Snyder-Hill heard nothing further about sexual abuse by Dr. Strauss until July 11, 2018, when he saw Dr. Strauss\u2019 photograph in media reports and recognized his face. Until seeing these media reports, Snyder-Hill did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused other students before abusing him or that others had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 330. Until seeing these media reports on July 11, 2018, Snyder-Hill did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examination of him in January of 1995. 331. Until seeing these media reports on July 11, 2018, Snyder-Hill had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 332. This is because OSU, through Dr. Grace, falsely represented to Snyder-Hill that no 46 Former Ohio State student says he filed sexual assault complaint about Strauss in the 90\u2019s (July 16, 2018), available at emotional-descriptions-of-alleged-abuse-1275836995600 (last visited July 17, 2018). Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 60 of 371 #: 2047 61 one had previously complained about Dr. Strauss and/or concealed prior complaints about Dr. Strauss from Snyder-Hill. 333. Snyder-Hill reasonably relied on Dr. Grace\u2019s representations that Student Health had never received a complaint about Dr. Strauss before Snyder-Hill\u2019s and that Student Health had only received positive comments about Dr. Strauss. 334. Snyder-Hill believed, and had reason to believe, that had responded adequately to his concerns about ensuring student safety in the future, because Dr. Grace informed him that his complaint would be considered if there were any future complaints about Dr. Strauss, all patient comments about Dr. Strauss would be maintained in a quality assurance file subject to review, and Student Health had created a new form that would allow students to request a chaperone at office visits and an opportunity to opt out of potential genital exams or touching in other areas. 335. Even if, in 1995, Snyder-Hill had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in permitting Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information and, through Dr. Grace, had rebuffed Snyder-Hill\u2019s efforts by telling him that no one had previously complained about Dr. Strauss. 336. In short, based on Dr. Grace\u2019s false representations in 1995, Snyder-Hill reasonably believed that he was the first student to complain about Dr. Strauss\u2019 medical examinations, no other students had been similarly abused, and was taking reasonable action to ensure student safety in the future. 337. On July 11, 2018, Snyder-Hill was traumatized by learning the news about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, OSU\u2019s knowledge about it and failure to take appropriate action to stop it, and Dr. Strauss\u2019 death by suicide. He feels that has robbed him of the ability to ever Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 61 of 371 #: 2048 62 get closure on the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Dr. Strauss and to confront his abuser. 338. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Snyder-Hill would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 339. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Snyder-Hill has suffered emotional and psychological damages. To this day, he is extremely uncomfortable with physicians, particularly when getting testicular or rectal examinations. Snyder-Hill is now retired from an exemplary military career spanning 31 years and, since his experience with Dr. Strauss, he became uncomfortable using communal showers and therefore avoided going to the showers when other soldiers were there. In addition, learning about Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, OSU\u2019s role in allowing it, and Dr. Strauss\u2019 death has re-traumatized Snyder-Hill, causing repressed memories of his painful experiences to resurface. Snyder-Hill has been reliving those painful experiences, including the emotions he experienced during Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam and after he complained about Dr. Strauss to OSU. These experiences have also had a profound, devastating impact on Snyder- Hill\u2019s confidence and self-esteem as a gay man. When this abuse happened to him back in 1995, Snyder-Hill did not tell his parents about it because he was in the process of coming out of the closet as a gay man and was terrified that his parents might think all gay men acted like Dr. Strauss. So, Snyder-Hill lived with this secret of abuse to shelter his parents from the truth. The abuse also affected how he felt about himself being gay. Snyder-Hill attended seminars at on how to change your sexuality and found it very difficult to accept his sexuality 340. Ronald McDaniel was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s tennis team from 1981 through 1986 and had an athletic scholarship. 341. McDaniel relied on his scholarship to attend college. 342. McDaniel was treated by Dr. Strauss in the doctor\u2019s Larkins Hall office at on Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 62 of 371 #: 2049 63 at least two occasions. 343. The first occasion was during McDaniel\u2019s freshman year at OSU, in or about the fall of 1981, when McDaniel was 17 years old. McDaniel\u2019s coach, John Daly, told him to go to Larkins Hall to see one of the team doctors for cold-related symptoms. This is where he encountered Dr. Strauss for the first time. 344. During the fall 1981 examination, when McDaniel complained of swollen adenoids and a cold, Dr. Strauss told McDaniel that he needed conduct a full medical examination and instructed McDaniel to remove his pants. 345. McDaniel complied with Dr. Strauss\u2019 request. During the examination, under the guise of performing a needed medical evaluation to screen for hernias and structural damage, Dr. Strauss rubbed and massaged McDaniel\u2019s testicles and penis in what seemed like a sexual manner. 346. Dr. Strauss also asked personal questions about McDaniel\u2019s nationality and stared up and down at his body. 347. McDaniel felt very uncomfortable about how Dr. Strauss had conducted his examination, and he expressed his discomfort afterwards with more senior athletes and one of the head team trainers, named Jim. 348. The athletes and trainer laughed and told McDaniel that their nickname for Dr. Strauss was \u201cDr. Nuts\u201d because, no matter what injury or illness an athlete had, Dr. Strauss would always examine their testicles. 349. Some athletes also told McDaniel that, during examinations, Dr. Strauss would try to rub them like a girlfriend does and sometimes stuck a finger up their rectums. 350. McDaniel soon learned that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during medical examinations was well known and openly discussed among athletes, trainers, coaches, and the athletic director. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 63 of 371 #: 2050 64 351. In McDaniel\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 genital examinations were a running joke among trainers, coaches, and administrators, including, but not limited to: athletic director Hugh Hindman; associate information director Steve Snapp; and co-head athletic trainer Billy Hill. He often heard the trainers, coaches, and administrators joke and laugh about the athletes\u2019 complaints about Dr. Strauss\u2019 medical examinations. 352. In or about the fall of 1983, McDaniel sustained an ankle injury while running, and Coach Daly told him to go to Larkins Hall again to see a team doctor for medical treatment. 353. McDaniel did not want to go to Larkins Hall and risk seeing Dr. Strauss again, given his first experience, but felt that his athletic scholarship would be at risk if he disobeyed his coach\u2019s instruction. 354. McDaniel complied with his coach\u2019s instruction and went to Larkins Hall. He assumed that if he had to see Dr. Strauss again, the doctor would have no reason to conduct a testicular exam for an ankle injury. 355. During the fall 1983 examination, Dr. Strauss again instructed McDaniel to remove his shorts so that Dr. Strauss could perform a full medical examination. 356. McDaniel asked why he needed to \u201cdrop his shorts\u201d for an ankle injury. Dr. Strauss grabbed the waistband of McDaniel\u2019s shorts to try to pull them down. 357. Dr. Strauss advised McDaniel that he had to check him for a hernia. 358. McDaniel refused to take his shorts off. 359. McDaniel then left Dr. Strauss\u2019 office. He decided he would never get examined by Dr. Strauss again because he felt violated. 360. McDaniel told Coach Daly about Dr. Strauss\u2019 medical examination and said he would never again get medical treatment from Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 64 of 371 #: 2051 65 361. Coach Daly said, \u201cOkay,\u201d then suggested McDaniel go to the Biggs football training facility so the team doctor and trainer Billy Hill could look at McDaniel\u2019s ankle. McDaniel went to the facility and sat on the first exam table. Hugh Hindman, Steve Snapp, and Dick Delaney were there and saw McDaniel\u2019s injured ankle. Billy Hill approached McDaniel and asked about his injured ankle. In the presence of Hindman, Snapp, and Delaney, McDaniel explained to Hill that, because the Biggs facility had been full earlier, he went to Larkins Hall to get his ankle examined, and Dr. Strauss ended up performing the exam. McDaniel further told Hill that Dr. Strauss felt around the ankle and did not seem to think McDaniel had torn anything, but seemed more interested in checking out McDaniel\u2019s testicles than his ankle. Billy Hill replied, \u201cAh, that fucking faggot,\u201d then Hindman, Snapp, and Delaney walked out of the training room chuckling. 362. No one affiliated with followed up on McDaniel\u2019s complaint about Dr. Strauss. To McDaniel\u2019s knowledge, neither Coach Daly, nor anyone else affiliated with OSU, took any corrective action against Dr. Strauss or ensured that others did. 363. McDaniel was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 364. Until hearing media reports in early July, 2018, about an investigation into allegations that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused student-athletes, McDaniel did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examinations of him or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 365. Until hearing these media reports in early July 2018, McDaniel had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 366. This is because, in McDaniel\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 genital examinations were Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 65 of 371 #: 2052 66 a running joke among trainers, coaches, and administrators. In addition, Coach Daly\u2019s unconcerned reaction to his complaint about Dr. Strauss, and his teammates\u2019 jokes about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, did not give McDaniel any reason to investigate what was doing or failing to do. Indeed, when McDaniel raised concerns about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, Coach Daly\u2019s reaction served to reinforce McDaniel\u2019s reasonable belief that further inquiry would not be productive. 367. Even if, in 1983, McDaniel had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in permitting Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information, and, through its trainers, coaches, and administrators, treated complaints about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations as matters of no real concern. 368. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, McDaniel would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 369. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, McDaniel has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, McDaniel is plagued by a fear of medical examinations that ultimately resulted in delayed treatment of a testicular tumor. Because of the unchecked abuse by Dr. Strauss, McDaniel has avoided physical examinations involving his testicles and is extremely uncomfortable about seeing doctors for medical treatment that might involve a testicular exam. This had significant consequences for McDaniel, who had a bike accident in or around the spring of 1999 in which he suffered a blow to the area near his testicles. McDaniel chose to endure the pain rather than seek immediate medical attention, due to his experience with Dr. Strauss at OSU. After six to eight months of continuing and increasing pain, McDaniel felt forced to obtain a medical consult and was, in turn, diagnosed with a benign testicular tumor. The tumor had grown to enormous proportions because of the delay in getting his Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 66 of 371 #: 2053 67 testicle evaluated, and McDaniel suffered medical complications and pain as a result of the delay in getting treatment. Both medical providers who treated McDaniel were troubled by the fact that McDaniel had waited so long to get medical attention for this issue 370. David Mulvin was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s wrestling team from 1975-1979. Mulvin was captain of OSU\u2019s wrestling team during the 1978-1979 season. 371. Mulvin was treated by Dr. Strauss on one occasion, in or around 1978, in Larkins Hall. 372. Mulvin sought treatment for a fungal infection caused by a genital burn from his protective wrestling gear. 373. Dr. Strauss took Mulvin into a \u201ccloset,\u201d off the training room area in Larkins Hall, where they were secluded. 374. Dr. Strauss inspected Mulvin\u2019s penis, including pulling and groping, for at least 20 minutes and for what felt like a century. Dr. Strauss appeared to be trying to perform masturbation on Mulvin, and Dr. Strauss appeared frustrated when his actions did not cause Mulvin to become erect. Dr. Strauss moaned during the examination. 375. Mulvin became frustrated with the length and intrusiveness of Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam. He asked Dr. Strauss if he could just give him his prescription, like every other doctor had given him in the past without such an intrusive exam. 376. Dr. Strauss did not allow Mulvin to leave. Instead, referring to Mulvin\u2019s penis, Dr. Strauss replied, \u201cDoesn\u2019t this thing ever work?\u201d 377. Mulvin was shocked and horrified by Dr. Strauss\u2019 question. He asked, \u201cWhat do you mean?\u201d 378. Dr. Strauss responded, \u201cDoes it ever get hard?\u201d Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 67 of 371 #: 2054 68 379. Mulvin felt disturbed and replied, \u201cYeah, for my girlfriend.\u201d He then dressed and left the room, stating, \u201cI\u2019m all through here.\u201d 380. Mulvin then immediately went to OSU\u2019s Student Health Center to seek a prescription cream for a fungal infection that had developed from the burn. 381. The attending health center physician asked Mulvin why he was seeking treatment at the health center, rather than seeing Dr. Strauss. 382. Mulvin reported to the physician that Dr. Strauss had examined his genitals for 20 minutes and that he believed Dr. Strauss was trying to sexually excite him. Mulvin told the physician that he had this fungal infection before, the exam typically lasted no longer than a minute and did not include an inspection of his penis, and Dr. Strauss had groped his penis the entire time. 383. The physician responded, \u201cThat seems really odd. It\u2019s not normal.\u201d 384. The physician then told Mulvin that he would make a note of Mulvin\u2019s report and pass it along. The physician then examined Mulvin. The exam lasted no more than a minute. The physician did not touch or inspect his penis at any time during the examination. The physician wrote Mulvin a prescription, which was what Mulvin had expected a physician to do. 385. Mulvin does not know if the physician noted Mulvin\u2019s complaint, reported it, or took any other action. 386. Mulvin reported Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct to the health center physician because he believed that the physician was Dr. Strauss\u2019 boss and that he would take action on his complaint. 387. Mulvin did not report Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct to his coach because he feared that the coach would blame him for what happened, rather than Dr. Strauss. 388. Mulvin was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain to about Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 68 of 371 #: 2055 69 389. Mulvin and his teammates sometimes talked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations. Mulvin recalls telling some teammates to be careful around Dr. Strauss and some teammates relaying their uncomfortable experiences with Dr. Strauss. Mulvin never discussed this in front of his coaches because he felt like they would view him as less of a man. 390. Until reading media reports in approximately July of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Mulvin did not know that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was, in fact, sexual assault. And even if Mulvin had understood that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct constituted sexual assault, he had no reason to know of the role had played in facilitating the sexual assault. 391. While Mulvin was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination and complained about it, Mulvin did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 392. This is because, while Mulvin attended OSU, he reasonably believed that would not have hired Dr. Strauss, or sent Mulvin and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 393. After Mulvin complained to a physician at Student Health, he felt he had no reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. In any event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. 394. In short, until reading news coverage in approximately July of 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Mulvin did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him and other student-athletes or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 69 of 371 #: 2056 70 395. If had taken meaningful action to address any prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Mulvin would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 396. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent or address it, Mulvin has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, Mulvin has avoided seeing a male physician ever since and has spent decades blaming himself for Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during the 1978 medical examination 397. Kelly Reed was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s track and field team from 1986 through 1988, and had a full athletic scholarship. 398. At a track meet in Johnsonville, Tennessee, Reed tore his hamstring. When he returned to OSU, athletic trainer Rob Morris told Reed that he had scheduled an appointment for Reed to see Dr. Strauss. 399. Morris accompanied Reed to Larkins Hall, where Dr. Strauss had a private examination room. Morris stayed outside in the training room during Reed\u2019s examination. 400. Dr. Strauss escorted Reed into his private examination room. Once in the private room, Dr. Strauss told Reed to disrobe and put on a medical gown. Reed complied, then sat on the table in the room. 401. Dr. Strauss told Reed to roll over onto his stomach. After Reed complied, Dr. Strauss began to rub Reed\u2019s buttocks. Dr. Strauss then placed his thumb inside the crack of Reed\u2019s buttocks and told Reed to flex. 402. Reed jumped up in an abrupt and forceful manner and said, \u201cHey, hey, man, what are you doing?\u201d 403. Dr. Strauss said have to complete this for the examination.\u201d Reed disagreed and told Dr. Strauss that his hamstring did not have anything to do with his buttocks. Reed told Dr. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 70 of 371 #: 2057 71 Strauss to stop, then positioned himself so that Dr. Strauss had to stop. 404. Dr. Strauss continued his harassment, telling Reed that he was going to examine his whole body and that he had read about Reed in the newspaper. Throughout the examination, Dr. Strauss told Reed that Reed had a \u201cbeautiful body\u201d and that he was \u201cvery handsome.\u201d 405. At one point in the examination, Dr. Strauss asked Reed turn onto his back. Reed complied, then Dr. Strauss started rubbing Reed\u2019s thighs and massaging his genitals. Dr. Strauss took Reed\u2019s penis in one hand and his testicles in the other and began rubbing his testicles. Dr. Strauss then proceeded to closely inspect, rub and pull back the foreskin of his penis for a significant amount of time. 406. Dr. Strauss was not wearing gloves throughout the examination. 407. Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate and unwelcome touching became so egregious that Reed told Dr. Strauss to stop and began arguing with Dr. Strauss about how he touched and examined Reed\u2019s buttocks and genitals. 408. Reed told Dr. Strauss the exam was over. Reed put on his clothes and left. 409. Reed immediately complained to Morris about Dr. Strauss\u2019 voyeuristic and lewd conduct during the examination. Morris questioned Reed about what part of the examination Reed thought was inappropriate. Morris did not seem to take Reed\u2019s allegations seriously, so Reed told Morris that he would report this to his coach, Frank Zubovich. 410. The following day, Reed told Coach Zubovich and Assistant Coach Roger Bowen about Dr. Strauss massaging his genitals and placing his thumb in the crack of Reed\u2019s buttocks. 411. Coach Zubovich did not seem to take Reed\u2019s allegations seriously and questioned Reed about his perception of the examination. Assistant Coach Bowen just laughed. 412. Zubovich and Morris told Reed he had to see Dr. Strauss again for a follow up Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 71 of 371 #: 2058 72 appointment. Reed refused. He told Zubovich and Morris that he would just do exercises by himself and would never get treatment from Dr. Strauss again. 413. Although Reed never received treatment from Dr. Strauss again, whenever Dr. Strauss saw Reed on campus, he made chilling comments about Reed\u2019s athletic body. Reed always told Dr. Strauss to get away from him. 414. Reed followed up with Coach Zubovich on several occasions to see if Zubovich reported Dr. Strauss. Coach Zubovich always brushed him off and nothing came of it. 415. Reed repeatedly told coaching and training staff, including Coach Zubovich, Assistant Coach Bowen, Assistant Coach Tom Doyle, track team athletic trainer Rob Morris, and football team athletic trainer Billy Hill, about Dr. Strauss\u2019 misconduct during Reed\u2019s medical examination. Reed estimates that he raised this issue with coaching and training staff approximately ten to twelve times. 416. Reed also met with Assistant Athletic Director Archie Griffin in Griffin\u2019s office to complain about Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual misconduct. As Reed was telling Griffin about Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual misconduct, Griffin had a smirk on his face. Reed interpreted this as Griffin being very familiar with complaints about Dr. Strauss. Griffin told Reed that he would look into the situation. 417. To Reed\u2019s knowledge, no one followed up on Reed\u2019s complaints; no one at investigated Reed\u2019s allegations, nor did anyone take corrective action against Dr. Strauss or ensure that others did. 418. Reed felt like he could not do anything more under the circumstances than report Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual misconduct to coaches, trainers, and the athletic director. 419. Reed was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 72 of 371 #: 2059 73 420. Until hearing media reports in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of sexual abuse by Dr. Strauss, Reed did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examinations of him or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 421. Until hearing these media reports in 2018, Reed had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 422. This is because officials\u2019 unconcerned reaction to Reed\u2019s complaints about Dr. Strauss did not give Reed any reason to investigate what was doing or failing to do. Indeed, when Reed raised concerns about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during his examination, the coaches\u2019, trainers\u2019 and athletic director\u2019s reactions served to reinforce Reed\u2019s reasonable belief that further inquiry would not be productive. 423. Even if Reed had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in permitting Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information, and, through its coaches, trainers and athletic director, treated Reed\u2019s complaints about Dr. Strauss as matters of no real concern. 424. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Reed would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 425. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Reed has suffered emotional and psychological damages, including but not limited to depression, anxiety, post- traumatic stress disorder, sleep disorders, and nightmares. Reed suffers from anxiety whenever he has to see a doctor and refused to get a physical or testicular exam for several years after being examined by Dr. Strauss. Reed continues see a psychiatrist and therapist to address the emotional and psychological trauma, as well as its physical manifestations. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 73 of 371 #: 2060 74 426. William Rieffer was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s track and field team from the fall of 1984 through the spring of 1985, and had a partial athletic scholarship. 427. Rieffer relied on his partial athletic scholarship to attend college. 428. While Rieffer was on the track and field team, Frank Zubovich was the head coach and Roger Bowen was an assistant coach. 429. Upon joining the team, coaching staff told Rieffer that he was required to get an annual physical from Dr. Strauss. 430. Rieffer felt that he did not have any choice but to see Dr. Strauss, since it was a condition for participating on the track and field team. 431. Coaching staff gave Rieffer and his teammates a specific date and time to see Dr. Strauss for their individual physicals. The team went to the training room in Larkins Hall, and Dr. Strauss called each teammate individually to get their physical in a private room. 432. Rieffer received a physical from Dr. Strauss in the fall of 1984, when Rieffer was 18 years old. 433. Soon after Rieffer entered the private examination room with Dr. Strauss, Dr. Strauss began asking Rieffer about his sexual orientation and whether he was sexually attracted to men. Dr. Strauss stayed on this topic for approximately five minutes, and Rieffer felt like he had to convince Dr. Strauss that he was not gay. 434. After asking Rieffer about his sexual orientation, Dr. Strauss told Rieffer to disrobe for his examination. 435. Dr. Strauss began to touch and manipulate Rieffer\u2019s testicles. The manner and length of time Dr. Strauss touched his testicles felt intrusive. 436. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the examination. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 74 of 371 #: 2061 75 437. After Dr. Strauss stopped manipulating Rieffer\u2019s testicles, he told Rieffer that he was required to examine Rieffer\u2019s chest for breast cancer. 438. Rieffer had never had a breast exam performed during an annual physical. 439. Dr. Strauss rubbed Rieffer\u2019s chest in a seemingly sexually suggestive manner for what seemed like an extended period of time. 440. The expressions on Dr. Strauss\u2019 face made it appear as though he was sexually aroused by touching Rieffer\u2019s chest. 441. After the examination, several upperclassmen asked Rieffer how it went and started making jokes about Dr. Strauss feeling up athletes during their physicals. 442. Rieffer soon learned that it was a common joke among his teammates that Dr. Strauss would spend a lot of time touching athletes\u2019 genitals during physicals. 443. Rieffer recalls some of his teammates appearing very unnerved after their physicals with Dr. Strauss. 444. Rieffer felt that something about Dr. Strauss made him uncomfortable, but Rieffer did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. 445. Rieffer did not report his discomfort with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, in part because he was fearful of losing his partial athletic scholarship. 446. Rieffer left after the spring 1985 track and field season for family reasons and never had another physical with Dr. Strauss. 447. Rieffer was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 448. In retrospect, Rieffer realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 75 of 371 #: 2062 76 learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 449. While Rieffer was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, Rieffer did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 450. Rieffer reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 451. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, Rieffer did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 452. This is because, in Rieffer\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during physicals was common knowledge and it was treated as a \u201crite of passage\u201d for incoming student-athletes. 453. In any event, even if, while Rieffer was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 454. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Rieffer did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 455. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Rieffer would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 456. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Rieffer suffers Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 76 of 371 #: 2063 77 from anxiety that affects his interactions with the student-athletes he coaches in secondary school. Because of OSU\u2019s failure to protect him and his teammates, he fears that the student-athletes he coaches will experience the same type of abuse he endured as a student-athlete at 457. William Brown was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s hockey team from 1984 through the fall of 1989, and had a full athletic scholarship. 458. Brown relied on his athletic scholarship to attend college. 459. While Brown was on the hockey team, Jerry Welsh was the head coach and George Burke and Francis LaChappele were assistant coaches. 460. While Brown was on the hockey team, it was standard practice to get an annual physical before the season started, and coaching or training staff told the team when they had to get their physicals. 461. On the scheduled day, the hockey team members went to OSU\u2019s football facility for their physicals. 462. Brown was an 18-year-old freshman at when he had his first physical examination with Dr. Strauss. 463. The physical was done in a private room in OSU\u2019s football facility. No one besides Brown and Dr. Strauss were in the room. 464. At the start of the physical, Dr. Strauss told Brown to take off his shirt and lie down on the examination table. 465. Dr. Strauss then closed the door and approached Brown. As he walked by Brown, Dr. Strauss brushed his hand against Brown\u2019s chest. 466. Dr. Strauss then examined Brown\u2019s chest. 467. After examining Brown\u2019s chest, Dr. Strauss told Brown to drop his shorts and stand Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 77 of 371 #: 2064 78 up. Brown complied with this request. 468. Dr. Strauss remained seated in a chair in front of Brown, as Brown stood naked in the room. 469. Dr. Strauss grabbed Brown\u2019s penis and began to touch and rotate Brown\u2019s penis in different directions. 470. Brown felt very uncomfortable and could not understand why Dr. Strauss was touching him in this manner. 471. As Dr. Strauss held onto Brown\u2019s penis and \u201cexamined\u201d it, Dr. Strauss commented that Brown \u201cmust have had fun last night\u201d because his penis looked red. 472. Brown was taken aback by the comment and did not know how to respond. 473. This was unlike any physical Brown had previously experienced, and Brown felt that it was not a \u201cnormal\u201d physical examination. 474. After the team completed its physicals, Brown recalls teammates joking about the way Dr. Strauss examined them. Brown did not speak up because he felt very uncomfortable with the whole situation. 475. Brown was worried that if he expressed his discomfort with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, he would not fit in, and he did not want to draw attention to himself. 476. Brown also worried that his opportunity to play on the hockey team would be jeopardized if he complained, so he said nothing and continued to see Dr. Strauss for annual physicals for the remainder of the time he played hockey at OSU. 477. Brown felt that the way Dr. Strauss performed his physical was strange, but did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. 478. Brown was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 78 of 371 #: 2065 79 complain about Dr. Strauss and he did not believe there was any recourse for what he experienced. 479. In retrospect, Brown realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 480. While Brown was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, Brown did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 481. Brown reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 482. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, Brown did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 483. Even if, while Brown was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 484. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Brown did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 485. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Brown would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 79 of 371 #: 2066 80 486. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Brown has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, Brown feels very uncomfortable when he receives medical treatment from a male doctor and tries to avoid male doctors altogether. Brown also struggles with blaming himself for his experience with Dr. Strauss. He tries to block the memories of that experience, but cannot avoid the rush of those memories when he gets medical treatment 487. Kurt Huntsinger was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s swim team from 1984 through 1989. He started as a preferred walk-on athlete, then was awarded an athletic scholarship after his first year on the team. 488. Huntsinger was heavily recruited by OSU. He initially committed to swim at the University of North Carolina, but ultimately decided to attend due to OSU\u2019s persistence. 489. Huntsinger relied on his scholarship and would not have been unable to attend without it. 490. While Huntsinger was on the swim team, Dick Sloan was the head coach and Carl Reinhart was an assistant coach. 491. While Huntsinger was on the swim team, it was standard practice to get an annual physical before the season started, and the athletic department told the team when they had to get their physicals. The team was required to see the team physician, who, at the time, was Dr. Strauss. 492. The swim team got their physicals at Larkins Hall. Team members waited in the training room, and Dr. Strauss called each athlete individually to get his physical in a private room where only the athlete and Dr. Strauss were present. 493. Huntsinger was an 18-year-old freshman at when he had his first physical examination with Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 80 of 371 #: 2067 81 494. Once Huntsinger was in the private examination room, Dr. Strauss told him to \u201cdrop his trousers\u201d and stand in the middle of the room. Huntsinger complied with this request. 495. Dr. Strauss then sat in a chair at eye-level with Huntsinger\u2019s genitals. 496. Dr. Strauss began to closely examine Huntsinger\u2019s penis and testicles, moving his penis up and down and side to side and manipulating Huntsinger\u2019s testicles. 497. The genital \u201cexamination\u201d seemed to last for an excessive amount of time. 498. Huntsinger commented on the length of time it was taking to perform the examination. 499. Dr. Strauss just responded that Huntsinger \u201clooked great.\u201d Dr. Strauss also made other comments during the examination that made Huntsinger uncomfortable. 500. After the physical, Huntsinger and his teammates joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 methods of examination. Huntsinger believes that they joked about this because they did not know how else to process what had happened to them. 501. After Huntsinger\u2019s first physical and on several occasions after that, Huntsinger told Coach Sloan that he was uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination. Coach Sloan made light of Huntsinger\u2019s complaint, laughed about the athletes\u2019 descriptions of the examinations, and said, \u201cThat\u2019s just what Dr. Strauss does.\u201d 502. Huntsinger\u2019s teammates also discussed Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination methods in front of Coach Sloan and athletic trainers. 503. Because Coach Sloan and the athletic trainers treated the examinations as normal, Huntsinger continued to see Dr. Strauss for physicals each year he attended OSU. Dr. Strauss performed the same type of genital examination on Huntsinger at each physical. 504. Huntsinger also saw Dr. Strauss at least ten times between 1984 and 1989 for Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 81 of 371 #: 2068 82 treatment related to tendinitis. Dr. Strauss performed the same genital examination at each medical appointment. 505. Huntsinger also witnessed Dr. Strauss hanging around the locker room and watching male athletes in the shower. Dr. Strauss was at the locker room in the mornings and afternoons, leering at athletes. 506. Dr. Strauss also took photographs of the swimmers during practices. 507. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct in the locker room and during examinations was widely known and often joked about in front of coaching and training staff. 508. Upperclassmen on the swim team often warned incoming freshmen that Dr. Strauss was \u201ctouchy feely\u201d during examinations. 509. Although Huntsinger felt that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during examinations and in the locker room was strange, he did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. 510. Huntsinger was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 511. In fact, Coach Sloan told Huntsinger that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were appropriate and there was no reason to complain. 512. Huntsinger also did not think that complaining was an option, given that everyone seemed to know about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct and accepted it as normal. 513. In retrospect, Huntsinger realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, after he learned about the investigation began in 2018 concerning allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 514. While Huntsinger was an student, he trusted that would not allow him Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 82 of 371 #: 2069 83 to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, Huntsinger did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 515. Huntsinger reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 516. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, Huntsinger did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 517. Even if, while Huntsinger was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 518. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Huntsinger did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 519. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Huntsinger would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 520. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Huntsinger has suffered emotional and psychological damages, though Huntsinger believes he has long been in denial about the impact these incidents have had on him. Huntsinger has lost trust in medical professionals and is trying to cope with learning the extent of OSU\u2019s involvement in covering up Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 83 of 371 #: 2070 84 521. Steve Hatch was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s track and field team from 1981 through 1985, and received an athletic scholarship covering nearly all of his expenses. 522. Hatch relied on his athletic scholarship to attend college. 523. As a requirement of receiving his athletic scholarship required Hatch to get an annual physical from Dr. Strauss and to see Dr. Strauss for any injuries or illnesses. 524. Before Hatch got his first physical from Dr. Strauss, Hatch\u2019s teammates joked about Dr. Strauss, calling him nicknames including \u201cDr. Drop Your Drawers\u201d and \u201cDr. Turn and Cough.\u201d 525. Although Hatch saw Dr. Strauss multiple times for physical exams and injuries, two examinations stand out in Hatch\u2019s memory. 526. Hatch was an 18-year-old freshman at when he had his first physical examination with Dr. Strauss. The exam occurred in 1981, before his first track season. 527 had told Hatch to see Dr. Strauss for a physical at an facility. The exam occurred in a private room. No one besides Hatch and Dr. Strauss were in the room. 528. During the exam, Dr. Strauss told Hatch to drop his pants. Hatch did as he was told. Dr. Strauss then moved his face very close to Hatch\u2019s genitals and began manipulating Hatch\u2019s testicles and penis. This caused Hatch\u2019s penis to become semi-erect, and Dr. Strauss began to giggle. 529. Dr. Strauss also jammed his fingers into the cavities where Hatch\u2019s testicles drop down. 530. Dr. Strauss seemed to be fascinated with Hatch\u2019s genitals and to enjoy touching them. 531. Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was creepy, uncomfortable, and unnerving to Hatch. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 84 of 371 #: 2071 85 532. Hatch felt deeply embarrassed by the physical exam. 533. Hatch saw Dr. Strauss on another occasion for a rash on his chest. 534. The exam also occurred at an facility in a private room where just Dr. Strauss and Hatch were present. 535. During the exam, Dr. Strauss instructed Hatch to drop his pants. Hatch complied with this request. Similar to the first physical exam, Dr. Strauss moved his face very close to Hatch\u2019s genitals and began manipulating Hatch\u2019s testicles and penis. 536. Dr. Strauss again jammed his fingers into the cavities where Hatch\u2019s testicles drop down. 537. Dr. Strauss lingered on Hatch\u2019s genitals for what seemed like an uncomfortably long time and made Hatch feel extremely uncomfortable. 538. During other physicals and examinations for Hatch\u2019s numerous injuries, Dr. Strauss always required Hatch to drop his pants and manipulated Hatch\u2019s penis and testicles. 539. Hatch\u2019s teammates had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss, but the team made light of their experiences and joked about the exams. 540. Hatch was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 541. In retrospect, Hatch realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 542. While Hatch was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination and complained about it, Hatch did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 85 of 371 #: 2072 86 543. Hatch reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 544. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, Hatch did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 545. Even if, while Hatch was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 546. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Hatch did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 547. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Hatch would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 548. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Hatch has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse retraumatized Hatch, who suffered emotional abuse as a child. The media coverage of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse and OSU\u2019s investigation has caused repressed memories of these painful experiences to resurface. In addition, since his examinations by Dr. Strauss, Hatch has never trusted doctors and avoids them, putting his health in jeopardy. For example, not long after he had his exam with Dr. Strauss, Hatch delayed having an appendectomy and nearly died. Later on, Hatch was bitten by a tick and Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 86 of 371 #: 2073 87 unknowingly contracted Lyme disease, causing a 104-degree fever. Hatch delayed seeing a doctor for his symptoms, putting his health at such risk that, when he finally did seek treatment, he was hospitalized in intensive care ROBINSON47 549. Melvin Robinson was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s track and field team from 1980 through 1984, and received student aid in the form of a Pell Grant and athletic team benefits. 550. Robinson relied on his athletic team benefits to attend college. These benefits included paid off-campus housing, meal vouchers, athletic shoes, equipment, and sportswear, contingent on Robinson meeting academic and athletic performance requirements. 551. As a requirement of Robinson receiving team benefits staff told him that he had to see Dr. Strauss for annual team physicals, any injuries, and any other immediate medical concerns. 552. Prior to his first physical with Dr. Strauss in his freshman year, Robinson heard rumors about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations. Upperclassmen warned Robinson that Dr. Strauss was \u201ccreepy\u201d and they called him \u201cDr. Nuts\u201d because he fondled athletes during exams. One senior on the track and field team told their head coach, Frank Zubovich, that he would not see Dr. Strauss again, but the coach did nothing. 553. Robinson saw Dr. Strauss at least two or three times per year for his OSU- mandated annual physicals and for treatment of his injuries. 554. During each and every exam, Dr. Strauss told Robinson to drop his pants. Then Dr. Strauss touched Robinson\u2019s genitals, under the guise of performing a hernia check. 555. In the guise of checking for muscle and bone anomalies, Dr. Strauss also touched, 47 Melvin Robinson was previously listed as John Doe 1 in the First Amended Complaint. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 87 of 371 #: 2074 88 probed, and wrapped his arms around Robinson during examinations. 556. Dr. Strauss also commented on Robinson\u2019s athletic prowess, his defined collarbone, and his eyelashes. 557. Sometimes trainers or physical therapists witnessed Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of Robinson. 558. Even with witnesses present, Dr. Strauss touched Robinson\u2019s genitals, but he was more aggressive when witnesses were not present. 559. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams made Robinson extremely uncomfortable. Robinson thought Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was weird. 560. After the first two visits with Dr. Strauss, Robinson told Coach Zubovich that he did not want to see Dr. Strauss again. And he continued to tell his coach the same after each visit. 561. His coach did nothing. 562. Without support from the people entrusted to protect him, Robinson resorted to trying to avoid Dr. Strauss on his own. 563. He avoided seeking medical care so that he would not have to see Dr. Strauss. 564. He made sure never to complain about a groin injury or ask about sexually transmitted diseases. 565. He also tried to seek treatment at different clinics on campus. 566. Robinson\u2019s teammates also had to see Dr. Strauss several times a year. 567. No matter what the injury was, Dr. Strauss performed testicular exams on them at every opportunity. For instance, a wrist injury resulted in a testicular exam. 568. It was also known among the athletes that Dr. Strauss would try to cover any appointment an athlete made to address a sexually transmitted disease. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 88 of 371 #: 2075 89 569. Dr. Strauss commented on the students\u2019 hair, eyes, eyebrows, facial structure, and skin tone. 570. Dr. Strauss also rubbed their skin. 571. He also instructed them to make certain movements in a jockstrap, apparently so that he could ogle their bodies. For instance, he would say he had to perform a scoliosis exam and would stare at their bodies. 572. On multiple occasions, Robinson complained to his teammates about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of coaches. 573. Robinson\u2019s teammates teased each other about having to see Dr. Strauss and made jokes about trying to avoid him, in front of their coaches. 574. Sometimes a coach would promise to look into it. 575. But the coaches did nothing. 576. To Robinson\u2019s knowledge, his coaches never investigated his or his teammates\u2019 concerns. 577. Nor did the coaches take any corrective action against Dr. Strauss or attempt to ensure that others did. 578. Robinson was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 579. The students were left to fend for themselves. 580. They devised ways to reduce their exposure to Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 581. For instance, instead of turning their heads to cough during a testicular exam, they coughed directly on Dr. Strauss, hoping to force him to back away. 582. They also developed a practice called \u201cavoidance, escape, or dodge,\u201d to try to avoid Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 89 of 371 #: 2076 90 Dr. Strauss. 583. But Dr. Strauss was not the only employee who made Robinson and his teammates uncomfortable. Several of the trainers were \u201ctouchy feely\u201d with the track and field athletes. 584. Robinson and his teammates tried to avoid those trainers because of the way the trainers touched them. He and his teammates also felt that those trainers would protect Dr. Strauss at the expense of the athletes. 585. Robinson and many of his friends were black athletes from the inner city, dependent on their scholarships and team benefits for their educations. 586. They felt terrified of losing their scholarships and team benefits if they complained about Dr. Strauss\u2019 or the trainers\u2019 conduct. 587. They felt that Dr. Strauss and the trainers were untouchable. 588. Until seeing news coverage of the investigation in June or July of 2018, Robinson did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of him and his teammates were sexually abusive. 589. This is because, while Robinson attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of their coaches, the coaches continued to require him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss for examinations and treatment, and Robinson reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 590. In addition, Coach Zubovich\u2019s unconcerned reaction to his and his teammates complaints about Dr. Strauss did not give Robinson any reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. Indeed, when Robinson and some of his teammates raised Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 90 of 371 #: 2077 91 questions about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, the coaches\u2019 reactions served to reinforce Robinson\u2019s reasonable belief that further inquiry would not be productive. In any event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. 591. In short, until hearing media reports in June or July of 2018, about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Robinson did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 592. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Robinson would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 593. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Robinson has suffered emotional and psychological damages. The media coverage of OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse has caused repressed memories of Robinson\u2019s experience with Dr. Strauss to resurface and has caused Robinson to relive those painful incidents. Robinson has been further traumatized by learning about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, OSU\u2019s knowledge about the abuse, and OSU\u2019s failure to take appropriate action to stop it while Robinson was a young student at WELLS48 594. Douglas Wells was a student at OSU\u2019s main campus in the fall quarter of 1983. 595. Coaching staff at encouraged Wells to try out for the track and field team. 596. As he was training to try out for the team, Wells sustained a hamstring injury. 597. Some athletes at suggested that Wells see Dr. Strauss because Dr. Strauss was OSU\u2019s team physician. 48 Douglas Wells was previously listed as John Doe 22 in the First Amended Complaint. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 91 of 371 #: 2078 92 598. To the best of his recollection, Wells scheduled an appointment with Dr. Strauss through the Student Health Center. 599. Wells was 18 years old when he was examined by Dr. Strauss. 600. On the date of the appointment, Dr. Strauss took Wells into a private examination room either at the Student Health Center or Larkins Hall. Only Wells and Dr. Strauss were in the room. 601. Wells told Dr. Strauss that he was having pain in his hamstring. 602. Dr. Strauss told Wells to disrobe from the waist down and to lie down on a table. 603. Wells followed Dr. Strauss\u2019 instructions. 604. Dr. Strauss started the examination by rubbing Wells\u2019s torso and buttocks. 605. Wells thought the manner in which Dr. Strauss was rubbing him was strange. Wells had a hamstring injury before and other medical professionals had never rubbed him in that way. 606. Wells felt that Dr. Strauss was rubbing him in a sexual way. The \u201cmassage\u201d lasted for a prolonged period, which made the \u201cexamination\u201d even more uncomfortable. 607. Dr. Strauss then began brushing up against Wells\u2019s penis and testicles. 608. Dr. Strauss took Wells\u2019s penis and testicles in his hands and began touching and manipulating them. 609. Dr. Strauss also inserted his finger into Wells\u2019s anus. 610. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the examination. 611. Wells was alarmed that Dr. Strauss was touching his genitals and inserting his finger into Wells\u2019s anus. He asked Dr. Strauss, \u201cDo you understand that am here for my hamstring?\u201d 612. Dr. Strauss responded that he was required to examine Wells\u2019s whole body. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 92 of 371 #: 2079 93 613. The examination lasted approximately 15 minutes, most of which was not focused on Wells\u2019s hamstring. 614. At the end of the examination, Dr. Strauss told Wells to do some hamstring stretches. Based on the way Dr. Strauss examined him, Wells was surprised by Dr. Strauss\u2019 recommended course of action. 615. Wells felt that the examination was very strange, but he did not know what to do. Wells grew up in a small, Ohio town and thought his reaction might have been from his own naivet\u00e9. 616. Wells thought he could trust Dr. Strauss, as OSU\u2019s team doctor. Wells was too embarrassed to say anything about Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior. 617. Wells never sought treatment from Dr. Strauss again. 618. In fact, Wells was so uncomfortable with the interaction, and felt so vulnerable, that he left main campus and finished his education at a satellite campus in Lima, Ohio. 619. Wells also quit athletics because he did not want to get another physical from Dr. Strauss or any team physician, for that matter. Wells feared that his experience with Dr. Strauss would always be on his mind, and he did not think he could handle putting himself through that again. 620. Although Wells felt extremely uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination and thought Dr. Strauss was strange, he did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him. 621. In fact, Wells questioned himself and his perception of the examination. 622. Wells was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 93 of 371 #: 2080 94 623. In retrospect, Wells realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 624. While Wells was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, Wells did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 625. Wells reasonably believed that would not have permitted Dr. Strauss to examine him and student-athletes unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 626. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, Wells did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 627. Even if while Wells was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 628. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Wells did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 629. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Wells would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 630. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Wells has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, Wells was so unnerved by his interaction Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 94 of 371 #: 2081 95 with Dr. Strauss that he left OSU\u2019s main campus and quit athletics altogether out of fear of being abused during required physicals. Wells also delayed all medical treatment for ten years after his examination with Dr. Strauss, believing that it would be easier to deal with pain or illness than the possibility of being abused by a physician. To this day, Wells struggles with the psychological trauma of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to protect him, including struggling with bouts of depression which required treatment by a psychiatrist. He relives his experience with Dr. Strauss whenever he gets medical treatment. He has also experienced severe anxiety, anger issues, and suicidal thoughts. He has suffered from sleep and eating disorders as well as sexual dysfunction. The effects of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse have negatively affected his relationship with his wife and children 631. James Khalil was a student at from 1989 to 1994, and a member of OSU\u2019s club hockey team during that time. Khalil tried out for OSU\u2019s varsity hockey team in 1990 and 1991. 632. Dr. Strauss often hung around OSU\u2019s varsity hockey team. 633. One day in 1991, Dr. Strauss approached Khalil in the locker room. Khalil had just finished skating at his hockey tryouts. Dr. Strauss told Khalil that he needed to undergo a physical; no one else had told Khalil about this. Khalil recalls that it wasn\u2019t a medical day or an assigned day when the athletes were meant to have exams done. Khalil also recalls believing that Dr. Strauss was requiring him to submit to the exam and that he did not have the choice to refuse it. 634. Dr. Strauss and Khalil were alone in the locker room\u2014all other athletes had cleared out by then. 635. Dr. Strauss instructed Khalil to pull down his pants. Khalil complied, and Dr. Strauss began fondling Khalil\u2019s testicles without gloves on. He rubbed his thumb up and down Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 95 of 371 #: 2082 96 Khalil\u2019s penis. Khalil was horrified. Dr. Strauss then abruptly ended the exam. 636. Khalil was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 637. Until learning in early 2018 about an investigation into allegations that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused student-athletes, Khalil did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examinations of him or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 638. Until hearing reports in 2018, Khalil had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014 in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 639. Even if, while a student at OSU, Khalil had tried to inquire into OSU\u2019s role in permitting Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 640. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Khalil would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 641. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it and other instances of abuse, Khalil has suffered long-lasting emotional and psychological harm. Khalil quit pursuing varsity hockey at after Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam, even though the coaches told him that he would likely have made the team if he tried out again. Quitting his pursuit of varsity hockey at negatively affected his goal of playing in the National Hockey League and his coaching prospects. He also lost his opportunity to obtain an athletic scholarship from OSU. For years after his encounter with Dr. Strauss, Khalil was also anxious about getting medical examinations and avoided seeing doctors. To this day, he still reacts emotionally whenever he has to see a doctor. Khalil has also struggled with intimacy in his romantic relationships as a result of the sexual abuse Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 96 of 371 #: 2083 97 he experienced at 642. Hugh Dyer was a student at from 1996 to 1998, and a member of OSU\u2019s cheerleading team during that time. He attended on a full athletic scholarship for cheerleading. Dyer dropped out of shortly after his junior year and transferred to Columbus State University. 643. Dyer was heavily recruited by OSU. He attended the University of Cincinnati for his freshman year of college. After Dyer\u2019s participation in the Opening Ceremony of the 1996 Summer Olympics recruited Dyer to join its cheerleading team. He completed his sophomore and junior years of college at OSU. 644. Dyer relied upon his full athletic scholarship to attend college. 645. Dyer was examined by Dr. Strauss on three occasions while a student at OSU. He was a sophomore when he saw Dr. Strauss for the first time. 646. In 1996, Dyer saw Dr. Strauss for a physical in a private exam room in Larkins Hall. 647. Dr. Strauss instructed Dyer to take off all his clothes and stand. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool at eye-level with Dyer\u2019s genitals and conducted a genital exam. Using both hands, he rubbed Dyer\u2019s penis and testicles for a prolonged time. He attempted to stimulate Dyer by rubbing his scrotum and moving his middle finger towards Dyer\u2019s anus. Dr. Strauss asked Dyer how it felt, and also instructed him to \u201crelax.\u201d He told Dyer to turn his head and cough. He gazed at Dyer\u2019s body with admiration stating, \u201cYou\u2019re so athletic, your body has perfect symmetry, your body\u2019s beautiful.\u201d 648. While Dr. Strauss was examining Dyer, he put his mouth very close to Dyer\u2019s penis. Dyer interpreted this as Dr. Strauss attempting to perform oral sex on Dyer. Dyer pulled away so Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 97 of 371 #: 2084 98 that Dr. Strauss could not put his mouth on his penis. 649. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct made Dyer very uncomfortable, and Dyer recalls that the exam was not like any other hernia check he had before. 650. After seeing Dr. Strauss, Dyer told Assistant Coach Eddie Hollins that the exam was \u201cweird,\u201d and that he thought Dr. Strauss was \u201cdefinitely gay.\u201d Hollins laughed off Dyer\u2019s remarks, and asked if Dyer enjoyed it. 651. Dyer was scheduled for another appointment with Dr. Strauss, this time for an injured knee. At the second appointment, Dr. Strauss asked Dyer to get completely naked. Dr. Strauss conducted an exam of Dyer\u2019s genitals, rubbing his penis and testicles for a prolonged time, while asking \u201cHow does that feel?\u201d and commenting on Dyer\u2019s penis, \u201cOh, that\u2019s so pretty and beautiful.\u201d Again, Dr. Strauss moved his mouth close to Dyer\u2019s penis, this time more aggressively than during the first exam. Dyer clenched his fists, pulled away from Dr. Strauss, and stormed out of the exam. 652. Dyer\u2019s teammates had similar uncomfortable experiences with Dr. Strauss. The teammates made light of their experiences and joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams. 653. Dyer recalls that Dr. Strauss would often hang around him and his teammates, lingering about and following up with them for no particular reason. 654. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of Dyer was part of a larger culture of sexual abuse within athletics. 655. During a summer 1996 recruitment trip, an cheerleading coach brought Dyer and another recruit to his house. He gave Dyer and the other recruit ecstasy and ketamine and took them to gay clubs. Later that evening, Dyer witnessed the coach sexually assaulting the other recruit. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 98 of 371 #: 2085 99 656. Throughout Dyer\u2019s time at OSU, coaches regularly pushed drugs on male cheerleaders and attempted to have sex with them, regardless of their sexual orientation. 657. Shortly after the end of his junior year, unable to withstand the environment any longer, Dyer transferred from to Columbus State University. 658. Dyer was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss or others and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 659. Until learning in early 2019 about an investigation into allegations that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused student-athletes, Dyer did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examinations of him or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 660. Until hearing reports in 2019, Dyer had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 661. This is because, in Dyer\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 genital examinations were a running joke among players, trainers, coaches, and administrators. In addition, Coach Hollins\u2019s unconcerned reaction to his complaint about Dr. Strauss did not give Dyer any reason to investigate what was doing or failing to do. Indeed, when Dyer raised his concerns about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, Coach Hollins\u2019s reaction served to reinforce Dyer\u2019s reasonable belief that further inquiry would not be productive. 662. Even if, in 1996, Dyer had tried to inquire into OSU\u2019s role in permitting Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information, and, through its trainers, coaches, and administrators, treated complaints about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations as matters of no real concern. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 99 of 371 #: 2086 100 663. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Dyer would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 664. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it and other instances of abuse, Dyer has suffered emotional and psychological harm. He dropped out of because he could not bear to be on campus anymore, and he failed to obtain a college degree. As a result of his experiences, Dyer also developed discomfort towards gay men, which he did not feel prior to his time at OSU. He fears for his daughter, and does not feel comfortable sending her away for college. Dyer also suffers from anxiety and has not been able to participate in certain meaningful social experiences, like attending games, because of his ongoing trauma 665. Jerrold Solomon was a student at from 1984 to 1988, and a member of OSU\u2019s tennis team from 1985 to 1986. 666. Dr. Strauss abused Solomon in fall of 1985, during a pre-season physical. 667. As a member of OSU\u2019s tennis team, Solomon was required to get mandatory pre- season physicals. He went with the tennis team to a facility on OSU\u2019s campus and waited in line for a urine test. He was then pulled into a private room with Dr. Strauss. 668. Solomon was alone with Dr. Strauss in the exam room. 669. Dr. Strauss asked Solomon to remove his shorts and underwear. Dr. Strauss then touched, fondled, and \u201cplayed with\u201d Solomon\u2019s penis for a long period of time. 670. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the exam. 671. Solomon was in shock. Solomon wondered whether Dr. Strauss targeted him because he thought Solomon was gay and muscular. 672. Solomon stormed out of the exam, outraged and dripping in sweat because of the stress, anxiety, and trauma caused by Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 100 of 371 #: 2087 101 673. He decided that he would never go back to see Dr. Strauss again. 674. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam made Solomon feel uncomfortable, confused, and ashamed. He never discussed the exam with anyone. He never heard his teammates ever discuss or joke about Dr. Strauss, and did not know at the time that Dr. Strauss had abused other student-athletes. 675. Solomon was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 676. Until learning in early 2019 about an investigation into allegations that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused student-athletes, Solomon did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examinations of him or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 677. Until hearing reports in 2019, Solomon had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 678. Even if, in 1985, Dr. Solomon had tried to inquire into OSU\u2019s role in permitting Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information, and, through its trainers, coaches, and administrators, treated complaints about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations as matters of no real concern. 679. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Solomon would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 680. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it and other instances of abuse, Solomon has suffered long-lasting emotional and psychological harm. Solomon quit the tennis team after playing just one year, in part, because of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and because he knew he would have to see Dr. Strauss again to stay on the team. For many years after his treatment by Dr. Strauss, Solomon refused to get physical examinations. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse also made Solomon Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 101 of 371 #: 2088 102 question his own sexuality 681. Joseph Bechtel was a student at from 1979 through 1983, and a member of OSU\u2019s hockey team from the fall of 1979 through the fall of 1982. He quit the team in 1982. 682. Bechtel attended on a partial athletic scholarship. He relied on his partial athletic scholarship to attend college. 683. Bechtel began seeing Dr. Strauss in the fall of 1980, after contracting mononucleosis at a training camp. The appointments occurred regularly in Dr. Strauss\u2019 office, for a total of five or six appointments. Bechtel and Dr. Strauss were alone in Dr. Strauss\u2019 office during every appointment. 684. On every occasion that Bechtel saw Dr. Strauss, he was instructed by Dr. Strauss to drop his pants. Dr. Strauss would sit on a stool and bring his face very close to Bechtel\u2019s testicles. Dr. Strauss fondled Bechtel\u2019s testicles at every appointment. 685. During at least one of Bechtel\u2019s appointments, Dr. Strauss made inappropriate comments to him. Dr. Strauss told Bechtel that his master\u2019s thesis examined sperm and sperm production. 686. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams made Bechtel extremely uncomfortable, confused, and embarrassed. 687. While a student at OSU, Bechtel saw Dr. Strauss sit in the locker room after hockey games and observe the players. 688. On one occasion, Bechtel was receiving treatment in the training room when a player from the opposing team came in with a toe infection. Dr. Strauss was the doctor on call for the game. In the presence of Bechtel athletic trainers, and other bystanders, Dr. Strauss instructed the player to drop his pants, and began groping the player\u2019s penis and testicles. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 102 of 371 #: 2089 103 689. Bechtel was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. He did not inquire into how he might formally report Dr. Strauss because he feared being called a \u201cpussy,\u201d and worried that people would think he was gay. 690. Nevertheless, Bechtel told several people of Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior. When head trainer, Glade Pauly, asked him about his appointments with Dr. Strauss, Bechtel told Pauly that Dr. Strauss had touched him inappropriately. Pauly laughed off Bechtel\u2019s comments and said that one of Dr. Strauss\u2019 nicknames was \u201cDr. Feel Good.\u201d 691. At the time, Bechtel did not know that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was, in fact, sexual abuse. And even if Bechtel had understood that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct constituted sexual abuse, he had no reason to know of the role had played in facilitating the abuse. 692. Until reading news coverage of the investigation in or about April, 2018, Bechtel did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of him and his teammates were sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 693. While Bechtel was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, Bechtel did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 694. This is because, while Bechtel attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of staff, and Bechtel reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 695. In addition, head trainer Glade Pauly\u2019s unconcerned reaction and laughter in response to Bechtel\u2019s comments about Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate touching reinforced Bechtel\u2019s Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 103 of 371 #: 2090 104 reasonable belief that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was not sexual abuse. Mr. Pauly\u2019s reaction also demonstrated to Bechtel that pursuing the matter would not be productive, and would only lead to his being ostracized. 696. In short, until seeing news coverage in or about April, 2018, about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Bechtel did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 697. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Bechtel would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 698. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Bechtel has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, Bechtel is suspicious of all medical professionals and often fears for the safety of his children, who are all athletes. Bechtel feels has had to pass his fear and distrust of others down to his children so that he and his children can feel safe. After recently learning that Dr. Strauss reportedly abused at least hundreds of students after Bechtel\u2019s examinations, Bechtel is devastated that he did not stop Dr. Strauss. As a result, Bechtel has experienced extreme anger and feelings of guilt. Bechtel is seeking counseling to address these issues 699. Michael Murphy was a student at from 1987 through 1990, and a member of OSU\u2019s track and field team during that time. He was recruited by to be a pole vaulter, and attended college on a partial academic scholarship. 700. Murphy relied on his scholarship to attend college. 701. Murphy transferred from to the United States Naval Academy in 1990. 702. In 1987, Murphy won a scholar athlete award. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 104 of 371 #: 2091 105 703. Dr. Strauss first examined Murphy in 1987, during a pre-season physical. 704. As a member of OSU\u2019s track and field team, Murphy was required to have a physical with Dr. Strauss. The physical was scheduled by a member of OSU\u2019s staff. 705. The physical took place at the French Field House. 706. Dr. Strauss instructed Murphy to remove his pants and underwear. Dr. Strauss then walked behind Murphy and reached around to feel Murphy\u2019s penis and testicles. The excessive fondling lasted several minutes; Dr. Strauss was apparently trying to give Murphy an erection. 707. Dr. Strauss also asked Murphy to remove his shirt during the physical. Dr. Strauss examined Murphy\u2019s upper body, and complimented Murphy on his physical fitness, telling Murphy words to the effect that he was \u201creally solid,\u201d \u201cbuilt well,\u201d and that it was clear Murphy could \u201clift a lot of weight.\u201d 708. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam made Murphy feel very uncomfortable, embarrassed, and confused. However, while he thought the exam was strange, he did not realize that it was wrong or sexually abusive. 709. While at OSU, Murphy severely injured his hamstring and required medical treatment. This time, Murphy was examined by Dr. Strauss at the Student Health Center. 710. Dr. Strauss told Murphy to lay face down on the examination table. Dr. Strauss then proceeded to give Murphy a rectal exam, explaining that he needed to examine him for tissue damage. Dr. Strauss applied lubricant and penetrated Murphy\u2019s rectum with his finger. He moved in and around Murphy\u2019s rectum for about thirty seconds or so. Murphy believed that Dr. Strauss was attempting to give Murphy an erection. 711. Murphy was shocked and horrified, and resolved never to see Dr. Strauss for an appointment again. However, Murphy did not realize that he had been sexually abused at the time. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 105 of 371 #: 2092 106 712. Murphy\u2019s teammates had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss, but the teammates made light of their experiences and joked about the exams. They openly joked in front of coaches\u2014including head track coaches Frank Zubovich and Russ Rodgers, and assistant track coaches Roger Bowen and Tom Doyle\u2014and trainers that examinations with Dr. Strauss were a \u201ctouchy/feely\u201d experience, and warned each other to \u201cwatch out for Strauss.\u201d 713. Dr. Strauss frequently showed up at the track team\u2019s practices and took photos of the pole vaulters shirtless. Dr. Strauss told the student-athletes that he was an amateur photographer, and encouraged Murphy and his teammates to go to his house to look at the photos he\u2019d taken of them. Murphy never went to Dr. Strauss\u2019 house. 714. Murphy was never made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 715. Murphy did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 716. In retrospect, Murphy realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned of OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 717. This is because, while Murphy attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of staff, and Murphy reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 718. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, Murphy did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 106 of 371 #: 2093 107 719. This is because, in Murphy\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was common knowledge among trainers and coaches, but none of them seemed particularly concerned about it. 720. In any event, even if, while Murphy was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 721. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Murphy did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 722. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Murphy would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 723. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Murphy has suffered emotional and psychological damages. Murphy suffered from depression while at OSU. After seeing Dr. Strauss for his hamstring injury, Murphy quit the pole vaulting team at the end of the season. Shortly after quitting the team he dropped out of OSU. Without his scholarship, he had limited financial resources; as a result, he enrolled in the Naval Academy because it provided a free education, though Murphy did not believe at the time that the Naval Academy would be a good fit for him. It was not; he dropped out of the Naval Academy without obtaining a college degree. Murphy believes that if had provided him a doctor that gave him legitimate medical treatment, instead of fondling him, he would have continued to pole vault for and would have become a college graduate. This thought continues to haunt Murphy and cause him mental anguish. Moreover, Murphy has extreme anxiety about receiving medical treatment due to his experiences with Dr. Strauss. As a result, in the decades since Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, Murphy has Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 107 of 371 #: 2094 108 avoided routine medical exams and rarely visits the doctor. When he recently was examined by a doctor, he had flashbacks to Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams and felt very anxious. Since the public announcement about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, Murphy has felt very upset and anxious, which has affected his personal relationships 724. John David Faler was a student at from 1982 through 1985 and was an lifeguard from 1984 through 1985. 725. Faler usually served as a lifeguard at the diving pool and competitive swimming pool in Larkins Hall. 726. After his shifts as a lifeguard, Faler would sit on the bleachers behind the pools. 727. In January or February of 1985, while Faler sat on the bleachers, Dr. Strauss repeatedly approached Faler to try to strike up a conversation. 728. During these discussions, Dr. Strauss repeatedly asked Faler whether he had any medical issues. At first, Faler replied \u201cno.\u201d After several days of having the same exchange, Faler finally told Dr. Strauss he had a wart on his foot. Dr. Strauss offered to treat the wart. Faler accepted the offer. 729. Dr. Strauss took Faler to what Faler believed was his office in Larkins Hall. Faler had not been to this office before. 730. Before Dr. Strauss looked at Faler\u2019s foot, Dr. Strauss asked Faler if he had had a physical, to which Faler responded he did not need one. 731. Dr. Strauss\u2019 treated the wart with a freezing agent. After the first treatment, Dr. Strauss told Faler to come back in a week or two to continue the treatment. 732. Faler returned to see Dr. Strauss in the same office three to four times for the same treatment until, eventually, the wart was gone. On each occasion, Dr. Strauss would ask to give Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 108 of 371 #: 2095 109 Faler a physical. Faler kept saying no, except that, on the last visit, Dr. Strauss insisted \u201cwe need to do a physical.\u201d Faler said \u201cOK,\u201d even though he still did not think he needed a physical. 733. During this last visit, in January or February of 1985, Dr. Strauss told Faler to pull down his shorts and Faler complied. Dr. Strauss was sitting down on stool with his face inches away from Faler\u2019s testicles. Dr. Strauss then began to grope, tap, and fondle Faler\u2019s testicles for an extended period of time. 734. Faler does not recall Dr. Strauss wearing gloves during this \u201cphysical.\u201d 735. Dr. Strauss\u2019 touching made Faler feel uncomfortable. 736. Although Faler felt that something was odd about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, Faler was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 737. Faler now realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him. At the time, however, he did not realize that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him. He did not know or have reason to know this until after OSU\u2019s 2018 investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 738. While Faler was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, Faler did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 739. Until after OSU\u2019s 2018 investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss, Faler did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students and athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 740. In any event, even if, while Faler was an student, he had tried to inquire further Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 109 of 371 #: 2096 110 into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 741. In short, until learning about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Faler did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 742. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Faler would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 743. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, Faler has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, he is now more cynical and protective of his children and is suspicious of doctors in general. Faler also suffers from lingering anger issues with his spouse 149 744. John Doe 1 was a student at from 1992 to 1997. 745. In 1993 or 1994, John Doe 1 called OSU\u2019s Student Health Center to set up an appointment to check a lump on his testicle. 746. Student Health recommended that John Doe 1 see Dr. Strauss, which he did. 747. At the beginning of the exam, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 1 to drop his pants and underwear, and provided no gown or other piece of clothing. John Doe 1 complied with this instruction and stood naked while Dr. Strauss looked at him. 748. Dr. Strauss then walked up to John Doe 1, removed his exam gloves and said can feel you better this way.\u201d 49 John Doe 1 was previously listed as John Doe 29 in Plaintiff\u2019s First Amended Complaint. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 110 of 371 #: 2097 111 749. With ungloved hands, Dr. Strauss began manipulating John Doe 1\u2019s testicles and penis. Dr. Strauss kept one hand on John Doe 1\u2019s penis while he felt John Doe 1\u2019s testicles. 750. Dr. Strauss touched and manipulated John Doe 1\u2019s genitals for an uncomfortable length of time. Strauss started his exam by facing John Doe 1 from the front, but then proceeded to approach and manipulate him from behind, never removing his grip from John Doe 1\u2019s penis. 751. Dr. Strauss continued to grip John Doe 1\u2019s penis and started to pull and manipulate his penis in a stroking fashion. Dr. Strauss said words to the effect want your penis to get erect because it makes it easier for me to feel you for any abnormalities.\u201d Dr. Strauss succeeded in causing John Doe 1\u2019s penis to become erect. As he was becoming erect, John Doe 1 felt as though he would vomit, and a tremendous amount of shame. 752. As Dr. Strauss was gripping and stroking John Doe 1\u2019s penis with one hand, his other hand slid down the crack of John Doe 1\u2019s buttocks, and kept it pressed against him. The stroking lasted an extremely uncomfortable length of time. 753. John Doe 1 found the exam very upsetting and felt that Dr. Strauss had violated him, but did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. As a heterosexual male, he questioned why this had happened to him and asked himself, \u201cWhat is wrong with me?\u201d 754. John Doe 1 felt emotionally and psychologically ill about the exam, enough to immediately discuss the exam with his roommate. John Doe 1, however, only reported few details about the exam to his roommate because he felt ashamed and did not want his roommate to think differently of him. Until recently, this was the only time John Doe 1 discussed the exam with anyone. 755. While John Doe 1 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt upset and violated by Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 1 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 111 of 371 #: 2098 112 did not understand that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 756. John Doe 1 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss a doctor at Student Health, and directed him and other students to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 757. John Doe 1 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 758. In retrospect, John Doe 1 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. Indeed, learning of OSU\u2019s investigation was the trigger that enabled John Doe 1 to recognize that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination was sexually abusive. 759. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 1 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students had complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 760. Even if, while John Doe 1 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 761. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 1 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 762. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 112 of 371 #: 2099 113 abuse, John Doe 1 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 763. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 1 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. Though John Doe 1 has tried for years to bury his memories of Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam, he has relived the exam every single day. It has caused John Doe 1 to experience shame and embarrassment, and other negative emotions he cannot describe, causing him emotional and social problems over many years for which he is just now seeking treatment. While at OSU, John Doe 1\u2019s experience with Dr. Strauss also negatively affected his studies. Learning about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct has retraumatized John Doe 1 and caused him to confront the emotions he has tried to bury for years 250 764. John Doe 2 was an undergraduate student at from 1990 to 1995. 765. While a student at OSU, John Doe 2 was examined by Dr. Strauss at least three times at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center. John Doe 2 first visited the Center in 1990 for evaluation of a possible sexually transmitted infection (\u201cSTI\u201d). He was given an appointment with Dr. Strauss. 766. At each examination, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 2 to remove all of his clothing and lie down on the exam table. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves at any examination. 767. At the first visit, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 2 to drop his pants and underwear and remain standing. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool in front of John Doe 2 and placed his face directly near John Doe 2\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss repeatedly fondled John Doe 2\u2019s penis, pulling it in multiple directions. 50 The person who was listed as John Doe 2 in Plaintiffs\u2019 First Amended Complaint is no longer represented by the undersigned counsel, as described in the Motion to Substitute, see Dkt. 109, and his allegations have been removed from this Second Amended Complaint. In his stead, we have renamed as new Plaintiff John Doe 2. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 113 of 371 #: 2100 114 768. Much to his humiliation, John Doe 2 got an erection. 769. After examining John Doe 2\u2019s genitals, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 2 to remove his remaining clothing and lay down on the exam table. 770. Dr. Strauss then examined John Doe 2\u2019s anus. Dr. Strauss inserted at least one finger into John Doe 2\u2019s anus and massaged John Doe 2\u2019s prostate. John Doe 2 once again got an erection. 771. Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination took a long time, and he spent at least twenty minutes, or more, examining John Doe 2\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 2 to return to his office for follow-up appointments. 772. At each follow-up appointment, Dr. Strauss subjected John Doe 2 to a similar routine. He instructed John Doe 2 to remove all of his clothing, and he began fondling John Doe 2\u2019s penis until it was erect. 773. During each appointment, John Doe 2 was alone in the exam room with Dr. Strauss. 774. John Doe 2 felt extreme confusion, shame, and helplessness as a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions. 775. John Doe 2 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. He did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 776. John Doe 2 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. He reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss a university doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 777. John Doe 2 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was sexually abusive until after OSU\u2019s 2018 investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 114 of 371 #: 2101 115 harmed him. 778. In any event, even if, while John Doe 2 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 779. This is because, while John Doe 2 was an student, he trusted that would not employ a sexual abuser in its Student Health Center. He reasonably believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was part of a legitimate medical examination and blamed himself for his emotional and physical reaction to the exam. Though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 2 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 780. In short, John Doe 2 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse until after OSU\u2019s 2018 investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 781. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 2 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 782. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 2 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. He felt a great deal of shame, embarrassment, and confusion after his interactions with Dr. Strauss. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse caused John Doe 2 to experience sexual dysfunction to the point that he is unable to maintain an intimate relationship or start a family. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse has also impaired John Doe 2\u2019s ability to maintain healthy and stable personal relationships. Since the abuse, John Doe 2 has had difficulty being social with others. He is afraid to go to the doctor and hasn\u2019t seen a physician in years. Since learning about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, John Doe 2 has thought about and relived the abuse nearly daily, causing him Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 115 of 371 #: 2102 116 to feel isolated, stressed, and angry. He feels worthless and powerless when he thinks about what happened to him, and he has been suffering depressive symptoms, including periodic suicidal ideation, as a result. John Doe 2 has seen a therapist to help him process his emotions; even with that assistance, he still struggles every day. John Doe 2 feels angry and betrayed by as an institution for allowing Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse to continue unchecked 3 783. John Doe 3 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s tennis team from 1984 through 1989. 784. Upon arriving as a freshman at OSU, John Doe 3 quickly learned that Dr. Strauss was notorious for the way he touched athletes during medical exams. Upperclassmen on the tennis team called Dr. Strauss \u201cDr. Nuts\u201d and \u201cDr. Balls\u201d because of his seemingly intrusive examinations and his insistence on performing testicular exams on the athletes regardless of their injury or illness. 785. John Doe 3 was subjected to his first \u201cexamination\u201d by Dr. Strauss when he was only 17 years old. He was shocked by it. No prior medical examination had ever made him feel so uncomfortable. 786. He continued to have to see Dr. Strauss multiple times a year over the next four years for his annual OSU-required physicals, as well as for medical treatment of his illnesses and injuries when Dr. Strauss was the assigned physician at the Health Center\u2019s open clinic hours. John Doe 3 estimates that Dr. Strauss sexually assaulted him dozens of times. 787. No matter the reason for the visit, Dr. Strauss always required John Doe 3 to remove his pants and underwear. Dr. Strauss then performed a purported \u201ctesticular exam,\u201d in which he groped John Doe 3\u2019s testicles and penis for an extended period of time and stared at his genitals. Dr. Strauss had a distinct, creepy smile on his face during each examination of John Doe 3. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 116 of 371 #: 2103 117 788. These \u201ctesticular exams\u201d sometimes lasted for 15-20 minutes. 789. When John Doe 3 was treated at the Health Center, Dr. Strauss usually had training staff assist him. On occasion, these training staff observed Dr. Strauss perform the unwarranted 15-20 minute testicular exams on John Doe 3. 790. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams made John Doe 3 extremely uncomfortable, confused, and embarrassed. He did not know whether there was a medical purpose to Dr. Strauss\u2019 touching. 791. And he did not know what to do about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, particularly because he was a minor when the abuse began. 792. As a result, John Doe 3 did not make a formal report to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. But he regularly discussed Dr. Strauss\u2019 \u201ccreepy\u201d behavior and uncomfortable exams with other tennis players, in front of staff. 793. John Doe 3 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 794. Until reading news coverage of the investigation in or about April, 2018, John Doe 3 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of him and his teammates were sexually abusive. 795. While John Doe 3 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 3 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 796. This is because, while John Doe 3 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of staff, and John Doe 3 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 117 of 371 #: 2104 118 797. In addition staff\u2019s unconcerned reaction to his and his teammates\u2019 comments about Dr. Strauss did not give John Doe 3 any reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. Indeed, the staff\u2019s reactions served to reinforce John Doe 3\u2019s reasonable belief that pursuing the matter would not be productive. In any event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. 798. In short, until reading news coverage in or about April, 2018, about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 3 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 799. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 3 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 800. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 3 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 3 experiences feelings of dread every time he has to see a doctor for medical care. While at OSU, John Doe 3 had hemorrhoids for which he refused to see Dr. Strauss, the only physician made available to him. This caused John Doe 3 to have several uncomfortable treatments to resolve his hemorrhoids issue later in life. John Doe 3 has a hernia for which he has not sought treatment because of his anxiety with doctors. He has also has put off having a vasectomy because of anxiety over seeing a doctor for a procedure relating to his genitalia. John Doe 3 has also had difficulty sleeping and coping with the anxiety he experiences each time he hears news involving Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of students. John Doe 3 is currently receiving treatment once per month from a psychiatrist who has told him that his current anxiety issues are related to the sexual trauma he suffered at the hands of Dr. Strauss. Among other issues, John Doe 3\u2019s anxiety has resulted in skin problems from Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 118 of 371 #: 2105 119 picking at his skin every day, and is especially triggered when he hears news about or Dr. Strauss, or this lawsuit. John Doe 3\u2019s psychiatrist has prescribed medications for his anxiety and to help him sleep, and has also recommended an emotional support dog to help him cope with his trauma and anxiety 4 801. John Doe 4 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s tennis team from 1982 through 1986, and had a full athletic scholarship. 802. John Doe 4 relied on his scholarship to attend college. 803. John Doe 4\u2019s coach, John Daly, required John Doe 4 to get an annual physical with Dr. Strauss to continue playing with the team and receiving his scholarship. 804. Before his first physical with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 4 heard rumors from other student-athletes about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, including that Dr. Strauss was a creep and fondled the athletes\u2019 testicles. 805. John Doe 4 had annual physicals with Dr. Strauss in the doctor\u2019s Larkins Hall office three of his four years at OSU. 806. Coach Daly scheduled John Doe 4\u2019s physicals with Dr. Strauss and told John Doe 4 when to go. 807. During these physicals, Dr. Strauss made inappropriate comments, including \u201cdrop your trousers\u201d and \u201clet\u2019s see what we\u2019re working with.\u201d John Doe 4 felt that Dr. Strauss spent an unnecessarily long time \u201cexamining\u201d his genitals. Dr. Strauss also made sexual moaning sounds while examining John Doe 4\u2019s genitals. 808. During John Doe 4\u2019s first physical his freshman year, Dr. Strauss held John Doe 4\u2019s penis and said that it was a good size. He then held John Doe 4\u2019s foreskin and commented about John Doe 4 being uncircumcised. Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 4 if John Doe 4 had any issues Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 119 of 371 #: 2106 120 \u201cwith this.\u201d John Doe 4 understood Dr. Strauss to be asking about his sexual performance. John Doe 4 said he did not have any issues. Dr. Strauss continued to hold John Doe 4\u2019s penis and foreskin for a prolonged time. John Doe 4 became increasingly uncomfortable. He gave Dr. Strauss an irritated look, at which point Dr. Strauss released John Doe 4\u2019s penis. 809. John Doe 4\u2019s physicals with Dr. Strauss were unlike any physical John Doe 4 had undergone previously or since then. 810. Each year at OSU, John Doe 4 tried to avoid getting his annual physical because he felt uncomfortable about the way Dr. Strauss touched his genitals. He did not know whether there was a medical purpose to Dr. Strauss\u2019 touching during the physicals. 811. John Doe 4 felt very uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct after his first physical. In his sophomore year, John Doe 4 told Coach Daly that he did not want to attend any additional physicals with Dr. Strauss. Coach Daly said the physical with Dr. Strauss was mandatory, not a choice. 812. Each year, Coach Daly told John Doe 4 that he had to get his physical with Dr. Strauss or he would not be able to continue playing at OSU. 813. John Doe 4 feared that his scholarship would be at risk if he did not comply with Coach Daly\u2019s instructions. 814. Coach Daly often joked and laughed about sending tennis players, including John Doe 4, to see Dr. Strauss as punishment. 815. Coach Daly also threatened tennis players that, if they did not do what he told them, he would send them to Dr. Strauss and \u201cyou\u2019re gonna get groped.\u201d 816. Other tennis players often joked that Dr. Strauss would be particularly excited for John Doe 4\u2019s physical because John Doe 4 was known to be \u201cwell-endowed.\u201d These comments Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 120 of 371 #: 2107 121 were made in Coach Daly\u2019s presence on numerous occasions. 817. Other tennis players hated being treated by Dr. Strauss. They often teased each other about having to see Dr. Strauss, in front of Coach Daly and team trainers. 818. To John Doe 4\u2019s knowledge, Coach Daly did not follow up on John Doe 4\u2019s complaints about Dr. Strauss, or take any corrective action against Dr. Strauss or ensure that others did. 819. John Doe 4 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 820. Until hearing media reports in June or July of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into sexual abuse by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 4 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of him and his teammates were sexually abusive. 821. While John Doe 4 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 4 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 822. This is because, while John Doe 4 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of Coach Daly, Coach Daly continued to require him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss for examinations and treatment, and John Doe 4 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 823. In addition, Coach Daly\u2019s unconcerned reaction to his and his teammates\u2019 complaints and comments about Dr. Strauss did not give John Doe 4 any reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. Indeed, Coach Daly\u2019s reactions served to reinforce John Doe 4\u2019s reasonable belief that pursuing the matter would not be productive. In any Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 121 of 371 #: 2108 122 event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. 824. In short, until hearing media reports in June or July of 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 4 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 825. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 4 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 826. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 4 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. John Doe 4 now feels significant stress when his children must attend medical appointments. Because of Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions, he fears for their safety whenever they have to see a medical professional. As a result, he is extremely protective of them before and during any medical appointment, to the point of causing his children frustration and irritation 5 827. John Doe 5 was a member of OSU\u2019s tennis team from 1986 through 1990, and had a partial athletic scholarship and Pell Grant. 828. John Doe 5 relied on his scholarship and grant to attend college. 829. John Doe 5 saw Dr. Strauss for his annual physicals. He also saw Dr. Strauss approximately four times per year for medical treatment, including one occasion on which he had mononucleosis. 830. No matter the reason for John Doe 5\u2019s appointment, including when John Doe 5 had mononucleosis, Dr. Strauss always performed a genital exam on him. Dr. Strauss\u2019 hands lingered on John Doe 5\u2019s penis and testicles for what felt like an uncomfortable amount of time. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 122 of 371 #: 2109 123 During the exams, Dr. Strauss also looked at John Doe 5\u2019s penis and testicles from every angle. 831. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct made John Doe 5 very uncomfortable. 832. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct made John Doe 5 so uncomfortable that, in his senior year, he purposely did not shower prior to his physical with Dr. Strauss, so that he would smell bad and Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam might be shorter. 833. John Doe 5 also saw Dr. Strauss for the removal of a wart on his penis. After the removal, Dr. Strauss required three follow-up visits that John Doe 5 felt were unnecessary. 834. John Doe 5 did not want to continue receiving his physicals and medical treatment from Dr. Strauss, but felt he had to do so or would risk losing his scholarship and his ability to play on OSU\u2019s tennis team. 835. John Doe 5 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 836. John Doe 5\u2019s teammates joked about the way Dr. Strauss touched their genitals during examinations. 837. Until 2018, when he learned through a former teammate about media coverage of OSU\u2019s investigation into sexual abuse by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 5 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of him and his teammates were sexually abusive. 838. While John Doe 5 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 5 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 839. This is because, while John Doe 5 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, Coach Daly required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss for examinations and treatment, and John Doe 5 reasonably believed that would not have made Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 123 of 371 #: 2110 124 Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 840. As a result, John Doe 5 had no reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. In any event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. 841. In short, until 2018, when John Doe 5 spoke with a former teammate and saw media coverage about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 5 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 842. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 5 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 843. Because of his experiences with Dr. Strauss, which failed to prevent, John Doe 5 is leery of doctors and does not want to see a doctor for any reason. He has to get screened frequently for prostate cancer because it runs in his family, and he finds the screening very difficult. When John Doe 5 has to have surgery, he instructs medical staff to put him to sleep because he \u201cdoesn\u2019t want to know what happens.\u201d 844. Now a tennis teacher, John Doe 5 enforces a no-touch policy with his students, because of the unchecked abuse by Dr. Strauss 6 845. John Doe 6 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s soccer team from 1984 through 1986. 846. John Doe 6 saw Dr. Strauss three to four times per year, for three years, for annual physicals and medical treatment. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 124 of 371 #: 2111 125 847. No matter the reason for John Doe 6\u2019s visit, Dr. Strauss always told him to drop his pants and then spent what seemed like an inordinate amount of time touching John Doe 6\u2019s penis and testicles. 848. John Doe 6 was too embarrassed and ashamed to report his discomfort about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations. 849. John Doe 6 felt that he had to return again and again to Dr. Strauss because required annual physicals. 850. John Doe 6 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain to about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 851. Until seeing media reports in the spring of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into sexual abuse by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 6 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of him were sexually abusive. 852. While John Doe 6 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 6 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 853. This is because, while John Doe 6 attended required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss for examinations and treatment, and John Doe 6 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 854. As a result, John Doe 6 had no reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. In any event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 125 of 371 #: 2112 126 855. In short, until seeing media reports in the spring of 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 6 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 856. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 6 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 857. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 6 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 6 is extremely uncomfortable in locker rooms and doctors\u2019 offices. His body tenses during medical exams, and he feels stressed and anxious when his genitals are examined 7 858. John Doe 7 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s tennis team from 1982 through 1986, and had a full athletic scholarship. 859. John Doe 7 depended on his full scholarship to attend college. 860. As a requirement of receiving his scholarship, John Doe 7 had to get an annual physical from Dr. Strauss. This is something his coach, John Daly, told John Doe 7 he had to do. 861. John Doe 7 also had to see Dr. Strauss to obtain medical treatment for illnesses and injuries, regardless of the nature of the ailment. 862. For example, Coach Daly instructed John Doe 7 to see Dr. Strauss for a broken ankle during his freshman year. John Doe 7 felt at the time that it was strange for him to see Dr. Strauss for a broken ankle because he needed to see an orthopedic specialist. 863. Coach Daly also directed John Doe 7 to see Dr. Strauss whenever John Doe 7 was sick with the flu. 864. During each of John Doe 7\u2019s medical appointments, Dr. Strauss touched John Doe Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 126 of 371 #: 2113 127 7\u2019s penis and testicles in a way that felt like groping. 865. Regardless of the reason for the visit, Dr. Strauss would tell John Doe 7 to drop his trousers and turn around. Dr. Strauss would then examine John Doe 7\u2019s genitals, without wearing medical gloves. 866. Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations made John Doe 7 extremely uncomfortable. 867. But because Dr. Strauss was a physician, and John Doe 7 was so young, he was too scared during his freshman and sophomore years to question Dr. Strauss about his exams. 868. Eventually, in his junior year, John Doe 7 asked Dr. Strauss why his examination of John Doe 7\u2019s genitals was taking so long and asked, \u201cAre we done?\u201d at least three times during Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam. Dr. Strauss ignored John Doe 7\u2019s questions and continued the \u201cexam\u201d with a smirk on his face. 869. During these appointments, Dr. Strauss would always ask John Doe 7 about his tennis matches, seemingly to prolong his time with John Doe 7. 870. On several occasions, John Doe 7 asked Dr. Strauss, \u201cAre you done now? Can get dressed now?\u201d to end the exam. 871. John Doe 7 felt very uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations and told Coach Daly that he did not want to be treated by Dr. Strauss anymore. 872. Coach Daly told John Doe 7 that he had to see Dr. Strauss or else he could not play tennis at and could lose his athletic scholarship. 873. John Doe 7 was afraid to complain further because he relied on his scholarship to go to school and was therefore afraid to \u201cmake waves.\u201d 874. John Doe 7 tried to put off his annual physicals with Dr. Strauss, but Coach Daly forced him to go. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 127 of 371 #: 2114 128 875. John Doe 7 grew so uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct that he avoided seeking medical care when he was sick and instead tried to treat himself. For example, when John Doe 7 had the flu, he would buy over-the-counter medication from a drugstore and try to recover on his own, rather than risk another examination by Dr. Strauss. 876. Coach Daly threatened tennis players, including John Doe 7, with having to see Dr. Strauss. 877. Coach Daly regularly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in the presence of team members and training staff. Coach Daly would say things like, \u201cWork hard or you will be sent to Dr. Strauss.\u201d 878. Some players called Dr. Strauss a \u201cweirdo\u201d and often discussed his unorthodox conduct in front of Coach Daly. Coach Daly just laughed. 879. To John Doe 7\u2019s knowledge, Coach Daly did not follow up on John Doe 7\u2019s or any other players\u2019 concerns about Dr. Strauss. Nor did Coach Daly take any corrective action against Dr. Strauss or ensure that others did. 880. John Doe 7 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain to about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 881. Until learning in the spring of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 7 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of him and his teammates were sexually abusive. 882. While John Doe 7 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 7 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 128 of 371 #: 2115 129 883. This is because, while John Doe 7 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of Coach Daly, Coach Daly continued to require him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss for examinations and treatment, and John Doe 7 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 884. In addition, Coach Daly\u2019s unconcerned reaction to his and his teammates\u2019 complaints and comments about Dr. Strauss did not give John Doe 7 any reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. Indeed, Coach Daly\u2019s reactions served to reinforce John Doe 7 and his teammates\u2019 reasonable belief that pursuing the matter would not be productive. In any event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. 885. In short, until learning in the spring of 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 7 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 886. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 7 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 887. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 7 has suffered emotional and psychological damages, including fear of sending his children to college and their participating in athletics. John Doe 7 also feels embarrassed and isolated from his former teammates and fellow alumni due to the ridicule that has accompanied OSU\u2019s investigation 8 888. John Doe 8 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s lacrosse team from 1984 through 1988. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 129 of 371 #: 2116 130 889. While John Doe 8 was a student-athlete at coaches required him and his teammates to have annual physicals. 890. John Doe 8 received four annual physicals from Dr. Strauss between 1984 and 1988, all done in the fall semester. 891. John Doe 8 was 19 years old when he had his first physical examination with Dr. Strauss. 892. The physicals occurred in the training room at the North Facility on OSU\u2019s campus. 893. John Doe 8 and his teammates were instructed to line up single-file in the training room in the North Facility. 894. The coaching staff, including Head Coach Fred Koval, remained in the North Facility while the athletes received their examinations in the training room. 895. John Doe 8 and his teammates lined up face-to-back, leading all the way up to Dr. Strauss in the training room. 896. Dr. Strauss performed a physical on each athlete, but, because of the way Dr. Strauss had the athletes lined up, they could not see the examinations done on their teammates. 897. During each of John Doe 8\u2019s physical examinations with Dr. Strauss, Dr. Strauss manipulated John Doe 8\u2019s penis, moving it up and down several times, telling him it was for a \u201chernia check.\u201d 898. Dr. Strauss also instructed John Doe 8 to cough and turn his head repeatedly. 899. Dr. Strauss performed several \u201cpinky checks\u201d during the exams, where he placed his pinky on the sides of John Doe 8\u2019s scrotum and seemed to linger for an extended period of time. 900. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the examinations. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 130 of 371 #: 2117 131 901. Upperclassmen advised fellow teammates to limit their time with Dr. Strauss because of the way Dr. Strauss touched their bodies, including their genitalia, during physical examinations. 902. John Doe 8 was very uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 physicals and wondered whether they were medically appropriate, but he felt lucky to be able to play lacrosse at Defendant and did not feel that he could inform coaching staff without jeopardizing his athletic career at OSU. As a result, he \u201cpowered through\u201d his discomfort with Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams. 903. In addition to receiving annual physicals from Dr. Strauss, John Doe 8 once received treatment from Dr. Strauss for an on-the-field injury during a game at Ohio Stadium in the spring of 1987. 904. John Doe 8 required sutures to his face as a result of the injury. 905. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 8 to meet him alone in the locker room at Ohio Stadium after the game for further examination. 906. During the examination, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 8 to go to the shower in the locker room to clean out his facial wound. 907. While John Doe 8 showered in the locker room and was still wiping off his face, he turned around and realized that Dr. Strauss was watching him shower from the entrance to the showers, and Strauss had one hand in his pants. 908. John Doe 8 asked Dr. Strauss if the wound was clean enough, and Dr. Strauss responded, \u201cYes, that\u2019s good.\u201d Then, Dr. Strauss took John Doe 8 to a different floor from the locker room to suture John Doe 8\u2019s facial wound. 909. Even though Dr. Strauss only needed to suture John Doe 8\u2019s facial wound, while John Doe 8 was prone on the table, Dr. Strauss began a torso examination. He started with John Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 131 of 371 #: 2118 132 Doe 8\u2019s upper chest, working down John Doe 8\u2019s torso to his waist, when John Doe 8 interrupted him. 910. This was not the first or only time that Dr. Strauss watched the lacrosse players, including John Doe 8, while they showered in the locker room. 911. It was well known among the athletes that, after most practices, Dr. Strauss would watch the team shower and try to engage the players in conversation while they prepared to shower or after they exited the shower. 912. Dr. Strauss often made comments about the physical appearance of student athletes, advising one athlete that he had \u201cnice pecs.\u201d 913. Dr. Strauss was known among teammates as \u201cDr. Jelly Finger.\u201d 914. John Doe 8 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure for complaining about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, nor does he believe had such process in place while he attended OSU. 915. Until seeing media reports in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into sexual abuse by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 8 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of him were sexually abusive. 916. While John Doe 8 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 8 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 917. This is because, while John Doe 8 attended required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss for examinations and treatment, and John Doe 8 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 132 of 371 #: 2119 133 918. As a result, John Doe 8 had no reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. In any event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. 919. In short, until seeing news coverage in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 8 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 920. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 8 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 921. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 8 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 8 lost trust in adults, authority figures, and people with professional accreditation. He is also suspicious of the motives of any medical professional and does not trust doctors 9 922. John Doe 9 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s gymnastics team from 1991 through 1995, and received a three-fourths athletic scholarship. 923. John Doe 9 was heavily recruited by OSU. He attended because he believed had the best gymnastics program in the country and he liked the camaraderie and energy of the campus. 924. While John Doe 9 was a student-athlete at OSU, the athletic department required him to be examined by Dr. Strauss for annual physicals and for any medical conditions that arose. 925. John Doe 9 estimates that he was subjected to sexual abuse and harassment by Dr. Strauss 10 to 12 times over the course of his four years at OSU. 926. Prior to John Doe 9\u2019s first physical, other student-athletes joked about the rookies Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 133 of 371 #: 2120 134 having to see \u201ctouchy feely\u201d Dr. Strauss and said, \u201cGood luck.\u201d 927. John Doe 9 was an 18-year-old freshman the first time that Dr. Strauss sexually abused him. The abuse occurred in the guise of an annual physical examination that he and his teammates were required to have. 928. During that first visit, Dr. Strauss called John Doe 9 back to a private room in Larkins Hall for the annual physical. John Doe 9 was alone in the room with Dr. Strauss. 929. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 9 to take all of his clothes off. John Doe 9 complied and stood naked in the middle of the room. 930. Dr. Strauss was sitting on a stool with wheels and scooted over to John Doe 9. Dr. Strauss immediately started fondling and cupping John Doe 9\u2019s testicles and stroking his penis at the same time, as if he were trying to cause John Doe 9 to get an erection. Dr. Strauss was not wearing gloves. 931. When John Doe 9 did not become aroused, Dr. Strauss started to further manipulate his penis by turning it various directions. 932. Dr. Strauss placed his hands on John Doe 9\u2019s buttocks and spun his chair around John Doe 9. 933. Dr. Strauss then spread John Doe 9\u2019s buttocks to look at John Doe 9\u2019s anus. 934. During the course of the \u201cexamination,\u201d John Doe 9 began to understand the upperclassmen\u2019s jokes about Dr. Strauss. 935. John Doe 9 began hyperventilating and felt like he was having an out-of-body experience. 936. Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 9 the same way each time John Doe 9 saw him, whether it was for a physical examination, a dislocated finger, an allergic reaction, or a back Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 134 of 371 #: 2121 135 fracture. 937. After the first exam in 1991, John Doe 9 developed serious anxiety issues. At the time he did not recognize his symptoms as anxiety. He told Dr. Strauss at the end of an exam about how he had been feeling. Dr. Strauss prescribed Klonopin, a strong drug treatment for anxiety and depression. The medication seriously affected his mental and physical state. John Doe 9 felt numb, \u201clike a zombie,\u201d while taking the medication and slept much more than normal. John Doe 9\u2019s roommates asked him what was wrong with him. 938. Each time John Doe 9 saw Dr. Strauss, his blood pressure would rise and he would start to shake uncontrollably. 939. The physical examinations caused John Doe 9 such distress that, when he returned home during a break in the 1994-1995 school year, he saw his primary care physician and spoke with the physician about the way Dr. Strauss conducted John Doe 9\u2019s examinations. 940. The primary care physician told John Doe 9 that Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions were inappropriate and not medically necessary. The physician wrote a note seeking to excuse John Doe 9 from further physicals by Dr. Strauss. 941. When John Doe 9 returned to OSU, he gave the note to Dr. Strauss. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 9 that the note would not be honored by because had its own set of guidelines for student-athletes. Dr. Strauss said that John Doe 9 was required to have a physical done by Dr. Strauss. 942. John Doe 9 felt defeated by this response and felt forced to submit to yet another physical by Dr. Strauss. Dr. Strauss subjected him to the same type of groping and physical manipulation of his genitalia as he had done during prior physicals. 943. After that physical in the 1994-1995 school year, John Doe 9 gave the physician\u2019s Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 135 of 371 #: 2122 136 note to his athletic trainer, Vince O\u2019Brien, in the hope that the athletic department would excuse him from any further contact with Dr. Strauss. 944. O\u2019Brien advised John Doe 9 that he would be in the room with John Doe 9 to monitor any future physicals he got from Dr. Strauss. 945. Because of an injury that sidelined him from participating in gymnastics, John Doe 9 did not get another physical from Dr. Strauss during his remaining time at OSU. 946. John Doe 9\u2019s teammates regularly discussed the way Dr. Strauss touched their genitals during physical examinations. They noted that Dr. Strauss gave John Doe 9 exams more often than other athletes and looked and spoke to John Doe 9 differently from other athletes. They began calling John Doe 9 \u201cStrauss\u2019 favorite.\u201d 947. In addition to providing physicals to members of the gymnastics team while John Doe 9 attended OSU, Dr. Strauss regularly showered with the gymnastics team and lingered in the locker room while the athletes showered. Dr. Strauss had his own locker in the gymnastics team\u2019s locker area. Sometimes Dr. Strauss would go shower with the wrestling team after showering with the gymnastics team. 948. It was not unusual for random adult males who were not athletes to shower with the team at Larkins Hall. On one occasion in 1994 or 1995, John Doe 9 recalls that an unknown adult male entered the shower with the team. The adult male began slowly masturbating while he watched the athletes shower. John Doe 9 was disgusted and immediately left the shower area. 949. On one occasion, in September of 1993, Dr. Strauss approached John Doe 9 after John Doe 9 had just left the locker room shower wearing only a towel. 950. Dr. Strauss started asking John Doe 9 about his sex life and said, \u201cLet me take a Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 136 of 371 #: 2123 137 look.\u201d 951. Dr. Strauss got down onto his knees, removed John Doe 9\u2019s towel from around his waist, and began examining his testicles. Dr. Strauss once again cupped John Doe 9\u2019s testicles and rubbed his penis. John Doe 9 got an erection and felt confused by what was happening. Dr. Strauss then turned John Doe 9\u2019s body around, placed his hands on John Doe 9\u2019s buttocks and grabbed John Doe 9\u2019s scrotum. He turned John Doe 9\u2019s body back to the front and saw that John Doe 9 still had an erection and was showing pre-ejaculate. Dr. Strauss began stroking John Doe 9\u2019s penis in an attempt to make John Doe 9 ejaculate. John Doe 9 almost passed out from the shock. 952. John Doe 9 grabbed Dr. Strauss by the shoulders and said, \u201cThat\u2019s enough.\u201d 953. In or about 1994, Dr. Strauss started photographing John Doe 9 performing various gymnastics moves. Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 9 to pose for him while Dr. Strauss took the photographs and seemed to get sexually stimulated during the process. Dr. Strauss later developed these photographs and delivered them to John Doe 9. 954. While John Doe 9 was at OSU, he was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 955. In or about 1997, after John Doe 9 had graduated from OSU, John Doe 9\u2019s former athletic trainer, Vince O\u2019Brien, told him that was going to hold a hearing on Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. O\u2019Brien asked John Doe 9 if he would testify against Dr. Strauss. 956. Because of the psychological damage caused by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 9 declined to participate in the hearing. He did not want to re-live his experience or face Dr. Strauss again. 957. John Doe 9 does not know if the hearing into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct ever occurred or how the matter resolved. 958. Some years later, when John Doe 9 was walking in Santa Monica, California\u2014 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 137 of 371 #: 2124 138 where he had moved to get far away from and his experience with Dr. Strauss\u2014Dr. Strauss appeared shirtless, from out of nowhere. Dr. Strauss tried to put his arm around John Doe 9 when greeting him, but John Doe 9 immediately began hyperventilating and told Dr. Strauss never to touch him again. 959. In 2018, when John Doe 9 saw media reports about Dr. Larry Nassar\u2019s sexual abuse of female gymnasts, he started to feel anxious, anticipating that it would not be long before Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuses were publicized. 960. His fears were confirmed after announced in April, 2018, that it was investigating allegations of sexual abuse by Dr. Strauss. 961. However, until hearing media reports in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation, John Doe 9 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive examinations of him or that other athletes had complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse before Dr. Strauss had abused John Doe 9. 962. Until hearing these media reports in 2018, John Doe 9 had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 963. This is because John Doe 9 believed, and had reason to believe, that had responded adequately to his 1995 complaint about Dr. Strauss\u2019 physical examinations. Through an athletic trainer told John Doe 9 he would never have to undergo an unchaperoned examination by Dr. Strauss again. In addition, in 1997, a trusted athletic trainer told John Doe 9 that was holding a hearing on Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. 964. Based on OSU\u2019s response to his complaint about Dr. Strauss and OSU\u2019s subsequent representations about a hearing to address Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 9 did not have any reason to investigate what was doing or failing to do regarding allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 138 of 371 #: 2125 139 Indeed, further inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 965. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 9 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 966. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 9 has suffered physical, emotional and psychological damages. 967. For example, since experiencing abuse by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 9 cannot seek medical treatment without suffering from severely elevated blood pressure. His blood pressure once got so high during a physical examination that he had to undergo an echocardiogram to confirm that he did not have heart problems and was suffering from \u201cwhite coat syndrome.\u201d Since graduating from OSU, John Doe 9 also has had to take prescription anti-anxiety medication before any medical appointment to prevent an anxiety attack during the appointment. 968. In addition, because of the high blood pressure he now suffers during physical exams, John Doe 9 had to undergo a series of tests and overcome other obstacles to obtain life insurance coverage. 969. Since experiencing abuse by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 9 has developed a phobia of doctors and medical examinations, particularly when he has to disrobe. Seeing doctors causes John Doe 9 severe stress and anger. 970. John Doe 9 also had to live with the consequences of the medication Dr. Strauss prescribed to him for anxiety Dr. Strauss himself was causing. Before being prescribed Klonopin, John Doe 9 was upbeat, energetic, and optimistic. After taking Klonopin, John Doe 9 became listless and uninterested in engaging with the world. He only wanted to stay inside, sleep, and be alone. He was afraid of loud noises. The effects of Klonopin had a negative impact on his studies and training. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 139 of 371 #: 2126 140 971. After graduating from OSU, John Doe 9 suffered from regular panic attacks and claustrophobia, which have continued to the present. John Doe 9 also suffers from PTSD. These symptoms have negatively impacted John Doe 9\u2019s professional life, including his earnings. He was unable to travel by plane for years due to his claustrophobia and he has trouble managing his anger at work. He has only recently been able to travel by plane by taking a beta blocker medication and traveling with a companion. He has suffered professionally because he has had to turn down the opportunity to run corporate events, retreats, trainings, and workshops that would require him to travel alone by plane. 972. John Doe 9 has had problems controlling his emotions and anger over Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, because he has struggled with whether he could have done more to stop the abuse. Since learning that other students and athletes complained about Dr. Strauss long before John Doe 9 was abused, and even a few years afterwards, and that ignored and covered up the abuse, John Doe 9\u2019s emotions and anger have intensified and have impacted his work and family life 10 973. John Doe 10 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s fencing team from 1991 through 1994. 974. While John Doe 10 was a student-athlete at OSU, the athletic department required him and his teammates to have annual physical examinations. 975. The team\u2019s physical exams were done at Larkins Hall. The coaching staff and athletic trainer told team members the day they would get their physicals by the team physician, Dr. Strauss. John Doe 10 and his teammates would go to Larkins Hall during the allotted time frame for physicals. The athletic trainers would get basic information from each team member, then team members were called one-by-one into a private room with Dr. Strauss. 976. John Doe 10 received his first physical from Dr. Strauss in the fall of 1991, when Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 140 of 371 #: 2127 141 John Doe 10 was 19 years old. 977. When it was John Doe 10\u2019s turn for a physical, he entered the private room. He was alone with Dr. Strauss. 978. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 10 to disrobe. John Doe 10 did as he was told, and Dr. Strauss began commenting on John Doe 10\u2019s collar bones. 979. Dr. Strauss had John Doe 10 stand naked in the middle of the room, while Dr. Strauss straddled a chair directly in front of John Doe 10\u2019s crotch. 980. John Doe 10 asked Dr. Strauss why he was sitting that close to his crotch. Dr. Strauss replied: \u201cSo that am in a vulnerable position, so that if try anything you are in control.\u201d 981. John Doe 10 was stunned by Dr. Strauss\u2019 response and could not process what was going on or what Dr. Strauss meant by that comment. 982. Dr. Strauss then began to touch and manipulate John Doe 10\u2019s testicles and penis. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves. 983. Dr. Strauss kept his face right next to John Doe 10\u2019s penis while moving his penis up and down. 984. Dr. Strauss had a wolfish grin on his face as he touched John Doe 10\u2019s penis and testicles. 985. John Doe 10 was terrified and froze. 986. After the physical, John Doe 10 spoke to his teammates about the experience. 987. The teammates with more experience said, \u201cYep, price of being on the team\u201d and \u201cWe\u2019ll all go through it. It\u2019s over now.\u201d 988. After his first physical, John Doe 10 told athletic trainer Vince O\u2019Brien about how inappropriate it seemed. O\u2019Brien asked John Doe 10 what Dr. Strauss did that did not seem Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 141 of 371 #: 2128 142 medically necessary. John Doe 10 tried to explain what happened, and O\u2019Brien said he would follow up with Dr. Strauss. 989. John Doe 10 does not know whether O\u2019Brien followed up with Dr. Strauss or anyone else. But Dr. Strauss remained the team physician for the remainder of John Doe 10\u2019s tenure at OSU. 990. John Doe 10 received three additional physicals with Dr. Strauss while at OSU. Each physical was the same. 991. John Doe 10 also saw Dr. Strauss dozens of times for various injuries or illnesses. Dr. Strauss examined and touched his genitals every time, even if John Doe 10 went in for allergies. 992. In or about 1993 or 1994, John Doe 10 went to the training room after he had dislocated his shoulder. Dr. Strauss took John Doe 10 back to his private office. 993. When in the private office, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 10 to remove his shirt and drop his pants so he could check for a hernia. 994. Dr. Strauss did the same examination on his genitals as he had done on prior occasions, all while John Doe 10\u2019s shoulder was hanging out of its socket. 995. After Dr. Strauss stopped touching his penis and testicles, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 10 to go back to the training room, where Dr. Strauss rolled John Doe 10\u2019s shoulder back in place. 996. There were several occasions when John Doe 10 went to the training room for medical treatment, saw that Dr. Strauss was on duty, then waited until the next day to receive medical treatment from another doctor. 997. On one occasion, John Doe 10 bruised his foot during practice, saw that Dr. Strauss was in the locker room and, instead of seeking immediate treatment, continued playing until Dr. Strauss left, then advised training staff of his injury. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 142 of 371 #: 2129 143 998. John Doe 10 also witnessed Dr. Strauss watching male athletes as they showered in Larkins Hall. 999. Sometimes Dr. Strauss sat naked by the water fountain for about an hour-and-a- half, watching the athletes as they went in and out of the showers. On other occasions, Dr. Strauss stood at the entrance to the showers\u2014sometimes naked and other times clothed\u2014watching the athletes as though he was a wolf and the students were sheep. 1000. On one occasion in 1991 or 1992, when John Doe 10 was showering in the locker room by himself, Dr. Strauss came into the shower and stood directly next to him, even though there were several open shower heads not directly next to John Doe 10. 1001. Dr. Strauss turned on the water but did not wash himself. He stood within three feet of John Doe 10 and just stared at John Doe 10\u2019s crotch. 1002. John Doe 10 felt trapped, as Dr. Strauss had placed himself between John Doe 10 and the door. 1003. John Doe 10 turned off the water, grabbed a towel, pointed to his eyes, and said, \u201cMy eyes are up here.\u201d John Doe 10 left and never showered at Larkins Hall again. Instead, he went home sweaty and smelly so he could take a shower by himself and avoid being ogled by Dr. Strauss. To this day, John Doe 10 is extremely uncomfortable using a public shower. 1004. After the shower incident, John Doe 10 was on high alert whenever Dr. Strauss was around. He made sure he was never alone with Dr. Strauss and always took special note of where the exits were when Dr. Strauss was near. 1005. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during examinations and at the locker room showers was common knowledge among his teammates and athletic trainers, as fencing team members talked openly about this while trainers were present. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 143 of 371 #: 2130 144 1006. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during examinations and at the showers made John Doe 10 exceedingly uncomfortable. He felt that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was inappropriate, but he did not realize Dr. Strauss\u2019 treatment of him and his teammates constituted sexual abuse and harassment. 1007. While he was a student at OSU, John Doe 10 did not know what to do about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct and he felt that he was not in a position to do anything. 1008. John Doe 10 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1009. In retrospect, John Doe 10 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and all of his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1010. After launched an investigation in 2018, athletes who participated on the fencing team after John Doe 10 told John Doe 10 that Dr. Strauss had abused them. 1011. After launched an investigation in 2018, another fencing team member told John Doe 10 that fencing Coach Charlotte Remenyik had tried to get administrators to investigate Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, but her complaints were ignored. 1012. While John Doe 10 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 10 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. The fact that did not take action after John Doe 10 told O\u2019Brien about his concerns further led John Doe 10 to believe Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1013. John Doe 10 reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor, and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 144 of 371 #: 2131 145 examinations were legitimate. 1014. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 10 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1015. This is because, in John Doe 10\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was common knowledge among athletes and trainers, but none of them seemed particularly concerned about it. 1016. In any event, even if, while John Doe 10 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1017. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 10 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1018. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 10 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 10 has delayed getting needed medical treatment and suffers anxiety when using public showers 11 1019. John Doe 11 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s wrestling team from 1978 through 1981. 1020. To participate on the wrestling team required John Doe 11 to get an annual physical. 1021. Head Coach Chris Ford told John Doe 11 and his teammates that they were required to get their physicals and medical treatment from Dr. Strauss. 1022. The coaching and/or training staff scheduled annual physicals and medical appointments for John Doe 11. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 145 of 371 #: 2132 146 1023. John Doe 11 received his first physical from Dr. Strauss in 1978, when John Doe 11 was 18 years old. 1024. The physical examination was done in Larkins Hall, in a private room near the training area. 1025. John Doe 11 was alone with Dr. Strauss throughout the examination. 1026. During the physical, Dr. Strauss touched John Doe 11\u2019s testicles and the sides of his penis for a prolonged period of time. 1027. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves. 1028. After the physical, John Doe 11 learned that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during physical examinations was common knowledge. His teammates discussed Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct in front of the wrestling coaches while they were in the locker room. John Doe 11\u2019s teammates joked about having to go see Dr. Strauss, saying things like, \u201cUh oh, you have to see the doctor.\u201d 1029 required John Doe 11 to see Dr. Strauss for two additional physicals, one in 1979 and the other in 1980. 1030. Both of those physicals were like the first one. Dr. Strauss touched John Doe 11\u2019s penis and testicles for a prolonged period of time, without wearing gloves. 1031. Sometime between 1978 and 1981, John Doe 11 also saw Dr. Strauss for stomach issues. During that examination, Dr. Strauss pulled down John Doe 11\u2019s pants, but John Doe 11 pulled them back up to stop Dr. Strauss from touching his genitals as he had done during annual physicals. 1032. While John Doe 11 was a student-athlete at OSU, he also saw Dr. Strauss showering with the wrestlers after practice. His coaches and teammates treated this as an uncomfortable joke. 1033. John Doe 11 stopped showering at Larkins Hall because Dr. Strauss made him so Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 146 of 371 #: 2133 147 uncomfortable. 1034. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during examinations and at the showers made John Doe 11 very uncomfortable. He did not realize that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. 1035. While he was a student at OSU, John Doe 11 did not know what to do about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct and he felt that he was not in a position to do anything. 1036. John Doe 11 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1037. In retrospect, John Doe 11 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know, or have reason to know this until approximately June or July of 2018, when he learned through television news coverage about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1038. While John Doe 11 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 11 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1039. John Doe 11 reasonably believed that that would not have required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1040. Until learning in approximately June or July of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 11 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 147 of 371 #: 2134 148 1041. This is because, in John Doe 11\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was common knowledge among the coaches, but none of them seemed particularly concerned about it. 1042. In any event, even if, while John Doe 11 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1043. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 11 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss multiple times. 1044. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 11 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, because John Doe 11 had suffered sexual abuse as a child, Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse retraumatized him. 1045. Because of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent or stop it, John Doe 11 developed alcohol and drug dependencies, could not sleep or control his anger, became mean- spirited, and ultimately dropped out of before graduating 12 1046. John Doe 12 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s golf team during the 1994-1995 academic year, and had a partial athletic scholarship. 1047. To participate on the golf team required John Doe 12 to see Dr. Strauss for a physical examination. 1048. Before the 1994 golf season began, Coach Jim Brown took the entire golf team into a large room so they could get their required physicals. Coach Jim Brown greeted Dr. Strauss, and then left the team with Dr. Strauss. 1049. Dr. Strauss called each athlete into a separate, private examination room. 1050. John Doe 12 was 18 years old when he saw Dr. Strauss for his physical examination. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 148 of 371 #: 2135 149 1051. Dr. Strauss called John Doe 12 into the private examination room and was alone with Dr. Strauss throughout the examination. 1052. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 12 to take his pants off, and John Doe 12 complied. 1053. Dr. Strauss then began to physically manipulate John Doe 12\u2019s testicles and penis. It appeared as though Dr. Strauss was trying to arouse John Doe 12. 1054. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the examination. 1055. Dr. Strauss also placed his face very close to John Doe 12\u2019s genitals for a prolonged period of time. 1056. After the examination, John Doe 12 wondered whether he had been abused by Dr. Strauss, but felt that he had to give Dr. Strauss the benefit of the doubt because he was a renowned physician and endorsed him as the team physician. He was not sure whether there was a medical purpose to Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination. 1057. John Doe 12 was embarrassed and angry after the physical examination. He felt that he could not voice his concerns to because of Dr. Strauss\u2019 position with the university. 1058. John Doe 12 also felt too embarrassed to discuss the physical with his teammates, but saw other teammates leaving Dr. Strauss\u2019 private examination room with what appeared to be similar looks of distress and anxiety. 1059. During the golfing season, John Doe 12 badly sprained his ankle. John Doe 12 played through the pain and did not tell the coaching staff because he did not want to be forced to seek treatment from Dr. Strauss 1060. John Doe 12 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 149 of 371 #: 2136 150 1061. After the 1994-1995 school year, John Doe 12 transferred to another university for reasons that included his abusive encounter with Dr. Strauss. 1062. In retrospect, John Doe 12 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this, until learning from news coverage in approximately July of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of sexual abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1063. While John Doe 12 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 12 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1064. John Doe 12 reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1065. Until learning in approximately July of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 12 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014 had harmed him. 1066. In any event, even if, while John Doe 12 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1067. In short, until learning in approximately July of 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 12 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 150 of 371 #: 2137 151 had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1068. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 12 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1069. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 12 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 12 is skeptical of physicians and people generally. He has not allowed a male doctor to perform a hernia examination on him since his experience with Dr. Strauss and has, instead, had a female nurse practitioner do the exam. In addition, John Doe 12 feels like he relives the abuse he experienced during his physical with Dr. Strauss every time he gets a physical examination. John Doe 12 sought, and continues to receive, counseling for the trauma Dr. Strauss caused him 13 1070. John Doe 13 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s fencing team from the fall of 1993 through the spring of 1997. 1071. John Doe 13 chose to attend because he was part of a family of alumni. 1072. Before John Doe 13\u2019s first fencing season started, Coach Charlotte Remenyik and athletic trainer Vince O\u2019Brien told him that, to participate in athletics, John Doe 13 had to get a physical examination. 1073. The fencing team went to the football facility or Larkins Hall as a group for their annual physicals, and each teammate was called back to a private room for a physical with Dr. Strauss. 1074. John Doe 13 was 19 years old when he got his first physical from Dr. Strauss. 1075. During the examination, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 13 to take a seat in the private examination room. John Doe 13 complied, then Dr. Strauss approached him and mounted John Doe 13\u2019s thigh. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 151 of 371 #: 2138 152 1076. Dr. Strauss continued the examination in this position as he took John Doe 13\u2019s blood pressure. John Doe 13 could feel Dr. Strauss rubbing his testicles on John Doe 13\u2019s thigh. 1077. John Doe 13 immediately panicked and felt like he was frozen in place. 1078. John Doe 13\u2019s blood pressure was elevated. 1079. Dr. Strauss then instructed John Doe 13 to disrobe. 1080. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool and watched as John Doe 13 undressed. 1081. Dr. Strauss then had John Doe 13 stand directly in front of him while he remained seated on his stool. 1082. Dr. Strauss began a very intense inspection of John Doe 13\u2019s testicles and penis, inspecting every inch with ungloved hands. This inspection lasted 10 to 15 minutes. 1083. John Doe 13 felt that the inspection was very strange because John Doe 13 had not complained about anything related to his genital area before the exam started. 1084. John Doe 13 was terrified and froze during Dr. Strauss\u2019 inspection of his genitals. Dr. Strauss acted in a very clinical manner during the exam, which made John Doe 13 question his own discomfort. 1085. John Doe 13 felt lucky to have the opportunity to play a varsity sport at and did not want to risk that opportunity by complaining about Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior. 1086. However, in the fall of 1994, after Dr. Strauss performed the same type of physical examination of John Doe 13\u2019s genitals, John Doe 13 felt violated again and spoke with Coach Charlotte Remenyik about it. Coach Remenyik advised John Doe 13 that she had heard rumors about Dr. Strauss and that she would talk to someone at about his conduct. 1087. After the fall of 1994, Dr. Trent Sickles performed the fencing team\u2019s annual physicals. Dr. Sickles performed John Doe 13\u2019s annual physical in the fall of 1995. He did not ask Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 152 of 371 #: 2139 153 John Doe 13 to disrobe. After Dr. Sickles completed the physical, John Doe 13 asked him if that was everything. John Doe 13 told Dr. Sickles that Dr. Strauss had done more to him during the exam. Dr. Sickles replied that yes, the exam was finished. He did not ask John Doe 13 anything regarding John Doe 13\u2019s comment about Dr. Strauss\u2019 more extensive exam. 1088. While John Doe 13 attended OSU, he also witnessed Dr. Strauss behaving in a way that made him uncomfortable in the locker rooms at Larkins Hall. 1089. About three to four times per week, Dr. Strauss sat naked at the water fountains, pretending to read the paper. In reality, Dr. Strauss was staring at the male athletes as they showered. On some of these occasions, Dr. Strauss was naked when he ogled the athletes. 1090. Dr. Strauss was not the only voyeur. Older men often wandered around naked in the locker room, staring at the athletes. John Doe 13 felt uncomfortable in that environment and always tried to get in and out of the locker room as quickly as possible. 1091 athletes often joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior. Upperclassmen also warned rookie athletes about Dr. Strauss\u2019 physicals. 1092. John Doe 13 felt horrible about his interactions with Dr. Strauss, but believed that would not endorse Dr. Strauss as its team physician if he was acting inappropriately. Dr. Strauss was reputed to be an Olympic-level doctor and leader on research into athletes\u2019 use of steroids. 1093. Dr. Strauss\u2019 reputation, and OSU\u2019s continued employment of Dr. Strauss, made John Doe 13 question himself and feel like he was the one doing something wrong. 1094. While John Doe 13 was at OSU, he was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 153 of 371 #: 2140 154 1095. As detailed above, Coach Remenyik reported Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct with the fencing team to administrators, after hearing complaints from John Doe 13 and others. 1096. In or about 1997, while John Doe 13 was still a student at OSU, Coach Remenyik asked him if he would be willing to testify at a hearing about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. She did not offer John Doe 13 any form of anonymity. 1097. John Doe 13 was too afraid and embarrassed to participate in the 1997 hearing. He felt that he would be blamed, rather than Strauss, for what occurred during the physical examinations. 1098. John Doe 13 does not know if the hearing into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct ever occurred or how the matter resolved. He was never asked to speak to anyone else or submit any written statement regarding his complaint. 1099. In retrospect, John Doe 13 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he saw media coverage of the criminal trial of Michigan State University physician Larry Nassar and heard female gymnasts talk about how Dr. Nassar sexually abused them in the guise of providing medical care. 1100. While John Doe 13 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 13 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1101. John Doe 13 reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1102. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 154 of 371 #: 2141 155 Doe 13 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1103. This is because, in 1997, a trusted coach told John Doe 13 that was holding a hearing on Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. 1104. Based on OSU\u2019s representations about a hearing in 1997 to address Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 13 did not have any reason to investigate what was doing or failing to do regarding allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. Indeed, further inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1105. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Nassar\u2019s serial sexual abuse of gymnasts and/or Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 13 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1106. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 13 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1107. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 13 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. He developed severe anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation for years, requiring treatments such as therapy and a partial psychological hospitalization. He also developed \u201cwhite coat syndrome\u201d and consistently has high blood pressure when he sees a physician for treatment or evaluation. He experiences flashbacks to his interactions with Dr. Strauss each time his blood pressure is taken. He has been diagnosed with PTSD. John Doe 13 continues to suffer from severe anxiety. He feels anxious when alone with men in general and male physicians in particular. He is also furious that failed to take action after receiving Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 155 of 371 #: 2142 156 Coach Remenyik\u2019s complaint and instead allowed Dr. Strauss to continue to abuse people 14 1108. John Doe 14 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s soccer team from 1984 through 1987. 1109. To participate on the soccer team required John Doe 14 to get an annual physical. 1110. The soccer team\u2019s coaching staff, including Head Coach Al Blanco and Assistant Coaches Cliff Gault, John Gibson and Forola Khumeini, scheduled annual physical examinations for John Doe 14, and informed him of his assigned time slot to see Dr. Strauss for a physical. 1111. John Doe 14\u2019s physical examinations by Dr. Strauss were done in a private room in Larkins Hall. 1112. John Doe 14 received his first physical from Dr. Strauss when John Doe 14 was 18 years old. 1113. While he was a student-athlete at OSU, John Doe 14 saw Dr. Strauss four times for his annual physicals and at least four times for separate medical appointments relating to various illnesses and injuries. 1114. During each physical, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 14 to remove all of his clothes. 1115. John Doe 14 complied and remained naked for the entirety of the exams, which lasted at least twenty minutes. 1116. Dr. Strauss got on his hands and knees to perform John Doe 14\u2019s testicular exam. 1117. Dr. Strauss touched John Doe 14\u2019s penis during the exams for what seemed like an uncomfortable amount of time. 1118. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the exams. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 156 of 371 #: 2143 157 1119. Dr. Strauss also made moaning sounds during the physical exams. 1120. During the exams, Dr. Strauss commented on John Doe 14\u2019s body and sex life. 1121. Dr. Strauss performed the same type of testicular and penile exams on John Doe 14 when John Doe 14 saw Dr. Strauss for medical appointments to address injuries, including hand and ankle injuries, and illnesses, including the flu. 1122. During one of these exams, Dr. Strauss drew John Doe 14\u2019s blood for a blood test. At some point during the blood draw, John Doe 14 lost consciousness, although he does not remember how that occurred. When John Doe 14 woke up, he was lying on his back on an examination table. John Doe 14\u2019s pants and underwear were lowered halfway down his buttocks and his clothes were rumpled. He felt some discomfort in his rectal area. John Doe 14 saw Dr. Strauss standing and watching him from two to three feet away. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 14 to get dressed and he would contact John Doe 14 about the test results. John Doe 14 does not know what happened to him while he was unconscious, but he suspects he was subject to a rectal exam due to discomfort he felt in that area when he gained consciousness. John Doe 14 had never before lost consciousness during or after having his blood drawn. 1123. While John Doe 14 was a student-athlete at OSU, he also witnessed Dr. Strauss watching athletes in the locker room at Larkins Hall. 1124. Dr. Strauss often showered for extended periods of time with the athletes. He sought out John Doe 14 daily at shower time. Dr. Strauss always selected the shower closest to John Doe 14, despite there being multiple open shower heads further away from John Doe 14 and other athletes. 1125. Fellow athletes often teased John Doe 14 because Dr. Strauss seemed to pay extra attention to him during showers. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 157 of 371 #: 2144 158 1126. Dr. Strauss also took photographs of John Doe 14 at soccer events, then gave John Doe 14 the photographs before his physical exams and during soccer practices. 1127. John Doe 14\u2019s teammates commonly referred to Dr. Strauss as \u201cDr. Cough.\u201d John Doe 14 first heard this nickname in his freshman year at OSU, before his first physical with Dr. Strauss, then learned that the nickname seemed to refer to Dr. Strauss\u2019 prolonged examination of athletes\u2019 genitals during their physical exams. 1128. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during examinations and at the showers made John Doe 14 very uncomfortable. He did not realize that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. 1129. In front of coaching and training staff, John Doe 14 discussed his concerns about Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior with his teammates, including the way Dr. Strauss conducted physicals and the fact that Dr. Strauss watched the athletes shower. 1130. Upon information and belief did not take any action to address John Doe 14\u2019s concerns about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. 1131. John Doe 14 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1132. In retrospect, John Doe 14 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this, until after media reports surfaced in approximately April of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1133. While John Doe 14 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 158 of 371 #: 2145 159 14 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1134. John Doe 14 reasonably believed that that would not have required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1135. Until learning in approximately April of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 14 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014 had harmed him. 1136. This is because, in John Doe 14\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was common knowledge among trainers and coaches, but none of them seemed particularly concerned about it. 1137. In any event, even if, while John Doe 14 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1138. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 14 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1139. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 14 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1140. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 14 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 14 has avoided doctors and has self-medicated for various ailments for fear of being molested by medical professionals. He also worries regularly about his own children going to college and getting molested during Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 159 of 371 #: 2146 160 medical treatment 15 1141. John Doe 15 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s wrestling team during the 1992- 1993 academic year, when he was a freshman at OSU. 1142. Growing up in Columbus, Ohio, it had been John Doe 15\u2019s dream to wrestle for OSU. 1143. Upon joining the wrestling team, coaching staff told John Doe 15 that he was required to get a pre-season physical from Dr. Strauss. 1144. Before John Doe 15\u2019s pre-season physical, upperclassmen wrestlers made comments and told stories about Dr. Strauss to John Doe 15 and the other underclassmen wrestlers, warning them to \u201cwatch out for Dr. Strauss.\u201d 1145. John Doe 15 felt that he did not have any choice but to see Dr. Strauss, since it was a condition for participating on the wrestling team. 1146. John Doe 15 received his pre-season physical from Dr. Strauss in 1992, when John Doe 15 was 18 or 19 years old. 1147. During the physical, which was conducted in a private room, Dr. Strauss touched John Doe 15\u2019s penis and testicles in what seemed like an unusual manner. Dr. Strauss\u2019 touching made John Doe 15 feel extremely uncomfortable. 1148. During the 1992-1993 wrestling season, John Doe 15\u2019s coaches also required him to see Dr. Strauss for a shoulder injury. 1149. During the exam, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 15 to drop his pants, even though the purpose of the visit was to evaluate and treat his injured shoulder. 1150. John Doe 15 refused to drop his pants. Dr. Strauss then moved on to the shoulder examination. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 160 of 371 #: 2147 161 1151. John Doe 15 also saw Dr. Strauss two or three more times during the 1992-1993 wrestling season for draining of his \u201ccauliflower ears\u201d (a blood clot or other collection of fluid in the ears common among wrestlers at the time). During each procedure, before Dr. Strauss began to drain John Doe 15\u2019s ears, Dr. Strauss would run his hand over John Doe 15\u2019s buttocks, getting closer to his anus, and John Doe 15 would push Dr. Strauss\u2019 hand away. 1152. John Doe 15 avoided seeking medical treatment for the remainder of his time at OSU, as he felt it was better to be hurt than to see Dr. Strauss. 1153. John Doe 15 and other wrestlers commonly referred to Dr. Strauss as \u201cJelly Finger.\u201d They also called Dr. Strauss \u201cLevi Strauss,\u201d joking that he wanted to get into their pants. 1154. While John Doe 15 was a student-athlete at OSU, he also witnessed Dr. Strauss in the locker room and shower area at Larkins Hall after almost every wrestling practice. Dr. Strauss often waited in the Larkins Hall locker room when the team arrived and was the last to leave. 1155. While in the locker room, Dr. Strauss talked to and leered at the wrestlers, including John Doe 15, as they undressed and showered. John Doe 15 thought Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior in the locker room was weird and gross, and it made him extremely uncomfortable. 1156. Because of Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during examinations and in the locker room, John Doe 15 quit the wrestling team after his freshman year and eventually left before obtaining a degree. 1157. John Doe 15 felt that something about Dr. Strauss made him uncomfortable, but did not realize that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. 1158. John Doe 15 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 161 of 371 #: 2148 162 1159. In retrospect, John Doe 15 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this, until after media reports surfaced in approximately April of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1160. While John Doe 15 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 15 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1161. John Doe 15 reasonably believed that that would not have required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1162. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 15 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1163. This is because, in John Doe 15\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct in the locker room was common knowledge among trainers and coaches, but none of them seemed particularly concerned about it. 1164. In any event, even if, while John Doe 15 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1165. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 15 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 162 of 371 #: 2149 163 1166. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 15 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1167. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 15 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, he quit the wrestling team after his freshman year and did not complete his degree at or another university. John Doe 15 also suffers from lingering anxiety and anger issues 16 1168. John Doe 16 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s gymnastics team for three years, from 1989 to 1992. He was a walk-on athlete. 1169. To participate on the gymnastics team required John Doe 16 to get an annual physical. 1170. The coaching staff and trainers, including but not limited to Head Coach Peter Kormann, Assistant Coach Keith Miles Avery, and Athletic Trainer Vince O\u2019Brien, told John Doe 16 that he was required to get his annual physicals from Dr. Strauss. 1171. The physicals took place at Larkins Hall and/or the Student Health Center. 1172. John Doe 16 received his first physical from Dr. Strauss when John Doe 16 was 18 years old. 1173. Prior to his first physical, John Doe 16 heard rumors from upperclassmen about Dr. Strauss, including the use of the nickname, \u201cDr. Sticky Fingers.\u201d Upperclassmen made jokes about who was going to be Dr. Strauss\u2019 new favorite and said that if Dr. Strauss stayed \u201cdown there\u201d for more than ten seconds that \u201cyou may be it.\u201d 1174. John Doe 16 felt that he did not have any choice but to see Dr. Strauss, since it was a condition for participating on the gymnastics team. John Doe 16 was also a walk-on athlete and appreciated that a benefit of being on an athletics team was that his health care was free of Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 163 of 371 #: 2150 164 charge. 1175. While he was a student-athlete at OSU, John Doe 16 saw Dr. Strauss for an annual physical three times. 1176. During each physical, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 16 to remove all of his clothing. 1177. John Doe 16 complied and remained naked for the entirety of the exams. 1178. Once John Doe 16 was naked, Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 16\u2019s entire body, rubbing various body parts, including his testicles and penis. 1179. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during these examinations. 1180. Dr. Strauss seemed more aggressive in his examinations as each year passed, spending more time focused on John Doe 16\u2019s testicles and penis during the exams. In retrospect, John Doe 16 believes Dr. Strauss was trying to elicit an erection. 1181. During the physical examinations, Dr. Strauss made comments about John Doe 16\u2019s body, such as \u201cThe coaches must be working you hard, you have great muscle tone.\u201d 1182. While he was a student-athlete at OSU, John Doe 16 also saw Dr. Strauss approximately 10 to 15 times for various medical appointments. 1183. In the 1990-1991 school year, John Doe 16 saw Dr. Strauss because of acne on his legs. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 16 to remove all of his clothes and performed a testicular exam on John Doe 16 in the same way he had done during the prior physicals. 1184. On several occasions, John Doe 16 required treatment for poison ivy. He was highly allergic to poison ivy, so John Doe 16 needed to see Dr. Strauss to get a prescription for an ointment to treat the reaction. Each time John Doe 16 saw Dr. Strauss for poison ivy, Dr. Strauss required him to remove all his clothes and performed a testicular examination, even though the poison ivy Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 164 of 371 #: 2151 165 was only on John Doe 16\u2019s hands and arms. 1185. On one occasion, during the 1991-1992 school year, John Doe 16 contacted Dr. Strauss for ointment to treat his poison ivy. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 16 to pick up the prescription at Dr. Strauss\u2019 home and gave John Doe 16 his home address. When John Doe 16 arrived at Dr. Strauss\u2019 home, the doctor told him to come inside. Dr. Strauss had an examining table in his living room area. Before providing John Doe 16 his prescription, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 16 to remove his clothes, put them on the floor, and climb on to the examining table, so he could perform a full physical exam. This included a testicular examination. Dr. Strauss did not give John Doe 16 his prescription medication until after the examination. 1186. While John Doe 16 was a student-athlete at OSU, he frequently witnessed Dr. Strauss shower with members of the gymnastic team at Larkins Hall. Dr. Strauss stared at the athletes as they showered. 1187. In Larkins Hall, the wrestling and gymnastic teams had a locker room in the same area. There was a shared a wall between them that bordered the public shower area. Dr. Strauss kept a locker in the gymnastic team locker room. Sometimes, John Doe 16 noticed that Dr. Strauss would take a shower with the wrestling team when they finished practice, wait until the gymnastics team finished its practice, and then return to the shower soon afterwards to shower with members of the gymnastics team. 1188. Dr. Strauss often hung out in the gym area, taking photographs of the athletes as they performed. Dr. Strauss then delivered the photographs to the athletes, including John Doe 16. 1189. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during examinations and at the showers made John Doe 16 very uncomfortable. He felt something was wrong with Dr. Strauss, but did not realize that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 165 of 371 #: 2152 166 1190. John Doe 16 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1191. In retrospect, John Doe 16 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this, until he saw media reports in August of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1192. While John Doe 16 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 16 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1193. John Doe 16 reasonably believed that that would not have required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1194. Until learning in approximately August of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 16 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014 had harmed him. 1195. This is because, in John Doe 16\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was common knowledge among trainers and coaches, everyone made jokes and comments about it, and none of the trainers or coaches seemed particularly concerned about it. 1196. In any event, even if, while John Doe 16 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1197. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 166 of 371 #: 2153 167 students, John Doe 16 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1198. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 16 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1199. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 16 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 16 delays getting any medical treatment unless absolutely necessary, both for himself and his children. John Doe 16\u2019s experience with Dr. Strauss has impacted the way he views life and his ability to trust medical professionals 17 1200. John Doe 17 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s gymnastics team from 1989 through 1993. He was a highly recruited athlete and received a full athletic scholarship. 1201. John Doe 17 relied on his athletic scholarship to attend and participate on the gymnastics team. 1202. While John Doe 17 was on the gymnastics team, Peter Kormann was the head coach, Keith Miles Avery was the assistant coach, Mike Racanelli was an upperclassman, team captain and assistant coach, Bob Sweeney was an athletic trainer, and Vince O\u2019Brien was the athletic trainer in charge of the Larkins Hall training room. 1203. To participate on the gymnastics team required John Doe 17 to get an annual physical. 1204. Coaching staff and trainers told John Doe 17 when he was required to get his annual physicals from the team doctor. 1205. The team doctor during the time John Doe 17 attended was Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 167 of 371 #: 2154 168 1206. John Doe 17 and his teammates got their annual physicals done at Larkins Hall and waited in the training room until Dr. Strauss called their name. 1207. Dr. Strauss took each athlete individually, including John Doe 17, into a private room in Larkins Hall for the physical. No one besides the athlete and Dr. Strauss were in the room during the physical examinations. 1208. John Doe 17 was an 18-year-old freshman when he had his first physical examination with Dr. Strauss. 1209. Before John Doe 17\u2019s first physical, he recalls upperclassmen joking that it was \u201cyour turn to get a Strauss physical.\u201d At the time, John Doe 17 did not understand what they meant. 1210. Soon after the first physical, John Doe 17 understood the \u201cjoke.\u201d Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during physicals was an \u201copen secret\u201d among athletes, coaches, and trainers and was treated as a \u201crite of passage\u201d for the younger athletes. 1211. During John Doe 17\u2019s first physical, Dr. Strauss told him to strip down to his shorts and lie down on a table. 1212. Dr. Strauss started to rub John Doe 17\u2019s stomach and continued to move lower, getting closer to his genitals. 1213. Dr. Strauss then told John Doe 17 to stand up and remove his shorts. John Doe 17 complied with Dr. Strauss\u2019 instructions. 1214. Dr. Strauss then sat in a stool with wheels and scooted up to John Doe 17\u2019s genitals at eye level. 1215. Dr. Strauss was so close to John Doe 17\u2019s genitals that John Doe 17 could feel Dr. Strauss\u2019 knee touching the inside of his leg. 1216. Dr. Strauss seemed closer to John Doe 17\u2019s genitals than necessary to perform a Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 168 of 371 #: 2155 169 physical. Dr. Strauss also had a strange expression on his face as he examined John Doe 17\u2019s genitals, as if he was deriving pleasure from the experience. 1217. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the physical. 1218. Dr. Strauss began moving John Doe 17\u2019s penis from side to side, and up and down. 1219. John Doe 17 was concerned that Dr. Strauss was trying to give him an erection and wondered why Dr. Strauss was pulling on his penis. 1220. John Doe 17 was deeply uncomfortable and in shock. 1221. Dr. Strauss then moved his hands to John Doe\u2019s testicles and began cupping, rolling, and manipulating each testicle between his fingers for several minutes. 1222. Dr. Strauss said that the prolonged examination was necessary because one of John Doe 17\u2019s testicles was slightly larger than the other. 1223. That was news to John Doe 17. No other doctor had ever voiced a concern about the size of one of his testicles. 1224. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 17 that Dr. Strauss would have to \u201cwatch that closely.\u201d 1225. John Doe 17 looked at the floor throughout the physical, too shocked to say anything to Dr. Strauss. 1226. After the physical, John Doe 17 returned to his teammates and coaching staff, including but not limited to Kormann and Racanelli. 1227. In front of his teammates and coaching staff, John Doe 17 said, \u201cHoly shit, could he spend anymore fucking time holding my balls?\u201d John Doe 17 said he had never been examined like that before. 1228. Everyone, including his coaches, just laughed. It was clear to John Doe 17 that the earlier comments by upperclassmen related to Dr. Strauss\u2019 intrusive genital examinations. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 169 of 371 #: 2156 170 1229. John Doe 17 specifically recalls Coach Kormann and Racanelli laughing at his comments. Racanelli told John Doe 17 to just deal with it, and that he would get through it. 1230. Coaching staff shrugged off or ignored the athletes\u2019 frequent comments about Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior. As a result, John Doe 17 believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was acceptable by OSU\u2019s standards and that the athletes just had to deal with it if they wanted to continue participating on the team. 1231. Given this environment, John Doe 17 also felt that he could not complain directly about Dr. Strauss or refuse to see him without jeopardizing his scholarship, his participation on the gymnastics team, and his ability to stay at OSU. 1232. Thus, John Doe 17 continued to get his annual physicals from Dr. Strauss for the remaining three years that he participated on the gymnastics team. 1233. Each physical involved the same type of manipulation of his penis and testicles. 1234. John Doe 17 also saw Dr. Strauss for all illnesses and injuries he had while on the gymnastics team, because this was also a condition of continuing to receive his scholarship and participate on the team. 1235. Dr. Strauss was always around Larkins Hall to treat athletes, including John Doe 17, and conducted examinations in a private room. 1236. John Doe 17 estimates that he saw Dr. Strauss approximately four to five times each year for treatment related to general medical issues, such as illnesses, allergies, and prescription refills. 1237. During most these visits, Dr. Strauss conducted the same type of unnecessary penile and testicular examinations. 1238. While John Doe 17 was on the gymnastics team, he also saw Dr. Strauss hanging Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 170 of 371 #: 2157 171 out in the locker room at Larkins Hall, often leering at the athletes as they showered. 1239. Teammates, particularly the upperclassmen, joked about Dr. Strauss being ready to shower as soon as gymnastics practice was over. 1240. Dr. Strauss typically waited in the locker room and, as the team finished practice, he would grab a towel from his locker, walk into the showers with the team, and stare at the athletes as he lathered his penis with soap. Dr. Strauss stared and lathered for a prolonged period of time and it seemed as though he was rubbing his penis in a sexual manner. 1241. John Doe 17 recalls that, after several incidents like this, a teammate asked Racanelli why Dr. Strauss had a locker in the locker room. Racanelli responded, \u201cDon\u2019t ask.\u201d And Dr. Strauss just continued to shower with the athletes. 1242. Dr. Strauss was not the only male adult, non-athlete who stared at athletes in the shower. 1243. John Doe 17 recalls hearing athletes talk about a man they called \u201cMr. Belly\u201d going into the shower and pleasuring himself while watching the athletes shower. The athletes referred to him as \u201cMr. Belly\u201d because he was very large and his belly would shake as he lathered himself with soap and leered at the athletes. 1244. In addition to the locker room, Dr. Strauss hung out in the gym during practices and periodically took photographs of some of John Doe 17\u2019s teammates. 1245. Several of John Doe 17\u2019s teammates had strong, negative reactions to Dr. Strauss attending practices, which included yelling at Dr. Strauss to leave and stay away from them. 1246. At some point while John Doe 17 was on the team, Coach Kormann and Assistant Coach Avery tried to limit the amount of time Dr. Strauss spent with the athletes because of the negative impact it was having on the team. John Doe 17 believes that Kormann and Avery told Dr. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 171 of 371 #: 2158 172 Strauss to stay out of the gym during practices. 1247. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during examinations, in the showers, and at the gym made John Doe 17 very uncomfortable, but John Doe 17 did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing his teammates. 1248. John Doe 17 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1249. In retrospect, John Doe 17 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1250. While John Doe 17 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 17 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1251. John Doe 17 reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1252. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 17 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1253. This is because, in John Doe 17\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was common knowledge among trainers and coaches, everyone made jokes and comments about it, and none of the trainers or coaches seemed particularly concerned about it. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 172 of 371 #: 2159 173 1254. In any event, even if, while John Doe 17 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1255. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 17 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1256. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 17 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1257. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 17 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 17 believes that his experiences with Dr. Strauss caused him to have an extremely high level of anxiety and an overly apprehensive view of the world, consuming his thoughts and life. He lives in fear of what could happen, rather than living his life. His emotional state has caused him to become beyond overbearing and overprotective with his two children to the point where one required therapy for several years. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse has also impacted John Doe 17\u2019s sexual experiences and relationships. He has engaged in inappropriate and risky sexual behavior, and often makes inappropriate sexual comments. He has difficulty maintaining long-term friendships, and sometimes acts inappropriately around others. John Doe 17 also believes that Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse has caused him to engage in other risky behavior, including compulsive spending. John Doe 17\u2019s career has stagnated due to his behavioral problems and emotional turmoil\u2014he has been stuck in same position at his company for last 10 years with the same salary and is unable to progress outside of his current profession. In addition, learning about Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse and OSU\u2019s Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 173 of 371 #: 2160 174 role in allowing it has retraumatized John Doe 17, causing repressed memories of these painful experiences to resurface. He has been unable to stop thinking about what happened to him, how it has impacted him, and OSU\u2019s involvement. He often becomes physically ill when thinking about his experiences. John Doe 17 feels that he needs counseling services, but is unable to afford them 18 1258. John Doe 18 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s wrestling team from 1987 through 1990. 1259. John Doe 18 transferred to and became a walk-on athlete on the wrestling team in 1987. He transferred to because he loved the school and wanted the opportunity to wrestle at one of the best schools in the State of Ohio. 1260. While John Doe 18 was on the wrestling team, Russ Hellickson was the head coach, and Jim Jordan and Dave Rucker were assistant coaches. 1261. While John Doe 18 was on the wrestling team, it was standard practice to get an annual physical before the season started. John Doe 18 believes that the team learned when it was time for their physicals through a flier posted in the locker room. 1262. Because Dr. Strauss was the team doctor, John Doe 18 saw Dr. Strauss for his physical. 1263. John Doe 18 was required to get a physical to participate on the wrestling team, so he did not feel that he had any choice but to see Dr. Strauss. 1264. John Doe 18 had his first physical examination with Dr. Strauss in 1987. John Doe 18 was 20 or 21 years old at the time. 1265. The physical was done in Larkins Hall in a private room. Only John Doe 18 and Dr. Strauss were in the room. 1266. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 18 to pull his shorts down and stand in the middle of the Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 174 of 371 #: 2161 175 room, and John Doe 18 complied with Dr. Strauss\u2019 instruction. 1267. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool and wheeled himself directly in front of John Doe 18. Dr. Strauss was eye-level with John Doe 18\u2019s genitals. 1268. Dr. Strauss began to move John Doe 18\u2019s penis from side to side and up and down. To the best of John Doe 18\u2019s recollection, Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves as he touched John Doe 18\u2019s penis. 1269. Dr. Strauss also manipulated John Doe 18\u2019s testicles for what seemed to be an unnecessarily long time for a hernia check. 1270. Given how long the exam was taking, John Doe 18 asked, \u201cWhat are you doing down there Doc?\u201d Dr. Strauss replied, \u201cJust looking to make sure everything is okay bet you have an active social life.\u201d John Doe 18 responded, \u201cYeah, you don\u2019t have to worry about anything down there.\u201d 1271. After John Doe 18\u2019s first examination with Dr. Strauss, his teammates joked about the length of time Dr. Strauss spent in the showers with them. It was a common joke in the locker room that Dr. Strauss was the \u201cfirst one in the showers and the last one out.\u201d Dr. Strauss was also famous for his \u201cnaked rub downs\u201d during physicals. 1272. While John Doe 18 was on the wrestling team, his teammates also talked about how Dr. Strauss and other men hung out in the shower and locker room at Larkins Hall to watch the male athletes. John Doe 18 once heard that Coach Hellickson had pushed an adult man who was affiliated with the team out of the shower after the man was caught masturbating. John Doe 18 also heard from other athletes that adult men who were not affiliated with an athletic team sometimes had sex in the showers in the mornings. 1273. John Doe 18 felt that the way in which Dr. Strauss conducted his physical Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 175 of 371 #: 2162 176 examination and showered with the athletes was strange, but John Doe 18 did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. 1274. John Doe 18 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1275. In retrospect, John Doe 18 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1276. While John Doe 18 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 18 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1277. John Doe 18 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1278. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 18 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1279. This is because, in John Doe 18\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during examinations and in the locker room was common knowledge among trainers and coaches, but none of them seemed particularly concerned about it. 1280. In any event, even if, while John Doe 18 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 176 of 371 #: 2163 177 controlled access to that information. 1281. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 18 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1282. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 18 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1283. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 18 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, since being abused by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 18 has avoided getting annual physicals and medical treatment unless absolutely necessary. This caused John Doe 18 to neglect his health, with fatal consequences. Three years ago, John Doe 18 had a physical required by his employer. Shortly after that, John Doe 18 was diagnosed with stage four bile duct cancer (cholangiocarcinoma). He died in February 2019. The Court has allowed his Estate to be substituted in this action 19 1284. John Doe 19 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s swim team from 1986 through 1990, and received a partial athletic scholarship after being recruited by Coach Dick Sloan. 1285. John Doe 19 relied on his partial athletic scholarship to attend OSU. 1286. While John Doe 19 was on the swim team, Coach Sloan told him and his teammates that they were required to get annual physicals in order to participate on the team. 1287. Dr. Strauss was the team doctor while John Doe 19 was on the swim team, and Dr. Strauss conducted all the annual physicals. 1288. The physicals occurred in Larkins Hall. The team went to the training room at Larkins Hall and Dr. Strauss called the athletes one-by-one for their physicals. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 177 of 371 #: 2164 178 1289. The physicals were done in a private room. No one besides the athlete and Dr. Strauss were in the room. 1290. John Doe 19 was 18 or 19 years old when he had his first physical with Dr. Strauss. 1291. During the physical, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 19 to disrobe. John Doe 19 complied with this instruction. 1292. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool directly in front of John Doe 19 while John Doe 19 was naked. Dr. Strauss was eye level with John Doe 19\u2019s genitals. 1293. Dr. Strauss began manipulating John Doe 19\u2019s penis, testicles, and scrotum. John Doe 19 recalls feeling that Dr. Strauss was \u201cmanhandling\u201d his genitals\u2014grabbing John Doe 19\u2019s penis and moving it in all directions, and rolling John Doe 19\u2019s testicles in his hands. 1294. John Doe 19 felt that Dr. Strauss was trying to cause John Doe 19 to get an erection. At one point, after John Doe 19 got an erection, Dr. Strauss commented \u201cOh, you\u2019re getting excited.\u201d 1295. John Doe 19 felt extremely uncomfortable during the examination, but he was a young freshman and had no idea what to say or do to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 seemingly intrusive examination. 1296. After John Doe 19 left the examination room, upperclassmen started laughing at him and the other freshmen who had received their first physical from Dr. Strauss. 1297. John Doe 19 soon learned that Dr. Strauss was known for spending a long time touching the swimmers\u2019 genitals during examinations. The athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination methods, usually in front of Coach Sloan. 1298. John Doe 19 felt that he could not complain about Dr. Strauss without jeopardizing his scholarship, his participation on the swim team, and his ability to stay at OSU. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 178 of 371 #: 2165 179 1299. This fear was confirmed when, during his freshman or sophomore year, John Doe 19 told Coach Sloan that he was uncomfortable around Dr. Strauss. Coach Sloan responded, \u201cShut the fuck up and get in the water.\u201d 1300. John Doe 19 felt that he had no choice but to continue seeing Dr. Strauss for his annual physicals, as well as any medical issues that arose. Each of the three additional physicals done by Dr. Strauss involved the same type of manipulation of John Doe 19\u2019s genitals, under the guise of checking for STIs. 1301. Dr. Strauss also conducted a genital examination on John Doe 19 during the majority of medical examinations he did, even when the appointment was to address a cough or cold. On one occasion when John Doe 19 sought treatment from Dr. Strauss because he was ill, Dr. Strauss stroked John Doe 19\u2019s penis until he ejaculated. John Doe 19 apologized to Dr. Strauss for ejaculating. 1302. In addition, Dr. Strauss always made a point of feeling John Doe 19\u2019s abdominal muscles at each examination. John Doe 19 wondered whether this was medically necessary, but did not feel that he could question Dr. Strauss. 1303. Dr. Strauss never wore gloves when he examined John Doe 19. 1304. While John Doe 19 was on the swim team, Dr. Strauss hung out in the showers when the swim team finished their practices. The swim team\u2019s showers were separate from the other athletes\u2019 showers, so Dr. Strauss made a special trip to see the team. 1305. Coach Sloan was present when Dr. Strauss made these special trips to the swim teams\u2019 showers, but did nothing about it. 1306. While John Doe 19 was on the swim team, Dr. Strauss also attended practices and took photographs of the team. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 179 of 371 #: 2166 180 1307. On several occasions after swim meets, Dr. Strauss offered to drive John Doe 19 to his dorm room. While John Doe 19 was in the passenger seat of Dr. Strauss\u2019 car, Dr. Strauss tried to kiss him and repeatedly tried to fondle John Doe 19\u2019s genitals through his sweatpants. When John Doe 19 tried to hit Dr. Strauss\u2019 hand away and indicated he was not interested, Dr. Strauss repeatedly cajoled him, saying \u201cno one needs to know.\u201d Outside of the context of an examination room, John Doe 19 resisted what he saw as a sexual advance. 1308. Dr. Strauss once invited John Doe 19 to his house to conduct a photo shoot, telling John Doe 19 that he could be a model. Dr. Strauss set up a backdrop at his home and took photographs of John Doe 19 both in a swimsuit and nude. While taking photographs, Dr. Strauss made suggestive comments about John Doe 19\u2019s body. 1309. Before swim meets, Dr. Strauss went into the locker room and tried to massage the swimmers, including John Doe 19, telling them he would help to loosen their muscles before their meets. Though John Doe 19 initially allowed Dr. Strauss to do this, he refused to allow Dr. Strauss to continue massaging him after an incident that occurred in his sophomore or junior year. 1310. During John Doe 19\u2019s sophomore or junior year, Dr. Strauss followed him into the locker room before a swim meet. They were the only two people in the locker room. Dr. Strauss started massaging him, then then started kissing John Doe 19\u2019s neck and back. John Doe 19 immediately grabbed his clothes and left the locker room. 1311. Coach Sloan was aware that Dr. Strauss was massaging, or trying to massage, the athletes before swim meets. He did not stop Dr. Strauss from doing this or take any measures to protect the swimmers from Dr. Strauss. 1312. Coach Sloan rebuffed, ignored, or reacted aggressively to athletes\u2019 comments about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, and the general atmosphere at was that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was just a Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 180 of 371 #: 2167 181 big joke. As a result, John Doe 19 did not feel that he could refuse to see Dr. Strauss for examinations or press the issue. 1313. John Doe 19 tried to transfer from because of his discomfort with Dr. Strauss and Coach Sloan\u2019s aggressive and negative response to John Doe 19\u2019s complaints about Dr. Strauss, but he could not leave because he was unable to get a scholarship at another school. Thus, he felt forced to continue seeing Dr. Strauss. 1314. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during examinations, in the showers, and at swim meets made John Doe 19 deeply uncomfortable, but John Doe 19 did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. 1315. John Doe 19 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1316. Because of Coach Sloan\u2019s aggressive reaction to John Doe 19\u2019s complaint about Dr. Strauss, John Doe 19 believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was acceptable by standards and that the athletes just had to deal with it if they wanted to continue participating on the team. 1317. John Doe 19 also believed that if he continued to press his discomfort with Dr. Strauss, Coach Sloan would kick him off the swim team and make sure he lost his scholarship. In fact, Coach Sloan did cause John Doe 19 to lose his scholarship in his last year at and John Doe 19 had to fight to get the scholarship back. 1318. In retrospect, John Doe 19 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until he attended medical school in 1993, when he learned the appropriate boundaries of physician-patient contact. 1319. While John Doe 19 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 181 of 371 #: 2168 182 to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations and conduct, John Doe 19 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1320. John Doe 19 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1321. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 19 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1322. This is because, in John Doe 19\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 genital examinations and conduct were a running joke among trainers and coaches. In addition, Coach Sloan\u2019s aggressive reaction to his complaint about Dr. Strauss, and his teammates jokes about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, did not give John Doe 19 any reason to investigate what was doing or failing to do. Indeed, when John Doe 19 expressed discomfort with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, Coach Sloan\u2019s reaction served to reinforce John Doe 19\u2019s reasonable belief that further inquiry would not be productive. 1323. In any event, even if, while John Doe 19 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1324. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 19 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1325. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 19 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. His college experience was negatively impacted\u2014 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 182 of 371 #: 2169 183 to the point that he sought (unsuccessfully) to leave because of his extreme discomfort with Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions. For example, John Doe 19 feels incredibly uncomfortable during physical examinations and when, as a physician himself, he has to perform hernia checks on patients. This causes him to experience painful flashbacks to the abusive physical examinations he got from Dr. Strauss. John Doe 19 also still struggles with feelings of disgust and guilt over Dr. Strauss massaging and kissing him, despite his best efforts to forget about the experience. Because John Doe 19 wanted to be a doctor and needed a medical school reference letter from Dr. Strauss, he spent a lot of time with Dr. Strauss, looked up to him, and feared angering him. As a result, John Doe 19 has feelings of guilt, blames himself, and struggles with the idea that he was more vulnerable to abuse from Dr. Strauss because of his professional ambitions 20 1326. John Doe 20 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s gymnastics team from 1983 to 1985. He transferred to after his freshman year to participate on the gymnastics team. 1327. While John Doe 20 was on the gymnastics team, Mike Willson was the head coach and Shawn Hayth was the assistant coach. 1328. To participate on the gymnastics team required John Doe 20 and his teammates to get annual physicals from the team doctor. 1329. Dr. Strauss was the team doctor while John Doe 20 was on the gymnastics team, and Dr. Strauss conducted all the annual physicals. 1330. The physicals occurred in Larkins Hall. The team went to the training room at Larkins Hall and Dr. Strauss called the athletes one-by-one for their physicals. 1331. The physicals were done in a private room. No one besides the athlete and Dr. Strauss were in the room. 1332. John Doe 20 was 20 years old when he had his first physical with Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 183 of 371 #: 2170 184 1333. During the physical, Dr. Strauss told him to drop his pants and stand in the middle of the exam room. John Doe 20 complied with this instruction. 1334. As John Doe 20 stood naked in the middle of the room, Dr. Strauss wheeled over to him while seated on a stool. Dr. Strauss was eye level with John Doe 20\u2019s genitals. 1335. Dr. Strauss began manipulating John Doe 20\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss grabbed John Doe 20\u2019s penis and began moving it up and down. Dr. Strauss also rolled John Doe 20\u2019s testicles between his hands. 1336. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves as he touched and manipulated John Doe 20\u2019s genitals. 1337. John Doe 20 was uncomfortable during the physical and did not know what to do. He did not feel that he could question OSU\u2019s team doctor. 1338. John Doe 20 stood there, just hoping the examination would be over soon. 1339. John Doe 20 felt that the examination, particularly during the time Dr. Strauss touched and manipulated his genitals, was longer than any physical he had previously experienced and seemed longer than medically necessary. 1340. When the physical ended, John Doe 20 returned to his teammates in the training room. He then learned that Dr. Strauss\u2019 prolonged genital examinations were a running joke at OSU. It was an \u201copen secret\u201d that male athletes had to go through this rite of passage with Dr. Strauss to participate on OSU\u2019s athletic teams. 1341. OSU\u2019s coaches and trainers seemed to treat Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as normal and acceptable, and the general environment at was that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was a big joke. 1342. As a result, John Doe 20 did not realize that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him, and he continued to obtain his annual physicals from Dr. Strauss throughout the Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 184 of 371 #: 2171 185 time he was on the gymnastics team. 1343 also required John Doe 20 to see Dr. Strauss for treatment of a rash on his wrist. Although the rash was on John Doe 20\u2019s wrist, Dr. Strauss still gave John Doe 20 a genital examination that included touching and manipulating John Doe 20\u2019s penis and testicles. 1344. While John Doe 20 was on the gymnastics team, he learned another \u201copen secret\u201d about the general environment in Larkins Hall. Men who were not affiliated with athletics watched male athletes shower at Larkins Hall through holes drilled into the bathroom stalls. 1345. John Doe 20 recalls one occasion where a wrestler confronted a man who was staring at athletes in the showers over the wall of a bathroom stall. 1346. John Doe 20 was also propositioned for sexual acts off campus by a male math professor while he was on the gymnastics team. 1347. John Doe 20 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss, the math professor, or any of the men permitted to leer at male athletes in the Larkins Hall showers. Nor did he believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1348. All of these behaviors were treated as acceptable by standards, so John Doe 20 believed that he just had to deal with it if he wanted to continue participating on the gymnastics team. 1349. In retrospect, John Doe 20 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about the criminal trial of Michigan State University physician Larry Nassar and heard female gymnasts talk about how Dr. Nassar sexually abused them in the guise of providing medical care. This made John Doe 20 wonder whether had allowed Dr. Strauss to commit the same Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 185 of 371 #: 2172 186 type of abuse, then covered it up. 1350. John Doe 20\u2019s feelings that Dr. Strauss and were comparable to Dr. Nassar and Michigan State University were confirmed in the spring of 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1351. While John Doe 20 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 20 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1352. John Doe 20 reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1353. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 20 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1354. This is because, in John Doe 20\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was common knowledge, everyone made jokes and comments about it, and it was an accepted \u201copen secret.\u201d 1355. In any event, even if, while John Doe 20 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1356. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Nassar\u2019s serial sexual abuse of gymnasts and/or Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 20 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 186 of 371 #: 2173 187 1357. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 20 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1358. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 20 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, ever since his first examination by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 20 experiences anxiety when he or a family member gets medical care or treatment. John Doe 20 fears that a medical professional will hurt a member of his family. In addition, since learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation and its role in allowing a sexually hostile culture to flourish on its campus, John Doe 20 feels deeply uncomfortable about his experience as an student\u2014which now seems surreal to him 2151 1359. John Doe 21 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s gymnastics team from 1982 through 1983. 1360. While John Doe 21 was on the gymnastics team Mike Willson was the head coach and Shawn Hayth was the assistant coach. 1361. In the fall of 1982, coaching staff told the gymnastics team, including John Doe 21, that the team doctor, Dr. Strauss, would be giving physicals to the team. 1362. The physicals occurred in Larkins Hall. John Doe 21 and his teammates went to the training room there and waited for their turn to get a physical. 1363. Dr. Strauss called the athletes one-by-one for their physicals and took them to a private examination room. No one besides the athlete and Dr. Strauss were in the room. 1364. John Doe 21 was an 18-year-old freshman when he had his first physical with Dr. Strauss. 51 John Doe 21 was previously listed as John Doe 30 in Plaintiff\u2019s First Amended Complaint. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 187 of 371 #: 2174 188 1365. Before getting his physical from Dr. Strauss, upperclassmen joked with John Doe 21 about it, saying, \u201cJust wait until he gets you in for the physical.\u201d 1366. John Doe 21 did not know what these statements meant until after he got his physical, but soon learned that they referred to Dr. Strauss\u2019 uncomfortable and intrusive methods of performing physical exams. 1367. During John Doe 21\u2019s physical, Dr. Strauss rubbed his chest for a prolonged time and in a seemingly sexual manner. In fact, Dr. Strauss rubbed John Doe 21\u2019s left nipple for such a long time that John Doe 21 started laughing because it was so uncomfortable that he did not know how else to react. John Doe 21\u2019s laughter seemed to irritate Dr. Strauss. 1368. Dr. Strauss then moved on to a \u201chernia\u201d examination, in which Dr. Strauss began to manipulate John Doe 21\u2019s penis and testicles, moving his penis up and down and side to side, and rolling John Doe 21\u2019s testicles between his fingers. 1369. John Doe 21 felt that the examination was very strange, but he did not know what to do. 1370. After the examination, John Doe 21 recalls Assistant Coach Hayth joking with other teammates about Dr. Strauss\u2019 unusual behavior during examinations. 1371. The team also had a running joke about how Dr. Strauss spent time in the showers at Larkins Hall and his eyes never went above an athlete\u2019s waist. These jokes were made in front of, and sometimes by, Assistant Coach Hayth. 1372. Because Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was treated as one big joke, John Doe 21 believed that accepted it and that it was just a part of being an athlete at OSU. 1373. Although John Doe 21 felt extremely uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination and thought Dr. Strauss was strange, he did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 188 of 371 #: 2175 189 was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. 1374. John Doe 21 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1375. In retrospect, John Doe 21 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1376. While John Doe 21 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 21 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1377. John Doe 21 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1378. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 21 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1379. Even if, while John Doe 21 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1380. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 21 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 189 of 371 #: 2176 190 appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1381. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 21 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1382. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 21 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 21 is angry at for permitting Dr. Strauss to prey on him and other students. OSU\u2019s perpetuation and concealment of Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of John Doe 21 and his teammates has tainted his entire experience at OSU. John Doe 21 also fears for his own students and the athletes he has coached over the years because he feels he cannot trust educational institutions to protect them from predators like Dr. Strauss 2252 1383. John Doe 22 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s soccer team from 1987 through 1989. 1384. While John Doe 22 was on the soccer team, Gary Avedikian was the head coach and Clifford Gault was the goalkeeper coach. 1385. While John Doe 22 was on the soccer team, it was standard practice for team members to get an annual physical before the season started, and coaching or training staff told the team when they had to get their physicals from the team doctor. 1386. Dr. Strauss was the team doctor while John Doe 22 was on the soccer team, and Dr. Strauss conducted all the annual physicals. 52 The person who was listed as John Doe 22 in Plaintiffs\u2019 First Amended Complaint is no longer represented by the undersigned counsel, as described in the Motion to Substitute, see Dkt. 79, and his allegations have been removed from this Second Amended Complaint. In his stead, we have renamed as John Doe 22 the man who was listed as John Doe 31 in Plaintiffs\u2019 First Amended Complaint. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 190 of 371 #: 2177 191 1387. The team\u2019s physicals were done in OSU\u2019s football facility. 1388. John Doe 22 was an 18-year-old freshman when he saw Dr. Strauss for a physical. 1389. John Doe 22\u2019s physical was done in a private room in OSU\u2019s football facility. An unknown individual was in the room during John Doe 22\u2019s physical with Dr. Strauss. The unknown individual did not watch or participate in the exam and had his back turned toward John Doe 22 and Dr. Strauss throughout the exam. 1390. During the examination, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 22 to drop his shorts and stand up. John Doe 22 followed Dr. Strauss\u2019 instructions. 1391. Dr. Strauss then positioned his face so close to John Doe 22\u2019s genitals that it made John Doe 22 very uncomfortable. 1392. Dr. Strauss then began to touch and manipulate John Doe 22\u2019s testicles for a prolonged period, longer than seemed medically necessary or appropriate. 1393. John Doe 22 felt very uncomfortable and could not understand why Dr. Strauss was touching him in that way. 1394. John Doe 22 did not believe that Dr. Strauss was performing a normal physical, as it was unlike any physical he had previously experienced. 1395. After his physical, John Doe 22 recalls other teammates joking about the way Dr. Strauss examined them. Teammates joked with others who had not yet had their physicals that Dr. Strauss, also called \u201cDr. Creepy,\u201d was \u201cgoing to get you.\u201d 1396. John Doe 22 felt that the way Dr. Strauss had performed his physical was strange, but did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. 1397. This is in part because Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were treated as a big joke. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 191 of 371 #: 2178 192 1398 also permitted Dr. Strauss to hang around the locker room and shower areas with the athletes. Dr. Strauss watched the team practice, then got into the showers with the team and leered at the athletes did not take any action to stop Dr. Strauss from doing this, and the team accepted it as part of being an athlete at OSU. 1399. John Doe 22 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1400. In retrospect, John Doe 22 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this, after he learned about the investigation began in 2018 concerning allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1401. While John Doe 22 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 22 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1402. John Doe 22 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1403. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 22 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1404. Even if, while John Doe 22 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 192 of 371 #: 2179 193 1405. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 22 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1406. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 22 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1407. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 22 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 22 has a daughter who is a college athlete and he worries about her safety because of his experience at OSU. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse also contributed to John Doe 22\u2019s preference to see female physicians whenever possible 23 1408. John Doe 23 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s wrestling team from 1990 through 1994. 1409. John Doe 23 relied on his athletic scholarship to attend OSU. 1410. While John Doe 23 was on the wrestling team, Russ Hellickson was the head coach and Jim Jordan was the assistant coach. 1411. While John Doe 23 was on the wrestling team, it was standard practice for team members to get an annual physical before the season started, and one of the coaches told the team when they had to get their physicals from the team doctor. 1412. Dr. Strauss was the team doctor while John Doe 23 was on the wrestling team, and Dr. Strauss conducted all the annual physicals. 1413. The physicals occurred in Larkins Hall. The team went to the training room there, and Coach Hellickson and Assistant Coach Jordan typically stayed in the training room while the athletes waited for their turn to get a physical. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 193 of 371 #: 2180 194 1414. Dr. Strauss called the athletes one-by-one for their physicals and took them to a private examination room. No one besides the athlete and Dr. Strauss was in the room. 1415. John Doe 23 was a 19-year-old freshman when he had his first physical with Dr. Strauss, in 1990. 1416. John Doe 23\u2019s physical with Dr. Strauss started just like other physicals John Doe 23 previously had: Dr. Strauss checked his pulse and temperature, and listened to his heart and lungs. 1417. But the physical changed after Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 23 to pull down his shorts and stand in front of the exam table. 1418. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool right in front of John Doe 23, at eye-level with John Doe 23\u2019s genitals. 1419. Dr. Strauss began to examine John Doe 23\u2019s penis, lifting it up and down and running his ungloved hands down the sides of John Doe 23\u2019s penis. 1420. Dr. Strauss also began physically manipulating John Doe 23\u2019s testicles, grabbing and letting them go 8 to 10 times. John Doe 23 felt that Dr. Strauss was lingering on his testicles. 1421. John Doe 23 was shocked and confused by what Dr. Strauss was doing and was at a loss for words. The genital examination continued for several minutes. In past physicals, John Doe 23 recalls a brief hernia exam that lasted approximately 30 seconds. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam lasted for much longer and felt invasive in comparison. 1422. After the exam was finally over, John Doe 23 left the room, embarrassed and wondering what had happened. 1423. During practice later that day, he overheard upperclassmen talking about how \u201cStrauss was up to his usual\u201d and joking about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations. These discussions Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 194 of 371 #: 2181 195 occurred in front of Coach Hellickson and Assistant Coach Jordan. 1424. John Doe 23 and his teammates were required to get annual physicals and medical treatment for injuries and illnesses from Dr. Strauss. 1425. As a result, John Doe 23 was forced to endure three more physicals from Dr. Strauss while he was on the wrestling team. Each time, Dr. Strauss performed the same type of intrusive genital examination. 1426. John Doe 23 also saw Dr. Strauss between 1990 and 1992 approximately three times for illnesses and a knee injury. 1427. John Doe 23 had to see Dr. Strauss approximately twice a month, for approximately six months, for treatment of his knee injury. During each examination for his knee injury, Dr. Strauss started massaging John Doe 23\u2019s upper thigh and made John Doe 23 take his shorts down. Dr. Strauss then rolled John Doe 23\u2019s testicles between his hands for approximately thirty seconds. John Doe 23 did not think there was any medical necessity for doing this. 1428. John Doe 23 also saw Dr. Strauss for a sore throat a few times between 1990 and 1992. During one of the exams, Dr. Strauss pulled John Doe 23\u2019s shorts down and started rolling John Doe 23\u2019s penis and testicles back and forth between his ungloved hands. John Doe 23 asked Dr. Strauss why he needed to check down there for a sore throat. Dr. Strauss responded that John Doe 23 had lymph nodes all over his body and Dr. Strauss needed to make sure they were not swollen. Dr. Strauss stroked John Doe 23\u2019s penis, slowly at first and then faster. John Doe 23 became erect. John Doe 23 then jumped back onto the table and knocked Dr. Strauss\u2019 hand away. Subsequently, when John Doe 23 saw Dr. Strauss for treatment of his knee injury, Dr. Strauss started to stroke John Doe 23\u2019s penis; John Doe 23 quickly twisted his body away before he became erect. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 195 of 371 #: 2182 196 1429. Dr. Strauss performed a genital examination each time John Doe 23 saw him, whether it was for a physical, an illness, or an injury. In total, Dr. Strauss fondled or stroked John Doe 23\u2019s genitals on more than 15 occasions. John Doe 23 stopped questioning the need for the genital examinations because Dr. Strauss always said they were necessary, and coaching staff showed no concern despite the athletes\u2019 frequent comments about the genital exams. 1430. John Doe 23 felt that he had no choice but to submit to Dr. Strauss\u2019 intrusive examinations. 1431. While John Doe 23 was on the wrestling team, he also saw Dr. Strauss in the locker room and showers nearly every day. John Doe 23 would have been more surprised if Dr. Strauss had not already been waiting for the wrestlers in the shower after they finished practice. 1432. Dr. Strauss could have showered by himself while the wrestlers were practicing, but instead waited for the wrestlers to complete practice and joined them in the shower. 1433. During the showers, Dr. Strauss faced the middle of the showers and watched the athletes. He never washed his hair; he just leered. 1434. Dr. Strauss was not the only voyeur at while John Doe 23 was on the wrestling team. John Doe 23 witnessed older men hanging out in the showers and sauna area to watch the wrestlers. The men fondled themselves as they watched the wrestlers shower. 1435. Coach Hellickson and Assistant Coach Jordan also witnessed this voyeurism. Both commented on the presence of older men in the showers watching the wrestlers. Coach Hellickson and Assistant Coach Jordan told the wrestlers to ignore the older men and pretend they were not there. 1436. Several of the wrestlers expressed their anger about being watched in the shower by these men. Coach Hellickson and Assistant Coach Jordan told the wrestlers that if they did Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 196 of 371 #: 2183 197 anything to act out that they would find themselves in trouble with the school. 1437. For the most part, the coaching staff treated Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior and the environment in the locker room showers as acceptable by standards. As a result, John Doe 23 believed that he and his teammates just had to deal with Dr. Strauss and the men watching them in the shower if they wanted to continue participating on the wrestling team. Many athletes continued to joke about Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior, perhaps as a coping mechanism since never took action to stop this. 1438. John Doe 23, his teammates, and their coaches all joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations (referring to him as \u201cDr. Cough\u201d), his odd behavior in the showers, and the locker room environment as a whole. 1439. In hindsight, John Doe 23 believes that he and his teammates joked about this because they did not know how else to deal with the emotional and psychological toll it was having on them as men. 1440. John Doe 23 found the environment at to be incredibly uncomfortable. He felt that he was constantly put into awkward and inappropriate situations where he and his teammates were taken advantage of. John Doe 23 felt that he and his teammates were constantly being watched by depraved men and that and its coaching staff failed to protect them, instead creating the impression that the athletes had no reason to complain because they were not being raped. 1441. Because Coach Hellickson, Assistant Coach Jordan, and the athletic department treated Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior as acceptable, John Doe 23 believed there was nothing he could do to address his discomfort with Dr. Strauss. 1442. John Doe 23 felt that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations and conduct were strange, but did Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 197 of 371 #: 2184 198 not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. 1443. John Doe 23 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1444. John Doe 23 did not think that complaining was an option given that everyone seemed to know about it and accepted Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior as normal. 1445. In retrospect, John Doe 23 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this, until 2018, after he learned about the investigation began in 2018 concerning allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1446. While John Doe 23 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 23 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1447. John Doe 23 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1448. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 23 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1449. Even if, while John Doe 23 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 198 of 371 #: 2185 199 1450. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 23 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1451. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 23 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1452. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 23 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 23 has severe anxiety about getting any medical treatment and tries to avoid it as much as possible. John Doe 23\u2019s experience at has caused him to distrust the medical profession, universities, and people in general. John Doe 23 is embarrassed about what happened to him at and it causes him to go through periods of depression, for which he takes medication. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, the locker room environment, and OSU\u2019s perpetuation of the abusive environment tainted John Doe 23\u2019s experience at academically, athletically, and socially. In addition, after leaving OSU, John Doe 23\u2019s confidence plummeted and his health declined from weight gain, due in part to the psychological trauma he endured at 24 1453. John Doe 24 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s lacrosse team from 1990 through 1994. 1454. While John Doe 24 was on the lacrosse team, Brian Salazar was the head coach from 1990 through 1993, and Paul Caldwell was the head coach in 1994. 1455. While John Doe 24 was on the lacrosse team, it was standard practice to get an annual physical before the season started, and coaching or training staff told the team when they had to get their physicals. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 199 of 371 #: 2186 200 1456. Soon after it was announced that the team had to get physicals, upperclassmen started joking about Dr. Strauss. They warned freshmen that Dr. Strauss did very \u201cthorough\u201d examinations and made athletes take off their pants for any type of appointment, whether for a physical or an illness. 1457. The jokes and warnings by upperclassmen were made in front of the team\u2019s coaches. 1458. John Doe 24 was an 18-year-old freshman at when he had his first physical examination with Dr. Strauss. 1459. Lacrosse team members went to OSU\u2019s football facility for their physicals. 1460. John Doe 24\u2019s physical was done in a private room. No one besides John Doe 24 and Dr. Strauss were in the room. 1461. Toward the end of the physical, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 24 to drop his pants. John Doe 24 complied with this request. 1462. Dr. Strauss then began to move John Doe 24\u2019s penis up and down and from side to side. Dr. Strauss then manipulated John Doe 24\u2019s testicles his hands for what seemed like an unnecessary length of time, purportedly to perform a hernia check. 1463. John Doe 24 had never had a hernia check before, so although he was uncomfortable, he did not realize that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him. 1464. John Doe 24 received annual physicals from Dr. Strauss two more times, in his sophomore and junior years at OSU. 1465. During those physicals, Dr. Strauss did the same type of prolonged genital examination. Because coaches, trainers, and teammates treated Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations as a joke, John Doe 24 did not believe he could refuse to see Dr. Strauss based on his own discomfort with Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 200 of 371 #: 2187 201 the examinations. 1466. While John Doe 24 was on OSU\u2019s lacrosse team, Dr. Strauss also watched him and his teammates as they showered in the locker room. It was also well known that Dr. Strauss stared at naked athletes when they showered. 1467. Dr. Strauss also took photographs of John Doe 24 as he played lacrosse. 1468. OSU\u2019s coaching and training staff were well aware of the athletes joking about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations. They also knew that Dr. Strauss gawked at the athletes in the showers. 1469. The athletic department seemed to treat and accept Dr. Strauss as just an \u201codd\u201d man. Because of this environment, and the fact that John Doe 24 did not realize Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing him in the guise of medical treatment, John Doe 24 did not complain about the examinations to his coaches. 1470. John Doe 24 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1471. In retrospect, John Doe 24 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, after he learned about the investigation began in 2018 concerning allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1472. While John Doe 24 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 24 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1473. John Doe 24 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 201 of 371 #: 2188 202 examinations were legitimate. 1474. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 24 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1475. Even if, while John Doe 24 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1476. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 24 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1477. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 24 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1478. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 24 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 24 always feels uncomfortable during physicals and feels like he has to put his guard up. His experience at has impacted his ability to trust medical professionals 25 1479. John Doe 25 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s wrestling team from 1977 through 1980, and received a full athletic scholarship that covered all expenses except fees for books. 1480. John Doe 25 relied on his athletic scholarship to attend college. 1481. To receive the athletic scholarship required John Doe 25 to get an annual physical from Dr. Strauss and to see Dr. Strauss for any injuries. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 202 of 371 #: 2189 203 1482. All of these examinations occurred in Larkins Hall. 1483. Before John Doe 25\u2019s first examination by Dr. Strauss, his teammates warned him about Dr. Strauss. For example, they said, \u201cDr. Strauss is going to grab your balls.\u201d His teammates also joked about Dr. Strauss making them remove their underwear then examining their genitals, regardless of the reason for the medical appointment\u2014including for a sore throat. 1484. John Doe 25 saw Dr. Strauss for annual physicals and multiple injuries throughout the time he was on the wrestling team. 1485. To the best of his recollection, John Doe 25 was an 18-year-old freshman when he had his first physical exam with Dr. Strauss. 1486. John Doe 25 felt extremely uncomfortable during the exam. Dr. Strauss\u2019 hands lingered on John Doe 25\u2019s genitals for what seemed like an uncomfortable amount of time. Dr. Strauss also moved his face very close to John Doe 25\u2019s genitals while examining them. 1487. During other annual physicals and medical exams for numerous injuries, Dr. Strauss always made John Doe 25 drop his pants and grabbed John Doe 25\u2019s penis and testicles. In all, John Doe 25 saw Dr. Strauss at least five to six times for exams. 1488. John Doe 25\u2019s teammates had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss, but they made light of the exams and joked about them. 1489. John Doe 25\u2019s coaches instilled a mindset in the team that wrestlers were the toughest athletes, could handle and overcome anything, and should not complain. 1490. During a wrestling practice in 1978, John Doe 25 suffered a groin injury. Training staff told him he needed to see Dr. Strauss for the injury, and John Doe 25 followed these instructions. 1491. As he had done in prior exams, Dr. Strauss sat on a stool in front of John Doe 25 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 203 of 371 #: 2190 204 and told him to drop his pants. John Doe 25\u2019s groin injury had caused a blood blister and bruise on his penis. John Doe 25 asked Dr. Strauss whether he should be concerned about the bruise. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 25 that the bruise on his penis was from \u201ctoo much masturbating.\u201d John Doe 25 had never said anything to Dr. Strauss about masturbating and found this comment very upsetting. 1492. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 25 that he needed to massage and \u201cmilk\u201d John Doe 25\u2019s penis. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 25 to lie face up on the exam table, and John Doe 25 complied. Dr. Strauss then told John Doe 25 he needed to ejaculate him to make sure everything was working properly. Without gloves, Dr. Strauss began massaging, stroking, and masturbating John Doe 25\u2019s penis until John Doe 25 ejaculated. As Dr. Strauss walked away, he brushed up against John Doe 25, and John Doe 25 could feel Dr. Strauss\u2019 erect penis. Dr. Strauss walked behind a curtain where, John Doe 25 assumed, Dr. Strauss proceeded to masturbate himself. After several minutes, Dr. Strauss stepped out from behind the curtain with a creepy grin and instructed John Doe 25 to see him again in two weeks. 1493. Immediately after the exam, John Doe 25 told his head coach, Chris Ford, exactly what happened. Coach Ford told John Doe 25 that he would \u201clook into it,\u201d but did not appear to believe him. 1494. John Doe 25 never heard from Coach Ford or anyone else about the incident John Doe 25 reported. 1495. While John Doe 25 was on the wrestling team, Dr. Strauss also showered with John Doe 25 and the other wrestlers. Dr. Strauss made comments to them while they showered and dressed in the locker room. This also made John Doe 25 very uncomfortable. 1496. John Doe 25 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 204 of 371 #: 2191 205 to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1497. In retrospect, John Doe 25 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, after he learned about the investigation began in 2018 concerning allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1498. While John Doe 25 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations and complained once, John Doe 25 did not understand that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1499. John Doe 25 reasonably believed that would not have required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1500. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 25 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1501. Even if, while John Doe 25 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1502. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 25 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1503. If had taken meaningful action to address any prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 205 of 371 #: 2192 206 sexual abuse, John Doe 25 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1504. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 25 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 25 avoided doctors for years, attempting home remedies to address issues that required treatment by a physician, and putting his health in jeopardy. John Doe 25 has suffered with many untreated kidney stone problems. To this day, John Doe 25 is leery of seeking treatment from doctors. In addition, media coverage of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse and OSU\u2019s investigation has retraumatized John Doe 25, causing repressed memories of these painful experiences to resurface. John Doe 25 has sought out therapy to help address the trauma caused by Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse 26 1505. John Doe 26 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s swim team from 1990 through 1993, and had an athletic scholarship. 1506. John Doe 26 relied on his athletic scholarship to attend OSU. 1507. While John Doe 26 was on the swim team, Bill Wadley was the head coach and Mike Curley and David Wharton were assistant coaches. 1508. While John Doe 26 was on the swim team, it was standard practice for team members to get an annual physical before the season started, and coaching or training staff told the team when they had to get their physicals from the team doctor. 1509. Dr. Strauss was the team doctor while John Doe 26 was on the swim team, and Dr. Strauss conducted all the annual physicals. 1510. The physicals occurred in Larkins Hall, and approximately 20 teammates got their physicals from Dr. Strauss there. 1511. The athletes waited in the training room at Larkins Hall until Dr. Strauss called the athletes one-by-one for their physicals. He took the athletes to a private examination room where Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 206 of 371 #: 2193 207 no one but the athlete and Dr. Strauss were in the room. 1512. John Doe 26 was an 18-year-old freshman when he had his first physical with Dr. Strauss, in 1990. 1513. The teammates who had their physicals before John Doe 26 walked back into the training room looking troubled. As they rejoined the team, they made comments such as, \u201cWhat\u2019s up with this guy?\u201d 1514. When it was John Doe 26\u2019s turn for a physical, he soon understood the reason for his teammates\u2019 reactions. 1515. After John Doe 26 entered the private examination room, Dr. Strauss instructed him to drop his swim suit and stand in the middle of the room. John Doe 26 complied with these instructions. 1516. Dr. Strauss then began to touch and manipulate John Doe 26\u2019s penis and testicles with ungloved hands, and then inserted his ungloved finger into John Doe 26\u2019s anus. 1517. The manner in which Dr. Strauss touched John Doe 26\u2019s genitals made John Doe 26 feel that Dr. Strauss was trying to cause John Doe 26 to get an erection. 1518. John Doe 26 became very uncomfortable as the exam progressed, and finally said something along the lines of, \u201cThink ya got it figured out yet?\u201d 1519. Dr. Strauss was not dissuaded. He continued to touch and manipulate John Doe 26\u2019s penis and testicles for what seemed like an unreasonable length of time. It felt as though Dr. Strauss believed he could do whatever he wanted without consequence. 1520. After John Doe 26\u2019s physical, he and his teammates talked about the strange way that Dr. Strauss performed their \u201chernia checks.\u201d 1521. John Doe 26 wanted to continue participating on the swim team and worried that Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 207 of 371 #: 2194 208 he would jeopardize that opportunity and his future as a world-champion swimmer if he complained about Dr. Strauss. As a result, John Doe 26 continued to see Dr. Strauss for physicals for the remainder of the time he was on the swim team. 1522. At each annual physical, Dr. Strauss performed the same type of intrusive \u201chernia check\u201d on John Doe 26. 1523. Because Dr. Strauss was the team physician also required John Doe 26 and his teammates to see Dr. Strauss for any illnesses or injuries. 1524. John Doe 26 recalls seeing Dr. Strauss for medical appointments on approximately seven occasions between 1990 and 1992, either for a sore throat or a knee injury. On each occasion, Dr. Strauss would fondle John Doe 26\u2019s genitals and penis. 1525. During the medical appointments for his sore throat, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 26 to drop his pants. John Doe 26 responded \u201cNo, it\u2019s for my throat Doc.\u201d But Dr. Strauss told John Doe 26 that he still needed to perform a genital examination. John Doe 26 felt powerless, did not feel he could question Dr. Strauss, and submitted to the genital examination once again. 1526. In 1992, John Doe 26 sustained a knee injury and needed pain medication. Dr. Strauss told him to come in for a medical appointment, which John Doe 26 did. Dr. Strauss once again touched and manipulated John Doe 26\u2019s penis and testicles in the guise of appropriate medical treatment. John Doe 26 felt both angry and scared. 1527. John Doe 26 also witnessed Dr. Strauss leering at male athletes in the locker room and showers. Dr. Strauss sat outside the showers with his camera and took photographs of the athletes as they were changing. 1528. Dr. Strauss also took photographs of John Doe 26 during a Big Ten swim conference at a hotel in Indianapolis in 1991 or 1992. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 208 of 371 #: 2195 209 1529. On one occasion, John Doe 26 spoke with an upperclassman and questioned Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. The older athlete said that Dr. Strauss was just strange and obsessed with the human body. 1530. Although John Doe 26 does not recall complaining directly to coaching staff about Dr. Strauss, the team often discussed Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior in front of coaches and training staff while in the locker room. Dr. Strauss also openly took photographs of athletes as they exited the showers and locker room. 1531. John Doe 26 thought that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations and conduct were strange, but did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him and his teammates. 1532. John Doe 26 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1533. In retrospect, John Doe 26 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this, until 2018, after he learned about the investigation began in 2018 concerning allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1534. While John Doe 26 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 26 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1535. John Doe 26 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 209 of 371 #: 2196 210 1536. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 26 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1537. Even if, while John Doe 26 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1538. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 26 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1539. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 26 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1540. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 26 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 26\u2019s experience with Dr. Strauss affected John Doe 26\u2019s intimate relationships with women. In addition, John Doe 26 avoids male doctors because he fears reliving the abuse by Dr. Strauss. John Doe 26 felt powerless right after Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations and now experiences those same feelings since learning that knew about the abuse and did nothing to stop it. John Doe 26 also blames himself for what happened, questioning whether he did something to deserve or instigate the abuse 27 1541. John Doe 27 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s volleyball team from 1982 through 1984. 1542. To participate on the volleyball team staff required John Doe 27 to get an Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 210 of 371 #: 2197 211 annual physical. 1543. Dr. Strauss was the team doctor while John Doe 27 was on the volleyball team, and Dr. Strauss conducted all the annual physicals. 1544. John Doe 27 was an 18-year-old freshman when he had his first physical with Dr. Strauss, in January of 1983. 1545. For the annual physicals staff had John Doe 27 and his teammates form a line outside Dr. Strauss\u2019 office in Larkins Hall. When his turn came, John Doe 27 entered a private room with Dr. Strauss and a male athletic trainer. The athletic trainer then left the room to deal with the next athlete to receive his physical. 1546. During the exam, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 27 to disrobe. After John Doe 27 complied, Dr. Strauss and inspected John Doe 27\u2019s entire body. Dr. Strauss then moved his face very close to John Doe 27\u2019s penis and scrotum while touching, closely examining, and methodically looking all around them for an uncomfortably long period of time. 1547. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the exam. 1548. During the exam, Dr. Strauss also made comments to John Doe 27 that made him uncomfortable. These included telling John Doe 27 that he liked his tan and tan lines, asking about John Doe 27\u2019s ethnicity and whether he had vacationed somewhere warm for Christmas, and telling John Doe 27 that he was \u201clooking good.\u201d 1549. Dr. Strauss\u2019 touching and comments to John Doe 27 were embarrassing, deeply unsettling, and traumatizing. 1550. John Doe 27 had a second physical exam with Dr. Strauss in January of 1984 that was very similar to the first exam. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 27 to disrobe, then moved his face very close to John Doe 27\u2019s penis and scrotum while touching, closely examining, and Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 211 of 371 #: 2198 212 methodically looking all around them for an uncomfortably long period of time. 1551. From discussions with a teammate, John Doe 27 learned that other volleyball players had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss. 1552. In the fall of 1985, John Doe 27 visited the Student Health Center for cold symptoms. Expecting to see one of the physicians he had seen at the Student Health Center in the past, he was surprised to be seen by Dr. Strauss. Although John Doe 27 was there for treatment for a cold, Dr. Strauss insisted on performing what he called \u201can check\u201d due to what Dr. Strauss explained was the \u201cpromiscuity of the time.\u201d Dr. Strauss told John Doe 27 to pull his pants down and proceeded to grab, pull, and fondle John Doe 27\u2019s penis and testicles. Otherwise, Dr. Strauss performed no medical testing or swab for an STD. 1553. In addition to conducting the volleyball team\u2019s medical examinations, Dr. Strauss showered with the team, including John Doe 27. Dr. Strauss made comments to volleyball players while they undressed and showered. He also stared at their naked bodies. This made John Doe 27 and his teammates very uncomfortable. 1554. John Doe 27 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1555. In retrospect, John Doe 27 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1556. While John Doe 27 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 27 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 212 of 371 #: 2199 213 1557. John Doe 27 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1558. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 27 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1559. Even if, while John Doe 27 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1560. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 27 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1561. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 27 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1562. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 27 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, learning about Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse and OSU\u2019s role in allowing it has retraumatized John Doe 27, causing repressed memories of these painful experiences to resurface. In addition, even though John Doe 27 is an oral surgeon, he feels he has to watch out for doctors and be very careful about who he sees for medical treatment 28 1563. John Doe 28 was the manager of OSU\u2019s gymnastics team from 1983 through 1985. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 213 of 371 #: 2200 214 1564. In 1983 or 1984, John Doe 28 asked the gymnastics team\u2019s coach if he could get a physical exam with other members of the team. John Doe 28 wanted the same opportunity the gymnasts had to get a free check-up. The coach told John Doe 28 to see Dr. Strauss for an exam. 1565. Before the exam, when John Doe 28 asked Coach Mike Willson if he should get a physical examination, Coach Willson replied, \u201cyes teammate overheard the conversation and told John Doe 28 to \u201cbe careful.\u201d 1566. John Doe 28 saw Dr. Strauss for a physical exam at Larkins Hall. Dr. Strauss examined him in a private room there, with no one else present. John Doe 28 recalls that the office had windows, but Dr. Strauss closed the drapes before the examination. 1567. To the best of his recollection, John Doe 28 was a 20-year-old junior at the time of the physical exam with Dr. Strauss. 1568. Dr. Strauss began the exam in an ordinary way, consistent with John Doe 28\u2019s expectations for a physical. 1569. But the examination changed quickly after Dr. Strauss sat on a stool and instructed John Doe 28 to drop his pants to check for a hernia. 1570. Dr. Strauss began to touch John Doe 28\u2019s testicles and the surrounding areas, asking John Doe 28 to cough over and over again and causing him to get aroused. 1571. Dr. Strauss then began touching John Doe 28\u2019s penis and testicles in a way that caused John Doe 28 to begin to get an erection. Dr. Strauss then moved his left hand to John Doe 28\u2019s penis and began masturbating him to the point of near ejaculation. 1572. John Doe 28 was extremely embarrassed and shocked by the doctor\u2019s actions, to the point that he was having feelings of disassociation, a sense that he was outside of his body, which prohibited John Doe 28 from responding. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 214 of 371 #: 2201 215 1573. Dr. Strauss repeatedly asked John Doe 28 to cough while he continued to masturbate him. 1574. While touching John Doe 28\u2019s genitals, Dr. Strauss gradually moved his face closer to John Doe 28\u2019s genitals, making John Doe 28 believe Dr. Strauss was about to put his mouth on John Doe 28\u2019s penis. 1575. John Doe 28 then recoiled backwards, away from the doctor. 1576. John Doe 28 believes that the gymnasts had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss, because other gymnasts used euphemisms to talk about Dr. Strauss, saying he was \u201ccreepy,\u201d \u201cweird,\u201d and \u201cprobably a fag,\u201d among other names. 1577. While John Doe 28 was the manager of the gymnastics team, Dr. Strauss showered with John Doe 28 and the gymnasts. In fact, Dr. Strauss showered repeatedly in the same day, as the gymnasts finished their practices at different times. In between showering, Dr. Strauss walked around the locker room naked with a towel over his shoulder or sat naked in a chair reading a newspaper. Dr. Strauss positioned his chair in the locker room so he could see every male entering the showers from each of the two entrances. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct in the locker room made John Doe 28 very uncomfortable. He was also angry that he and the team were subjected to this behavior. 1578. Other men, whom John Doe 28 believed were faculty, staff, and/or students, also showered regularly in the locker room with the gymnasts and wrestlers, staring at their naked bodies. John Doe 28 often saw these men walking around the locker room and shower area fondling themselves, sometimes to the point of getting erections. John Doe 28 believed that these men were \u201ccruising\u201d for sex, as they fondled themselves while looking to see if an athlete was watching them. This happened repeatedly, nearly every day. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 215 of 371 #: 2202 216 1579. To avoid Dr. Strauss and these other men, John Doe 28 and some gymnasts stopped showering at Larkins Hall. 1580. John Doe 28 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss or the environment at Larkins Hall and did not believe there was any recourse for what he experienced. 1581. In fact, John Doe 28 believed that if he had reported Dr. Strauss, he might have been removed from the gymnastics team. 1582. Given the environment Dr. Strauss and had created, John Doe 28 was afraid of the consequences if he complained. 1583. In retrospect, John Doe 28 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually assaulted and harassed him and the gymnastics team. John Doe 28 also realizes now that the environment in the Larkins Hall locker room and showers was sexually hostile. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by Dr. Strauss. 1584. While John Doe 28 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable about Dr. Strauss\u2019 physical examination and conduct in the locker room, John Doe 28 did not understand at the time that Dr. Strauss had sexually assaulted and harassed him. 1585. John Doe 28 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and sent him and the gymnasts to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1586. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 28 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual assaults and Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 216 of 371 #: 2203 217 harassment or that other students had complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1587. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual assault and harassment of students, John Doe 28 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually assaulted and harassed him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual assault and harassment, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual misconduct. 1588. Even if, while John Doe 28 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1589. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual misconduct, John Doe 28 would not have been sexually assaulted and harassed by Dr. Strauss. 1590. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual assault and harassment, and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent this, John Doe 28 has suffered permanent emotional and psychological damages. For example, prior to his exam with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 28 was an excellent student who was a member of academic honors societies and a recipient of academic scholarships. After the exam, John Doe 28\u2019s grade point average dropped precipitously and he struggled to pass his college courses, including those within his major, which were of great interest to him and in which he had performed much better before his exam with Dr. Strauss. During this decline, John Doe 28 went from being in the psychology honorary to getting \u201cCs\u201d. This adversely affected John Doe 28\u2019s plan to attend graduate school to study experimental or social psychology because he no longer had the grades to pursue this, which, in turn, negatively impacted his earning capacity. In addition, John Doe 28 felt he had no choice but to quit managing the gymnastics team. This happened just Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 217 of 371 #: 2204 218 a few months before the team won a national championship, causing John Doe 28 to miss the opportunity to receive a championship ring or receive a varsity letter for 1985\u2014a heartbreaking moment and lifelong regret. 1591. After his examination by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 28 also began to drink heavily and use recreational drugs. John Doe 28 was not able to become sober until January 1986. Since his experience with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 28 has been distrustful of other people and has had problems with intimacy. Whereas he had been well-adjusted, happy and optimistic before being sexually assaulted, he became quite the opposite afterward, often feeling miserable and despondent. John Doe 28 has needed therapy to help him process his trauma. He has been diagnosed with Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He has suffered from nightmares. The impact from Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse continues to affect him deeply. He feels angry at and Dr. Strauss. He is on edge and feels fearful and overwhelmed. He also has feelings of humiliation and guilt for not being able to stop what happened to him. As a result, he often reacts with hypervigilance, anger and rage. This has affected his marriage to the point that his spouse has learned to leave him alone on days that he has counseling. Since the Strauss investigation was announced, John Doe 28 has also suffered from unexplained weight loss and believes it may be stress related 29 1592. John Doe 29 was a student at from 1983 to 1987, and practiced with OSU\u2019s swim team from 1983 to 1984. 1593. John Doe 29 saw Dr. Strauss for the first time in the fall of 1983 at Larkins Hall for a required preseason physical. 1594. As a prospective member of the swimming team, John Doe 29 was scheduled to have a physical with Dr. Strauss. He and the members of the swim team went to Larkins Hall and waited to see Dr. Strauss individually. Each student was alone with Dr. Strauss in Dr. Strauss\u2019 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 218 of 371 #: 2205 219 Larkins Hall office. 1595. At the physical, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 29 to undress completely. Dr. Strauss sat on a chair in front of John Doe 29 while John Doe 29 was standing. Dr. Strauss\u2019 face was at eye level with John Doe 29\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 29 he was performing a hernia check. Dr. Strauss had his hands on John Doe 29\u2019s penis and testicles for a prolonged time. 1596. After Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 29\u2019s genitals, he instructed John Doe 29 to get dressed and ended the exam. 1597. Dr. Strauss had a reputation among the members of the swim team for being \u201ca strange guy.\u201d 1598. John Doe 29 saw Dr. Strauss for a second time between 1984 and 1987 at the Student Health Center to be treated for flu-like symptoms. John Doe 29\u2019s OSU-provided insurance dictated that he seek treatment at the Student Health Center. 1599. At the exam, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 29 to remove his clothing and lay face-down on the exam table. Dr. Strauss put on rubber gloves and inserted his fingers in John Doe 29\u2019s rectum. John Doe 29 almost blacked out from shock and pain. 1600. Dr. Strauss did not say anything at any time before, during, or after inserting his fingers in John Doe 29\u2019s rectum. He did not explain his actions or their medical relationship to John Doe 29\u2019s flu-like symptoms. 1601. John Doe 29 was confused by both of Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams and believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was not normal. However, he did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused and harassed him and members of the swim team. 1602. John Doe 29 did not report his discomfort with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination. He did not know that it was something he could complain about. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 219 of 371 #: 2206 220 1603. John Doe 29 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 1604. In retrospect, John Doe 29 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and members of the swim team. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1605. While John Doe 29 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 29 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1606. John Doe 29 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss a university and athletic team doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. In addition, John Doe 29 reasonably believed that would not have put Dr. Strauss in a position to work at the Student Health Center as a physician unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1607. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 29 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1608. In any event, even if, while John Doe 29 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1609. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 29 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 220 of 371 #: 2207 221 1610. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 29 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1611. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 29 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. He decided not to pursue OSU\u2019s swimming team because, in part, of his physical with Dr. Strauss. He has trouble managing his emotions and tends to suppress his feelings until he blows up. His anger at Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions has been particularly difficult to manage. John Doe 29 has gone through marriage counseling, part of which includes discussing his anger issues caused by Dr. Strauss. Since Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, John Doe 29 has had difficulty trusting medical providers or any professionals who work with children. John Doe 29 is also fearful and anxious about his children\u2019s safety, and overprotective of them. This negatively impacts his relationship with them. He also has had difficulty trusting as an employer after learning how ignored the issues with Dr. Strauss. It has been difficult for John Doe 29 to go to his job every day knowing what has done. This contributed to his decision to secure a job with another employer and provide with his notice of resignation 30 1612. John Doe 30 has been a youth, high school, and college wrestling referee from 1972 to the present. He refereed at four times: once during the 1987-1988 academic year on behalf of the wrestling team and three times from 2008 to 2010 at an annual fund-raising event for autistic children held by OSU. He was paid by for his referee work on behalf of the wrestling team during the 1987-1988 academic year. 1613. Wrestling was an educational program or activity at in which John Doe 30 participated as a contract referee. During the 1987-1988 academic year, John Doe 30 was sexually harassed by Dr. Strauss before refereeing a wrestling dual meet between and Indiana University at OSU\u2019s St. John Arena. He was 34 years old at the time. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 221 of 371 #: 2208 222 1614. Before the dual meet, John Doe 30 asked an wrestling coach if he could see a trainer to have his back wrapped, as he recently had a back injury. The coach sent him to the training room to see a doctor. 1615. John Doe 30 met with a doctor he now knows to be Dr. Strauss. After John Doe 30 requested a preventative wrap around his back, Dr. Strauss instructed him to lower his pants to his knees and either lift up or remove his shirt. Dr. Strauss then instructed John Doe 30 to lower his underwear to his knees. John Doe 30 believed the request was strange, but he complied. 1616. After John Doe 30 had followed Dr. Strauss\u2019 instructions, Dr. Strauss began wrapping a bandage around his waist and back. Dr. Strauss brushed his hand against John Doe 30\u2019s testicles several times. 1617. When Dr. Strauss finished the wrap, John Doe 30 returned to the wresting area to referee the dual meet. 1618. John Doe 30 was disturbed by Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior and called OSU\u2019s Athletic Department to report the incident a few days later. He was connected to an Athletics Department employee. John Doe 30 told that person that he \u201cwas fondled while getting an bandage wrapped during the wrestling meet.\u201d He also gave the employee his name and phone number. The employee said, \u201cOK, we\u2019ll take care of it.\u201d 1619. John Doe 30 was never contacted by anyone at regarding his report. 1620. John Doe 30 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1621. Until 2019, John Doe 30 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually harassed him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 222 of 371 #: 2209 223 1622. In retrospect, John Doe 30 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually harassed him. While he felt uncomfortable in the moment, he did not know or have reason to know that he was sexually harassed until 2019, when he heard media reports about survivors of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1623. Until learning in 2019 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 30 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that student-athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1624. Even if, while John Doe 30 was a referee, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1625. In short, until learning in 2019 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 30 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually harassed him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse and harassment, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and harassment. 1626. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 harassment and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 30 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. After his encounter with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 30 felt anxious. He was so bothered by the incident that he called to report it. John Doe 30 then developed a deep aversion to discussing Dr. Strauss\u2019 misconduct. Even now, he has difficulty discussing Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual harassment and has only raised the incident recently with a few friends 31 1627. John Doe 31 was a student at from 1986 through 1987, and was a member of OSU\u2019s gymnastics team during that time. John Doe 31 received a full athletic scholarship. 1628. John Doe 31 relied on his full athletic scholarship to attend college. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 223 of 371 #: 2210 224 1629. John Doe 31 saw Dr. Strauss once in the fall of 1986 for a physical. 1630. As a member of the gymnastics team, John Doe 31 was required to have a physical with Dr. Strauss. He and his teammates went to Larkins Hall and waited to see Dr. Strauss individually. Each teammate was alone with Dr. Strauss in Dr. Strauss\u2019 Larkins Hall office. 1631. John Doe 31 was instructed to lay flat on the exam table. Dr. Strauss pulled John Doe 31\u2019s pants down and conducted a so-called hernia check. He fondled John Doe 31\u2019s testicles with both hands and inspected John Doe 31\u2019s penis for a significant period of time. While groping John Doe 31, Dr. Strauss commented on John Doe 31\u2019s penis. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves. 1632. Older teammates warned John Doe 31 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior. They told John Doe 31 and other younger athletes that Dr. Strauss was a \u201cpervert,\u201d and that the underclassmen should try to avoid seeing Dr. Strauss if they got sick. 1633. Dr. Strauss frequently stood in the shower while John Doe 31 and his teammates washed off, staring at them. Dr. Strauss also attended the gymnastics team\u2019s practices and photographed the student-athletes in their uniforms. 1634. John Doe 31 felt violated by Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior, and thought that Dr. Strauss was \u201creally creepy.\u201d However, John Doe 31 did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. 1635. John Doe 31 did not report his discomfort with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, in part because he was fearful of losing his full athletic scholarship. He did not know that it was something he could complain about, and felt at the time that it was simply something \u201cyou dealt with.\u201d 1636. John Doe 31 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 1637. In retrospect, John Doe 31 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 224 of 371 #: 2211 225 him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until January 2019, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1638. While John Doe 31 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 31 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1639. John Doe 31 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1640. Until learning in 2019 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 31 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1641. In any event, even if, while John Doe 31 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1642. In short, until learning in 2019 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 31 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1643. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 31 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1644. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 31 suffered emotional and psychological damages. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 225 of 371 #: 2212 226 3253 1645. John Doe 32 was a student at from 1990 to 1995. 1646. While a student at OSU, John Doe 32 was examined by Dr. Strauss on one occasion in late 1992 or early 1993 at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center. 1647. At his visit, John Doe 32 was sent by a Student Health Center worker to see Dr. Strauss for an examination of a skin tag on his penis. John Doe 32 and Dr. Strauss were alone in the exam room. 1648. At the appointment, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 32 to take off his pants and underwear and sit on the exam table. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 32 to grab a magazine because his exam was \u201cgoing to take a while.\u201d John Doe 32 grabbed a copy of Sports Illustrated and began reading an article. 1649. Dr. Strauss began fondling John Doe 32\u2019s penis. John Doe 32 believes that Dr. Strauss was attempting to give him an erection. Dr. Strauss continued to fondle John Doe 32\u2019s penis for five to ten minutes. Dr. Strauss looked up at John Doe 32 repeatedly during the exam. 1650. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during the exam made John Doe 32 very uncomfortable, but John Doe 32 felt unable to say anything due to Dr. Strauss\u2019 position as a person of authority at OSU. 1651. While he was a student at OSU, John Doe 32 did not know what to do about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. He was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 53 The person who was listed as John Doe 32 in Khalil Complaint is no longer represented by the undersigned counsel, as described in the Motion to Substitute, see Dkt. 36, and his allegations have been removed from this Second Amended Complaint. In his stead, we have renamed as new Plaintiff John Doe 32. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 226 of 371 #: 2213 227 1652. In retrospect, John Doe 32 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until after he learned about the investigation began in 2018 concerning allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1653. While John Doe 32 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 32 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1654. John Doe 32 reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss a university doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1655. Before learning about OSU\u2019s 2018\u201319 investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 32 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1656. In any event, even if, while John Doe 32 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1657. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 32 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1658. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 32 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. Since the exam, John Doe 32 has experienced ongoing erectile dysfunction, which has impacted his ability to maintain healthy intimate relationships. John Doe 32 also has regular flashbacks to Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, which causes him anxiety and stress. These issues contributed to his three failed marriages. He is also angry and upset that allowed this sort of abuse to happen to him and many other students over the years. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 227 of 371 #: 2214 228 He feels betrayed by as an institution for not holding itself accountable for its failures 33 1659. John Doe 33 was a graduate student at from the fall of 1995 through the spring of 1997. 1660. While a student at OSU, John Doe 33 was examined by Dr. Strauss twice at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center. John Doe 33 visited the center for treatment related to a sexually transmitted infection (\u201cSTI\u201d). During both visits, John Doe 33 was alone in the exam room with Dr. Strauss. 1661. On both occasions, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 33 to remove all of his clothing. Dr. Strauss methodically examined John Doe 33\u2019s entire body, poking and prodding his chest and nipples. 1662. At the first visit, when Dr. Strauss arrived at John Doe 33\u2019s lower body, he placed his face directly near John Doe 33\u2019s genitals, interchangeably sitting on a stool at face-level with John Doe 33\u2019s crotch and standing. Dr. Strauss repeatedly stroked John Doe 33\u2019s penis. 1663. Much to his humiliation, John Doe 33 experienced an erection, and apologized to Dr. Strauss. Dr. Strauss responded that John Doe 33 didn\u2019t need to apologize, and that an erection \u201chelp[ed him] to be able to see the lesions.\u201d 1664. After mentioning that John Doe 33\u2019s could spread to other places, Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 33\u2019s anus. 1665. Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination took a long time, and he spent at least twenty minutes, or more, examining John Doe 33\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss then provided a quick treatment for John Doe 33\u2019s STI. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 33 to return to his office the following week. 1666. The following week, Dr. Strauss subjected John Doe 33 to the same routine. He instructed John Doe 33 to remove all of his clothing, again gave him a \u201conce over,\u201d and began Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 228 of 371 #: 2215 229 fondling John Doe 33\u2019s penis. While rubbing John Doe 33\u2019s penis, Dr. Strauss commented, \u201coh that\u2019s kind of rough.\u201d He then applied lotion to his hands and stroked John Doe 33\u2019s penis repeatedly. 1667. John Doe 33 experienced another erection, this time ejaculating. John Doe 33 was devastated, humiliated, and confused. He again apologized to Dr. Strauss. The exam lasted between fifteen and twenty minutes. 1668. John Doe 33 felt extreme embarrassment and shame as a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions. His sexual performance was affected. He questioned his sexuality. Though John Doe 33 eventually realized that he was not gay, his shame and confusion caused him a great deal of mental anguish. 1669. John Doe 33 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. He did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1670. John Doe 33 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 1671. Until reading news coverage of the investigation in or about April, 2018, John Doe 33 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1672. This is because, while John Doe 33 was an student, he trusted that would not employ a sexual abuser at Student Health. He reasonably believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was part of a legitimate medical examination and blamed himself for his emotional and physical reaction to the exam. Though he felt humiliated, confused, and uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 33 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 229 of 371 #: 2216 230 1673. In short, until seeing news coverage in or about April, 2018, about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 33 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1674. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 33 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1675. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 33 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. He felt a great deal of shame, embarrassment, and confusion after his interactions with Dr. Strauss. He questioned his sexuality. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse caused John Doe 33 to experience sexual dysfunction. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse has also impaired John Doe 33\u2019s ability to maintain healthy and stable personal relationships. Since the public reporting about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse in 2018, John Doe 33 has thought about and relived the abuse nearly daily, causing him to feel isolated, confused, anxious, and angry. John Doe 33 had been a proud alumnus of but now, realizing that enabled Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, John Doe 33 feels betrayed by as an institution 34 1676. John Doe 34 was an undergraduate student at from 1974 to 1978, and a medical student at from 1979 to 1982. 1677. John Doe 34 saw Dr. Strauss once in the summer of 1979, before entering medical school. 1678. Prior to entering OSU\u2019s medical school, John Doe 34 was required to undergo an exam. Because John Doe 34\u2019s family physician was deceased, John Doe 34 contacted OSU\u2019s medical school about obtaining an exam at and an representative arranged for John Doe 34 to have a medical exam with Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 230 of 371 #: 2217 231 1679. John Doe 34 met with Dr. Strauss at an facility. 1680. Upon entering the exam room, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 34 to take off his pants. John Doe 34 stripped down to his underwear and sat on the exam table. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 34 to stand and drop his underwear. While sitting on a stool at eye-level with John Doe 34\u2019s genitals, Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 34\u2019s testicles, lingering there for a while. Dr. Strauss then instructed John Doe 34 to lay down on the exam table on his side. 1681. Dr. Strauss conducted a rectal exam, digitally penetrating John Doe 34\u2019s anus. 1682. John Doe 34 thought that the exam was \u201codd,\u201d and that he had never experienced this type of exam before in a check-up. 1683. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the genital exam, but John Doe 34 does not know if Dr. Strauss wore gloves during the rectal exam because John Doe 34 was facing away from Dr. Strauss. 1684. At the end of the exam, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 34 that he had blood in his urine, and that he would have to return to see him. Distraught, John Doe 34 decided not to return to Dr. Strauss. He did not see a doctor about blood in his urine until a few years later. 1685. John Doe 34 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1686. John Doe 34 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 1687. Until reading news coverage of the investigation in or about April, 2018, John Doe 34 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 231 of 371 #: 2218 232 1688. This is because, while John Doe 34 was an student, he trusted that would not employ a sexual abuser at Student Health. He reasonably believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior, while \u201codd\u201d and uncomfortable, was part of a legitimate medical examination. Though he felt humiliated, confused, and uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 34 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1689. In short, until seeing news coverage in or about April, 2018, about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 34 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1690. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 34 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1691. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 34 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct is something he will never forget. John Doe 34 developed an aversion to doctors, and did not seek medical attention for the blood in his urine until several years after Dr. Strauss abused him 35 1692. John Doe 35 was a student at from 1988 to 1992, and a member of OSU\u2019s volleyball team from 1988 to 1989. John Doe 35 quit the volleyball team after sustaining an injury. 1693. John Doe 35 was examined by Dr. Strauss ten to twelve times, often at the doctor\u2019s Larkins Hall office at OSU. He saw Dr. Strauss twice for mandatory annual physicals while a member of OSU\u2019s volleyball team. After quitting the volleyball team, John Doe 35 maintained access to the Larkins Hall facility and continued to see Dr. Strauss for various medical appointments. 1694. John Doe 35 was an 18-year-old freshman when he saw Dr. Strauss for the first Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 232 of 371 #: 2219 233 time. 1695 coaching staff directed John Doe 35 to get a physical with Dr. Strauss. 1696. At the appointment, Dr. Strauss began by touching and rubbing John Doe 35\u2019s entire body\u2014his arms, legs, and back. He told John Doe 35 to drop his pants, and sat on a stool at eye level with John Doe 35\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss fondled John Doe 35\u2019s testicles for a prolonged time. The examination lasted significantly longer than a standard medical examination. 1697. John Doe 35 found the examination odd. After the examination, John Doe 35 joked about the experience with his teammates. 1698. In 1989, John Doe 35 saw Dr. Strauss for another annual physical, where Dr. Strauss gave him the same type of prolonged examination. Again, Dr. Strauss fondled John Doe 35\u2019s testicles for a significant time. 1699. John Doe 35 was ill every year that he attended OSU. Though his illnesses were unrelated to his genitals, on each occasion, Dr. Strauss gave him the same type of examination, focusing on John Doe 35\u2019s genitals and fondling his testicles. 1700. John Doe 35\u2019s teammates joked about their experiences with Dr. Strauss. 1701. During a volleyball competition trip to the University of Southern California, Dr. Strauss hung around the showers and watched the players, including John Doe 35. On another occasion, Dr. Strauss took photographs of John Doe 35 while John Doe 35 played volleyball and gave the photographs to John Doe 35. Dr. Strauss also went with the team to the beach and photographed the players in their swimsuits. 1702. John Doe 35 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 233 of 371 #: 2220 234 1703. John Doe 35 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 1704. Until reading news coverage of the investigation in or about April or May, 2018, John Doe 35 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1705. This is because, while John Doe 35 was a student at OSU, he reasonably believed that would not have hired Dr. Strauss, or sent John Doe 35 and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. John Doe 35 believed that, while \u201cweird,\u201d Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were part of OSU\u2019s process for student-athletes, and that there was no way for him to argue with the doctor or university. 1706. In short, until seeing news coverage in April or May of 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 35 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1707. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 35 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1708. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 35 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, every time that John Doe 35 receives a physical from a doctor, he is immediately brought back to his experience with Dr. Strauss. He fears for the safety of his children and will only allow them to see female doctors. John Doe 35 avoids taking showers in locker rooms for fear that other men may be sexually gratified by seeing him naked. Learning that no one at ever stopped Dr. Strauss from abusing students has caused him great anger. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 234 of 371 #: 2221 235 36 1709. John Doe 36 was an undergraduate student at from 1978 to 1983, and a graduate student studying physical education at from 1984 to 1985. 1710. John Doe 36 interacted with Dr. Strauss on one occasion in February of 1984 after John Doe 36 sustained a back strain from his training for an intramural swim competition. An physical education professor referred John Doe 36 to Dr. Strauss. 1711. John Doe 36 informally approached Dr. Strauss in the locker room at Larkins Hall to ask Dr. Strauss about treatment for his back. John Doe 36 was wearing a Speedo. Dr. Strauss took John Doe 36 between a concealed row of lockers, where no other people were around, and began feeling up and down John Doe 36\u2019 back. He then moved his hand between John Doe 36\u2019 buttocks. Dr. Strauss was not wearing gloves. John Doe 36 reminded Dr. Strauss that his pain was in his lower back only. 1712. Without warning, Dr. Strauss then moved behind John Doe 36, put his hand down John Doe 36\u2019s Speedo and grabbed the shaft of his penis. After doing so, Dr. Strauss walked away without saying anything. 1713. After this encounter, John Doe 36 purposefully avoided Dr. Strauss every time he was in the Larkins Hall locker room. He would turn and walk in the opposite direction whenever Dr. Strauss was around. 1714. John Doe 36 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. He merely felt that Dr. Strauss was \u201creally weird\u201d and that his behavior was \u201ccreepy.\u201d 1715. John Doe 36 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1716. While John Doe 36 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 235 of 371 #: 2222 236 to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination and conduct, John Doe 36 did not understand that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1717. John Doe 36 reasonably believed that would not have kept Dr. Strauss on staff as an doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1718. Until learning in May 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 36 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1719. In any event, even if, while John Doe 36 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1720. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 36 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1721. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 36 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 36 is anxious whenever he goes into a locker room, and fears that he has to constantly watch out for predators. He is now a coach himself, and his ability to do his job is impaired by his need to be \u201con guard\u201d at all times while in a locker room. John Doe 36 also has an aversion to seeing male doctors, and ever since his abuse, chooses to only see female doctors. Finally, John Doe 36 always considered to be a huge part of his family and his life; he met his wife at and his children were born at the medical center. Since learning of OSU\u2019s role in allowing a sexually hostile culture to flourish on its campus, John Doe 36 has felt angry and stressed, and has experienced elevated blood pressure as a result. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 236 of 371 #: 2223 237 37 1722. John Doe 37 was a student at between 1989 and 1993, and a member of OSU\u2019s cheerleading team from 1990 to 1992. John Doe 37 originally enrolled at in 1985, but left shortly thereafter to join the Navy. He re-enrolled at in 1989. 1723. John Doe 37 attended on a partial athletic scholarship. He relied on his scholarship to attend college. 1724. As a member of OSU\u2019s cheerleading team, John Doe 37 was required to undergo yearly physicals with Dr Strauss. John Doe 37 also saw Dr. Strauss three times for treatment. 1725. Each examination occurred in Dr. Strauss\u2019 office on property. John Doe 37 and Dr. Strauss were alone during each examination, and Dr. Strauss locked the door to the exam room. 1726. During one of the examinations, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 37 to drop his pants while standing. Dr. Strauss sat eye-level with John Doe 37\u2019s genitals. He grabbed the tip of John Doe 37\u2019s penis and examined it extensively, looking under and around it. 1727. John Doe 37 experienced an erection. Dr. Strauss continued moving a finger up and down John Doe 37\u2019s penis until John Doe 37 ejaculated. John Doe 37 was mortified. Dr. Strauss said to him, \u201cIt\u2019s fine, it happens.\u201d Dr. Strauss then took a Q-Tip and rubbed it around John Doe 37\u2019s scrotum and rectum. 1728. John Doe 37 left the examination in shock. He wondered whether what had happened was his own fault. He was mortified by the experience. 1729. Shortly after that exam, John Doe 37 contracted molluscum, a viral skin infection. 1730. John Doe 37 saw Dr. Strauss three times for molluscum treatment. On each occasion, Dr. Strauss gave John Doe 37 the same exam, stroking John Doe 37\u2019s penis until he ejaculated. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 237 of 371 #: 2224 238 1731. John Doe 37 was embarrassed, ashamed, and confused by his experiences with Dr. Strauss. He told no one of what had happened, fearing that others would think he was gay. He struggled with his sexual identity and questioned whether he was gay. 1732. John Doe 37\u2019s teammates regularly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. Before John Doe 37 had his exams with Dr. Strauss, his teammates would joke, \u201cWatch out for Strauss.\u201d One of his teammates also joked, \u201cIf you gotta visit the doc, be careful.\u201d 1733. John Doe 37 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1734. Until learning in 2018 about an investigation into allegations that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused student-athletes, John Doe 37 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examinations of him or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1735. Until hearing reports in 2018, John Doe 37 had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1736. This is because, in John Doe 37\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 genital examinations were a running joke among players. 1737. Even if John Doe 37 had tried to inquire into OSU\u2019s role in permitting Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1738. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 37 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1739. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 37 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. After the examinations, John Doe 37 felt Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 238 of 371 #: 2225 239 extremely upset and became depressed. He was embarrassed, ashamed, and confused. He struggled with his sexual identity and questioned whether he was gay. He kept silent, fearing that others would think he was gay. He thought about committing suicide. He eventually was prescribed medication for depression. To this day, he continues to suffer from depression and other mental health issues arising from Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it. In addition, he developed an aversion to seeing doctors, and has fewer visits because he fears that something similar to what occurred with Dr. Strauss will happen again. Finally, John Doe 37\u2019s marriage has suffered as a result of his experiences with Dr. Strauss 38 1740. John Doe 38 attended and was a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team from 1976 to 1981. He was recruited by and received a full athletic scholarship. 1741. John Doe 38 depended on his full scholarship to attend college. 1742. John Doe 38 received many accolades during his time at OSU. As captain of the wrestling team, he led the team to Big Ten Championships in two weight classes. 1743. When John Doe 38 was a student athlete at OSU, the athletic department required him to be examined by Dr. Strauss for any medical conditions that arose. 1744. Dr. Strauss abused John Doe 38 at least six times on property. Dr. Strauss conducted medically unnecessary genital exams on John Doe 38 during their medical appointments. He also harassed and assaulted John Doe 38 in the steam room, shower area, and training room at Larkins Hall. 1745. Dr. Strauss frequently approached John Doe 38 in the steam room and shower area at Larkins Hall while completely naked. He showered with John Doe 38 after every practice, sometimes multiple times a day. 1746. While in the steam room and shower area, Dr. Strauss fondled John Doe 38\u2019s Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 239 of 371 #: 2226 240 testicles and penis on multiple occasions. On one occasion while John Doe 38 and Dr. Strauss were alone in the steam room, Dr. Strauss attempted to perform oral sex on John Doe 38. As Dr. Strauss brought his mouth close to John Doe 38\u2019s penis, John Doe 38 pushed him away to prevent him from performing the act. 1747. John Doe 38 sustained rib and knee injuries while on OSU\u2019s wrestling team, which necessitated surgery. John Doe 38 had three or four follow-up appointments with Dr. Strauss. At each follow-up appointment, Dr. Strauss performed a medically unnecessary genital exam on John Doe 38. 1748. During these various encounters, Dr. Strauss repeatedly made lewd comments to John Doe 38. He told John Doe 38 that John Doe 38 had \u201ca nice ass\u201d and that his \u201cpenis looks lovely.\u201d He frequently asked John Doe 38 about his sex life. He also invited John Doe 38 to go back to his house with him, but John Doe 38 refused. 1749. John Doe 38 felt that Dr. Strauss stalked him during his time at OSU. At Larkins Hall, John Doe 38 often looked up to see Dr. Strauss staring at him while he was showering or changing. Dr. Strauss also appeared at parties John Doe 38 was attending, and tried to act as if he were John Doe 38\u2019s best friend. 1750. Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was creepy, uncomfortable, and unnerving to John Doe 38. 1751. Dr. Strauss prescribed various narcotics to John Doe 38, including Valium. John Doe 38 believes that Dr. Strauss did this in an attempt to drug John Doe 38 to attempt to have sex with him. 1752. John Doe 38 saw that his teammates had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss. Dr. Strauss gave John Doe 38\u2019s teammates medically unnecessary genital exams, observed them while showering, and fondled their penises and testicles in an effort to get them erect. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 240 of 371 #: 2227 241 1753. John Doe 38 and his teammates regularly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 treatment in the presence of staff. When John Doe 38 discussed how Dr. Strauss had touched him, Assistant Coach Roger Young and Graduate Assistant Coach Cox merely laughed off John Doe 38\u2019s remarks. They did not inquire further as to Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior or offer any means through which John Doe 38 could report any concerns. Both coaches called Dr. Strauss \u201cDr. Levi,\u201d joking that he wanted to get into the players\u2019 jeans. 1754. John Doe 38 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1755. John Doe 38 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions as sexually abusive at the time. 1756. Until learning in 2018 about an investigation into allegations that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused student-athletes, John Doe 38 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examinations of him or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1757. Until hearing reports in 2018, John Doe 38 had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1758. This is because, while John Doe 38 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of their coaches, the coaches continued to require John Doe 38 and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss for examinations and treatment, and John Doe 38 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1759. In addition, Coach Young\u2019s and Coach Cox\u2019s unconcerned reaction to his and his teammates\u2019 complaints about Dr. Strauss did not give John Doe 38 any reason to investigate what Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 241 of 371 #: 2228 242 Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. The coaches\u2019 habit of joking about Dr. Strauss served to reinforce John Doe 38\u2019s reasonable belief that further inquiry would not be productive. In any event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. 1760. Even if John Doe 38 had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in permitting Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information, and, through its coaches, trainers and administrators, treated John Doe 38\u2019s complaints about Dr. Strauss as matters of no real concern. 1761. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 38 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1762. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 38 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. At the time of the abuse, John Doe 38 experienced deep shame and humiliation, and questioned his sexuality. Over the years, he has had difficulty forming and maintaining intimate relationships as a result of the trauma he experienced. John Doe 38 also developed an aversion to doctors and has avoided getting regular physicals as a result of his experiences with Dr. Strauss. For example, in the late 1980s, John Doe 38 began losing weight and believed it may have been from an infectious disease contracted from Dr. Strauss\u2019 touching him. Because of his aversion to doctors, John Doe 38 delayed seeking medical treatment, which caused him severe stress and anxiety. When he finally saw a doctor, he discovered that he had a thyroid condition 39 1763. John Doe 39 was a student at from 1986 to 1991, and a member of the soccer team in 1986. John Doe 39 attended on a partial scholarship. 1764. John Doe 39 quit the soccer team halfway through his first season. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 242 of 371 #: 2229 243 1765. John Doe 39 was an 18-year-old freshman when he was first examined by Dr. Strauss. 1766 coaching staff instructed John Doe 39 to get a physical from Dr. Strauss before he could begin playing on the soccer team. 1767. John Doe 39 gathered with a few other players outside of Larkins Hall. One by one, players entered Larkins Hall and then a private exam room to meet with Dr. Strauss. After one player left the exam room and building, another would enter. The players were alone with Dr. Strauss in the exam room. It seemed strange to John Doe 39 that the players were required to wait outside the building, rather than outside the exam room, but inside the building. 1768. While waiting in line, the upperclassmen teased the underclassmen about their impending exams with Dr. Strauss. They made comments like, \u201cThis guy is handsy,\u201d and \u201cStrauss is going to like you\u201d to the underclassmen players, including John Doe 39. Teammates made jokes about Dr. Strauss giving players rectal exams. 1769. When John Doe 39 went into the exam room, Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 39 to pull his shorts down. He then conducted a hernia exam on John Doe 39, and cupped John Doe 39\u2019s scrotum without wearing gloves. Dr. Strauss commented on the appearance of John Doe 39\u2019s penis. He began to stroke John Doe 39\u2019s penis repeatedly and John Doe 39 became erect. John Doe 39 pulled away in shock and put his shorts back on. 1770. On his way out of Larkins Hall, John Doe 39 vomited. He was shamed, humiliated, and confused as to what had just occurred. 1771. Unable to cope with the trauma, John Doe 39 quit the soccer team halfway through his freshman season, after experiencing a mental breakdown. Playing soccer was everything to John Doe 39 and a big part of his identity. By quitting the team, John Doe 39 lost Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 243 of 371 #: 2230 244 friends and his social circle. Much to John Doe 39\u2019s surprise and disappointment, no coaches ever bothered to ask him why he was quitting. 1772. The year after Dr. Strauss abused John Doe 39, John Doe 39 threatened to kill himself. He confided in a friend about his plan who, in turn, informed John Doe 39\u2019s father. John Doe 39\u2019s father called the police, who removed John Doe 39 from class and placed him into therapy. Had no one intervened, John Doe 39 would have followed through on his plan. 1773. After John Doe 39 graduated from OSU, he ran into Dr. Strauss in a grocery store. John Doe 39 suffered a panic attack, abandoning his shopping cart and running back to the car. While recovering from his panic attack, John Doe 39 contemplated bringing a baseball bat into the grocery store and beating Dr. Strauss. This violent instinct, born of John Doe 39\u2019s deep-seated trauma, contradicted his otherwise peaceable nature, and caused him great angst. He ultimately left the parking lot without approaching Dr. Strauss and never saw Dr. Strauss again. 1774. John Doe 39 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1775. While John Doe 39 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 39 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1776. John Doe 39 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1777. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 39 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 244 of 371 #: 2231 245 conduct or that other student-athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether had harmed him. 1778. Even if, while John Doe 39 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1779. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 39 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1780. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 39 has suffered emotional and psychological damages, which led him to attempt suicide in college. John Doe 39 repressed memories of his trauma for over three decades and experiences guilt for not preventing Dr. Strauss from abusing others. He has needed therapy to help him process his trauma. The abuse he experienced has also impaired his personal relationships and caused him to develop an addiction to pornography. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse caused John Doe 39 to question his sexuality and John Doe 39 had trouble discerning his sexual identity. He kept the abuse a secret from his wife until recently. He fears sending his children off to college because he is anxious that they will be abused like he was 40 1781. John Doe 40 was a student at from 1986 to 1989. He played intramural ice hockey during that time. 1782. John Doe 40 saw Dr. Strauss once for an examination, when he was required by to obtain a physical as a prerequisite for playing intramural hockey. 1783. John Doe 40 saw Dr. Strauss in an exam room at the Student Health Center. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 245 of 371 #: 2232 246 1784. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 40 to drop his pants, then aggressively groped John Doe 40\u2019s testicles and gave John Doe 40 a rectal exam. 1785. Dr. Strauss made comments to John Doe 40 while examining his genitals that made him uncomfortable. He told John Doe 40 how fascinating he found scrotums to be and that they were \u201clike chicken skin.\u201d 1786. Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination made John Doe 40 extremely uncomfortable, confused, and embarrassed. 1787. John Doe 40 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 1788. In retrospect, John Doe 40 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this, until 2018, after he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. John Doe 40 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 1789. While John Doe 40 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination and conduct, John Doe 40 did not understand that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1790. John Doe 40 reasonably believed that would not have kept Dr. Strauss on staff as an doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1791. Until learning in May 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 40 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1792. In any event, even if, while John Doe 40 was an student, he had tried to inquire Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 246 of 371 #: 2233 247 further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1793. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 40 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1794. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 40 has suffered emotional and psychological damages few years after Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, John Doe 40 began experiencing medical issues with his rectum that have required multiple surgeries. His ongoing medical issues frequently remind him of what he went through with Dr. Strauss. Strauss\u2019 abuse greatly impacted his relationship with his long-time partner, who ended their relationship in 2019. Since his exam with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 40 has been distrustful of medical professionals. After John Doe 40 learned in 2018 that Strauss abused many other students for over a decade after his exam, he has felt tremendous guilt for not having reported his own abuse to 41 1795. John Doe 41 was a student at from 1987 through 1992, and a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team during that time. 1796. John Doe 41 began seeing Dr. Strauss for physicals in 1988. These physicals were required for wrestlers, and John Doe 41 was never given an option to see anyone other than Dr. Strauss. 1797. During the four years that he wrestled at OSU, John Doe 41 saw Dr. Strauss for approximately thirty-nine exams. 1798. Every appointment with Dr. Strauss occurred in Dr. Strauss\u2019 office in Larkins Hall. 1799. John Doe 41\u2019s first physical with Dr. Strauss was in December 1988. He, along with a few other wrestlers, were called from the locker room to go see Dr. Strauss. Each entered the office alone. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 247 of 371 #: 2234 248 1800. Before his first visit, John Doe 41 was warned by a fellow teammate to \u201cthink about Tonka trucks\u201d while Dr. Strauss examined him, suggesting that Dr. Strauss would touch him inappropriately. 1801. When John Doe 41 entered the office, Dr. Strauss told him to drop his underwear. Dr. Strauss then sat on a stool while John Doe 41 stood, and brought his face very close to John Doe 41\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss began moving John Doe 41\u2019s genitals around extensively, examining and touching him for several minutes. Dr. Strauss repeatedly rubbed and touched John Doe 41\u2019s penis and testicles, attempting to give John Doe 41 an erection. 1802. John Doe 41 felt uncomfortable, confused, and completely powerless. He cast his eyes about the room, desperately trying to think about other subjects while Dr. Strauss groped him. 1803. From 1988 through 1992, John Doe 41 saw Dr. Strauss for exams approximately six times his first season, twelve times his second season, fifteen times his third season, and six times his fourth season. Dr. Strauss conducted a similar exam and attempted to give John Doe 41 an erection by fondling his penis and testicles during almost all of John Doe 41\u2019s appointments. 1804. Dr. Strauss frequently went into the showers and locker rooms while John Doe 41 and his teammates were showering or changing, often in the middle of the afternoon. 1805. Periodically, Dr. Strauss left envelopes with photos of John Doe 41 outside of John Doe 41\u2019s locker. These photos depicted John Doe 41 wrestling at tournaments. 1806. John Doe 41 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 1807. Until learning in late 2018 or early 2019 about an investigation into allegations that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused student-athletes, John Doe 41 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examinations of him or that other Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 248 of 371 #: 2235 249 athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1808. Until hearing reports in late 2018 or early 2019, John Doe 41 had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1809. Even if, while he was an student, John Doe 41 had tried to inquire into OSU\u2019s role in permitting Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1810. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 41 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1811. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 41 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. Since Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations first took place, John Doe 41 has suffered recurring thoughts about the abuse. John Doe 41 lost trust in authority figures. He is skeptical of medical professionals and his bosses and co-workers. John Doe 41 fears for the safety of his children. He always ensures that his children are never alone with authority figures because he fears they may be abused 42 1812. John Doe 42 has been a college wrestling referee from 1990 to present. He refereed at a few times a year, and was paid by for his work each time. Wrestling was an educational program or activity at in which John Doe 42 participated as a paid referee. In 1994 or 1995, John Doe 42 was abused by Dr. Strauss after refereeing a wrestling match at OSU\u2019s St. John Arena. He was in his mid-forties at the time. 1813. After the match, John Doe 42 entered the locker room, which was used regularly by referees to change and shower after matches. Dr. Strauss walked in and began undressing at the lockers beside John Doe 42. There was no one else in the locker room at the time. 1814. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 42 that he had somewhere to be and wanted to take a Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 249 of 371 #: 2236 250 quick shower. John Doe 42 finished undressing first and went to the shower at the far side of the shower room. The shower room was an open shower, with five showers down the line on all four sides. All of the showers were unoccupied, but instead of taking a shower far away from John Doe 42, Dr. Strauss took the shower directly beside John Doe 42. 1815. John Doe 42 recalls that there was a tremendous amount of soap all over Dr. Strauss. Before he knew it, John Doe 42 realized that some part of Dr. Strauss\u2019 body was touching him. John Doe 42 looked up and saw Dr. Strauss masturbating while staring right at John Doe 42. John Doe 42 recoiled, said \u201cWhat the hell, Doctor?\u201d, and left the shower. 1816. Dr. Strauss followed John Doe 42 out of the shower. He was wearing a towel and John Doe 42 could see an erection visible through Dr. Strauss\u2019 towel. Dr. Strauss then said to John Doe 42, \u201cYou have a nice penis and physique, there\u2019s nothing wrong with the human body.\u201d John Doe 42 told Dr. Strauss that he found his behavior inappropriate. 1817. John Doe 42 left the locker room, and told Coach Hellickson and Assistant Coach Jordan that he had found Dr. Strauss \u201cwhacking off in the shower.\u201d They responded, \u201cYeah, that\u2019s Strauss.\u201d 1818. John Doe 42 knew that Dr. Strauss was rumored to hang around the showers with the wrestlers. He always saw Dr. Strauss at the wrestling matches he refereed. 1819. John Doe 42 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1820. Until seeing news coverage of the investigation in 2018, John Doe 42 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually harassed him. 1821. In retrospect, John Doe 42 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually harassed him. While Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 250 of 371 #: 2237 251 he felt uncomfortable in the moment and thought that Dr. Strauss was coming on to him, he did not know or have reason to know that he was sexually harassed until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 1822. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 42 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that student athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1823. Even if, while John Doe 42 was a referee, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1824. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 42 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually harassed him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse and harassment, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and harassment. 1825. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 harassment and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 42 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. After his encounter with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 42 felt enormous guilt, and wondered whether student wrestlers were being abused by Dr. Strauss. He would think back to his experience with Dr. Strauss every time he walked into St. John Arena 43 1826. John Doe 43 was a student at from 1988 to 1992, and a member of OSU\u2019s lacrosse team during that time. He received a partial athletic scholarship. 1827. John Doe 43 relied on his partial athletic scholarship to attend college. 1828. John Doe 43 saw Dr. Strauss for a pre-season physical for the first time in 1988, Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 251 of 371 #: 2238 252 when he was an 18-year-old freshman. 1829. Each appointment with Dr. Strauss occurred at the Woody Hayes Football Facility. John Doe 43 was alone with Dr. Strauss on each occasion. 1830. During John Doe 43\u2019s first appointment with Dr. Strauss in 1988, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 43 to take his shirt off and pull down his pants. Dr. Strauss grabbed John Doe 43\u2019s genitals, examining his penis and testicles. The examination took a long time\u2014much longer than the quick physicals to which John Doe 43 was accustomed. 1831. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct made John Doe 43 extremely uncomfortable. He walked out of the appointment confused and stunned, wondering what had just happened. He dreaded having to return the next year to see Dr. Strauss for another pre-season physical. 1832. John Doe 43 was injured during lacrosse season in the fall of his junior year, 1990. He went to the Woody Hayes Football Facility to receive treatment and asked for a doctor other than Dr. Strauss. John Doe 43 met with Dr. Lombardo who asked why John Doe 43 refused to see Dr. Strauss. John Doe 43 told Dr. Lombardo that Dr. Strauss did \u201ccreepy stuff,\u201d including grabbing John Doe 43\u2019s penis, during extensive genital exams. Dr. Lombardo looked concerned and told John Doe 43 to wait while he left the room to retrieve another doctor. Dr. Lombardo returned with Dr. Bob Murphy, OSU\u2019s Head Team Physician/Director of Sports Medicine. Dr. Lombardo asked John Doe 43 to tell Dr. Murphy what he had just said about Dr. Strauss. John Doe 43 complied. Dr. Lombardo and Dr. Murphy looked at each other and said nothing. Dr. Murphy left the room and Dr. Lombardo proceeded to provide medical treatment for John Doe 43\u2019s injuries. 1833. Later that day, John Doe 43 received a phone call from Dr. Strauss at his student residence. John Doe 43 thought he was in trouble for telling Dr. Lombardo and Dr. Murphy about what Dr. Strauss had done to him. Dr. Strauss asked all about the injury for which he had sought Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 252 of 371 #: 2239 253 treatment from Dr. Lombardo earlier that day. Dr. Strauss never mentioned Dr. Lombardo or Dr. Murphy, or John Doe 43\u2019s complaint about Dr. Strauss. John Doe 43 believes they must have told Dr. Strauss about his complaint. 1834. However, to John Doe 43\u2019s knowledge, no one ever followed up with his complaint about Dr. Strauss, nor did anyone take corrective action against Dr. Strauss. 1835. Because no action was taken against Dr. Strauss and because John Doe 43 was required to see Dr. Strauss for examinations and medical treatment after his complaint, John Doe 43 thought that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations must be legitimate. 1836. At a pre-season physical during John Doe 43\u2019s sophomore year, Dr. Strauss gave John Doe 43 the same lengthy examination from the previous year, again fondling John Doe 43\u2019s penis and testicles. This time, Dr. Strauss also felt up John Doe 43\u2019s abdomen with one hand, while using his other hand to inspect John Doe 43\u2019s penis. 1837. During John Doe 43\u2019s third annual physical with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 43 attempted to shield his penis and genitals with his hand from Dr. Strauss. Dr. Strauss removed John Doe 43\u2019s hand and continued to give him the same extensive genital exam. 1838. In all, John Doe 43 saw Dr. Strauss at least ten times, both for annual physicals and other medical appointments. Most of the time, Dr. Strauss required John Doe 43 to remove his pants\u2014even for medical appointments for which genital exams were unnecessary\u2014and fondled his penis and testicles, studying his penis for an extended period of time and from so close that John Doe 43 could feel Dr. Strauss\u2019 breath on his penis and testicles. 1839. At many of these appointments, Dr. Strauss made comments about John Doe 43\u2019s body that made him uncomfortable. He remarked that John Doe 43 had \u201cnice abs\u201d and strong legs, while rubbing John Doe 43\u2019s body. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 253 of 371 #: 2240 254 1840. Dr. Strauss frequently hung out in the locker room while John Doe 43 and his teammates were changing. 1841. After John Doe 43\u2019s complaint to Dr. Lombardo and Dr. Murphy, he did not make additional complaints about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct and continued to see Dr. Strauss, in part because he was fearful of losing his partial athletic scholarship. In addition, John Doe 43 was intimidated by Dr. Strauss\u2019 credentials, and believed that Dr. Strauss had the ultimate power to keep him from playing lacrosse. John Doe 43 believed that, if he complained again or refused to see Dr. Strauss, he would either not be cleared to play, or would be kicked off the team entirely. 1842. Even after John Doe 43 made his complaint to Dr. Lombardo and Dr. Murphy, he was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 1843. In retrospect, John Doe 43 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until around 2018, when he learned about sex abuse scandals at various American colleges and universities, including at OSU. 1844. While John Doe 43 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 43 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1845. John Doe 43 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1846. In addition, the apparent failure of Dr. Lombardo and Dr. Murphy to take any action in response to John Doe 43\u2019s informal complaint made John Doe 43 believe there was no reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. That reaction also reinforced Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 254 of 371 #: 2241 255 John Doe 43\u2019s reasonable belief that further inquiry would not be productive. In any event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. 1847. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 43 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1848. In any event, even if, while John Doe 43 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1849. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 43 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1850. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 43 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1851. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 43 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. John Doe 43 is extremely worried for the safety of his two children in college and that they will be abused 44 1852. John Doe 44 was a student at from 1992 to 1996. 1853. While a student at OSU, John Doe 44 was examined by Dr. Strauss four times in the fall of 1992 at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center. 1854. John Doe 44 visited the center for treatment related to an causing genital warts. During each visit, John Doe 44 was alone in the exam room with Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 255 of 371 #: 2242 256 1855. At each exam, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 44 to pull his pants and underwear down. Each time, Dr. Strauss put on gloves, applied lubricant, and stroked John Doe 44\u2019s penis until John Doe 44 ejaculated. 1856. At each exam, after causing John Doe 44 to ejaculate, Dr. Strauss conducted a prostate exam, claiming the had spread to John Doe 44\u2019s buttocks. John Doe 44 believed he had to submit to these exams. 1857. During the first exam, Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 44 how he contracted the STI. John Doe 44 responded that he contracted the from having sex with his ex-girlfriend. Dr. Strauss replied, \u201cNo way that could have happened having sex with a female.\u201d 1858. At the end of each exam, Dr. Strauss froze the warts on John Doe 44\u2019s genitals. 1859. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during the exams made John Doe 44 exceedingly uncomfortable, but he was afraid to say anything because he needed Dr. Strauss\u2019 help in treating his STI. He did not realize that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him. 1860. During one of the exams, Dr. Strauss and John Doe 44 discussed their mutual interest in music. Dr. Strauss invited John Doe 44 to his home to take professional photos of John Doe 44 and his musical instruments. John Doe 44 visited Dr. Strauss\u2019 home with his bass guitar and upright bass, in addition to changes of clothing. Dr. Strauss took photos of John Doe 44 with his bass guitar and upright bass in a studio in the front living room, then instructed John Doe 44 to change into different outfits behind a screen. John Doe 44 felt uncomfortable during the photo shoot but did not know how to express his discomfort. 1861. While he was a student at OSU, John Doe 44 did not know what to do about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. He was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 256 of 371 #: 2243 257 1862. In retrospect, John Doe 44 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about Perkins Coie\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss and reached out to Perkins Coie to provide information about his experience. 1863. While John Doe 44 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 44 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1864. John Doe 44 reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss a university doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1865. Until learning in 2018 about Perkins Coie\u2019s investigation into OSU\u2019s handling of Dr. Strauss, John Doe 44 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014 had harmed him. 1866. In any event, even if, while John Doe 44 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1867. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 44 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1868. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 44 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. He felt significant stress every time he taught or performed music because it reminded him of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. As a result, he changed careers from music teaching and performance to information technology. He also lost the confidence to Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 257 of 371 #: 2244 258 speak in front of groups and build relationships in the workplace, which has hindered his professional advancement. Further, John Doe 44\u2019s marriage has suffered since discussing the abuse with his wife. He and his wife have not been physically intimate since he spoke with Perkins Coie, which has severely strained their marriage. John Doe 44 is now attending therapy to process the damage that Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse has caused him all these years 45 1869. John Doe 45 was a student at from 1992 to 1996. 1870. Four times during his freshmen or sophomore year, John Doe 45 was examined by Dr. Strauss at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center. 1871. During all four visits, John Doe 45 was alone in the exam room with Dr. Strauss. 1872. On the first visit, John Doe 45 sought treatment related to molluscum (a viral skin infection). Dr. Strauss told John Doe 45 to stand by the table with his pants and underwear down. Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 45\u2019s genitalia without gloves on, fondling his testicles and lingering on them, even though John Doe 45 had no symptoms of molluscum on his testicles. He then told John Doe 45 to lie down on the examination table with his pants and underwear down. He used a scalpel to remove the bumps from John Doe 45\u2019s penis. 1873. John Doe 45 recalls that Dr. Strauss was overly \u201cfeely\u201d throughout the entire exam. Dr. Strauss touched and lingered on John Doe 45\u2019s genitals for twenty minutes or so, repeatedly moving John Doe 45\u2019s penis around. 1874. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 45 to see him again for another appointment. At the second appointment, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 45 to lie down on the examination table and went through the same routine, even though almost all of John Doe 45\u2019s molluscum was cleared at the time. This examination lasted approximately ten minutes. 1875. Sometime later in John Doe 45\u2019s sophomore year, he again went to the Student Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 258 of 371 #: 2245 259 Health Center and saw Dr. Strauss\u2014this time for an STI. Dr. Strauss again instructed John Doe 45 to remove his pants and underwear. While John Doe 45 was standing, Dr. Strauss examined and fondled John Doe 45\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss then told John Doe 45 to lie on the table. After John Doe 45 did so, Dr. Strauss groped John Doe 45\u2019s penis and testicles for an extended time. He moved John Doe 45\u2019s penis to the left and right while examining it, and fondled John Doe 45\u2019s scrotum. This prolonged examination also lasted approximately ten minutes. 1876. At a follow-up appointment, Dr. Strauss went through the same routine as the previous exam. Dr. Strauss again repeatedly groped John Doe 45\u2019s genitals, first while John Doe 45 was standing and then while he was lying on the table. 1877. Dr. Strauss never wore gloves during any of John Doe 45\u2019s appointments. 1878. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams made John Doe 45 extremely uncomfortable, confused, and embarrassed. 1879. John Doe 45 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1880. John Doe 45 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. He merely felt uncomfortable, and that Dr. Strauss was strange. 1881. Until seeing news coverage of the investigation in 2018 or 2019, John Doe 45 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1882. This is because, while John Doe 45 was an student, he trusted that would not employ a sexual abuser at Student Health. He reasonably believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was part of a legitimate medical examination and blamed himself for his emotional reaction to the Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 259 of 371 #: 2246 260 exams. Though he felt humiliated, confused, and uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 45 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1883. In short, until seeing news coverage in 2018 or 2019 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 45 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1884. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 45 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1885. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 45 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse has impacted John Doe 45\u2019s ability to maintain healthy intimate relationships. John Doe 45 distrusts doctors and other people in positions of authority. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse has also contributed to John Doe 45\u2019s stress and anxiety issues 46 1886. John Doe 46 was a student at from 1979 to 1984, and a member of OSU\u2019s outdoor track, indoor track, and cross country teams during that time. 1887. John Doe 46 was awarded a partial Pell grant to attend college. Prior to attending OSU, John Doe 46 worked in construction for two years to pay his way through college. 1888. In 1979, 1980, and 1981, Dr. Strauss abused John Doe 46 on OSU\u2019s campus. As an athlete, John Doe 46 was required to attend annual physicals, all conducted by Dr. Strauss. John Doe 46\u2019s coaches scheduled the appointments with Dr. Strauss. 1889. Each exam took place at the Jesse Owens Football Facility. John Doe 46 was alone with Dr. Strauss during each exam. 1890. At John Doe 46\u2019s first exam with Dr. Strauss in the fall of 1979, Dr. Strauss ordered Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 260 of 371 #: 2247 261 him to take off all of his clothing. Dr. Strauss conducted a hernia test on the fully naked John Doe 46. He then fondled John Doe 46\u2019s testicles. He inserted his finger into John Doe 46\u2019s anus, in the guise of a rectal exam. Dr. Strauss rubbed John Doe 46\u2019s shoulders, neck, lower back, and buttocks, remarking that John Doe 46 was a \u201cgood looking guy.\u201d 1891. In 1980 and 1981, John Doe 46 was again subjected to physicals with Dr. Strauss. The second and third physicals proceeded the same as the first, with Dr. Strauss standing very close to John Doe 46, fondling and groping his genitals and other parts of his body. Each time, Dr. Strauss performed \u201crectal exams,\u201d inserting his finger in John Doe 46\u2019s anus. 1892. Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations made John Doe 46 uncomfortable, embarrassed, and ashamed. He complied with all of Dr. Strauss\u2019 requests during the examination, and while he thought Dr. Strauss\u2019 touching was bizarre, he did not recognize it to be abuse. Raised \u201cnot to complain about anything\u201d and to \u201ctake his hits,\u201d John Doe 46 suffered in silence. 1893. John Doe 46 was aware that his teammates had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss, and he and his teammates regularly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 treatment. They often told each other \u201cGood luck with the physical,\u201d and \u201cYou\u2019re going to take it up the ass\u201d when one of them had appointments with Dr. Strauss. One teammate told John Doe 46 that Strauss \u201cgot a little too close\u201d to him during an examination. 1894. John Doe 46 told Assistant Coach Jim McDonough that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was \u201cweird.\u201d McDonough stared blankly at John Doe 46 and said nothing in response. It was clear to John Doe 46 that the team atmosphere was one in which athletes were expected not to complain. 1895. John Doe 46 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 261 of 371 #: 2248 262 1896. Until seeing news coverage of the investigation in April 2019, John Doe 46 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations and conduct toward him and his teammates were sexually abusive. 1897. Until hearing this news coverage in April 2019, John Doe 46 had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1898. This is because, while John Doe 46 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of their coaches and the coaches continued to require John Doe 46 and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss for examinations. John Doe 46 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1899. In addition, Coach McDonough\u2019s unconcerned reaction to his complaints about Dr. Strauss did not give John Doe 46 any reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. McDonough\u2019s reaction reinforced John Doe 46\u2019s reasonable belief that further inquiry would not be productive. In any event, an investigation would have been futile because controlled access to all relevant information. 1900. In short, until hearing media reports in April 2019 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 46 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1901. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 46 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1902. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 46 has suffered emotional, psychological, and economic damages. After suppressing memories of his Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 262 of 371 #: 2249 263 experiences with Dr. Strauss for years, John Doe 46 developed a serious drinking problem that lasted from 1992 to 93, about a decade after leaving OSU. In May of 1993, John Doe 46 had a serious panic attack for which he was hospitalized one night for observation. After this panic attack, John Doe 46 had serious and repeated panic attacks every day for four to five years. He had to seek therapy and take medication to handle these panic attacks, as well as his anxiety and depression. In 2005, John Doe 46 considered committing suicide. Looking back, John Doe 46 understands that Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse caused his anxiety, panic attacks, depression, and suicidal thoughts. In addition, John Doe 46 has developed a discomfort with people who are different from him. He mistrusts gay people as a result of his experiences with Dr. Strauss and has trouble working with people unlike him, especially people who are controlling, narcissistic, dishonest, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or questioning, or in positions of authority. This has created professional difficulty for John Doe 46; for example, after twenty-two years of working in the insurance industry, he quit his job because he found it difficult to engage with people of different backgrounds from him. Since quitting his job, John Doe 46 has not been gainfully employed for fourteen years. To this day, John Doe 46 continues to take medications for his anxiety and depression and continues to deal with anger and trust issues 47 1903. In the summer of 1981, John Doe 47 was abused by Dr. Strauss. John Doe 47 was a 15-year-old high school student at the time. He was on OSU\u2019s campus visiting his aunt, an employee. His aunt had encouraged John Doe 47\u2019s family to attend OSU. 1904. While hanging around the athletics department by himself, John Doe 47 was approached by Dr. Strauss. Strauss asked him whether he was an athlete, and John Doe 47 told him \u201cyes,\u201d that he loved sports. 1905. Dr. Strauss took advantage of John Doe 47\u2019s youth, love of sports, and interest in Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 263 of 371 #: 2250 264 to sexually abuse him. He told John Doe 47 that he would show him \u201cwhat you have to go through to be an athlete\u201d at OSU. 1906. Dr. Strauss gave John Doe 47 a long tour of the athletics facilities and subjected him twice during that day to sexually abusive \u201cmedical exams.\u201d 1907. Dr. Strauss took John Doe 47 to his office, under the guise that he would show John Doe 47 the types of medical exams athletes had to get to be cleared to play for OSU. 1908. In the first mock exam, Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 47 to take off all of his clothing. While John Doe 47 stood there naked, Dr. Strauss checked John Doe 47\u2019s height and weight. Dr. Strauss groped John Doe 47\u2019s buttocks with his ungloved hand while checking his height. He then told John Doe 47 to put his clothing back on, and he took John Doe 47 on a tour of the athletics department, showing him the locker room and introducing him to various athletes. 1909. Later that day, Dr. Strauss took John Doe 47 back to his office, telling him that he should show John Doe 47 the hernia exams athletes undergo. 1910. Dr. Strauss again instructed John Doe 47 to disrobe and told him to lay down on the exam table. He told John Doe 47 that John Doe 47 could hurt himself if he didn\u2019t \u201cproperly stretch,\u201d and pushed John Doe 47\u2019s legs back as if to stretch his legs. His touching then escalated\u2014 he grabbed John Doe 47\u2019s penis, spread John Doe 47\u2019s butt apart, and rubbed John Doe 47\u2019s anus and genitals, from his tailbone to his penis. 1911. While he groped John Doe 47, Dr. Strauss told the teenager that he was merely showing John Doe 47 the types of exams that he did for different athletes on the various sports teams. He told John Doe 47, \u201chere is a football exam,\u201d \u201chere is a swimming exam,\u201d \u201chere is a wrestling exam,\u201d and the like, to explain away and legitimize his abuse. 1912. Dr. Strauss\u2019 touching during the exam made John Doe 47 uncomfortable, afraid, Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 264 of 371 #: 2251 265 and embarrassed, though he did not recognize it to be abuse at the time. He felt \u201clike a deer in the headlights.\u201d He did not tell his aunt or his parents what happened. 1913. John Doe 47 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1914. As a 15-year-old boy who had little knowledge of what constituted inappropriate sexual behavior, John Doe 47 did not know Dr. Strauss sexually abused him at the time. He reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss an athletic team doctor and directed students to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. John Doe 47 felt that Dr. Strauss had been nice to him, and he earnestly fell for Dr. Strauss\u2019 lies about wanting to expose John Doe 47 to the life of an student-athlete. Further, as a high schooler who knew he was heterosexual, John Doe 47 was embarrassed to admit that an older man had touched his genitalia. 1915. In retrospect, John Doe 47 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2019, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. Indeed, learning of OSU\u2019s investigation, and seeing Dr. Strauss\u2019 photo in public reporting, was the trigger that enabled John Doe 47 to recognize that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination was sexually abusive. 1916. Until learning in 2019 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 47 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that others had complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1917. Even if John Doe 47 had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 265 of 371 #: 2252 266 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1918. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 47 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1919. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 47 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. He feels guilty that he remained silent about Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams and did not tell his parents or aunt; he carries the burden of believing that, if he had spoken up, Dr. Strauss would not have been able to abuse other people. When he saw Dr. Strauss\u2019 image in the Perkins Coie report, he nearly vomited. Since the public reporting about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, John Doe 47 has become fixated on Dr. Strauss and sexual abuse more generally. It consumes his thoughts daily and he feels anxious and embarrassed 48 1920. John Doe 48 was a student at from 1990 to 1995. 1921. John Doe 48 was abused by Dr. Strauss during a medical examination at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center in 1993 or 1994. 1922. John Doe 48 scheduled an appointment at the Student Health Center for treatment related to a potential STI. 1923. John Doe 48 entered a private room with Dr. Strauss. The two were alone. 1924. Dr. Strauss began by asking John Doe 48 a litany of questions, including whether he had taken drugs, whether he had slept with prostitutes, and whether he had any \u201chomosexual experiences.\u201d 1925. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 48 to drop his pants and underwear. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool at eye-level with John Doe 48\u2019s genitals and examined John Doe 48\u2019s penis. He told John Doe 48 that it looked \u201cokay.\u201d John Doe 48 began to zip his pants up thinking the exam was done, but Strauss told him that he needed to do a more \u201cinvolved\u201d exam. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 266 of 371 #: 2253 267 1926. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 48 to remove his pants and underwear off and lie on the exam table and spread his legs. He began rubbing John Doe 48\u2019s penis with his palm and John Doe 48 started to become erect. John Doe 48 said \u201cWhoa, wait a minute.\u201d 1927. Dr. Strauss responded, \u201cThat\u2019s Okay, this is what want to happen.\u201d He told John Doe 48 to \u201cjust relax,\u201d and to lie back down on the exam table. John Doe 48 complied with Dr. Strauss\u2019 command and he closed his eyes and turned his head. 1928. Dr. Strauss began to pinch John Doe 48\u2019s penis to hold blood in it. Dr. Strauss then rubbed John Doe 48\u2019s penis for several minutes and John Doe 48 became fully erect. Eventually, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 48 that \u201cEverything is fine\u201d and that he could put his clothing back on and leave. 1929. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the exam. 1930. John Doe 48 never had any further contact with Dr. Strauss. 1931. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct made John Doe 48 extremely uncomfortable, confused, and embarrassed. He felt dirty and had an intense desire to take a shower after the exam. 1932. John Doe 48 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1933. John Doe 48 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 1934. Until reading news coverage of the investigation in or about the summer of 2018, John Doe 48 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1935. This is because, while John Doe 48 was a student at OSU, he reasonably believed Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 267 of 371 #: 2254 268 that would not have hired Dr. Strauss, or sent John Doe 48 and other students to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1936. Even if John Doe 48 had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1937. In short, until seeing news coverage in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 48 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1938. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 48 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1939. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 48 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. John Doe 48 tried to suppress his memories of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, and did not tell anyone about it for many years. When John Doe 48 finally gained the courage to tell his best friends about the abuse, they told John Doe 48 he was gay. John Doe 48 has recently sought counseling for Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse 49 1940. During the summer of 1998 or 1999, John Doe 49 was abused by Dr. Strauss. At the time, John Doe 49 was 14 or 15 years old. He was at for OSU\u2019s summer wrestling camp. OSU\u2019s summer wrestling camp was an education program or activity offered to young athletes not yet old enough to attend OSU, which was staffed by employees and student-athletes. 1941. During his time at the camp, John Doe 49 developed an ingrown toenail, for which he sought treatment from medical staff. 1942. While John Doe 49 was waiting in line to see a doctor at a campus athletics facility, he was approached by Dr. Strauss. Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 49 whether he had received a Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 268 of 371 #: 2255 269 physical\u2014when John Doe 49 said no, Dr. Strauss insisted that he undergo a physical, and pulled John Doe 49 out of the line and behind a curtained off area in the facility. 1943. Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination began normally. He examined John Doe 49\u2019s chest with a stethoscope. 1944. However, the exam quickly changed after Dr. Strauss told John Doe 49 to drop his pants and underwear and asked him to cough. He then began fondling John Doe 49\u2019s genitals, massaging John Doe 49\u2019s testicles repeatedly. 1945. At the beginning of the exam, Dr. Strauss was wearing gloves. 1946. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 49 that John Doe 49 was \u201ccold\u201d and needed to \u201cget warmed up\u201d in order for Dr. Strauss to conduct the test \u201cproperly.\u201d Dr. Strauss then removed his gloves, rubbed his hands together, and began rubbing his thumb up and down the shaft of John Doe 49\u2019s penis. John Doe 49 recoiled from Dr. Strauss\u2019 touch and told him \u201cI\u2019m not gay, you need to stop this.\u201d Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 49, \u201cHow old are you? You don\u2019t know what this is about.\u201d Feeling frightened, John Doe 49 began staring at a scalpel next to the exam table. Dr. Strauss looked in the direction of John Doe 49\u2019s gaze, said \u201cYou\u2019re eyeing that scalpel,\u201d and picked up the scalpel. He put his hand over John Doe 49\u2019s mouth and held the scalpel threateningly over John Doe 49\u2019s face. John Doe 49 fainted. He does not know how long he was unconscious. 1947. When John Doe 49 regained consciousness, he was face-down at the end of the exam table with his pants and underwear down. He once again saw the scalpel placed next to the exam table and felt dizzy. John Doe 49 became aware of Dr. Strauss doing something to his buttocks. He felt that something was inserted in his anus, but did not know what it was. He turned on the table and shoved Dr. Strauss in the chest. When he turned, he saw that Dr. Strauss\u2019 pants were around his knees. Dr. Strauss fell down, and John Doe 49 used the opportunity to leave the Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 269 of 371 #: 2256 270 curtained off area, pulling up his sweatpants on the way out. Dr. Strauss shouted behind him that he wasn\u2019t \u201cthrough\u201d with John Doe 49 and instructed him to \u201cget back.\u201d John Doe 49 walked away and told Dr. Strauss that he was done. He then left the area. 1948. After the exam, John Doe 49 felt an oily substance on his anus like a lubricant. 1949. Immediately after the exam, John Doe 49 told a medical assistant that the doctor was \u201chandsy\u201d during the turn and cough portion of the exam. The medical assistant brushed John Doe 49\u2019s complaint aside and said \u201cI\u2019m not going near that.\u201d John Doe 49 then approached a woman with a clipboard and told her that \u201ca guy in the tent copped a feel.\u201d In response, the woman told John Doe 49 that the doctor (who this person did not identify) was a credentialed and high- ranking doctor at OSU. Though she asked John Doe 49 what the doctor had done, no one ever followed up with John Doe 49 regarding what he told her. 1950. Sometime later, John Doe 49 mentioned his experience to another high school wrestling student at the camp. The other high school wrestling student repeated John Doe 49\u2019s story in front of other student wrestlers, remarking that \u201csomeone got handsy with John Doe 49 at the medical tent.\u201d In response, an older student wrestler said, \u201cAt least it\u2019s not Dr. Jelly Paws, he\u2019s not working there.\u201d When John Doe 49 then pointed out the doctor who had examined him to the student-athletes, they confirmed that it was, indeed, \u201cDr. Jelly Paws\u201d who had groped him. One of the students told John Doe 49 that \u201cno matter what you go to see him about, he makes you drop your pants.\u201d 1951. That same day, John Doe 49 also spoke with Coach Hellickson about the incident. Coach Hellickson had heard of the incident from student wrestlers at the camp. Hellickson asked John Doe 49 why John Doe 49 hadn\u2019t come to Hellickson and if Dr. Strauss had touched John Doe 49. John Doe 49 replied that Dr. Strauss \u201cdid the turn and cough thing and played with Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 270 of 371 #: 2257 271 my dick.\u201d John Doe 49 then pointed out the doctor who had touched him. Coach Hellickson responded, \u201cOK, I\u2019ll take care of it. Get back to your mat.\u201d Later that day student wrestlers at the camp told John Doe 49 that Coach Hellickson had ejected Dr. Strauss from the gym. However, John Doe 49 saw Dr. Strauss at the gym the next day. 1952. John Doe 49 never learned Dr. Strauss\u2019 name during summer wrestling camp\u2014he only knew him as \u201cDr. Jelly Paws\u201d or \u201cthe Doc.\u201d After he read the media reports about the investigation in 2018, however, he realized that \u201cDr. Jelly Paws\u201d was Dr. Strauss. 1953. John Doe 49 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1954. As a 14- or 15-year-old boy, John Doe 49 did not know Dr. Strauss sexually abused him at the time. This is because, while John Doe 49 was a youth participant in the wrestling camp student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations and how he was \u201cDr. Jelly Paws.\u201d Also, the people to whom John Doe 49 complained about Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior did not appear to do anything in response to his complaints, which made him feel as though the issue was not serious. 1955. John Doe 49 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss an athletic team doctor and directed students to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. In addition, the medical staff\u2019s indifference and unconcerned reactions to John Doe 49\u2019s complaints about Dr. Strauss did not give him any reason to investigate what Dr. Strauss or was doing or failing to do. These medical officials\u2019 reactions reinforced John Doe 49\u2019s reasonable belief that further inquiry would not be productive. 1956. In retrospect, John Doe 49 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 271 of 371 #: 2258 272 him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until late 2018 or early 2019 when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss and learned that Dr. Strauss had been nicknamed \u201cDr. Jelly Paws\u201d by student-athletes. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1957. Even if John Doe 49 had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1958. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 49 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1959. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 49 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. After being abused by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 49 began to use marijuana frequently, as a way to self-medicate. Over the years, John Doe 49\u2019s drug abuse escalated. Police caught him with marijuana during his senior year in high school, which impacted his college prospects. In college, he continued to use drugs and was almost always intoxicated. Though John Doe 49 had ambitions of completing graduate school, his substance abuse\u2014which he used to help deal with his repressed trauma\u2014hampered his studies, and he eventually dropped out. John Doe 49 experienced difficulty finding work and ended up employed by his father for nine years. In addition to his drug abuse, John Doe 49 experienced deep confusion as to whether and when it was right to report improper treatment or conduct following his experience with Dr. Strauss. The abuse created an insecurity and fear within him that powerful people could always get away with doing bad things. John Doe 49 has experienced regular anxiety throughout his adult life as a result of the abuse. He also remains suspicious of doctors and other medical professionals. Dr. Strauss\u2019 touching during the exam made John Doe 49 uncomfortable, confused, and embarrassed. Dr. Strauss\u2019 suspected penile penetration of John Doe 49\u2019s rectum Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 272 of 371 #: 2259 273 during the exam made John Doe 49 extremely fearful that he had contracted HIV. John Doe 49\u2019s concern was exacerbated by the frequent public service announcements regarding at the time and his knowledge of friends and family who had contracted HIV. John Doe 49 was not tested for until his sophomore year of college, at which point he learned that he did not have HIV. John Doe 49 had been afraid for years that he had contracted and felt profound relief when that was not the case. Until he was tested for HIV, whenever he saw an ad for treatment, he flashed back to the abuse he suffered as an adolescent 50 1960. John Doe 50 was a student at between 1988 and 1992, and a member of OSU\u2019s hockey team during that time. 1961. John Doe 50 received a full athletic scholarship for the 1991 to 1992 school year. He relied on his scholarship to attend college. 1962. John Doe 50 was an integral part of OSU\u2019s hockey team during his junior and senior years, and led the team to win several off-season tournaments. 1963. As a member of OSU\u2019s hockey team, John Doe 50 was required to undergo annual physicals with Dr. Strauss. In total, John Doe 50 saw Dr. Strauss four times\u2014in 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991\u2014for pre-season physicals coach or trainer scheduled each of these physicals. 1964. Every physical was conducted at the Woody Hayes facility. 1965. John Doe 50 was alone with Dr. Strauss during each appointment. 1966. Each appointment with Dr. Strauss followed a similar pattern. Dr. Strauss began by stretching John Doe 50 out, feeling his muscles and joints. He then conducted a genital exam. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 50 to stand in the middle of the room, and asked John Doe 50 to drop his pants and underwear. Dr. Strauss then instructed John Doe 50 to come very close to him, while Dr. Strauss sat on a stool at eye level with John Doe 50\u2019s genitals. He would then fondle and grope Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 273 of 371 #: 2260 274 John Doe 50\u2019s genitals for an uncomfortably long amount of time. Dr. Strauss also would make comments about John Doe 50\u2019s appearance. 1967. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams made John Doe 50 feel uncomfortable, confused, and embarrassed. While he did not know it to be abuse, he believed \u201cit wasn\u2019t right.\u201d 1968. John Doe 50\u2019s teammates had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss, but the teammates made light of their experiences and joked about the exams. Before John Doe 50 had his exams with Dr. Strauss, upperclassmen warned him, \u201cGet ready, Strauss will get you close and tight.\u201d After his first exam with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 50 told his teammates that they were right about how the examination would go. These conversations about Dr. Strauss often occurred in the locker room, where trainers overheard the players discussing Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior. 1969. Dr. Strauss often observed John Doe 50 and his teammates showering after practice. 1970. On one occasion when John Doe 50 was a freshman, Dr. Strauss invited him and his roommate, another hockey player, out to dinner. Dr. Strauss picked the two freshmen up at their residence and drove them to the restaurant. Dr. Strauss paid for dinner and, afterwards, brought the two students to nearby stores to buy clothes. John Doe 50 overheard Dr. Strauss making this offer to other hockey players as well. 1971. John Doe 50 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 1972. John Doe 50 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 1973. Until reading news coverage of the investigation in or about November, 2018, John Doe 50 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 274 of 371 #: 2261 275 had harmed him. 1974. This is because, while John Doe 50 was a student at OSU, he reasonably believed that would not have hired Dr. Strauss, or sent John Doe 50 and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss, unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. John Doe 50 believed that, while strange and uncomfortable, Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were part of OSU\u2019s process for student-athletes. 1975. In short, until seeing news coverage in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 50 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 1976. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 50 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1977. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 50 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. John Doe 50 is fearful for his children\u2019s safety, and distrusts doctors who provide medical treatment to his children. Every time John Doe 50 hears about Dr. Strauss on the news, he is reminded of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, which retraumatizes him. After John Doe 50 learned in 2018 that Dr. Strauss abused many other students for many years after his exam, he has felt tremendous guilt for not having reported his own abuse to 51 1978. John Doe 51 was a student at from 1992 to 1996 and a member of OSU\u2019s volleyball team between 1992 and 1993. 1979. Dr. Strauss abused John Doe 51 twice, once in 1992 and once in 1993. 1980. In 1992, Dr. Strauss abused John Doe 51 during a pre-season physical. As a member of OSU\u2019s volleyball team, John Doe 51 was required to get a pre-season physical. The exam took place in Dr. Strauss\u2019 office at the Student Health Center. John Doe 51 was alone with Dr. Strauss Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 275 of 371 #: 2262 276 during the exam. 1981. At the appointment, Dr. Strauss began by telling John Doe 51 to drop his underwear. Dr. Strauss conducted a hernia test. He grabbed John Doe 51\u2019s testicles for a prolonged time. When he finally let go, he moved on to groping John Doe 51\u2019s penis. 1982. The examination made John Doe 51 uncomfortable, confused, and ashamed. However, he did not say anything, as his number one goal was to become a professional volleyball player, and he feared that speaking up would jeopardize his future. 1983. John Doe 51 was abused again in 1993, when Dr. Strauss approached him about participating in a photo shoot at Dr. Strauss\u2019 house. John Doe 51 agreed. 1984. When John Doe 51 arrived, Dr. Strauss fed him cherries soaked in alcohol. 1985. While photographing John Doe 51, Dr. Strauss asked if John Doe 51 would undress. Dr. Strauss said that it would open up more modeling opportunities if he could see John Doe 51\u2019s genitals. John Doe 51 agreed to remove his clothes. Dr. Strauss began fondling his genitals. 1986. Startled, John Doe 51 immediately said he needed to go home and put his clothes back on. Dr. Strauss drove him home. 1987. John Doe 51\u2019s teammates had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss, but the teammates made light of their experiences and joked about the exams. When instructed to get their annual physicals, John Doe 51\u2019s teammates joked about how Dr. Strauss would hold onto their \u201cjunk\u201d for a long time. Whenever Dr. Strauss would enter the athletes\u2019 locker room, teammates would tell each other to \u201clook out.\u201d 1988. John Doe 51 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 276 of 371 #: 2263 277 1989. John Doe 51 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 1990. While John Doe 51 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination and conduct, John Doe 51 did not understand that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 1991. In addition, while John Doe 51 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, and John Doe 51 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 1992. Moreover, until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 51 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 1993. In any event, even if, while John Doe 51 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 1994. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 51 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 1995. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 51 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. Soon after his experiences with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 51 began to increasingly abuse alcohol, and eventually became an alcoholic. His heavy drinking impacted his studies, and he failed to graduate from OSU. To this day, John Doe 51 distrusts medical personnel and avoids getting medical treatment. He has not had another physical since seeing Dr. Strauss back in 1992. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 277 of 371 #: 2264 278 52 1996. John Doe 52 was a student at from 1993 to 1997 and a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team from 1993 to 1996. John Doe 52 attended on a full tuition athletic scholarship. 1997. John Doe 52 relied on his athletic scholarship to attend college. 1998. Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 52 approximately four or five times, often at the Woody Hayes facility at OSU. He saw Dr. Strauss once for a mandatory pre-season physical while a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team. He then saw Dr. Strauss three or four other times for various illnesses between 1993 and 1996. 1999. John Doe 52 was an 18-year-old freshman when he saw Dr. Strauss for the first time. 2000 coaching staff directed John Doe 52 to get a physical with Dr. Strauss. 2001. John Doe 52 recalls being nervous before the physical, because upper classmen openly cautioned him, \u201cDon\u2019t get Strauss, because he will check your prostate.\u201d 2002. John Doe 52 believes that his physical with Dr. Strauss was normal. 2003. However, Dr. Strauss began to abuse John Doe 52 at subsequent appointments. Between 1993 and 1996, John Doe 52 saw Dr. Strauss three or four times to address minor illnesses such as sinus infections or a sore throat. 2004. On each occasion, Dr. Strauss performed the same examination. He asked John Doe 52 to drop his pants and groped deeply around John Doe 52\u2019s genitals for a prolonged time, rubbing the glands by his groin and fondling his genitals. Dr. Strauss conducted these exams even though John Doe 52 did not report having any medical issues with his groin. 2005. On every one of these occasions, a trainer or medical assistant was in the room with John Doe 52 and Dr. Strauss. However, the trainer or assistant would always leave the room during the genital exam. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 278 of 371 #: 2265 279 2006. John Doe 52 left these appointments feeling uncomfortable, confused, and ashamed. He felt that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was strange but did not understand it to be sexual abuse. 2007. On more than five occasions, Dr. Strauss entered the men\u2019s soccer locker room and shower area and stared at John Doe 52 and his teammates while they showered. This made John Doe 52 extremely uncomfortable. 2008. John Doe 52 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2009. John Doe 52 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 2010. Until seeing news coverage of the investigation in 2018, John Doe 52 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations and improper conduct towards him and his teammates were sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014 in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2011. This is because, while John Doe 52 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of their coaches and trainers and the coaches continued to require John Doe 52 and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss for examinations and treatment. John Doe 52 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2012. In short, until hearing media reports in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 52 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 279 of 371 #: 2266 280 take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2013. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 52 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2014. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 52 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse caused John Doe 52 to suffer from anxiety 53 2015. John Doe 53 was a student at from 1982 to 1986, and was a member of OSU\u2019s track and field team during that time. 2016. John Doe 53 saw Dr. Strauss for the first time in the fall of 1982, his freshman year, for a required pre-season physical for candidates for the track and field team. He saw Dr. Strauss an additional time in the fall of 1983, his sophomore year, for another required pre-season physical for track and field. 2017. As a walk-on candidate for the track and field team, and later a member of the team, John Doe 53 was required to have a physical with Dr. Strauss. 2018. On the day of John Doe 53\u2019s first physical with Dr. Strauss, the upper class track members taunted the freshmen at track and field practice with statements such as, \u201cOh physicals are coming, you get to see Dr. Strauss!\u201d After practice, John Doe 53 and his teammates went to Larkins Hall and waited to see Dr. Strauss individually. Each student-athlete was alone with Dr. Strauss in Dr. Strauss\u2019 Larkins Hall office during the physical. 2019. At the first physical, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 53 to remove all of his clothing and sit on the exam table. Dr. Strauss moved in front of John Doe 53 and straddled John Doe 53\u2019s left leg with his legs. He pushed his pelvic region into John Doe 53\u2019s leg as he placed both hands on John Doe 53\u2019s neck and felt around John Doe 53\u2019s neck. John Doe 53 felt Dr. Strauss\u2019 genitals Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 280 of 371 #: 2267 281 on his leg. John Doe 53 was uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior but had little experience with sports medicine doctors and believed it might be a normal practice. 2020. After Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 53\u2019s neck, he instructed John Doe 53 to lay face-up on the exam table. 2021. At the first physical, Dr Strauss asked John Doe 53 to close his eyes. Dr. Strauss began feeling John Doe 53\u2019s upper body, including his chest and under his arms. John Doe 53 heard Dr. Strauss gasp and make strange guttural noises periodically during the physical. He felt disgusted and horrified. 2022. John Doe 53 asked Dr. Strauss if there was a problem. Dr. Strauss advised John Doe 53 that there was potential for breast cancer in males like John Doe 53. 2023. Dr. Strauss continued to touch John Doe 53 on the table for approximately 20 minutes. He felt around John Doe 53\u2019s chest, waist, and pelvic area. After finishing this portion of the exam, Dr. Strauss sat on a small stool at one end of the exam room and instructed John Doe 53, still fully nude, to get up and walk to the far end of the exam room away from him. When John Doe 53 reached the end of the room, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 53 to walk towards him slowly. John Doe 53 walked towards Dr. Strauss until they were within two feet of each other. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 53 to turn around and go back. He repeated these instructions four times. John Doe 53 asked what the walking was for and Dr. Strauss replied that he was analyzing the way John Doe 53 walked since John Doe 53 planned to compete in track and field. 2024. After watching John Doe 53 walk back and forth, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 53 to stand in front of him such that Dr. Strauss\u2019 face was a few inches from John Doe 53\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss grabbed John Doe 53\u2019s penis with his ungloved hands and began moving it around. He looked underneath and around John Doe 53\u2019s penis for about 30 seconds to a minute. The entire Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 281 of 371 #: 2268 282 experience felt extremely prolonged and awkward. 2025. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 53 to cough three to four times. John Doe 53 felt increasingly stressed and began turning red. Dr. Strauss advised John Doe 53 that he could get dressed and leave. The entire exam lasted about 45 minutes. 2026. When John Doe 53 exited Dr. Strauss\u2019 office, he was heckled by upper class athletes in the waiting room. Some made catcalls and whooping noises. 2027. At John Doe 53\u2019s second physical in 1983, Dr. Strauss again asked John Doe 53 to disrobe and sit on the exam table. Dr. Strauss repeated the same actions from the first physical: he straddled John Doe 53\u2019s leg and inspected John Doe 53\u2019s neck while keeping his genitals in contact with John Doe 53\u2019s leg. He then asked John Doe 53 to lay on the exam table, and close his eyes. When Dr. Strauss again began feeling John Doe 53\u2019s chest, John Doe 53 informed Dr. Strauss that he was not worried about breast cancer. Dr. Strauss then finished examining John Doe 53\u2019s chest more quickly than the previous physical. 2028. After examining John Doe 53\u2019s chest, Dr. Strauss again instructed John Doe 53 to walk, unclothed, back and forth along the length of the exam room. John Doe 53 complied, but he purposefully exhibited more confident and aggressive body language. Dr. Strauss\u2019 demeanor became more business-like and he only asked John Doe 53 to walk back and forth along the room two times. Dr. Strauss again ended the physical by conducting a genital exam. Dr. Strauss sat with his face close to John Doe 53\u2019s genitals and conducted the exam by moving around John Doe 53\u2019s penis. He again finished this portion of the physical more quickly than the year before. The entire physical lasted 10 to 15 minutes. 2029. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct at physicals was common knowledge. John Doe 53\u2019s teammates often made catcalls and comments about Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams and spoke about how Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 282 of 371 #: 2269 283 \u201cweird\u201d and \u201cbizarre\u201d Dr. Strauss was. On at least one occasion, John Doe 53\u2019s teammates made derogatory comments toward him because they believed Dr. Strauss was attracted to John Doe 53 and John Doe 53 must have reciprocated. John Doe 53 also heard students refer to Dr. Strauss as \u201cJelly Fingers.\u201d Comments about Dr. Strauss were made loudly and often in the practice areas where trainers, graduate assistant coaches, and coaches were regularly present. John Doe 53 believes it is unlikely that staff did not hear these comments. 2030. During John Doe 53\u2019s freshman year, Dr. Strauss attended the track and field team\u2019s practices and photographed John Doe 53 and other track and field athletes while they were practicing. Dr. Strauss implied that he was taking the photographs for a book he was writing about physiology. He asked some athletes to remove their shirts. John Doe 53 and other athletes complied and continued to practice. Dr. Strauss offered to show the athletes their pictures but John Doe 53 refused. During John Doe 53\u2019s senior year, Dr. Strauss again approached the track and field athletes and asked to take their pictures. John Doe 53 asked his coach what to do and the coach told John Doe 53 not to be concerned with the request and get on with practice. John Doe 53 was under the impression that the coach simply wanted to move on with practice, and Dr. Strauss\u2019 request and the student-athletes\u2019 response was not important to him. John Doe 53 told Dr. Strauss that he could not take pictures. John Doe 53 also told his teammates that they did not need to take off their shirts if they did not want to. 2031. John Doe 53 believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was not normal. However, he did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. 2032. John Doe 53 did not report his discomfort with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination. As a freshman athlete, John Doe 53 had seen at least one upper class athlete openly and loudly complain about Dr. Strauss around the practice area on multiple occasions, but he did not see any of the Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 283 of 371 #: 2270 284 coaches or other employees respond to the complaints. He believed reporting his experience similarly would not result in any response from OSU, and he was afraid of causing trouble as a walk-on to the track and field team. On one occasion, John Doe 53 asked one of the graduate assistant coaches, \u201cWhat\u2019s with Dr. Strauss?\u201d The coach replied that Dr. Strauss was \u201ca weird guy\u201d but did not elaborate further. 2033. John Doe 53 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 2034. In retrospect, John Doe 53 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 2035. While John Doe 53 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during and after Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 53 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2036. John Doe 53 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2037. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 53 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2038. In any event, even if, while John Doe 53 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 284 of 371 #: 2271 285 2039. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 53 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2040. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 53 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2041. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 53 suffered emotional and psychological damages. He felt disgusted and humiliated by Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions, and he is gradually coming to terms with the abuse he suffered and how it has affected him. After the abuse, John Doe 53 considered quitting college because of the traumatic experience. John Doe 53 also did not feel confident in sexual situations. He was awkward in his sexual relationships, which caused him embarrassment. Further, Dr. Strauss made John Doe 53 worry that he might have breast cancer or get breast cancer in the future, which has caused John Doe 53 significant stress, shame, and anger over the years. John Doe 53 asked his primary care physicians over the years if he was at risk for breast cancer and they emphatically said he was not at risk. Most physicians were confused by his concern. John Doe 53 remains offended and disappointed that Dr. Strauss conducted such an inappropriate exam on him and did nothing to prevent it. He is disappointed that put someone like Dr. Strauss in a position where he could harm others in the way that he did. The abuse has made him lose trust in the medical profession and institutions, especially when coupled with the news of assaults by physicians at other universities, including a university attended by one of his children. He now feels extreme distress when he thinks about his child and how that child could have suffered similar abuse. He also feels distress when he thinks about the student-athletes at other universities who suffered abuse by university doctors in Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 285 of 371 #: 2272 286 the years after Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, and how could have led by example in protecting students from that type of abuse. John Doe 53 also continues to suffer from the degrading comments he received from teammates, roommates, and other students who heard about the incidents with Dr. Strauss. People around him assumed he was not very masculine and questioned his sexuality because of the extra time and attention Dr. Strauss gave him. He has spent a lot of time and energy reliving the experiences that he was subjected to and the sexual abuse he suffered. He is disappointed and hurt that OSU, an institution he loves, could have prevented his suffering and the suffering of many other people, but instead did nothing in the face of multiple complaints about Dr. Strauss 54 2042. John Doe 54 was a student at from 1987 to 1992, and was a member of OSU\u2019s Alpine Ski Team, a student-run competitive ski racing team, from 1988 to 1989. 2043. While a student at OSU, John Doe 54 was examined by Dr. Strauss on one occasion in February 1989 at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center. 2044. John Doe 54 was referred to the Student Health Center by the hospital to have stiches removed from a hand injury sustained during a ski competition nurse at the Student Health Center instructed John Doe 54 that he had to see Dr. Strauss for treatment because Dr. Strauss was the sports medicine doctor. John Doe 54 explained that he was not a varsity athlete and did not need to see a sports medicine doctor, but Student Health Center nurse insisted that he had to see Dr. Strauss. John Doe 54 did not believe he had a choice and met with Dr. Strauss. John Doe 54 was alone in the room with Dr. Strauss during the appointment. 2045. At the appointment, Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 54 to pull down his pants and stand on a stool, even though John Doe 54\u2019s injury was on his hand. Dr. Strauss put his face close to John Doe 54\u2019s genitals and began examining John Doe 54\u2019s genitals with ungloved hands. Dr. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 286 of 371 #: 2273 287 Strauss held John Doe 54\u2019s penis while examining his scrotum, then claimed to check the lymph nodes around his genitals. Dr. Strauss lightly stroked John Doe 54\u2019s penis while moving it right, left, and up. At the same time, Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 54 multiple questions about John Doe 54\u2019s sexual history. 2046. John Doe 54 believed that Dr. Strauss sought to cause him to become erect, but John Doe 54 did not. 2047. During the appointment, Dr. Strauss also asked John Doe 54 to unbutton his shirt. Dr. Strauss touched John Doe 54\u2019s nipples and made comments about John Doe 54\u2019s physique. 2048. Dr. Strauss spent approximately two to three minutes examining John Doe 54\u2019s groin and just a few seconds examining his hand. After examining John Doe 54\u2019s hand, Dr. Strauss ended his exam and left the room. Another medical professional entered the room and removed the stitches from John Doe 54\u2019s hand. 2049. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during the appointment made John Doe 54 extremely uncomfortable. John Doe 54 left the appointment thinking that it was weird and an invasion of his personal space, but he did not know that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused and harassed him. 2050. While he was a student at OSU, John Doe 54 did not know what to do about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. He was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2051. In retrospect, John Doe 54 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until in or about 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss and saw media coverage of the criminal sentencing of Michigan State University physician Larry Nassar. Around the same time, John Doe 54 found records of his exam with Dr. Strauss while moving and began to process that Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 287 of 371 #: 2274 288 Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam behavior was sexual abuse. 2052. While John Doe 54 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 54 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2053. John Doe 54 reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss a university doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2054. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct and the Nassar sentencing, John Doe 54 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2055. In any event, even if, while John Doe 54 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2056. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 54 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2057. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 54 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. John Doe 54\u2019s professional career and aspirations were derailed. As a result of his experience with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 54 quit the ski team. He also began drinking heavily in response to Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, which made it more difficult to complete his coursework at OSU. He continued to drink heavily and use recreational drugs for twenty-five years after his abuse as a form of self-medication, which contributed to his decision not to apply to graduate school. On a personal level, John Doe 54 had difficulty with romantic Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 288 of 371 #: 2275 289 relationships. For about twenty-five years after Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, John Doe 54 engaged in risky sexual behavior and had trouble being intimate and fully unclothed around romantic partners; his partners at the time commented on his discomfort with being unclothed. John Doe 54 also became defensive and apprehensive about his personal space around other people. He is uncomfortable when people are in close physical proximity to him. Since the abuse, John Doe 54 has also avoided gyms, gym showers, and participated less in athletic activities. He has developed a distrust of medical professionals, authority figures, and organizations. Now that he has a young daughter, that distrust has increased because he fears for his daughter\u2019s safety 55 2058. John Doe 55 was a student at from 1978 to 1982, and was a student athletic trainer during that time. During his junior and senior years, he was the lead male athletic trainer in charge of Larkins Hall. 2059. John Doe 55 received a partial scholarship for being a student trainer and was compensated by for his time as a work-study employee. He relied on that scholarship to attend college. 2060. John Doe 55 was treated by Dr. Strauss for mononucleosis when he was a junior. Dr. Strauss required John Doe 55 to return for over ten follow-up appointments for his mononucleosis. On a few other occasions, John Doe 55 sought treatment from Dr. Strauss for colds and other minor conditions. 2061. During each of John Doe 55\u2019s appointments with Dr. Strauss, Dr. Strauss put his hands on John Doe 55 from head to toe. Dr. Strauss then thoroughly examined John Doe 55\u2019s penis and testicles while John Doe 55 stood in front of Dr. Strauss. On each occasion, Dr. Strauss ordered John Doe 55 to lie face down on the examination table and digitally penetrated John Doe 55\u2019s anus in the guise of a rectal exam, using lubrication on his bare fingers. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 289 of 371 #: 2276 290 2062. Dr. Strauss never wore gloves during his exams. 2063. At the time, John Doe 55 did not believe that Dr. Strauss had abused him, but believed Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was \u201cweird.\u201d 2064. As a student trainer, John Doe 55 also sat in on hundreds of student exams while he presided over Larkins Hall, many of which were conducted by Dr. Strauss. John Doe 55 recalls that Dr. Strauss\u2019 routine was largely the same with every athlete. Dr. Strauss would examine every male athlete\u2019s groin and fondle their genitalia. He also commonly conducted rectal and prostate exams. He never wore gloves. John Doe 55 also recalls that Dr. Strauss \u201cloved\u201d to conduct skin checks on the wrestlers in particular. He was very thorough, and would pull on the wrestlers\u2019 penises, moving their penises in every direction and closely evaluating them. 2065. John Doe 55 knew that many student trainers and athletes commonly joked about Dr. Strauss, and referred to him as \u201cDr. Dick\u201d and \u201cDr. Soft Hands.\u201d 2066. Dr. Strauss often showered with John Doe 55 and the wrestlers. Dr. Strauss would walk around the locker room completely naked with a towel over his shoulder, while staring at John Doe 55 and the student-athletes as they dressed. Dr. Strauss also commonly invited athletes back to his house to do yardwork. 2067. During the summers of 1980 and 1982, John Doe 55 worked at OSU\u2019s wrestling camps for high school students. At the camp, Dr. Strauss showered with the high school students. John Doe 55 observed Dr. Strauss bring other adult men, including one professor, into the shower area, and the men showered with the high school campers. 2068. As a student trainer, John Doe 55 was privy to many conversations between students, coaches, and other athletic trainers about Dr. Strauss. To John Doe 55, it seemed that the culture in the athletics department was of a \u201cdon\u2019t ask, don\u2019t tell\u201d variety. It was common Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 290 of 371 #: 2277 291 knowledge that Dr. Strauss gave prolonged genital exams to athletes. John Doe 55 heard many coaches and trainers joke about Dr. Strauss, including Coach Chris Ford and Coach Dick Sloan. The swimmers\u2019 comments in front of Coach Sloan included, \u201cGoing to see the dick doctor\u201d when going to see Dr. Strauss for an exam or ailment, and \u201cDid you get your balls and dick rubbed?\u201d after learning a teammate had seen Dr. Strauss. Coach Sloan would respond to these comments by saying, \u201cThat guy is weird,\u201d in reference to Dr. Strauss. The swimmers also joked about Dr. Strauss in front of Coach Sloan while Dr. Strauss swam during the swim team practices. 2069. Dr. Strauss offered John Doe 55 casual employment opportunities outside of OSU. For example, John Doe 55 raked leaves and did other errands for Dr. Strauss at Dr. Strauss\u2019 home. Dr. Strauss paid John Doe 55 well. 2070. Despite what he witnessed, while he was a student at OSU, John Doe 55 never thought anything of Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams. He assumed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 extensive evaluation of student athletes\u2019 genitalia was simply a thorough, medically necessary exam. He also thought that\u2014because Dr. Strauss was kind, intelligent, and took an interest in students\u2014his exams were legitimate and professional. John Doe 55 did not understand Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct to be sexual abuse. 2071. John Doe 55 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2072. Until learning in early 2018 about an investigation into allegations that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused student-athletes, John Doe 55 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive medical examinations of him or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 291 of 371 #: 2278 292 2073. Until hearing reports in 2018, John Doe 55 had no reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2074. Even if, while a student at OSU, John Doe 55 had tried to inquire into OSU\u2019s role in permitting Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse of him, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2075. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 55 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2076. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it and other instances of abuse, John Doe 55 has suffered long-lasting emotional and psychological harm. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse has been on John Doe 55\u2019s mind every day since learning about OSU\u2019s investigation, causing him severe distress. Over the years, John Doe 55 has had problems with relationships, anger, and anxiety, and feels he was \u201cused\u201d by Dr. Strauss. John Doe 55 has sought counseling to address these issues 56 2077. John Doe 56 was a student at from 1983 to 1988, and a member of OSU\u2019s baseball team from 1984 to 1988. John Doe 56 attended on a partial athletic scholarship. 2078. John Doe 56 relied on his scholarship to attend college. 2079. John Doe 56 was abused by Dr. Strauss at an facility during a pre-season physical sometime between 1984 and 1988. As a member of the baseball team, John Doe 56 was required to receive pre-season physicals every year. 2080. John Doe 56 waited for a physical in the training room with his other teammates. He was called in by Dr. Strauss to a private exam room. The two were alone during the exam. 2081. John Doe 56 was wearing team-issued shorts, but no shirt, socks, or shoes. Before the examination, Dr. Strauss walked in a circle around John Doe 56, just looking at him. While Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 292 of 371 #: 2279 293 John Doe 56 was sitting on the exam table, Dr. Strauss proceeded with the exam, checking John Doe 56\u2019s throat and eyes and listening to chest. Dr. Strauss was \u201chandsy\u201d during exam. For example, he ran one hand down John Doe 56\u2019s back while listening to his chest, which seemed strange. 2082. Then, Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 56 to stand on a footstool and remove his shorts. Although John Doe 56 thought this was odd, he complied. Dr. Strauss sat on a chair at eye level with John Doe 56\u2019s genitalia, about six inches away. He cupped John Doe 56\u2019s testicles with one hand and groped his penis with the other hand for a prolonged time. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves. Although John Doe 56 thought the exam was too long, he also thought Dr. Strauss may have found a medical problem. 2083. Dr. Strauss made remarks about John Doe 56\u2019s body during the exam, telling John Doe 56, \u201cyou look strong,\u201d and \u201cyou must spend a lot of time at the gym.\u201d 2084. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam made John Doe 56 uncomfortable, confused, and ashamed. At the time, while he felt shaken up and that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was weird, he assumed that Dr. Strauss was conducting a legitimate medical exam. 2085. After Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 56, John Doe 56 commented to an baseball trainer about how unusual the exam was. The baseball trainer replied to the effect that \u201csome doctors are just really into the human body\u201d and Dr. Strauss was one of those doctors. 2086. John Doe 56\u2019s teammates had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss. The teammates made light of their encounters and joked about how Dr. Strauss seemed to pay special attention to John Doe 56, implying that John Doe 56 was gay. 2087. Dr. Strauss would often hang around the showers with the baseball team after practices and make comments about the players\u2019 physiques. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 293 of 371 #: 2280 294 2088. John Doe 56 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2089. Until reading news coverage about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse in or about 2018, John Doe 56 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2090. While John Doe 56 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 56 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2091. This is because, while John Doe 56 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of staff, and John Doe 56 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2092. In addition, the trainer\u2019s unconcerned reaction to comments about Dr. Strauss\u2019 touchy-feely exams reinforced John Doe 56\u2019s reasonable belief that pursuing the matter would not be productive. 2093. In short, until seeing news coverage in or about 2018, about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 56 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2094. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 56 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 294 of 371 #: 2281 295 2095. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 56 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. His experience with Dr. Strauss impacted his student life at OSU. John Doe 56 recalls feeling somewhat lost for several months after the exam and did not want to be treated by any medical doctor on staff at OSU. He is just now coming to terms with the abuse he suffered and how it has affected him. While John Doe 56 has tried to compartmentalize the incident with Dr. Strauss over the years, he has had trouble coping with the impact of the abuse. John Doe 56 has struggled with debilitating anxiety, which eventually led to a trip to the emergency room and a prescription for medication to treat it. John Doe 56\u2019s anxiety has distracted him from his work and affected his performance. He still has bouts of anxiety that he actively manages. He remains cautious and distrustful of doctors and closely monitors where they are positioned and how they touch his body. Since learning about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse in 2018, John Doe 56 has felt confused and bewildered, blaming himself for not recognizing Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions as abuse at the time. He worries that his teenage children will face sexual predators like Dr. Strauss and works to teach them to protect themselves 57 2096. John Doe 57 was a student at in 1994 and 1995. 2097. In 1994, while he was trying out to join the junior varsity cheerleading team, an older student-athlete on the cheerleading team suggested that John Doe 57 see Dr. Strauss for a pre-existing knee injury. 2098. Dr. Strauss arranged for John Doe 57 to see him during an evening appointment, after business hours. The two were alone in Dr. Strauss\u2019 office. 2099. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 57 to pull his pants down. Dr. Strauss then began examining John Doe 57\u2019s genitals. He groped John Doe 57\u2019s testicles for a long time, and told John Doe 57 that he was going to conduct a hernia exam. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 295 of 371 #: 2282 296 2100. Dr. Strauss never examined John Doe 57\u2019s knee. 2101. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the exam. 2102. John Doe 57 froze up during the exam, shocked at what was happening to him. He knew that Dr. Strauss\u2019 procedure did not feel normal and he thought that Dr. Strauss might have been checking to see if John Doe 57 was gay. 2103. During his long walk home, John Doe 57 recalls feeling deeply confused, uncomfortable, and ashamed. 2104. John Doe 57 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2105. While John Doe 57 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 57 did not understand that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2106. John Doe 57 reasonably believed that would not have kept Dr. Strauss on staff as an doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2107. John Doe 57 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination was sexually abusive at the time. 2108. Until reading news coverage of the investigation in or about April, 2018, John Doe 57 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of him and his teammates were sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2109. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 57 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 296 of 371 #: 2283 297 conduct or that other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2110. In any event, even if, while John Doe 57 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2111. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 57 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2112. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 57 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. After his encounter with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 57 sank into a depression and began abusing hard drugs and alcohol. John Doe 57 began feeling that other professors were against him, in what he now realizes was a misdirection based on what Dr. Strauss did. Shortly thereafter, during his second semester, John Doe 57 dropped out of OSU. John Doe 57 did not obtain a college degree until over a decade later. During this long depressive episode, triggered by Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, John Doe 57 lost friends and had issues getting along with his roommates. His finances were also impaired by the incident\u2014he fell behind on credit card payments and racked up debt. John Doe 57 thinks back on that period as a serious \u201clow point\u201d in his life. Since the public reporting about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, John Doe 57 has suffered emotionally. Every time he sees Dr. Strauss\u2019 picture in the media or online it reminds him of the abuse; he often feels angry, depressed, and emotionally drained by the media coverage. He feels betrayed by OSU; while he used to describe himself as a former student, in conversations with others he now often avoids affiliating himself with 58 2113. John Doe 58 was a student at from 1974 to 1979. 2114. John Doe 58 saw Dr. Strauss once in the fall of 1978 at Student Health to address Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 297 of 371 #: 2284 298 his acute constipation. 2115. John Doe 58 met with Dr. Strauss at an facility. 2116. At the exam, Dr. Strauss made comments about John Doe 58\u2019s body, remarking that he looks like he was in shape and asking whether he was an athlete. 2117. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 58 to lean over the exam table. He stood behind John Doe 58 and conducted a rectal exam, digitally penetrating John Doe 58\u2019s anus. 2118. During the exam, Dr. Strauss reached around John Doe 58 and grabbed his penis and scrotum for an extended time. Dr. Strauss repeatedly stroked John Doe 58\u2019s penis. 2119. John Doe 58 asked Dr. Strauss what he was doing, because his medical concern was only constipation. Dr. Strauss responded: \u201cRelax am examining you,\u201d in an authoritative tone. John Doe 58 was uncomfortable and did not know what to say or do. He believed that because Dr. Strauss was a doctor, his actions had to have some medical basis. Dr. Strauss then stopped stroking his penis. 2120. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 58 to return for a follow-up appointment and prescribed over-the-counter medication and mineral oil. John Doe 58 refused to return for another appointment because he believed the initial exam to be strange and uncomfortable. 2121. After the exam, John Doe 58 told his fianc\u00e9 that the exam had been a weird experience. 2122. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during the exam made John Doe 58 uncomfortable. He felt that Dr. Strauss was odd, but did not realize that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him. 2123. While he was a student at OSU, John Doe 58 did not know what to do about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct and he felt that he was not in a position to do anything. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 298 of 371 #: 2285 299 2124. John Doe 58 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2125. In retrospect, John Doe 58 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and sexually harassed him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 2126. While John Doe 58 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 58 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2127. John Doe 58 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss a university doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2128. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 58 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or whether other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2129. In any event, even if, while John Doe 58 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2130. If had taken meaningful action to address Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate behavior as observed by employees, John Doe 58 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2131. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 58 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. He has been uncomfortable obtaining medical treatment. He suffers suffered flashbacks to Dr. Strauss\u2019 exam, particularly during prostate and Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 299 of 371 #: 2286 300 rectal exams. As a result, he avoided obtaining a colonoscopy for over a decade. When he belatedly obtained a long-overdue colonoscopy, his doctor discovered that he had colon cancer. Had he not delayed obtaining regular colonoscopies, the polyps likely would have been caught before they became cancerous. John Doe 58 also feels guilty and believes that if he had complained about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct at the time, he could have made a difference and protected other students from being abused by Dr. Strauss. That said, he is also angered by the realization that had he come forward at the time, likely would have ignored his complaints and done nothing. He feels betrayed by OSU; he considers himself a proud alumni and football fan, and he is disheartened that an institution he loves did not act to protect its students from Dr. Strauss 59 2132. John Doe 59 was a student at in the early 1980s, and a member of OSU\u2019s gymnastics team during that period. John Doe 59 was a top gymnastics recruit and was given a partial athletic scholarship. 2133. John Doe 59 relied on his scholarship to attend college. 2134. John Doe 59 was a talented gymnast\u2014not only was he heavily recruited by OSU, but he also lettered every year he was on the team and helped the team win a national championship title in 1985. 2135. John Doe 59 was examined by Dr. Strauss over fifty times while at OSU. John Doe 59 had sustained a severe injury, but other doctors and trainers had misdiagnosed his injury. This required John Doe 59 to see Dr. Strauss repeatedly for medicine and treatment. John Doe 59 also saw Dr. Strauss for more minor illnesses. In all, John Doe 59 saw Dr. Strauss at least monthly each year that he attended OSU. 2136. For most of John Doe 59\u2019s appointments, Dr. Strauss sought John Doe 59 out Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 300 of 371 #: 2287 301 directly and insisted that he needed an exam. Other times athletic staff directed John Doe 59 to see Dr. Strauss, as Dr. Strauss was the gymnastics team doctor. 2137. Almost all of John Doe 59\u2019s exams took place in Larkins Hall. One of his exams took place in Dr. Strauss\u2019 office, in a separate building on OSU\u2019s campus. 2138. John Doe 59\u2019s exams with Dr. Strauss all followed a similar pattern. Dr. Strauss would sit on a chair or stool and instruct John Doe 59 to drop his pants. He would then tell John Doe 59 to either stand or lie down on his back on an exam table. Dr. Strauss would then bring his face very close to John Doe 59\u2019s genitals, and would massage John Doe 59\u2019s testicles and penis. John Doe 59 recalls that Dr. Strauss appeared \u201ctotally locked in\u201d and \u201cmesmerized\u201d while examining John Doe 59\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss\u2019 groping and fondling would usually last several minutes. During a few of John Doe 59\u2019s exams, Dr. Strauss stroked John Doe 59\u2019s penis until he became erect. Dr. Strauss also frequently commented on John Doe 59\u2019s physique and fitness during these exams. 2139. Dr. Strauss never wore gloves during any of the exams. 2140. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams made John Doe 59 feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, and ashamed. After his first exam with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 59 felt that the encounter had been \u201cextremely weird.\u201d After repeated similar encounters with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 59 wondered how to respond, but ultimately concluded that there was nothing he could do, as he needed medical treatment. John Doe 59 did not realize that Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams were sexually abusive. 2141. John Doe 59\u2019s teammates had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss. They made light of their experiences and joked about the exams, often in front of trainers and coaches. The trainers and coaches brushed aside the athletes\u2019 jokes and never took any of the remarks seriously. 2142. On one occasion, a friend from another college visited John Doe 59 and was Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 301 of 371 #: 2288 302 working out in the gym with him. John Doe 59\u2019s friend left to get something from the training room when Dr. Strauss was in the training room. When the friend returned, John Doe 59 noticed he was white as a ghost. The friend asked John Doe 59, \u201cWhat is going on around here?\u201d John Doe 59\u2019s friend never told him what happened, but John Doe 59 assumed Dr. Strauss had done something to him. 2143. Dr. Strauss regularly hung around the gymnastics team. After every practice, Dr. Strauss followed the gymnastics team into the locker rooms and showers and lingered there. Dr. Strauss once invited himself out to Wendy\u2019s with John Doe 59 and his teammates. 2144. John Doe 59 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2145. John Doe 59 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 2146. In retrospect, John Doe 59 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until early 2018, when he saw media coverage of the criminal sentencing of Michigan State University physician Larry Nassar and heard female gymnasts talk about how Dr. Nassar sexually abused them under the guise of providing medical care. 2147. While John Doe 59 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 59 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2148. This is because, while John Doe 59 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of staff, and John Doe 59 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 302 of 371 #: 2289 303 to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2149. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 59 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2150. This is because, in John Doe 59\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was common knowledge among trainers and coaches, but none of them seemed particularly concerned about it. 2151. In any event, even if, while John Doe 59 was an student he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2152. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 59 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2153. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 59 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. John Doe 59 believes that Dr. Strauss was able to take advantage of his misdiagnosed injury and get John Doe 59 to see him for repeated follow-up treatments. Due to his experiences with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 59 developed a fear and mistrust of doctors, as well as an aversion to going to the gym\u2014it is simply too painful for John Doe 59 to be in doctor\u2019s offices and gyms. John Doe 59 did not see a doctor for more than ten years after graduating from OSU. John Doe 59 is fearful for his children\u2019s safety, especially when they must see a doctor. Strauss\u2019 abuse had a profound effect on his comfort with his own body. It also affected his relationships with others, including his wife 60 2154. John Doe 60 was a student at from 1989 to 1992, and a member of OSU\u2019s football team during that period. John Doe 60 attended on a full athletic scholarship. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 303 of 371 #: 2290 304 2155. John Doe 60 relied on his scholarship to attend college. 2156. John Doe 60 was a talented athlete. He was selected for the All-Big Ten Conference Team in 1992 and 1993. He entered the National Football League Draft after his junior year, in 1993. 2157. While a student at OSU, John Doe 60 saw Dr. Strauss for annual pre-season physicals, as well as on four or five additional occasions for other medical examinations. 2158. As a member of OSU\u2019s football team, John Doe 60 was required to have a pre- season physical. He was referred to see Dr. Strauss by Dr. Bob Murphy. 2159. All of John Doe 60\u2019s physicals with Dr. Strauss occurred at the Woody Hayes facility on OSU\u2019s campus. All of John Doe 60\u2019s other examinations with Dr. Strauss occurred in Dr. Strauss\u2019 office next to Larkins Hall. 2160. John Doe 60 was alone with Dr. Strauss during each appointment. 2161. During each of John Doe 60\u2019s physicals with Dr. Strauss, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 60 to remove his pants and underwear. He then fondled John Doe 60\u2019s genitals and conducted a rectal exam. 2162. When John Doe 60 saw Dr. Strauss for appointments other than pre-season physicals, Dr. Strauss performed a similar routine. He asked John Doe 60 to drop his underwear and groped John Doe 60\u2019s genitals. 2163. On one occasion, when John Doe 60 went to see Dr. Strauss for a cold, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 60 to pull down his pants. Dr. Strauss held John Doe 60\u2019s genitals, then walked away to write down some notes. He came back and resumed holding John Doe 60\u2019s penis again. Dr. Strauss did this several more times\u2014walking away, and then returning to hold and fondle John Doe 60\u2019s penis for ten to fifteen seconds at a time. John Doe 60 recalls thinking that Dr. Strauss\u2019 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 304 of 371 #: 2291 305 behavior was incredibly strange. 2164. During three of John Doe 60\u2019s visits his sophomore year, John Doe 60 asked for money from Dr. Strauss to purchase items he needed for his young daughters, such as diapers. On each occasion, Dr. Strauss escalated his groping to the point where he fondled John Doe 60\u2019s penis to erection, then stroked John Doe 60\u2019s penis until he ejaculated. After doing so, Dr. Strauss gave John Doe 60 $40 or $50 each time. John Doe 60 felt as though Dr. Strauss had control over him. 2165. During the examinations, Dr. Strauss would often ask John Doe 60, \u201cHow does that feel?\u201d while leering at him. 2166. While Dr. Strauss occasionally wore gloves during the examinations, he often did not. 2167. Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations made John Doe 60 extremely uncomfortable, ashamed, and confused. He had difficulty processing what had happened to him and feared that others would think he was gay. 2168. John Doe 60\u2019s teammates had similar experiences with Dr. Strauss, but the teammates made light of their experiences and joked about the exams. 2169. John Doe 60 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2170. John Doe 60 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. 2171. While John Doe 60 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 60 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2172. This is because, while John Doe 60 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 305 of 371 #: 2292 306 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, and John Doe 60 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2173. Until reading news coverage of the investigation in 2018, John Doe 60 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations of him and his teammates were sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014 had harmed him. 2174. In any event, even if, while John Doe 60 was an student he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2175. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 60 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2176. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 60 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2177. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 60 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, John Doe 60 has a hard time trusting people, especially doctors. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse has negatively affected his relationships with romantic partners. John Doe 60 also developed homophobia. Over the years, he has often had flashbacks about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, causing him significant trauma. John Doe 60 has had to seek counseling to address these issues 61 2178. John Doe 61 was a student at from 1988 to 1992, and a member of OSU\u2019s Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 306 of 371 #: 2293 307 swim team from 1988 through 1991. John Doe 61 received a partial athletic scholarship. 2179. John Doe 61 relied on his scholarship to attend college. 2180. John Doe 61 saw Dr. Strauss for medical examinations three times while a student at OSU. He saw Dr. Strauss twice in 1988, once for a pre-season physical and again for a follow up appointment. He saw Dr. Strauss again later in his college career, for a cold or flu. 2181. John Doe 61 and Dr. Strauss were alone during each examination. 2182. Dr. Strauss never wore gloves during any of his examinations of John Doe 61. 2183. In the fall of 1988, John Doe 61 was instructed by coaching staff to see Dr. Strauss for a team physical. At that appointment, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 61 that one of John Doe 61\u2019s testicles was larger than the other and that John Doe 61 would have to schedule a follow up appointment with Dr. Strauss at the Student Health Center the following week, so that Dr. Strauss could examine him in an office environment. 2184. The following week, John Doe 61 went to the Student Health Center for his follow- up appointment. He and Dr. Strauss were alone in an examination room. 2185. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 61 to remove all of his clothing. He then retrieved a flashlight, turned off the lights, and got on his knees. He brought his face very close to John Doe 61\u2019s groin and began examining John Doe 61\u2019s genitals, pulling down John Doe 61\u2019s scrotum and grabbing John Doe 61\u2019s buttocks and penis. John Doe 61 could feel Dr. Strauss\u2019 breath on his genitals. 2186. The examination took about ten to fifteen minutes; John Doe 61 was deeply uncomfortable throughout. Toward the end, finding the examination unbearable, John Doe 61 said to Dr. Strauss, \u201cOkay doc, that\u2019s good.\u201d Dr. Strauss responded that everything was fine, and ended the examination. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 307 of 371 #: 2294 308 2187. Sometime later in his college career, John Doe 61 came down with the cold or the flu. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 61 to visit his house for an appointment. 2188. When John Doe 61 arrived at Dr. Strauss\u2019 house, Dr. Strauss offered him an alcoholic drink. John Doe 61 declined. 2189. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 61 to go upstairs into the large bedroom, to take off his clothing, and to wait for Dr. Strauss. John Doe 61 went upstairs and began to remove his clothing. Halfway through disrobing, he thought to himself, \u201cWhat am doing?\u201d 2190. As John Doe 61 was putting his clothing back on, Dr. Strauss came into the bedroom, and said to John Doe 61, \u201cWhat\u2019s the matter was going to examine you?\u201d John Doe 61 responded that he was going home, and left Dr. Strauss\u2019 house. 2191. Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive behavior towards John Doe 61 was not confined to medical examinations. Dr. Strauss regularly entered the locker rooms while John Doe 61 and his teammates were cleaning off, and watched John Doe 61 and his teammates showering. Dr. Strauss carried around a tub of Lubriderm lotion, which he called \u201cLubrisperm.\u201d He regularly rubbed the Lubriderm lotion on John Doe 61\u2019s fellow athletes\u2019 bodies. Dr. Strauss rubbed Lubriderm on John Doe 61\u2019s torso countless times. 2192. Dr. Strauss frequently made comments to John Doe 61 that made him uncomfortable. He commented on John Doe 61\u2019s muscles, asked John Doe 61 whether he was on steroids, told John Doe 61 he was a \u201cphysical specimen,\u201d and asked John Doe 61 for graphic details about his sex life\u2014including whether John Doe 61 had engaged in anal sex. 2193. John Doe 61 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 308 of 371 #: 2295 309 2194. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct made John Doe 61 deeply uncomfortable, but he did not recognize it as sexual abuse at the time. 2195. In retrospect, John Doe 61 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2019, after Perkins Coie issued its report finding that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were sexual abusive. 2196. While John Doe 61 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 61 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2197. This is because, while John Doe 61 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, and John Doe 61 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2198. Until reading Perkins Coie\u2019s report in 2019, John Doe 61 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2199. This is because, in John Doe 61\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was common knowledge among trainers and coaches, but none of them seemed particularly concerned about it. 2200. In any event, even if, while John Doe 61 was an student he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2201. In short, until learning about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students and reading the Perkins Coie\u2019s report in 2019, John Doe 61 did not know, or have reason to know, that Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 309 of 371 #: 2296 310 Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2202. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 61 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2203. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 61 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. John Doe 61 has had a difficult time with romantic relationships and relationships with co-workers and friends. John Doe 61 worries about the safety and well-being of his children in schools, camps, and general activities, wherever abuse may potentially occur, causing him great anxiety 62 2204. John Doe 62 attended from 1984 to 1989, and was a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team from 1984 through 1986. 2205. While at OSU, John Doe 62 saw Dr. Strauss for one pre-season physical during his freshman year and another examination during his sophomore year that was either a pre-season physical or an examination of a knee injury. 2206. John Doe 62 was an 18-year-old freshman when he was abused by Dr. Strauss for the first time. 2207. As a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team, John Doe 62 was required to receive a pre- season physical in August 1984. The head coach of the soccer team scheduled John Doe 62 and his teammates to receive their physicals from Dr. Strauss. 2208. One by one, the players entered a private exam room with Dr. Strauss. 2209. When John Doe 62 entered the exam room, Dr. Strauss instructed him to remove his pants and underwear. No one else was in the room. 2210. Dr. Strauss sat at eye level with John Doe 62\u2019s genitals and told John Doe 62 that Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 310 of 371 #: 2297 311 he needed to \u201clook around down there.\u201d He then examined John Doe 62\u2019s genitals for an extended time, fondling John Doe 62\u2019s penis and testicles for approximately two minutes. This included grabbing, pulling, and stroking his penis and testicles. John Doe 62 was shocked and did not know what was going on. 2211. Dr. Strauss then told John Doe 62 that he needed to give him a prostate exam. He did not give John Doe 62 an explanation as to why a prostate exam was needed. 2212. John Doe 62 did not know what a prostate exam was. John Doe 62 was not aware of any illness or symptoms that would require a prostate exam. 2213. As part of the exam, Dr. Strauss inserted a finger into John Doe 62\u2019s anus. Dr. Strauss moved his finger in and out a few times. John Doe 62 was physically and emotionally uncomfortable, but he did not believe he could tell Dr. Strauss to stop. John Doe 62 believed this was part of a normal examination. 2214. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the examination. 2215. John Doe 62\u2019s second examination with Dr. Strauss went much the same as the first. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 62 to remove his shorts and underwear. Dr. Strauss sat close to John Doe 62\u2019s genitals and grabbed and fondled John Doe 62\u2019s penis and testicles for about one to two minutes. John Doe 62 had no issue or injury related to his genitals that needed examination. Dr. Strauss made John Doe 62 believe he was checking for a hernia and other things. At this time, John Doe 62 did not know what a hernia was and had no knowledge to dispute the examination. 2216. Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations made John Doe 62 extremely uncomfortable, confused, and embarrassed. 2217. After Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 62 avoided seeking treatment from Dr. Strauss for all other injuries he sustained. Instead, John Doe 62 either went to a student athletic Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 311 of 371 #: 2298 312 trainer for treatment or avoided seeking medical treatment altogether. 2218. John Doe 62\u2019s teammates often joked about their experiences with Dr. Strauss. They frequently remarked that they did not want to get injured, otherwise they would have to see Dr. Strauss. On at least one occasion, one of John Doe 62\u2019s teammates told him, \u201cDr. Strauss is playing with my balls.\u201d 2219 few times after a practice, Dr. Strauss would shower with John Doe 62 and other members of the soccer team. 2220. John Doe 62 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 2221. At the time, no education about sexual abuse or harassment had ever been provided to John Doe 62 and he had no idea Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations could be considered sexual abuse or harassment. In retrospect, John Doe 62 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2019, when Perkins Coie issued its report finding that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were sexual abusive. 2222. While John Doe 62 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 62 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2223. John Doe 62 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2224. Until reading Perkins Coie\u2019s report in 2019, John Doe 62 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 312 of 371 #: 2299 313 whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2225. After reading the Perkins Coie report in 2019 and after reading OSU\u2019s admission of the sexual abuse in the Perkins Coie report, John Doe 62 for the first time realized he was sexually abused by Dr. Strauss. 2226. For the first time after reading the Perkins Coie report in 2019, John Doe 62 realized that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations had nothing to do with standard medical procedures. 2227. For the first time after reading the Perkins Coie report, John Doe 62 realized that Dr. Strauss used his position of authority to sexually abuse him and other athletes under the guise of fake medical examinations, and that knew about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct at the time of John Doe 62\u2019s examination. 2228. In any event, even if, while John Doe 62 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2229. In short, until learning about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students and reading the Perkins Coie\u2019s report in 2019, John Doe 62 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2230. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 62 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2231. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 62 suffered emotional and psychological damages. John Doe 62 considers Dr. Strauss\u2019 abusive conduct to be his \u201cfirst sexual experience,\u201d and has suffered severe emotional and psychological anguish as a result. He feels deep shame and embarrassment to this day, and fears speaking to Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 313 of 371 #: 2300 314 anyone about what happened to him. He has never allowed another doctor to examine his genitals. He has suffered from relationship and trust issues, and feels he has not been sufficiently caring, friendly, or compassionate towards others. He fears for his children\u2019s safety when they are in the hands of institutions with power and authority, and did not allow his daughter to attend for college this year 63 2232. John Doe 63 was a student at from 1977 to 1983, and a member of OSU\u2019s wrestling team from 1977 to 1981. John Doe 63 received a partial athletic scholarship during his sophomore year. 2233. John Doe 63 relied on his scholarship to attend college. 2234. John Doe 63 saw Dr. Strauss once for medical treatment during his time at OSU. John Doe 63 was a 19-year-old sophomore at the time. 2235. During a wrestling practice session, Dr. Strauss approached John Doe 63. John Doe 63 had the flu at the time, and Dr. Strauss made a comment to John Doe 63 about his lackluster performance. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 63 that he would have to give him a medical examination. 2236. Dr. Strauss brought John Doe 63 into a private room in Larkins Hall. The two were alone. 2237. Dr. Strauss closed the door and told John Doe 63 to drop his shorts and jock strap. Dr. Strauss began fondling John Doe 63\u2019s genitals aggressively. He also groped John Doe 63 on his back and arms. Throughout the exam, Dr. Strauss had a \u201ccreepy\u201d expression on his face, as if mesmerized by John Doe 63\u2019s body. 2238. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the exam. 2239. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct made John Doe 63 extremely uncomfortable, confused, and embarrassed. While John Doe 63 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 314 of 371 #: 2301 315 to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 63 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. When John Doe 63 walked out of the exam room and back into the training room, one of his friends looked up and laughed at him. John Doe 63 felt that his friends could immediately tell from his expression what had happened to him. 2240. This type of reaction was not uncommon amongst John Doe 63 and his teammates. John Doe 63 and his teammates jokingly called Dr. Strauss \u201cDick Strauss.\u201d John Doe 63 believes that his teammates also faced prolonged genital exams by Dr. Strauss and made light of their experiences. John Doe 63 and his teammates laughed at other teammates when they came out of appointments with Dr. Strauss. 2241. Dr. Strauss regularly showered with the wrestling team. Dr. Strauss was usually the first one in the shower and the last one out after wrestling practice. He also regularly stood around the locker room before and after wrestling practice as the wrestlers were changing. 2242. Dr. Strauss often approached John Doe 63 in the locker room while John Doe 63 undressed. 2243. Some wrestlers were required to participate in a study conducted by Dr. Strauss on body fat in athletes. John Doe 63 was one of the wrestlers required to participate in the study. He is uncertain who decided which wrestlers were to participate. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 63 to get into a submersion tank completely naked as part of the study. John Doe 63 recalls Dr. Strauss ogling him throughout the study. 2244. In 1978, during John Doe 63\u2019s sophomore year, he suffered a concussion during practice in Larkins Hall. The trainers brought John Doe 63 to Dr. Strauss\u2019 office adjacent to the wrestling room. Due to his concussion, John Doe 63 does not remember what Dr. Strauss did to Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 315 of 371 #: 2302 316 him, and fears Dr. Strauss may have inappropriately touched him. 2245. John Doe 63 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2246. At the time of the abuse, John Doe 63 knew that Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions were wrong. However, he did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions as sexual abuse at the time. 2247. In retrospect, John Doe 63 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he saw media coverage of allegations against Dr. Strauss and OSU, around the time that announced its investigation into allegations of sexual abuse against Dr. Strauss. 2248. While John Doe 63 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 63 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2249. This is because, while John Doe 63 attended OSU, student-athletes openly joked about Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations in front of coaches and trainers, and John Doe 63 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2250. Until learning about the allegations against Dr. Strauss and in 2018, John Doe 63 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2251. This is because, in John Doe 63\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was common knowledge among trainers and coaches, but none of them seemed particularly concerned about it. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 316 of 371 #: 2303 317 2252. In any event, even if, while John Doe 63 was an student he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2253. If had taken meaningful action to address Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate behavior as observed by employees, John Doe 63 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2254. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 63 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse caused John Doe 63 to quit the wrestling team and cast a shadow over the remainder of his time at OSU. It caused him to enter a downward spiral of rage during which he developed an alcohol and drug problem, lasting until his early thirties. John Doe 63 feels as though Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and the events it precipitated caused him to fall short of what he could have been in life. In addition, John Doe 63 developed a fear of doctors. Despite many injuries he sustained as a wrestler, John Doe 63 was reluctant to seek medical treatment, and refused to see another doctor while a student at OSU. In fact, John Doe 63 did not have a physical again until his mid-fifties, due largely to his experiences with Dr. Strauss. In 2019, after confronting the stress and trauma caused by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 63 developed a painful disorder that frequently causes his jaw to pop 64 2255. John Doe 64 was a student at from 1993 through 1998 and was a member of OSU\u2019s gymnastics team from 1993 to 1997. John Doe 64 received a partial athletic scholarship to attend as a member of the gymnastics team. 2256. John Doe 64 saw Dr. Strauss for the first time in the fall of 1993 for an annual physical. 2257. John Doe 64 saw Dr. Strauss for an additional three annual physicals and three to four medical appointments between 1993 and 1996. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 317 of 371 #: 2304 318 2258. As a member of the gymnastics team, John Doe 64 was scheduled to have an annual physical with Dr. Strauss. He and his teammates went to Larkins Hall and waited to see Dr. Strauss individually. Each teammate was alone with Dr. Strauss in Dr. Strauss\u2019 Larkins Hall office. 2259. At each physical, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 64 to lower his pants and underwear halfway down his legs. Each time, Dr. Strauss sat on a chair with his face close to John Doe 64\u2019s genitals and fondled and moved John Doe 64\u2019s penis. 2260. On each occasion, after fondling John Doe 64\u2019s penis while John Doe 64\u2019s pants were halfway down his legs, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 64 to \u201cstep out\u201d of his pants and underwear. Dr. Strauss then conducted a more thorough examination where he continued to fondle John Doe 64\u2019s penis and touch other areas of John Doe 64\u2019s body, including his neck, arms, and nipples. Dr. Strauss asked if the areas he touched were painful or tender. During more than one physical, Dr. Strauss\u2019 actions caused John Doe 64 to have an erection. 2261. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct at physicals was common knowledge. John Doe 64\u2019s teammates referred to the more thorough portion of their physical examinations as \u201cstepping out,\u201d i.e. the men were told to step out of their pants and underwear. 2262. Dr. Strauss repeatedly gave John Doe 64 \u201cphysicals\u201d without a medical basis. On one occasion in the locker room, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 64 that he was \u201clooking really fit\u201d and that he needed to feel John Doe 64\u2019s nipples to make sure he wasn\u2019t taking steroids. Dr. Strauss began feeling John Doe 64\u2019s nipples and chest in the middle of the locker room. 2263. From 1993 to 1996, John Doe 64 was sent to Dr. Strauss to treat gymnastics injuries on three to four occasions. At each appointment, Dr. Strauss insisted on conducting a physical in addition to treating the injury. On one occasion, John Doe 64 went to Dr. Strauss with a cut heel and Dr. Strauss performed a full physical. He required John Doe 64 to remove all of his clothes, Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 318 of 371 #: 2305 319 then fondled John Doe 64\u2019s penis and other body parts. Dr. Strauss also performed a full physical for a random drug test. 2264. Dr. Strauss took advantage of excuses to touch John Doe 64 outside the exam room, including squeezing John Doe 64\u2019s biceps and touching his stomach. Dr. Strauss frequently stood around the training room while John Doe 64 and his teammates were icing and heating their strained muscles. He sometimes rubbed John Doe 64\u2019s legs and asked if they were sore. 2265. Dr. Strauss frequently stood in the shower and stared at John Doe 64 and his teammates while they showered. Dr. Strauss also attended the gymnastics team\u2019s practices and photographed the student-athletes in their uniforms. 2266. John Doe 64 believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was not normal. However, he did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. 2267. John Doe 64 did not report his discomfort with Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination. He did not know that it was something he could complain about. 2268. John Doe 64 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 2269. In retrospect, John Doe 64 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2018, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss and saw media coverage of the criminal sentencing of Michigan State University physician Larry Nassar. 2270. While John Doe 64 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 64 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2271. John Doe 64 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 319 of 371 #: 2306 320 athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2272. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 64 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2273. In any event, even if, while John Doe 64 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2274. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 64 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2275. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 64 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2276. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 64 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. The abuse made it difficult for him to get through classes, which increased the pressure on him to remain eligible for his scholarship. Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse also caused him significant stress, which distracted from his athletic career. John Doe 64 also avoided medical professionals since graduating from OSU. In August 2019, John Doe 64 visited a doctor for the first time since 1998. Looking back, John Doe 64 feels betrayed by the school he loved and competed for. John Doe 64 could have competed at another school, but he chose to compete at and encouraged friends to compete at OSU. He feels guilt over their Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 320 of 371 #: 2307 321 potential suffering. Even more, John Doe 64 is upset that let him down and let down the other survivors. They knew that Dr. Strauss was engaging in inappropriate behavior, but they did nothing to protect their students. He is infuriated that he had to suffer all these years because failed to act 65 2277. John Doe 65 was a student at from 1996 to 2000. 2278. While a student at OSU, John Doe 65 was examined by Dr. Strauss on one occasion in 1996 at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center. 2279. John Doe 65 visited the center once in 1996 and once in 1997 for separate injuries to his hand and to his knee. At his 1996 visit, John Doe 65 was sent to see Dr. Strauss for an X- ray of the injured area. John Doe 65 and Dr. Strauss were alone in the exam room. 2280. At the X-ray appointment, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 65 to take off his clothes and put on a gown. He told John Doe 65 that he needed to do an exam. After John Doe 65 changed, Dr. Strauss grabbed his genitals in a heavy-handed grope. John Doe 65 asked Dr. Strauss what he was doing. Dr. Strauss looked at John Doe 65 with a blank expression and walked out of the room without a word. 2281. When John Doe 65 exited the room, he mentioned to the female staff that Dr. Strauss was strange. The female staff did not inquire further and instead gave him an odd look in response. 2282. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during the exam made John Doe 65 very uncomfortable. 2283. While he was a student at OSU, John Doe 65 did not know what to do about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. He was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2284. In retrospect, John Doe 65 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 321 of 371 #: 2308 322 him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until after he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 2285. In 2019, after John Doe 65 realized that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him while he was an student, John Doe 65 filed an online sexual misconduct report with OSU\u2019s Title Office to report this. 2286. While John Doe 65 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 65 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2287. John Doe 65 reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss a university doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2288. Before learning about OSU\u2019s 2018\u201319 investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 65 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2289. In any event, even if, while John Doe 65 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2290. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 65 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2291. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 65 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. Since the exam, John Doe 65 has experienced anxiety and anger. He has suffered frequent negative thoughts and emotions relating to the abuse, wondering why this happened to him. He has suffered socially as well\u2014he has been guarded and Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 322 of 371 #: 2309 323 aloof in his personal relationships. He has lost trust in the medical community and sometimes feels uncomfortable around medical professionals 66 2292. John Doe 66 was an undergraduate student at from 1978 to 1982 and was a member of OSU\u2019s soccer team from 1978 to 1979. 2293. John Doe 66 saw Dr. Strauss for a thigh injury sometime during his freshman year at OSU, either in 1978 or 1979. 2294. John Doe 66 met with Dr. Strauss at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center. John Doe 66 and Dr. Strauss were alone in the exam room. 2295. At the exam, Dr. Strauss put John Doe 66 on an examination table, lowered John Doe 66\u2019s pants, and had John Doe 66 lift one of his legs in the air. Dr. Strauss then rubbed his hands up and down John Doe 66\u2019s thighs to his groin, brushing against his genitals. 2296. John Doe 66 was shocked by the examination. He avoided Dr. Strauss from then on. 2297. After the exam, John Doe 66 began to avoid places on campus where he believed he might see Dr. Strauss. He felt as though the atmosphere on campus had become painful. 2298. Dr. Strauss frequently stood in the shower while John Doe 66 and his teammates washed off, staring at them. John Doe 66 saw Dr. Strauss fondle the genitals of two or three of his teammates in the shower. 2299. On occasions when John Doe 66 and his teammates saw Dr. Strauss on campus they made eye contact with each other and walked in a direction away from Dr. Strauss. John Doe 66 was afraid of Dr. Strauss but did not feel comfortable voicing his fear because Dr. Strauss was in a position of authority and was perceived as something of a god. He believes his teammates, particularly the freshmen and sophomores, shared his fear. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 323 of 371 #: 2310 324 2300. John Doe 66 believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was strange. However, he did not realize at the time that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. 2301. John Doe 66 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. 2302. In retrospect, John Doe 66 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him and his teammates. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until 2019, when he learned about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 2303. While John Doe 66 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 66 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2304. John Doe 66 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss a university doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2305. Until learning in 2019 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 66 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2306. In any event, even if, while John Doe 66 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2307. In short, until learning in 2019 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 66 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 324 of 371 #: 2311 325 2308. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 66 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2309. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 66 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. John Doe 66 feels angry and betrayed by regarding Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse towards him. He trusted to protect him as a student, but instead he was made to feel powerless by a doctor that had hired. He now no longer trusts medical professionals and feels the need to investigate a medical professional thoroughly before consenting to a medical appointment. John Doe 66 is also angry and hurt that did nothing to improve its oversight in the years after his sexual abuse. He feels pain and anger that the abuse he suffered from Dr. Strauss also happened to other people, even as was made aware of problems with Dr. Strauss 67 2310. John Doe 67 was a student at from 1987 to 1989. 2311. In the fall of 1987, while a student at OSU, John Doe 67 was abused by Dr. Strauss when he joined OSU\u2019s fencing team. John Doe 67 was 20 years old at the time. 2312. An fencing coach instructed John Doe 67 that he must schedule and complete a physical exam before he could remain a member of the fencing team. An employee scheduled John Doe 67\u2019s physical exam with Dr. Strauss. 2313. At the beginning of the exam, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 67 to get completely undressed. John Doe 67 complied. 2314. When John Doe 67 sat down on the exam table, Dr. Strauss instructed him to stand up. John Doe 67 complied. 2315. Dr. Strauss knelt down in front of John Doe 67 so that his face was level with John Doe 67\u2019s genitals. He began fondling John Doe 67\u2019s penis, including holding, squeezing, and Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 325 of 371 #: 2312 326 massaging it. Dr. Strauss made comments about the size and thickness of John Doe 67\u2019s penis. At one point Dr. Strauss placed a stethoscope on John Doe 67\u2019s penis. Dr. Stauss told John Doe 67 not to be embarrassed if there was a reaction and that a reaction was natural. 2316. Much to his embarrassment and discomfort, John Doe 67 got an erection. Dr. Strauss repeatedly touched John Doe 67\u2019s erect penis to his cheeks and closed lips. The experience caused John Doe 67 to become flustered, bright red, and sweaty. 2317. The physical exam lasted about 15 minutes. Dr. Strauss spent almost the entirety of the exam on John Doe 67\u2019s genitals and no other part of his body. Nobody else was present in the exam room during the exam. 2318. After John Doe 67 got dressed, Dr. Strauss gave John Doe 67 his home phone number and address and invited John Doe 67 to come over and enjoy his swimming pool. John Doe 67 left the exam feeling flustered. 2319. John Doe 67 went to fencing practice believing he had completed the requisite physical exam. Shortly after the exam, John Doe 67\u2019s coach told him that he did not get proper documentation of his physical exam and needed to undergo another physical in order to get that documentation. 2320. Unable to bring himself to go back to Dr. Strauss for another exam, John Doe 67 was no longer able to practice with OSU\u2019s fencing team. John Doe 67 was particularly devastated because it was the first time he had joined a team. 2321. No coaches ever asked John Doe 67 why he was quitting. 2322. John Doe 67 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 326 of 371 #: 2313 327 2323. While John Doe 67 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt very uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 67 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2324. John Doe 67 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2325. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 67 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other student-athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether had harmed him. 2326. Even if, while John Doe 67 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2327. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 67 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2328. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 67 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2329. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 67 has suffered physical, emotional, and psychological damages. John Doe 67 withdrew from student life at OSU, never attended an sporting event of any kind for the rest of his life, and did not even attend his own graduation ceremony. John Doe 67 developed a severe mistrust of doctors and Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 327 of 371 #: 2314 328 avoided them for a long time after his exam with Dr. Strauss, with serious medical consequences. In 2004, after deciding to get life insurance, John Doe 67 was required to go through a thorough physical exam. That exam revealed that John Doe 67 had a dangerous congenital heart defect, requiring immediate bypass surgery and a six-month recovery period. Similarly, if John Doe 67 had not been traumatized by Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, John Doe 67 would have undergone another physical exam earlier in life, been treated for his heart defect, and been able to recover at a younger, healthier age. 2330. John Doe 67 has also suffered from ongoing anxiety whenever he thinks about what happened with Dr. Strauss. The entire experience is emotionally difficult for him. Though he is a proud alumnus he feels betrayed by as an institution 68 2331. John Doe 68 was an undergraduate student at from 1995 to 1996. 2332. In October or November of 1995, while a student at OSU, John Doe 68 was abused by Dr. Strauss during a physical exam. He was 18 or 19 years old at the time. 2333. John Doe 68 enrolled at as a freshman in 1995 and walked onto the wrestling team the same year. John Doe 68 was required to undergo a physical exam with Dr. Strauss before being approved to join the team. Because John Doe 68 was a walk-on, he received an exam appointment that was separate from the rest of the team. 2334. The coaching staff told John Doe 68 that the physical exam was required in order for him to join the wrestling team. An employee scheduled John Doe 68\u2019s appointment with Dr. Strauss. 2335. When John Doe 68\u2019s teammates learned of his appointment, they joked to John Doe 68, \u201cOh you have to go see the doctor tomorrow.\u201d John Doe 68 got the sense from his teammates that the experience would not be pleasant. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 328 of 371 #: 2315 329 2336. At the beginning of the exam, Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 68 to get completely undressed. John Doe 68 and Dr. Strauss were alone in the exam room. 2337. Dr. Strauss lowered his face to John Doe 68\u2019s genital region and began fondling John Doe 68\u2019s penis and testicles. He continued fondling them for a prolonged period of time. 2338. John Doe 68 felt uncomfortable that Dr. Strauss was being overly intimate with his body. 2339. Eventually, Dr. Strauss ended the exam and instructed John Doe 68 to get dressed. He did not say anything regarding the exam or its results. 2340. John Doe 68 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2341. While John Doe 68 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 68 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2342. John Doe 68 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2343. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 68 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other student-athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether had harmed him. 2344. Even if, while John Doe 68 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 329 of 371 #: 2316 330 to that information. 2345. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 68 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2346. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 68 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2347. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 68 has suffered physical, emotional, and psychological damages. John Doe 68 left for another school at the end of his freshman year, in part due to his traumatic experience with Dr. Strauss. The move interrupted John Doe 68\u2019s education. John Doe 68 has also avoided doctors since his exam with Dr. Strauss. He has not undergone a physical exam since 1997. John Doe 68 has also felt betrayed that allowed this kind of abuse to happen to him and others, particularly because so many of his family members attended 69 2348. John Doe 69 was a student at from 1991 to 1997. 2349. While a student at OSU, John Doe 69 was abused by Dr. Strauss at two separate appointments in August or September of 1991, and on multiple occasions when Dr. Strauss assisted with John Doe 69\u2019s treatments with physical therapists from 1991 to 1993. 2350. John Doe 69 first had an appointment with Dr. Strauss to complete a physical exam. An employee had instructed John Doe 69 that he must schedule and complete a physical exam before he could become a member of the football team. An employee scheduled John Doe 69\u2019s physical exam with Dr. Strauss. 2351. John Doe 69\u2019s first appointment with Dr. Strauss was at the Woody Hayes Athletic Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 330 of 371 #: 2317 331 Center. His appointment was at the same time as many other student-athletes. 2352. At the beginning of the physical exam, Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 69 to get completely undressed. John Doe 69 and Dr. Strauss were alone in the exam room. Dr. Strauss began the exam with one gloved hand and one ungloved hand. 2353. Dr. Strauss inspected John Doe 69\u2019s genitals for a long period of time with his ungloved hand. At the time, John Doe 69 suffered from blisters on his penis. Dr. Strauss commented on the scar tissue that the blisters caused on John Doe 69\u2019s penis. 2354. At the end of the exam, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 69 he would need to attend a follow-up appointment the next week due to the blisters on his penis. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 69 to go to the trainers\u2019 room before football practice. 2355. At the second appointment, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 69 to get completely undressed and lay back on the exam table. 2356. Dr. Strauss began fondling John Doe 69\u2019s penis for about five minutes, causing it to become semi-erect. He was not wearing gloves. John Doe 69 became uncomfortable and asked Dr. Strauss to stop the exam. Dr. Strauss stopped. 2357. After these exams, John Doe 69 frequently saw Dr. Strauss in the Woody Hayes locker room showers. Dr. Strauss would bring a wooden stool to the locker room showers, sit on it with only a small towel laying across his genitals, and watch John Doe 69 and the other student- athletes shower and change. 2358. Older student-athletes frequently made comments about Dr. Strauss and joked that students were likely to be harassed during appointments with him. They referred to Dr. Strauss as \u201cDicky Strauss.\u201d Many older student-athletes would not shower in the locker room showers after practice because of Dr. Strauss\u2019 presence. John Doe 69 also eventually stopped showering in the Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 331 of 371 #: 2318 332 locker room showers to avoid Dr. Strauss. 2359. John Doe 69 did not see Dr. Strauss for treatment again until October of 1991, when he suffered a traumatic spine injury during football practice. After getting injured, John Doe 69 went to see Director of Sports Medicine Dr. John Lombardo and Director of Athletic Training Bill Davis, who instructed him to get x-rays taken of his spine and attend physical therapy. 2360. John Doe 69 received physical therapy in the trainers\u2019 room. During his sessions with physical therapy trainers, Dr. Strauss often took over for the trainers in treating him. Each time he treated John Doe 69, he rubbed John Doe 69\u2019s genitals and buttocks. Dr. Strauss got very close to John Doe 69\u2019s body while treating him and sometimes rested his genitals on John Doe 69 during treatment. 2361. Dr. Strauss treated John Doe 69 in full view of the trainers and other employees working in the trainers\u2019 room. None of the trainers spoke to Dr. Strauss about his treatment or stopped his treatment. None of the trainers spoke to John Doe 69 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 treatment. 2362. When John Doe 69 received the x-ray images of his injury, he learned that he suffered a fracture and that the fracture was likely still \u201chot,\u201d or capable of being repaired via surgery. John Doe 69 was advised that he would need to take his x-ray file to medical personnel for an immediate follow-up appointment to confirm that his injury was operable. 2363. When John Doe 69 went to pick up his file, he learned that Dr. Strauss had picked up his file and taken it home. John Doe 69 called Dr. Strauss to pick up the file at Dr. Strauss\u2019 home. 2364. John Doe 69 knew that he needed to pick up the file immediately in order to be evaluated for spinal surgery, but he delayed doing so for a week because he was averse to seeing Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 332 of 371 #: 2319 333 Dr. Strauss after his exam experiences. 2365. When John Doe 69 arrived at Dr. Strauss\u2019 house, Dr. Strauss told him that he would need to come inside and undergo an inspection before receiving his file due to a staph outbreak among the football players. Seeing no other way to get his file, John Doe 69 complied. 2366. Once they entered the house, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 69 to take off his shirt. He then began rubbing John Doe 69\u2019s back. At the time, John Doe 69 had a staph infection on his chest but not his back. 2367. Dr. Strauss began rubbing John Doe 69\u2019s groin through the side of his shorts, then eventually began fondling John Doe 69\u2019s penis. 2368. John Doe 69 felt like he was having an out-of-body experience. He froze, unsure of what to do. Much to John Doe 69\u2019s stress and humiliation, Dr. Strauss fondled John Doe 69 to the point of ejaculation. John Doe 69 then said he had to leave. 2369. After John Doe 69 attended his follow-up appointment for his back, he learned that he had waited too long to schedule that appointment\u2014his injury had passed the point of being repairable by surgery. As a result, John Doe 69 was no longer able to play football for OSU. 2370. John Doe 69 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2371. While John Doe 69 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations and treatments, John Doe 69 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2372. John Doe 69 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 333 of 371 #: 2320 334 examinations were legitimate. Because Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was so open, John Doe 69 believed that the coaches knew of his behavior and did not believe it was actionable. 2373. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 69 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other student-athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether had harmed him. 2374. Even if, while John Doe 69 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2375. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 69 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2376. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 69 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2377. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 69 has suffered physical, emotional, and psychological damages. John Doe 69\u2019s delay in getting his x-ray file from Dr. Strauss due to the fear and trauma he sustained from his exams caused him to miss the narrow window to potentially obtain spine surgery. As a result, John Doe 69 has suffered lifelong pain in his spine. John Doe 69 is now unable to take his children skiing or engage in more strenuous physical activities with them. He has experienced arthritis for the last decade and the bottom of his leg has alternated between numbness and burning pain since 1991. He has also recently experienced a spike in pain from the injury. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 334 of 371 #: 2321 335 2378. The same tragic circumstances caused him to lose the ability to continue in his family\u2019s tradition of playing football for their beloved alma mater. Because John Doe 69 sustained his injury early in his college football career, he was never able to play on the football field as an student-athlete. As part of a family of storied football players, John Doe 69 was particularly devastated by this outcome. 2379. John Doe 69 suffered emotionally from the trauma as well. The spring after his injury, John Doe 69\u2019s dropped from 3.2 to 1.9. His weight jumped from 230 pounds to 280 pounds. He became less involved in student life. John Doe 69 had to move out of the dorms and in with his girlfriend, who looked after him and supported him during his emotional spiral. John Doe 69 also began what would become a lifelong struggle with alcoholism. He has been sober now for two years 70 2380. John Doe 70 was an undergraduate student at from 1994 to 1996. 2381. In late 1994 or early 1995, John Doe 70 was examined by Dr. Strauss twice at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center. John Doe 70 first had an exam with Dr. Strauss because he called the Men\u2019s Clinic to schedule a routine check-up. He was assigned an appointment with Dr. Strauss. 2382. During each exam, John Doe 70 was alone in the exam room with Dr. Strauss. 2383. At the first exam, John Doe 70 and Dr. Strauss discussed John Doe 70\u2019 general medical history. Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 70 about his sexual history. John Doe 70 told Dr. Strauss that his past sexual partners had all been female. Dr. Strauss advised John Doe 70 that he needed a thorough examination for sexually transmitted infections. 2384. Dr. Strauss had John Doe 70 lay down on his back on the exam table. He conducted a routine medical check-up, including checking John Doe 70\u2019 pulse. Throughout the exam, Dr. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 335 of 371 #: 2322 336 Strauss repeatedly pressed his erection against John Doe 70\u2019 body. 2385. Dr. Strauss then took down John Doe 70\u2019 pants and underwear and thoroughly examined John Doe 70\u2019 genitals. At one point he began stroking John Doe 70\u2019 penis. Dr. Strauss constantly reassured John Doe 70 while touching his genitals, telling him to relax and asking him \u201cDoes this feel good?\u201d 2386. Dr. Strauss stroked John Doe 70\u2019 penis for approximately 20 minutes until John Doe 70 ejaculated. 2387. At the end of the exam, Dr. Strauss gave John Doe 70 his phone number. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 70 to call him and come over to his house to get massages for his sore muscles. 2388. Later that same school year, John Doe 70 had another check-up appointment with Dr. Strauss. The exam at this second appointment proceeded in the exact same manner as the first appointment. 2389. Dr. Strauss never wore gloves during any of John Doe 70\u2019s appointments. 2390. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams made John Doe 70 uncomfortable, confused, and embarrassed. 2391. John Doe 70 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during his examinations as sexually abusive at the time. 2392. In early 1995, shortly after his second exam with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 70 went to Dr. Strauss\u2019 home because Strauss had invited him over. When he arrived, Dr. Strauss gave him a beer. 2393. After John Doe 70 had his beer, Dr. Strauss led John Doe 70 to his bedroom where he had a pile of blankets and pillows on the bedroom floor. He told John Doe 70 to undress, then undressed himself. He instructed John Doe 70 to lay face-down on the blankets, then began giving John Doe 70 a massage. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 336 of 371 #: 2323 337 2394. During the massage, Dr. Strauss penetrated John Doe 70\u2019 anus with his finger. John Doe 70 asked him to stop because it hurt. Dr. Strauss did not stop, at first; eventually, a few minutes later, Dr. Strauss stopped. 2395. Dr. Strauss then straddled John Doe 70\u2019 lower back and began masturbating himself. He ejaculated onto John Doe 70\u2019 back. 2396. John Doe 70 was uncomfortable with Dr. Strauss\u2019 penetration of his anus, but he did not recognize it as sexual abuse at the time. 2397. John Doe 70 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2398. Until seeing news coverage of the investigation in 2018 or 2019, John Doe 70 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was sexually abusive. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2399. This is because, while John Doe 70 was an student, he trusted that would not employ a sexual abuser at Student Health. He reasonably believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was part of a legitimate medical examination and blamed himself for his physical and emotional reaction to the exams. Though he felt humiliated, confused, and uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 70 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2400. In short, until seeing news coverage in 2018 or 2019 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 70 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2401. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 337 of 371 #: 2324 338 abuse, John Doe 70 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2402. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 70 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse has impacted John Doe 70\u2019s ability to maintain healthy intimate relationships. Because his experience with Dr. Strauss was his first sexual experience with a male, John Doe 70 developed a warped image of what a relationship between two men should look like. After being abused by Dr. Strauss, John Doe 70 spent 10 years in emotionally and physically abusive relationships. John Doe 70 distrusts doctors and rarely sees a physician unless he absolutely has to 71 2403. John Doe 71 was an undergraduate student at from 1993 to 2002 and obtained first a B.A. and then a B.S. 2404. While a student at OSU, John Doe 71 was examined by Dr. Strauss three times at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center and one time at Dr. Strauss\u2019 private clinic. John Doe 71 first visited the Center in the spring of 1995 for evaluation of a possible sexually transmitted infection (\u201cSTI\u201d). He was given an appointment with Dr. Strauss. 2405. At the first visit, John Doe 71 told Dr. Strauss that he was experiencing sores in his genital area. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 71 to remove his pants and lie down on the exam table. 2406. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool at the lower end of the examination table and placed his face directly near John Doe 71\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss fondled John Doe 71\u2019s penis, lifting it, pulling it in multiple directions, and stroking it repeatedly. Dr. Strauss was not wearing gloves. 2407. Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of John Doe 71\u2019s genitals lasted about 5 to 10 minutes. 2408. Much to his embarrassment and discomfort, John Doe 71 got an erection and ejaculated. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 71 that his reaction was normal. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 338 of 371 #: 2325 339 2409. After the genital examination, Dr. Strauss diagnosed John Doe 71 with genital warts. He asked questions about John Doe 71\u2019s sexual history, froze the warts, and prescribed John Doe 71 a cream for the affected area. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 71 to return to his office for follow-up appointments. 2410. John Doe 71 attended two follow-up appointments with Dr. Strauss at the Student Health Center. At each follow-up appointment, Dr. Strauss subjected John Doe 71 to the same routine. He instructed John Doe 71 to remove his pants, fondled John Doe 71 until he ejaculated, then treated his genital warts. 2411. During each appointment, John Doe 71 was alone in the exam room with Dr. Strauss. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves at any time. 2412. In the winter of the 1995-1996 academic year, John Doe 71 contacted to Dr. Strauss to request his help with an essay John Doe 71 was writing for his study abroad application. Dr. Strauss told John Doe 71 to meet him for dinner to at a restaurant to discuss the essay. 2413. During the dinner, Dr. Strauss Dr. Strauss offered to examine John Doe 71\u2019s genital warts immediately after dinner at an clinical office. John Doe 71 did not want to undergo another exam with Dr. Strauss, but he believed he had no choice but to accept Dr. Strauss\u2019 offer because Dr. Strauss was both a physician and the person helping him with his essay. 2414. After dinner, Dr. Strauss and John Doe 71 went to the clinical office. Dr. Strauss and John Doe 71 were the only people in the office. Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 71 to remove his clothing, fondled John Doe 71\u2019s genitals until he ejaculated, then treated John Doe 71\u2019s genital warts with liquid nitrogen. Dr. Strauss was not wearing gloves. 2415. John Doe 71 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss. He did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 339 of 371 #: 2326 340 him. 2416. John Doe 71 did not recognize Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct as sexually abusive at the time. He reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss a university doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2417. Until reading news coverage of the investigation in or about spring 2018, John Doe 71 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination of him was sexual abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2418. In any event, even if, while John Doe 71 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2419. This is because, while John Doe 71 was an student, he trusted that would not employ a sexual abuser in its Student Health Center. He reasonably believed that Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior was part of a legitimate medical examination and blamed himself for his emotional and physical reaction to the exam. Though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 71 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2420. In short, until seeing news coverage in or about April 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 71 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take the appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2421. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 71 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2422. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 71 has Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 340 of 371 #: 2327 341 suffered emotional and psychological damages. John Doe 71 fell into a depression shortly after his experiences with Dr. Strauss. He felt angry and isolated because he was the only one of his friends struggling with mental health issues. At one point, John Doe 71 went to a psychiatric treatment center for treatment of his mental health issues, where he received weekly counseling to help him through his depression. The night that John Doe 71 read the news about the investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, he considered committing suicide. 2423. After the abuse, John Doe 71 experienced problems maintaining close romantic relationships. He had difficulty connecting emotionally with the women he dated, leading to many failed relationships before meeting his wife. He also became terrified of undressing in front of medical professionals and began avoiding medical appointments. As a result, John Doe 71 has undergone only two physical exams since graduating from 72 2424. John Doe 72 was an undergraduate student at from 1986 to 1991 and a member of the wrestling team. 2425. From 1986 to 1991, while a student at OSU, John Doe 72 was abused by Dr. Strauss during at least three physical exams and one medical appointment. He was 18 years old at the time that he was first abused. 2426. John Doe 72 was recruited to to compete on its wrestling team and received a full athletic scholarship for wrestling. He was a redshirt from 1986 to 1987 then formally competed on the wrestling team from 1987 to 1991. He was required to undergo a physical exam with Dr. Strauss each year as part of his participation on the wrestling team. 2427. The wrestling coaches told John Doe 72 that the physical exam was required in order for him to compete on the wrestling team. An employee scheduled John Doe 72\u2019s physical exam appointments with Dr. Strauss, which took place at Larkins Hall. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 341 of 371 #: 2328 342 2428. At the beginning of the first exam, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 72 to get completely undressed and sit at the edge of the exam table. John Doe 72 complied. John Doe 72 and Dr. Strauss were alone in the exam room. 2429. Dr. Strauss then sat on a stool between John Doe 72\u2019s legs and lowered his face to John Doe 72\u2019s genital region. He fondled John Doe 72\u2019s penis and testicles. He repeatedly stroked John Doe 72\u2019s penis and lifted John Doe 72\u2019s testicles for an unusually long period of time. 2430. John Doe 72 felt uncomfortable during the exam. 2431. Eventually, Dr. Strauss ended the exam and instructed John Doe 72 to get dressed. He did not say anything regarding the exam or its results. He did not wear gloves at any time during the exam. 2432. John Doe 72 was required to attend at least two additional physical exams with Dr. Strauss to compete on the wrestling team. Each exam proceeded in the same manner as the first exam\u2014Dr. Strauss fondled John Doe 72\u2019s penis and testicles and stroked his penis. 2433. John Doe 72 frequently saw Dr. Strauss in the team\u2019s locker room showers. Dr. Strauss would arrive at the shower area before most students, take a long shower while watching John Doe 72 and the other students shower, then linger in the locker room area with a towel around his waist until most of the students had left. John Doe 72\u2019s coaches were frequently in the locker room showers at the same time as Dr. Strauss and were able to see Dr. Strauss watching the students. 2434. Dr. Strauss\u2019 exams and his presence in the showers made John Doe 72 uncomfortable and was a topic of conversation among his teammates. John Doe 72 believed he just had to get used to it, as nobody else complained and none of his coaches stopped Dr. Strauss\u2019 behavior. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 342 of 371 #: 2329 343 2435. On one occasion, John Doe 72 scheduled a medical appointment with Dr. Strauss to treat genital warts. He scheduled the appointment with Dr. Strauss because other students had told him that Dr. Strauss would keep the treatment confidential. 2436. The medical appointment with Dr. Strauss began in the same manner as John Doe 72\u2019s physical exams. After instructing John Doe 72 to undress, Dr. Strauss began fondling John Doe 72\u2019s penis and testicles. Dr. Strauss stroked John Doe 72\u2019s penis for a prolonged period of time, causing John Doe 72 to have an erection and then ejaculate. 2437. After examining John Doe 72\u2019s genitals, Dr. Strauss removed a wart from his penis. Dr. Strauss did not say anything to John Doe 72 regarding the exam or subsequent treatment. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the exam. 2438. John Doe 72 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2439. While John Doe 72 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 72 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2440. John Doe 72 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2441. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 72 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other student-athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether had harmed him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 343 of 371 #: 2330 344 2442. Even if, while John Doe 72 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2443. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 72 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2444. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 72 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2445. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 72 has suffered physical, emotional, and psychological damages. Around the period of his abuse, John Doe 72 began experiencing issues with insomnia and grinding his teeth at night. He also drank heavily for many years. John Doe 72 was unable to form close friendships while in college; to this day, his friends are almost all from before his experiences with Dr. Strauss. He also suffered academically. Over the period of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse, John Doe 72\u2019s grade point average declined from a 3.8 to a 2.8. John Doe 72 found it difficult to stay focused and motivated, which he hadn\u2019t felt before being abused by Dr. Strauss. 2446. Both John Doe 72 and his family have suffered from the trauma of his experience. John Doe 72 is overly protective of his family when it comes to medical treatment to the point that he does not trust any medical professional to take care of them. When his wife was pregnant with one of their children, John Doe 72 asked her to give birth naturally because he did not want her to have a procedure with a physician. John Doe 72 himself has only seen a physician once since 1991 73 2447. John Doe 73 was an undergraduate student at from 1989 to 1991 and a Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 344 of 371 #: 2331 345 member of the wrestling team. 2448. From 1989 to 1991, while a student at OSU, John Doe 73 was abused by Dr. Strauss during two physical exams and two medical appointments. He was 18 years old when he was first abused. 2449. John Doe 73 was recruited to to compete on its wrestling team. He competed on the team from 1989 to 1991. He was required to undergo a physical exam with Dr. Strauss each fall as part of his participation on the wrestling team. 2450. The wrestling coaches told John Doe 73 that the physical exam was required in order for him to compete on the wrestling team. An employee scheduled John Doe 73\u2019s physical exam appointments with Dr. Strauss, which took place at Larkins Hall. 2451. At the beginning of the first exam, in the fall of 1989, Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 73 to get completely undressed. John Doe 73 undressed and remained standing. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool in front of John Doe 73 and put his face near John Doe 73\u2019s genitals. He began fondling John Doe 73\u2019s penis and testicles. He stroked John Doe 73\u2019s penis and testicles for several minutes. 2452. John Doe 73 felt uncomfortable during the exam. 2453. Eventually, Dr. Strauss ended the exam and instructed John Doe 73 to get dressed. Dr. Strauss did not say anything regarding the exam or its results. 2454. John Doe 73 was required to attend an additional physical exam with Dr. Strauss in the fall of 1990. The exam proceeded in the same manner as the first exam and Dr. Strauss put his faced near John Doe 73\u2019s genitals and fondled John Doe 73\u2019s penis and testicles. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves at this exam. 2455. John Doe 73 frequently saw Dr. Strauss in the team\u2019s locker room showers. Dr. Strauss would take long showers and watch the student-athletes, including John Doe 73, shower. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 345 of 371 #: 2332 346 2456. Dr. Strauss often touched and patted John Doe 73\u2019s shoulders and torso when passing him in the Larkins Hall stairwell. 2457. On two occasions, John Doe 73 needed medical attention and was directed by an trainer to see Dr. Strauss. 2458. In late 1989, John Doe 73 had trouble breathing and was scheduled to see Dr. Strauss. At his appointment, Dr. Strauss instructed him to get undressed and sit on the exam table. The exam then proceeded in the same manner as his physical exams\u2014Dr. Strauss put his faced near John Doe 73\u2019s genitals and fondled John Doe 73\u2019s penis and testicles. Dr. Strauss briefly listed to John Doe 73\u2019s breathing while fondling him, but otherwise did not examine John Doe 73\u2019s chest or breathing issues. 2459. In early 1990, John Doe 73 needed treatment for a sexually transmitted infection. An trainer instructed him to see Dr. Strauss. John Doe 73 did not want to go back and see Dr. Strauss, but he needed treatment. 2460. The appointment initially proceeded in the same manner as the physical exams. Dr. Strauss again asked John Doe 73 to disrobe and then fondled his genitals for a prolonged period of time. Then Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 73 to bend over the exam table and spread his buttocks. Dr. Strauss touched and poked at John Doe 73\u2019s anal region with his hand. 2461. John Doe 73 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2462. While John Doe 73 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examination, John Doe 73 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 346 of 371 #: 2333 347 2463. John Doe 73 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2464. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 73 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other student-athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether had harmed him. 2465. Even if, while John Doe 73 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2466. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 73 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2467. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 73 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2468. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 73 has suffered physical, emotional, psychological, and economic damages. After the abuse, John Doe 73 began drinking heavily. He developed symptoms of depression and serious mental illness. He also began to distance himself from the people in his life. He ultimately decided to withdraw from before completing his degree, due in part to Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. To this day, John Doe 73 struggles to be around people. This emotional distance was partially responsible for his divorce from his wife and strained relationship with his children. John Doe 73 also has not been able to maintain Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 347 of 371 #: 2334 348 stable employment due to his discomfort with being near people 74 2469. John Doe 74 was a member of Defendant OSU\u2019s gymnastics team from 1994 through 1997. 2470. One of the reasons John Doe 74 specifically chose to attend to was to join the gymnastics team. 2471. The gymnastics coaching staff told John Doe 74 that he was required to get pre- season physicals from Dr. Strauss. John Doe 74 underwent these pre-season physicals in 1994 and 1995. 2472. Before John Doe 74\u2019s first pre-season physical in 1994, upperclass teammates made joking comments and told stories about Dr. Strauss and the need for gymnasts to \u201cturn and cough.\u201d 2473. John Doe 74 felt he did not have any choice but to see Dr. Strauss, since it was a condition for participating on the gymnastics team. 2474. John Doe 74 received his first pre-season physical from Dr. Strauss in 1994, when John Doe 74 was 18 years old. 2475. During the physical, which was conducted in a private exam room in Larkins Hall near the main training room, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 74 to drop his pants. While Dr. Strauss was sitting on a stool, he pulled John Doe 74 by his buttocks so close that Dr. Strauss\u2019 face was directly in front of John Doe 74\u2019s genitals. Dr. Straus fondled, pulled and grabbed at both John Doe 74\u2019s penis and testicles. Dr. Strauss\u2019 fondling made John Doe 74 feel uncomfortable. 2476. John Doe 74\u2019s coaches also required him to see Dr. Strauss for a pre-season physical in 1995. During this physical, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct was substantially the same as it was during his first physical, with Dr. Strauss fondling, pulling and grabbing at John Doe 74\u2019s penis and testicles. Each time, John Doe 74 felt uncomfortable. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 348 of 371 #: 2335 349 2477. John Doe 74 saw Dr. Strauss on two other occasions while he was on the gymnastics team\u2014once for a knife cut on his finger and the other for treatment of cold symptoms\u2014in the same private exam room in Larkins Hall near the main training room. On both of those occasions, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 74 to drop his pants, even though the purpose of the visit was to treat his finger or his cold. On both occasions, Dr. Strauss fondled John Doe 74\u2019s penis and testicles. Each time, John Doe 74 felt uncomfortable. 2478. While John Doe 74 was a student-athlete at OSU, he often saw Dr. Strauss naked and showering with gymnasts and other students at Larkins Hall after gymnastics practices, eyeing John Doe 74 and his teammates while they showered. 2479. At the time, John Doe 74 did not realize that Dr. Strauss was sexually abusing and harassing him. He and his teammates joked with each other about Dr. Strauss\u2019 weird examinations. 2480. John Doe 74 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2481. In retrospect, John Doe 74 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this, until after media reports surfaced in the fall of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. 2482. While John Doe 74 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 74 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2483. John Doe 74 reasonably believed that that would not have required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2484. Until learning in the fall of 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 349 of 371 #: 2336 350 conduct, John Doe 74 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2485. This is because, in John Doe 74\u2019s experience, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct in the locker room was common knowledge among teammates. 2486. Even if, while John Doe 74 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2487. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 74 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2488. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 74 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2489. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 74 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. For example, he is now overprotective of his children when being treated by doctors and wary about their participation in sports, fearing the potential of abuse similar to what he experienced at the hands of Dr. Strauss 75 2490. John Doe 75 was an undergraduate student at from 1981 to 1985 and a member of the varsity lacrosse team. 2491. From 1981 to 1984, while a student at OSU, John Doe 75 was abused by Dr. Strauss during at least three physical exams and one medical appointment. He was 18 years old at the time that he was first abused. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 350 of 371 #: 2337 351 2492. John Doe 75 was a member of the varsity lacrosse team from 1981 to 1984, where he was a two-time scholar-athlete. He was required to undergo a physical exam with Dr. Strauss each year as part of his participation on the lacrosse team. 2493. The lacrosse coaches told John Doe 75 that the physical exam was required in order for him to compete on the lacrosse team. An employee scheduled John Doe 75\u2019s physical exam appointments with Dr. Strauss, which took place at Larkins Hall. 2494. At the beginning of the first exam, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 75 to get completely undressed and sit at the edge of the exam table. John Doe 75 and Dr. Strauss were alone in the exam room. 2495. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool between John Doe 75\u2019s legs and lowered his face to John Doe 75\u2019s genital region. John Doe 75 could feel Dr. Strauss\u2019 breath on his genitals. Dr. Strauss began fondling John Doe 75\u2019s genitals. He stroked and massaged John Doe 75\u2019s penis and testicles for several minutes. 2496. John Doe 75 felt uncomfortable during the exam. 2497. Eventually, Dr. Strauss ended the exam and instructed John Doe 75 to get dressed. He did not say anything regarding the exam or its results and John Doe 75 did not observe Dr. Strauss write down any notes from the exam. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves at any time during the exam. 2498. John Doe 75 was required to attend two additional required physical exams for lacrosse with Dr. Strauss during his time at OSU, once in the fall of 1982 and once in the fall of 1983. Each exam proceeded in the same manner as the first exam. During each exam Dr. Strauss lowered his face to John Doe 75\u2019s genitals and stroked and massaged John Doe 75\u2019s penis and testicles for several minutes. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 351 of 371 #: 2338 352 2499. On one occasion, John Doe 75 scheduled a medical appointment with the Student Health Center to treat a wrist injury. The Student Health Center assigned him to see Dr. Strauss. 2500. The medical appointment began in the same manner as the physical exams. Dr. Strauss again asked John Doe 75 to disrobe and then stroked and massaged his genitals for a prolonged period of time. John Doe 75 developed a partial erection. 2501. Dr. Strauss then instructed John Doe 75 that he needed to conduct a rectal exam. Dr. Strauss inserted his finger into John Doe 75\u2019s anus. He was not wearing gloves. 2502. At the end of the exam he performed a cursory examination of John Doe 75\u2019s wrist. 2503. John Doe 75 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2504. While John Doe 75 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 75 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2505. John Doe 75 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2506. Until learning in 2018 about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 75 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other student-athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether had harmed him. 2507. Even if, while John Doe 75 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 352 of 371 #: 2339 353 OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2508. In short, until learning in 2018 about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, John Doe 75 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2509. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 75 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2510. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 75 has suffered physical, emotional, and psychological damages. He feels ongoing stress when he thinks about what he went through and how nobody stopped it. He also continues to struggle with profound intimacy issues. John Doe 75 has not had intimate relations with his wife for over 20 years. He also has flashbacks to Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse in a way that makes him question his sexuality, causing him additional emotional pain and stress. Further, John Doe 75 feels anxious during medical appointments due to his fear of being examined by the physician 76 2511. John Doe 76 was an undergraduate student at from 1981 to 1985 and a member of the varsity lacrosse team. 2512. From 1981 to 1984, while a student at OSU, John Doe 76 was abused by Dr. Strauss during at least two physical exams and three medical appointments. He was 18 years old at the time that he was first abused. 2513. John Doe 76 was a member of the varsity lacrosse team from 1981 to 1984. He was required to undergo a physical exam with Dr. Strauss each year as part of his participation on the lacrosse team. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 353 of 371 #: 2340 354 2514. The lacrosse coaches told John Doe 76 that the physical exam was required in order for him to compete on the lacrosse team. An employee scheduled John Doe 76\u2019s physical exam appointments with Dr. Strauss, which took place at Larkins Hall. 2515. At the beginning of the first exam, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 76 to get completely undressed and sit at the edge of the exam table. John Doe 76 and Dr. Strauss were alone in the exam room. 2516. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool between John Doe 76\u2019s legs and lowered his face to John Doe 76\u2019s genital region. Dr. Strauss began fondling John Doe 76\u2019s genitals. He stroked, pulled, and stretched John Doe 76\u2019s penis and testicles for approximately five to ten minutes. 2517. John Doe 76 felt uncomfortable that Dr. Strauss was giving a lot of attention to his genitals. 2518. Eventually, Dr. Strauss ended the exam and instructed John Doe 76 to get dressed. Throughout the exam Dr. Strauss asked John Doe 76 about his dating life and what his sexual activity was like. Dr. Strauss did not wear gloves during the exam. 2519. John Doe 76 was required to attend at least one additional physical exam with Dr. Strauss to participate in OSU\u2019s lacrosse team. The subsequent physical exam proceeded in the same manner as the first exam\u2014Dr. Strauss stroked, pulled, and stretched John Doe 76\u2019s penis and testicles for a prolonged period. 2520. On two occasions during his time at OSU, John Doe 76 scheduled medical appointments with the Student Health Center. The first appointment was to treat an ingrown hair in his genital area. The second appointment was to treat a hemorrhoid. The Student Health Center assigned him to see Dr. Strauss for both appointments. 2521. Both medical appointments proceeded in the same manner as the physical exams. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 354 of 371 #: 2341 355 Dr. Strauss again asked John Doe 76 to disrobe and then fondled his genitals for a prolonged period of time. After fondling John Doe 76\u2019s genitals, Dr. Strauss performed a cursory examination of John Doe 76\u2019s ailment and recommended treatment. 2522. Dr. Strauss scheduled a follow-up appointment with John Doe 76 to check on his hemorrhoid. At the appointment, Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 76\u2019s hemorrhoid then instructed him to lay face-up on the exam table. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool near John Doe 76\u2019s hips and leaned over so that his face was close to John Doe 76\u2019s genitals. He began examining John Doe 76\u2019s genitals in the same manner as during the physical exams, including stroking and massaging John Doe 76\u2019s penis and testicles. John Doe 76 experienced an erection. 2523. At one point while fondling John Doe 76\u2019s genitals, Dr. Strauss stood up and pressed his own full erection against John Doe 76\u2019s body. John Doe 76 panicked, jumped off the table, dressed himself, and left. 2524. John Doe 76 told his coach Al Bianco about his experience at the follow-up appointment. He told Bianco that he believed Dr. Strauss was not acting professionally. Bianco told John Doe 76 that he was overreacting and that the exam did not happen in the way John Doe 76 described. John Doe 76 was so stunned and discouraged by Bianco\u2019s reaction that he quit the lacrosse team. 2525. John Doe 76 was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. Bianco\u2019s reaction to his concerns about Dr. Strauss further reinforced this belief. 2526. While John Doe 76 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations, John Doe 76 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 355 of 371 #: 2342 356 2527. John Doe 76 reasonably believed that would not have made Dr. Strauss the athletic team doctor and required him and other athletes to see Dr. Strauss unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2528. Until learning about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 76 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other student-athletes had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether had harmed him. 2529. Even if, while John Doe 76 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2530. In short, until OSU\u2019s investigation of Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 76 did not know, or have reason to know, that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him, that had known about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse, or that had failed to take appropriate steps to stop Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2531. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 76 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2532. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 76 has suffered physical, emotional, and psychological damages. After his experiences with Dr. Strauss, John Doe 76\u2019s grade point average began to decline. He began doing so poorly in classes that he was not permitted to continue in OSU\u2019s electrical engineering program. Eventually John Doe 76 was so discouraged by Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and his poor academic performance that he transferred to a different university to finish his degree. 2533. John Doe 76 also quit the lacrosse team twice due to Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. At Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 356 of 371 #: 2343 357 the end of his sophomore year, John Doe 76 told Bianco that he would not come back to the lacrosse team. Over the summer, John Doe 76 decided that he would not give up because of Dr. Strauss and returned to the lacrosse team at the beginning of his junior year. At the end of his junior year, after Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during the hemorrhoid follow-up appointment and Bianco\u2019s dismissal of his concerns, John Doe 76 quit the lacrosse team permanently. 2534. To this day, John Doe 76 struggles with emotional connections with people, which has made it difficult to maintain intimate relationships. John Doe 76 is currently on his third marriage, and is struggling to stay emotionally connected to his wife. John Doe 76 has frequent flashbacks to the abuse, and some details of the experience feel as though they happened yesterday. He often experiences emotional pain when he thinks about the impact Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse had on his life. He also becomes very tense and stressed when he has to go to a medical appointment. He is very anxious about his children\u2019s safety around adults and is afraid of them suffering abuse from predators 77 2535. John Doe 77 was a student at from 1980 to 1981, 1989 to 1990, and 1992 to 1995. 2536. While a student at OSU, John Doe 77 was examined by Dr. Strauss on two occasions in the 1992-1993 school year at OSU\u2019s Student Health Center. 2537. John Doe 77 called the Student Health Center to set up an examination for a lump on his penis. An employee scheduled his exam with Dr. Strauss. 2538. At the appointment, Dr. Strauss told John Doe 77 to lower his pants and underwear to his knees. John Doe 77 did so and remained standing. Dr. Strauss sat on a stool in front of John Doe 77 with his face at the level of John Doe 77\u2019s genitals. Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 77\u2019s genitals. He then instructed John Doe 77 to turn around and examined his anus. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 357 of 371 #: 2344 358 2539. After examining John Doe 77\u2019s genitals and anus, Dr. Strauss instructed John Doe 77 to completely remove his pants, underwear, and shoes and lay down on the exam table. 2540. Dr. Strauss put gel on his hands and began to manipulate John Doe 77\u2019s genitals. He stroked and pulled at John Doe 77\u2019s penis for a prolonged period of time. John Doe 77 froze and did not know what to do. During this time Dr. Strauss repeatedly told John Doe 77, \u201cRelax, you\u2019re doing fine.\u201d 2541. Much to John Doe 77\u2019s humiliation and discomfort, Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct caused John Doe 77\u2019s penis to become erect. 2542. After Dr. Strauss stopped touching John Doe 77\u2019s genitals, he prescribed John Doe 77 treatment and instructed John Doe 77 to make a follow-up appointment. 2543. Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct during the exam made John Doe 77 very uncomfortable, but John Doe 77 felt unable to say anything due to Dr. Strauss\u2019s position as a person of authority at OSU. 2544. John Doe 77 did not want to see Dr. Strauss for a follow-up appointment, but he believed the follow-up appointment was medically necessary. At the appointment, John Doe 77 emphasized to Dr. Strauss that he was fine and that the problem had resolved itself. Dr. Strauss examined John Doe 77\u2019s genitals and ended the exam. 2545. While he was a student at OSU, John Doe 77 did not know what to do about Dr. Strauss\u2019s conduct. He was never informed or made aware of any grievance procedure to complain about Dr. Strauss and did not believe there was any recourse for what happened to him. 2546. In retrospect, John Doe 77 realizes that Dr. Strauss sexually abused and harassed him. However, he did not know or have reason to know this until after he learned about the investigation began in 2018 concerning allegations of abuse by Dr. Strauss. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 358 of 371 #: 2345 359 2547. While John Doe 77 was an student, he trusted that would not allow him to be harmed. So, even though he felt uncomfortable during Dr. Strauss\u2019s examinations, John Doe 77 did not understand or believe that Dr. Strauss had sexually abused him. 2548. John Doe 77 reasonably believed that that would not have made Dr. Strauss a university doctor unless Dr. Strauss\u2019 examinations were legitimate. 2549. Before learning about OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019s conduct, John Doe 77 did not know, or have reason to know, of OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexually abusive conduct or that other students had previously complained to about Dr. Strauss\u2019s abuse. Nor did he have reason to investigate whether OSU\u2014in addition to Dr. Strauss\u2014had harmed him. 2550. In any event, even if, while John Doe 77 was an student, he had tried to inquire further into OSU\u2019s role in Dr. Strauss\u2019s conduct, the inquiry would have been futile, as controlled access to that information. 2551. If had taken meaningful action to address prior reports of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, John Doe 77 would not have been abused by Dr. Strauss. 2552. As a result of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s failure to prevent it, John Doe 77 has suffered emotional and psychological damages. He has received treatment for severe anxiety, and he regularly feels anxiety when he thinks back to what Dr. Strauss did to him. Since learning about the outcome of OSU\u2019s investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct, John Doe 77 has been distraught and angered that his beloved alma mater let down its students Violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a), et seq. Creation of Sexually Hostile Culture/Heightened Risk of Sexual Harassment 2553. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all previous paragraphs as if fully stated here. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 359 of 371 #: 2346 360 2554. Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 (\u201cTitle IX\u201d), 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a), states: \u201cNo person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .\u201d 2555. Title is implemented through the Code of Federal Regulations. See 34 C.F.R. Part 106. 34 C.F.R. \u00a7 106.8(b) provides recipient shall adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any action which would be prohibited by this part.\u201d 2556. As explained in Title guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education\u2019s Office for Civil Rights, sexual harassment of students is a form of sex discrimination covered by Title IX. 2557. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. 2558. Title covers all persons subjected to discrimination in any program or activity of a school that receives any federal financial assistance, and covers sexual harassment\u2014including sexual assault and sexual abuse\u2014by school employees, students, and third parties. 2559. Title requires to promptly investigate all allegations of sexual harassment, including sexual assault and abuse. 2560. Dr. Strauss was an employee whose actions were carried out as an professor athletic team doctor, and physician at OSU. 2561. Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual harassment of Plaintiffs (and others)\u2014which included, among other things, fondling their testicles and penises, masturbating men to erection and ejaculation, Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 360 of 371 #: 2347 361 drugging and anally raping them, digitally penetrating their rectums, touching their bodies in other inappropriate ways, making inappropriate comments about their bodies, and asking improper, sexualized questions\u2014was sex discrimination under Title IX. 2562. Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual harassment of Plaintiffs (and others) was rampant, occurring regularly on campus and sometimes at his home, for two decades. 2563 had actual knowledge of Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual harassment and permitted it to continue unchecked until 1996 and, even when belatedly took action in 1996, it permitted him to remain employed through 1998, when allowed Dr. Strauss to retire with emeritus status. 2564. Throughout Dr. Strauss\u2019 20-year tenure at OSU, students, student-athletes, and coaches conveyed complaints and concerns to administrators and employees about Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate conduct. 2565. For decades, Strauss\u2019 abuse was well known among at least fifty employees in the athletic department. Multiple Student Health Directors also had information about Dr. Strauss abuse for years. 2566. Specifically was notified about Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual harassment through employees with authority to take corrective action to address it. These employees include, but are not limited to: former Director of Student Health Services, Ted Grace Counsel Helen Ninos; Vice President of Student Affairs Mary Daniels; Vice President of Student Affairs David Williams; former Head Team Physician/Medical Director of the Sports Medicine and Family Health Center Dr. John Lombardo; former Head Team Physician/Director of Sports Medicine Dr. Bob Murphy; former Athletic Director and Assistant University Vice President Andy Geiger; former Athletic Director Jim Jones; former Assistant Athletic Director Archie Griffin; Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 361 of 371 #: 2348 362 former Athletic Director Hugh Hindman; Senior Associate Athletic Director Paul Krebs; former Assistant Athletic Director Larry Romanoff; former Associate Sports Information Director Steve Snapp; former Assistant Athletic Director Richard Delaney; Assistant Director of Student Athlete Support Services John Macko; former Co-Head Athletic Trainer Billy Hill; former Head Wrestling Coach Russ Hellickson; former Head Tennis Coach John Daly; former Head Track and Field Coach Frank Zubovich; former Head Swimming Coach Dick Sloan; former Head Wrestling Coach Chris Ford; former Head Gymnastics Coach Peter Kormann; and former Head Fencing Coach Charlotte Remenyik. 2567. Many coaches at had enormous power and responsibility. For example, when asked in 2011 whether he would dismiss then-football coach Jim Tressel (for conduct unrelated to Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse), the president replied: \"No, are you kidding? Let me just be very clear: I'm just hopeful the coach doesn't dismiss me.\u201d54 2568. OSU\u2019s knowledge of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse is indisputable. 2569. Both the Perkins Coie Report and the Working Group on Reviewing the Medical Board\u2019s Handling of the Investigation Involving Richard Strauss concluded that for years, starting in Dr. Strauss\u2019 first year of employment at personnel\u2014including Dr. Strauss\u2019 supervisors in Student Health and the Athletic Department\u2014had knowledge of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse of male students, based on reports made by students and employees. 2570 was required to promptly investigate and address Plaintiffs\u2019 (and others) allegations, reports and/or complaints of unwelcome, inappropriate touching and comments by Dr. Strauss, but did not do so. 54 Gee: No Tressel dismissal, The Columbus Dispatch (Mar. 8, 2011), Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 362 of 371 #: 2349 363 2571. After Plaintiff Snyder-Hill notified former Director of Student Health Services, Dr. Ted Grace, about Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse, Dr. Grace assured Snyder-Hill that would document and retain any future complaints about Dr. Strauss. But OSU\u2019s personnel file on Dr. Strauss does not even mention Snyder-Hill\u2019s complaint. For his part, Dr. Grace took his files concerning Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual abuse to his home, then shredded them years later. 2572. Despite years of complaints did not take any steps to stop Dr. Strauss from treating\u2014and abusing\u2014students until January 1996. At that point belatedly placed Dr. Strauss on administrative leave and launched an investigation\u2014though the investigation did not include the history of complaints about Strauss in Athletics held a hearing in June 1996, without notifying the student complainants or permitting them to participate. 2573. Even after OSU\u2019s Athletics Department decided to terminate Dr. Strauss\u2019 employment and Student Health Services decided not renew his appointment permitted Dr. Strauss\u2019 faculty appointment as a tenured professor to continue, permitted him to retire, and granted him emeritus status when he retired also permitted Dr. Strauss to open an off-campus men\u2019s clinic while he was on administrative leave and under investigation and to advertise for patients in the school newspaper. 2574 created and was deliberately indifferent to a sexually hostile culture within its education programs and activities, by, among other things: a. Mishandling students\u2019 reports about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct and/or discouraging students from reporting Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct; b. Failing to promptly and appropriately investigate, remedy, and respond to complaints about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct; c. Promoting Dr. Strauss and increasing his access to students, despite Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 363 of 371 #: 2350 364 students\u2019 complaints about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct; d. Failing to adequately supervise Dr. Strauss, after learning that he posed a substantial risk to the safety of male students and student-athletes; e. Failing to take prompt and appropriate corrective action to prevent Dr. Strauss from sexually harassing other students; f. Requiring student-athletes to see Dr. Strauss for annual physicals and medical treatment in order to participate in university sports and maintain their athletic scholarships\u2014even after student-athletes complained to athletic directors, coaches, and trainers about the ways Dr. Strauss touched them during medical examinations. g. Threatening male athletes\u2019 participation in sports if they refused to get physicals and/or medical treatment from Dr. Strauss; h. Joking about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct with student-athletes; i. Permitting Dr. Strauss to ogle male student-athletes at Larkins Hall while they showered; j. Permitting Dr. Strauss to shower with student-athletes for hours at a time, several times a day; k. Falsely representing to at least one student who reported sexual harassment by Dr. Strauss that there had been no prior complaints about Dr. Strauss and that Student Health had only received positive comments about Dr. Strauss; l. Permitting a toxic, sexualized culture to thrive at Larkins Hall, where a cohort of older male \u201cvoyeurs\u201d gathered to gawk at male student-athletes and masturbate while watching them shower. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 364 of 371 #: 2351 365 m. Conducting a cabined investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse in 1996 that did not include determining the scope of his abuse and did not include examining his treatment of athletes; n. Failing to notify those who complained about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct about the June 1996 disciplinary hearing and not permitting the complainants an opportunity to testify at that hearing; o. Covering up the scope of the abuse of Dr. Strauss by not telling anyone outside that it held a disciplinary hearing in June 1996 based on complaint of Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and then declined to renew Strauss\u2019 appointment with Student Health and the Athletic Department terminated his employment agreement, thereby concealing from complainants and those who were victimized by Dr. Strauss the truth about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse and OSU\u2019s indifference for over two decades; p. Covering up and concealing the scope of the abuse of Dr. Strauss by destroying the health records of those who Dr. Strauss examined, even destroying documents after launched an investigation into Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse; q. Allowing Dr. Strauss to continue his employment as a tenured professor after suspending him from seeing students at Student Health and in Athletics and granting him the honorific of emeritus status when he retired; r. Allowing Dr. Strauss continued access to students by approving his off- campus men\u2019s clinic and allowing him to advertise in the student newspaper; Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 365 of 371 #: 2352 366 s. Failing to train its employees to prevent, investigate, or report the sexual abuse of students; t. Failing to have a policy of investigating or reporting staff who sexually abused students; u. Failing to notify the Medical Board of Ohio about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse; and v. Failing to notify law enforcement about Dr. Strauss\u2019 abuse. 2575. OSU\u2019s creation of and deliberate indifference to the sexually hostile culture within its education programs and activities substantially increased the risk that Plaintiffs and others would be sexually harassed and abused. 2576. The sexual harassment and abuse that Plaintiffs suffered was so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively barred their access to educational opportunities and benefits, including a safe educational environment and appropriate medical care. 2577. As a direct and proximate result of OSU\u2019s creation of and deliberate indifference to a sexually hostile educational environment, which violated Title IX, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages and injuries Violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a), et seq. Deliberate Indifference to Prior Sexual Harassment 2578. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all previous paragraphs as if fully stated here. 2579. Before Dr. Strauss sexually harassed or abused most, if not all, of the Plaintiffs had actual knowledge of Dr. Strauss\u2019 prior sexual harassment and abuse of male students at OSU. 2580. \u201cUniversity personnel had knowledge of Strauss\u2019 sexual abusive treatment of male Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 366 of 371 #: 2353 367 student-patients as early as 1979,\u201d within Dr. Strauss\u2019 first year at OSU. Report at 1. \u201cAs early as 1979, personnel in the University\u2019s Sports Medicine program and Athletics Department were aware that Strauss was conducting genital examinations on male athletes that were unusually prolonged, and that Strauss refused to allow athletic training staff to be present.\u201d Id. at 2. 2581. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate sexual behavior was \u201cbroadly witnessed and discussed in the Athletics Department\u201d; \u201c[m]ore than 50 individuals who were members of the Athletics Department staff\u201d knew about Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate sexual conduct. Id. at 88 (emphasis added). \u201c[B]eing examined by Strauss was akin to being \u2018hazed\u2019 or was a \u2018rite of passage.\u2019\u201d Id. 2582. Between 1978 and 1996, numerous student-athletes complained to administrators and staff about Dr. Strauss\u2019 inappropriate conduct. 2583. Based on Dr. Strauss\u2019 prior conduct had actual knowledge of the substantial risk that Dr. Strauss would sexually harass other male students at OSU. 2584 officials, with the knowledge described above, had the authority to address the risk posed by Dr. Strauss, and had the authority to take corrective measures by, among other things, closely supervising Dr. Strauss, not allowing him to examine to examine students without another medical professional present, not allowing him to shower with student-athletes, or terminating his employment. 2585. OSU\u2019s failure to address the substantial risk posed by Dr. Strauss, given prior complaints and reports about his inappropriate conduct, was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. 2586. By its acts and omissions was deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk that Dr. Strauss would sexually harass other male students at OSU. 2587. As a result of OSU\u2019s deliberate indifference, Plaintiffs were subjected to severe Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 367 of 371 #: 2354 368 sexual harassment by Dr. Strauss, including sexual assault in the guise of medical care. 2588. The sexual harassment that Plaintiffs suffered was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it deprived Plaintiffs of access to educational opportunities and benefits, including a safe educational environment and appropriate medical care. 2589. As a direct and proximate result of OSU\u2019s deliberate indifference to Dr. Strauss\u2019 prior sexual harassment of male students at OSU, which violated Title IX, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages and injuries Violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a), et seq. Deliberate Indifference to Report of Sexual Harassment (by Plaintiff Steve Snyder-Hill) 2590. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all previous paragraphs as if fully stated here. 2591. Beginning on January 6, 1995 had actual knowledge of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual harassment of Plaintiff Steve Snyder-Hill, when Snyder-Hill called Student Health to lodge a complaint about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct at a medical examination. 2592 was deliberately indifferent to Snyder-Hill\u2019s complaint of sexual harassment by, among other things, failing to appropriately investigate, remedy, and respond to Snyder-Hill\u2019s complaint; falsely representing to Snyder-Hill that he was the first student to complain about Dr. Strauss\u2019 medical care and that had received only positive comments on Dr. Strauss up to that point; falsely representing to Snyder-Hill that Student Health would change its practices, in response to his complaint, to ensure that students could have a chaperone present when examined and could opt out of testicular and rectal exams; insisting that Snyder-Hill describe the details of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual in the presence of Dr. Strauss; failing to notify Snyder-Hill about the June 1996 disciplinary hearing on Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct and give Snyder-Hill an opportunity to testify at that Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 368 of 371 #: 2355 369 hearing; failing to notify Snyder-Hill of the results of that disciplinary hearing; concealing from Snyder-Hill that learned in 1996 that the State Medical Board concluded that Dr. Strauss had been \u201cperforming inappropriate genital exams on male students\u201d at \u201cfor years\u201d; allowing Dr. Strauss to continue providing medical care to students without any supervision for nearly a year after Snyder-Hill\u2019s complaint; and failing to take disciplinary action against Dr. Strauss in 1995, in response to Snyder-Hill\u2019s complaint; and failing to inform Snyder-Hill of his legal rights and options after decided not to discipline Dr. Strauss in 1995 for his conduct during Snyder- Hill\u2019s examination. 2593. OSU\u2019s deliberate indifference to Snyder-Hill\u2019s complaint about Dr. Strauss subjected him to a hostile educational environment so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it deprived him of educational opportunities and benefits, including a safe educational environment and appropriate medical care. 2594. Until July 11, 2018, when Snyder-Hill learned about Dr. Strauss\u2019 serial sexual abuse of students, Snyder-Hill did not know, or have reason to know, that had acted with deliberate indifference to his complaint about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. 2595. In fact, because of OSU\u2019s false representations to him in 1995, Snyder-Hill reasonably believed that he was the first student to complain about Dr. Strauss, no other students had been similarly abused, and had taken reasonable steps to address his concerns about ensuring student safety in the future. 2596. Furthermore, because did not inform Snyder-Hill in 1996 about the disciplinary action it took against Dr. Strauss or the State Medical Board\u2019s conclusion about Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual misconduct, Snyder-Hill did not know, or have reason to know, until July 11, 2018, that had acted with deliberate indifference to his complaint about Dr. Strauss\u2019 conduct. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 369 of 371 #: 2356 370 2597. As a direct and proximate result of OSU\u2019s deliberate indifference to Plaintiff Steve Snyder-Hill\u2019s report of Dr. Strauss\u2019 sexual harassment, which violated Title IX, Plaintiff Snyder- Hill has suffered and continues to suffer damages and injuries WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: (a) Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their discrimination claims under Title IX; (b) Enter judgment against Defendant The Ohio State University; (c) Declare Defendant The Ohio State University\u2019s conduct in violation of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972; (d) Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages in amounts to be established at trial, including, without limitation, payment of Plaintiffs\u2019 medical and other expenses incurred as a consequence of the sexual abuse and/or harassment and The Ohio State University\u2019s deliberate indifference; damages for deprivation of equal access to the educational opportunities and benefits provided by The Ohio State University; and damages for past, present and future emotional pain and suffering, ongoing mental anguish, loss of past, present and future enjoyment of life, and loss of future earnings and earning capacity; (e) Award Plaintiffs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; (f) Award Plaintiffs their court costs and expenses, including attorneys\u2019 fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988(b); and (g) Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 370 of 371 #: 2357 371 Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues in this Second Amended Complaint. Date: May 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted, By: /s (0003749) Scott Elliot Smith 5003 Horizons Drive, Suite 100 Columbus, Ohio 43220 Phone: 614.846.1700 Fax: 614.486.4987 E-Mail: [email protected] Ilann M. Maazel* Debra L. Greenberger* Marissa Benavides* 600 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10020 Phone: (212) 763-5000 Fax: (212) 763-5001 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] Adele P. Kimmel JUSTICE, P.C. 1620 Street, NW, Suite 630 Washington 20036 Phone: (202) 797-8600 Fax: (202) 232-7203 E-mail: [email protected] * Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case: 2:18-cv-00736 Doc #: 123 *SEALED* Filed: 05/27/20 Page: 371 of 371 #: 2358"} |
7,653 | James Sandoval | University of California – Riverside | [
"7653_101.pdf",
"7653_102.pdf",
"7653_103.pdf",
"7653_104.pdf",
"7653_105.pdf",
"7653_106.pdf"
] | {"7653_101.pdf": "Sexual harassment allegations surround sudden retirement of Sandoval Sources claim Wilcox allowed Sandoval to remain on payroll while an investigation was ongoing By Myles Andrews-Duve - April 10, 2018 \ue83d 2/13/25, 11:03 Sexual harassment allegations surround sudden retirement of Sandoval - Highlander 1/5 Archive In the last week, multiple sources have told The Highlander that the sudden retirement of former Riverside Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs James Sandoval in January stemmed from an extensive Title investigation into sexual harassment allegations made against Sandoval in the early summer of 2017. The sources\u2019 claims come in the wake of a Detroit News report that Chancellor Kim Wilcox may have ignored claims of sexual harassment and abuse against the former College of Osteopathic Medicine Dean William Strampel at Michigan State University (MSU), where Wilcox served as provost from August 2005 to July 2013. That report suggests that Wilcox was made aware of Strampel\u2019s behavior as early as 2010, when a dean performance review included complaints that Strampel openly commented about women\u2019s bodies and boasted about his sex life. Despite these 2/13/25, 11:03 Sexual harassment allegations surround sudden retirement of Sandoval - Highlander 2/5 complaints, Wilcox nonetheless endorsed Strampel, writing, \u201cOur several discussions over the past several months have reinforced my commitment and that of Dean Strampel to advancing the goals of the College within the broad mission of Michigan State University.\u201d When asked about the report, Wilcox wrote in a statement emailed to The Highlander last Wednesday will not comment on any ongoing investigations or legal proceedings involving Michigan State University at this time join in supporting efforts to provide the public and authorities with all documents and records necessary for a full and transparent investigation, including any records that involve my participation.\u201d But revelations of Wilcox\u2019s alleged misfeasance at have led some sources at to see a pattern in what they claim is a failure to act promptly on complaints made against Sandoval. According to a source who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation, an internal investigation into Sandoval\u2019s behavior was conducted by Human Resources beginning in the summer of 2017. Sandoval continued to work at the university while this investigation was ongoing, sources say. This probe eventually absolved Sandoval of wrongdoing which, according to one source, led to complaints from frustrated staff and faculty who believed he was personal friends with the person leading the investigation. Following these complaints, sources say, the university enlisted UC\u2019s Title office to conduct another investigation into Sandoval\u2019s behavior source claims that this outside investigation found even more instances of wrongdoing, leading officials to encourage Sandoval to take leave from the university in November. Emails sent by The Highlander to Wilcox\u2019s office requesting comment on these claims were not directly answered. Instead, campus spokesperson John Warren wrote in an email that he was unable to confirm whether there is an investigation at all: \u201cUniversity personnel matters are confidential under \u00a76254 of the California 2/13/25, 11:03 Sexual harassment allegations surround sudden retirement of Sandoval - Highlander 3/5 Government Code. Disclosing any information constitutes an \u2018unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.\u2019 Even commenting on whether there is an investigation can be interpreted as a violation of the code BOYS\u2019 CLUB? For some staff and faculty with knowledge of the matter, allowing Sandoval to remain on payroll while an investigation into his alleged harassment was ongoing is very similar to what former Chief Campus Counsel Michele Coyle described as \u201can old boys\u2019 club mentality\u201d in her 2013 lawsuit against former Executive Vice Chancellor (EVC) and Provost Dallas M. Rabenstein as well as the Regents. In fall of 2012, Coyle made multiple demands that the administration and Regents \u201cmake efforts to remedy the hostile work environment and discriminatory culture on UCR\u2019s campus,\u201d per the case pleading. However, she was repeatedly stonewalled by campus administrators, and eventually fired by then-Chancellor Timothy White after requesting funds for data showing UCR\u2019s compliance with affirmative action. The jury found that the Regents retaliated against Coyle in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. She was awarded $2.5 million in damages. Since the publication of the Detroit News report, some staff and faculty have openly speculated how long Wilcox, 63, will remain in his post. The chancellor is due for his five-year review \u2014 a performance evaluation of senior campus administrators that is conducted by a confidential review committee every five years of an administrator\u2019s tenure \u2014 by the end of this academic year, and sources believe those conducting the review in the Academic Senate are taking the allegations very seriously. However, no representatives for the senate were available to comment by time of print. 2/13/25, 11:03 Sexual harassment allegations surround sudden retirement of Sandoval - Highlander 4/5 Chancellor Wilcox does still have support from officials. In a statement released on Wednesday President Napolitano said that Wilcox had proactively spoken to her about Strampel and \u201cdescribed the situation as best he could recall\u201d before the publication of the Detroit News report. Napolitano also called for a \u201cfull and fair evaluation of all the facts as they pertain to Chancellor Wilcox.\u201d The Title investigation into Sandoval\u2019s alleged misconduct is still ongoing, sources say. Author Myles Andrews-Duve View all posts \uf466 2/13/25, 11:03 Sexual harassment allegations surround sudden retirement of Sandoval - Highlander 5/5", "7653_102.pdf": "News Recent News Jury Rules for Abu Ghraib Detainees Nina Baumler & Keith Rohman Presenting Celebrates 40 Years of Providing Investigations Keith Rohman Presented \u201cWorkplaces and Campus\u2026 Keith Rohman Presented \u201cCriminal and Civil- Non-\u2026 Nora Rohman Presented T9 Mastered Webinar:\u2026 Keith Rohman Presented Labor &\u2026 Podcast: Integrity & Investigations with Keith\u2026 Nora Rohman Presented at Labor at 2023 Ex Riverside administrator James Sandoval sexually harassed employees over 20-year period, probe finds \uf0176 years ago The Press-Enterprise Ex Riverside administrator James Sandoval sexually harassed employees over 20-year period, probe finds By: Ryan Hagan Over the course of 20 years before his January retirement as a Riverside vice chancellor, James Sandoval pursued unwanted romantic relationships with four women who worked for him, demanding full body hugs and punishing them when they rejected him, a University of California investigation concluded. The 298-page report by the Office of the President was released Monday, Oct. 22, in response to an anonymous letter sent in August 2017. The same day he saw the report Chancellor Kim A. Wilcox emailed campus employees to inform them Sandoval had shown \u201cblatant disregard\u201d for the Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy. \u201cBecause of Sandoval\u2019s role and long tenure at UCR, these findings are especially troubling,\u201d Wilcox wrote. \u201cThey have caused a great deal of pain on campus and off. No person should ever be subjected to such reprehensible behavior.\u201d 2/13/25, 11:03 Ex Riverside administrator James Sandoval sexually harassed employees over 20-year period, probe finds - Public Interest In\u2026 1/5 Wilcox said he learned in June 2017 of \u201cwhat Sandoval described to me as a consensual relationship between him and a subordinate employee,\u201d resulting in a letter of reprimand and other sanctions. New sexual harassment and hostile work allegations came in August 2017. In November, Wilcox placed Sandoval on involuntary administrative leave. Sandoval retired as vice chancellor for Student Affairs in January 2018. He did not return a phone call Tuesday, but said in the report that his relationships were consensual and did not violate university policy. Women feared \u2018venomous\u2019 anger According to the report, there is \u201ccompelling evidence\u201d that Sandoval \u201cengaged in a troubling pattern of conduct with four different women at different times over a period of 20 years.\u201d Public Interest Investigations, which was hired by the Office of the President, bases its conclusions on a \u201cpreponderance of evidence\u201d standard, meaning investigators found it more likely Sandoval committed the alleged acts than that he didn\u2019t. The information was not reported to law enforcement for possible prosecution, according to Dianne Klein, president\u2019s office spokeswoman. Cases would be reported if they involved suspected child abuse or a complainant asked the university to do so, she said. Neither situation existed in Sandoval\u2019s case. Two women detail similar alleged harassment in the report. First, they say, Sandoval \u201cwooed\u201d them, sending them off-hours messages that he loved them and demanding hugs. That continued even as they resisted, according to the report. In 2013, as he hugged one of the women, the report states that he grabbed her buttocks and said do a lot for you. What are you going to do for me?\u201d In the report, Sandoval denies saying that. He acknowledges a five- week relationship with an employee in 2017 consisted of kissing, 2/13/25, 11:03 Ex Riverside administrator James Sandoval sexually harassed employees over 20-year period, probe finds - Public Interest In\u2026 2/5 hugging and telling each other love you,\u201d and that throughout the relationship he was in a position to make decisions about her employment and job responsibilities, according to the report. He said the relationship was mutual. One woman said in the report that, when she didn\u2019t reciprocate Sandoval\u2019s \u201ccreepy affections,\u201d he responded with \u201cpointedly venomous\u201d anger. Based on repeated comments she made \u2014 including in writing and to coworkers \u2014 it should have been clear to Sandoval that the relationship was unwanted, according to the report. \u201cShe did not consent, but rather, submitted to his advances to keep her job,\u201d the report concludes. According to the report, Sandoval showed preferential treatment to the women he was pursuing, at the expense of other employees. After the relationship, he began criticizing her work and took other actions that hurt her career. That was based on the quality of her work, Sandoval said in the report. Two other, earlier instances of alleged abuse by Sandoval are apparently analyzed in the report but are redacted in the copy released by UC. The document redacts the names of all alleged victims and witnesses. Sandoval had long history at In his January message to the campus announcing Sandoval\u2019s retirement, Wilcox wrote that Sandoval arrived in 1989 as director of Financial Aid and was appointed vice chancellor in 2001. He also oversaw Enrollment Services, Student Life, Health and Wellness, Residential Life, and Auxiliary Services, and was appointed to the California Student Aid Commission in 2003. 2/13/25, 11:03 Ex Riverside administrator James Sandoval sexually harassed employees over 20-year period, probe finds - Public Interest In\u2026 3/5 Sandoval received $248,792 in pay and another $64,823 in benefits in 2017, according to a database maintained by the watchdog group Transparent California. He was a visible figure, visiting high schools to inspire youths to attend college. Wilcox wrote in January, as the investigation continued, that Sandoval \u201chas been a tireless advocate for students over almost four decades in the University of California system.\u201d In April, Wilcox denied allegations he ignored sexual harassment and abuse while he was provost at Michigan State University, saying he was unaware of his associate\u2019s behavior. William Strampel, the former dean of Michigan State\u2019s College of Osteopathic Medicine, was arrested March 26 as part of an investigation into how former sports doctor Larry Nassar was able to sexually abuse more than 250 girls and women while at the university, including many members of the U.S. Women\u2019s Gymnastics team. Nassar was sentenced in January to up to to 175 years in prison. Wilcox, who supervised Strampel from 2005 to 2012, said in April he had been unaware of Strampel\u2019s behavior and expressed regret for Strampel\u2019s victims adopted a comprehensive approach to respond to cases of sexual violence and sexual harassment spokesman Johnny Cruz said Tuesday. This includes a case management team, coordinated response team, training and education. The university recently hired an additional Title investigator to assist in UCR\u2019s prevention and response efforts, and increased funding for Title IX, investigations, and its Campus Advocacy, Resources, and Education office. \u201cWe have had cases that required decisive disciplinary action, and we remain committed to addressing every (sexual violence and 2/13/25, 11:03 Ex Riverside administrator James Sandoval sexually harassed employees over 20-year period, probe finds - Public Interest In\u2026 4/5 sexual harassment) case with appropriate consequences,\u201d Cruz wrote in an email. Wilcox wrote Monday that he welcomes campus-wide input on ways to improve outreach, prevention and support to survivors of sexual violence or harassment am sorry to those who were directly targeted by Sandoval and to the others subjected to the repercussions of his actions,\u201d Wilcox wrote Monday. \u201cMy heart goes out to any member of our community who has been affected by sexual violence or sexual harassment. Please know that you have my unwavering commitment to providing a safe working and learning environment.\u201d Anyone aware of sexual harassment or workplace misconduct can report to the Title office or the Locally Designated Official for whistleblower complaints, Wilcox wrote intends to conduct a workplace assessment in the Division of Student Affairs to ensure a safe and supportive work environment, he said. \u201cFinally, and most important commend the courageous individuals who came forward to report Sandoval\u2019s behavior,\u201d Wilcox wrote. \u201cHad these individuals not spoken up, the scope and severity of his actions may never have come to light. \u201c \uf0e0 \uf09a \uf08c 2/13/25, 11:03 Ex Riverside administrator James Sandoval sexually harassed employees over 20-year period, probe finds - Public Interest In\u2026 5/5", "7653_103.pdf": "Investigation finds former Riverside vice chancellor sexually harassed two women By Teresa Watanabe Staff Writer Oct. 23, 2018 5:25 former Riverside vice chancellor sexually harassed two women he supervised with unwanted touching, intimate texts and persistent invitations to private dinners and drinks, a University of California investigation has found. James Sandoval singled out at least four women in low-level positions for preferential treatment, made romantic advances toward them and bullied them if they rejected him, according to an independent investigation commissioned by the Office of the President. Two of the women agreed to become complainants and two others recounted Sandoval\u2019s behavior when interviewed as witnesses. None were identified in the heavily redacted report that the president\u2019s office released this week. Sandoval, who denied the allegations to investigators, could not be reached for comment. Before retiring in January, he was a vice chancellor for student affairs. During three decades at Riverside, he oversaw financial aid, student registration, enrollment, health and wellness, residential life and other services President Janet Napolitano sent a letter to Sandoval Tuesday barring him from future employment and disqualifying him from emeritus status. She said this was the \u201cstrongest action possible\u201d since he had already retired. 2/13/25, 11:03 Investigation finds former Riverside vice chancellor sexually harassed two women - Los Angeles Times 1/4 In an email to the campus community this week Riverside Chancellor Kim A. Wilcox said Sandoval\u2019s conduct to the complainants and others over two decades showed \u201cblatant disregard for university policies.\u201d He apologized to those affected. \u201cHad these individuals not spoken up, the scope and severity of his actions may never have come to light,\u201d Wilcox wrote. According to the investigative report, Napolitano and a dozen other administrators received an anonymous letter detailing the allegations in August 2017. One woman told investigators that Sandoval in September 2015 began showering her with unwanted attention, including late-night texts unrelated to work, tearful confessions about personal traumas and invitations to go drinking in the guise of discussing her career. At the same time, he rapidly promoted her and gave her large raises and high-profile special assignments even though witnesses said she lacked the experience and qualifications. When she began rejecting such advances several months later \u2014 she said they made her husband \u201clivid\u201d \u2014 Sandoval changed his behavior toward her \u201clike \u2018Jekyll and Hyde,\u2019 \u2019\u2019 the report said. He took away her special assignments and drove her to tears, berating her over trivial matters. By April 2017, she told investigators, she felt she had to submit to him to keep her job. She and Sandoval engaged in a five-week romantic relationship with hugs, kisses and declarations of love. The relationship ended the next month, after her husband confronted Sandoval. Sandoval acknowledged their relationship but said it was consensual and that his favorable treatment was based on her \u201cstellar\u201d job performance. The investigators found that his conduct was unwanted and so severe and pervasive that it unreasonably denied, 2/13/25, 11:03 Investigation finds former Riverside vice chancellor sexually harassed two women - Los Angeles Times 2/4 adversely limited or interfered with her job \u2014 a ground for sexual harassment under Title IX. Sandoval\u2019s conduct \u201ccreated an intimidating and offensive working environment\u201d that compelled the woman to submit to his advances and jeopardize her marriage or reject them and lose her job or suffer retaliation, according to the report prepared for the university by Public Interest Investigations, Inc. Investigators made a similar finding in the second case, in which both Sandoval and the woman who came forward agree that there was no romantic or sexual relationship. He gave her hugs, held her hand, expressed affection in cards and messages, gave her small gifts and asked her to meet him after work for dinners and wine. She told investigators that she went along with some of the advances because she was afraid of his \u201cpointedly venomous anger\u201d and of risking her job. She did reject him sometimes, turning down his invitation to share a bottle of wine and his request to stop by her hotel room around midnight on business trips in 2014 and 2015. She told him she was uncomfortable with his behavior more than a dozen times between 2013 and 2016, the report said, which led to verbal abuse that made her feel like a \u201cpunching bag.\u201d Sandoval\u2019s behavior drove three of the four women to change jobs, the report said. [email protected] Twitter: @TeresaWatanabe More to Read 2/13/25, 11:03 Investigation finds former Riverside vice chancellor sexually harassed two women - Los Angeles Times 3/4 Copyright \u00a9 2025, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy Notice of Collection | Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information President Carol Folt to retire after calming scandals and drawing protest criticism Nov. 8, 2024 Beyond Varsity Blues: In pursuit of donations admitted affluent kids as walk-on athletes Oct. 22, 2024 professor was accused of sexual harassment. He\u2019s back in the lab Sept. 23, 2024 Teresa Watanabe Teresa Watanabe covers education for the Los Angeles Times. Since joining the Times in 1989, she has covered immigration, ethnic communities, religion, Pacific Rim business and served as Tokyo correspondent and bureau chief. She also covered Asia, national affairs and state government for the San Jose Mercury News and wrote editorials for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner Seattle native, she graduated from in journalism and in East Asian languages and culture 2/13/25, 11:03 Investigation finds former Riverside vice chancellor sexually harassed two women - Los Angeles Times 4/4", "7653_104.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research U.S. v. Sandoval United States District Court, D. New Mexico Jan 22, 2007 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 (D.N.M. 2007) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Rethink the way you litigate with CoCounsel for research, discovery, depositions, and so much more. Try CoCounsel free No 04-2362 JB. January 22, 2007. *583 583 David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, Samuel L. Winder, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff. Charles Fisher, Allison Fisher, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/27 BROWNING, District Judge. 1. Uncharged 1992 Incident with Jane Doe comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendant's Statement of Objections to Presentence Report and Addendum Disclosed on September 27, 2006, filed October 6, 2006 (Doc. 178) (\"Defendant's Objections II\"); and (ii) the United States' Motion for Upward Departure, filed October 16, 2006 (Doc. 179) (\"Upward Departure Motion\"). The Court heard these objections at the sentencing hearing held November 7, 2006. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should consider information relating to uncharged, dismissed, and acquitted conduct that the United States Probation Office (\"UPSO\") included in the Pre-Sentence Report (\"PSR\"); and (ii) whether, based upon that information, the Court should use U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2A3.1, rather than \u00a7 2A3.4, to determine the base offense level. Because the Court believes it should consider all the information in the PSR, but does not believe it should use all the conduct originally charged to determine the offense level, the Court will sustain Defendant James Sandoval's objections in part and deny them in part. Because the Court believes that this case is within the heartland of relevant cases, it will deny the United States' request for an upward departure. *2 2 On or about February 1993, Pamela Garcia and Sandoval were sleeping in bed with Jane Doe B. See \u00b6 21, at 7-8. When Garcia looked over toward Sandoval, he had his erect penis out and was rubbing it against Jane Doe B's foot when she was asleep.See id. Garcia shouted at Sandoval and asked him what he was doing. Sandoval said he thought he had been rubbing his penis against Garcia. See id. In the summer of 2004, Garcia told Sandoval that he should \"own-up\" to what he had done to Jane Doe B, and he asked for forgiveness. See id. \u00b6 22, at 8. Sandoval told Garcia that thinking about what he had done made him want to throw up. See id. 2. Charged Conduct . Andrea Bedoni has enrolled all four of her children, including the three Sandoval fathered, as members of the Navajo Nation rather than as members of the Pueblo of San Felipe. See Hearing Transcript at 71:14-18 (Fisher) (taken November 7, 2006) (\"Hearing Transcript\").1 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/27 1 The Court's citations to the transcript of the hearing refer to the Court Reporter's original, unedited version. Any final transcript may contain slightly different page and/or line numbers. On September 1, 2004, Bedoni was awakened at approximately 4:15 a.m. See *584 \u00b6 11, at 5. At the time, Bedoni was in bed with Sandoval and their two youngest children. See id. When Bedoni woke up, she asked Sandoval why Jane Doe was lying beside him, and Sandoval replied don't know.\" Id. Bedoni noticed that Sandoval's other fist was by Jane Doe's waistline. See id. Bedoni confronted Sandoval, and Sandoval changed his story.See id. 584 On September 9, 2005, an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed Jane Doe. See id. \u00b6 9, at 4. Jane Doe disclosed that Sandoval had touched her \"peepee\" on the skin with *3 his finger. See id. Jane Doe said she felt sad and her \"peepee\" hurt all day. Id. Jane Doe also disclosed that Sandoval had her touch his \"peepee\" with her mouth several times, and she demonstrated this act by holding her mouth wide open. Id. Jane Doe said Sandoval would move his \"peepee\" when she had her mouth on it. Id. Jane Doe said his \"peepee\" was soft and big, and that it would go a long way into her mouth. Id. Jane Doe said that \"sticky stuff\" came out of his \"peepee.\" Id. Bedoni also told the agent that Jane Doe told a parent volunteer that \"Daddy pushed my buttons\" and that \"Daddy said he was going to butter the hair \u00b6 13, at 6. 3 On September 9, 2004, an agent interviewed Pamela Garcia. She disclosed that Jane Doe clung to her vehicle when Garcia attempted to drop Jane Doe off with Sandoval in June 2004. See id. \u00b6 14, at 6 1. The Trial . The United States represents that it could not prosecute Sandoval for the alleged act involving Jane Doe based upon applicable law. See United States' Response to the Defendant's Statement of Objections to Presentence filed on September 15, 2006, filed September 28, 2006 (Doc. 176) (\"Response\"). 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/27 The jury was presented with all admissible evidence that the United States contended proved that Sandoval had committed the greater offenses of aggravated sexual abuse. The jury's verdict rejected the more serious charges of aggravated sexual abuse. Even though the Court, in pretrial rulings, had indicated it would allow Jane Doe to testify at trial, Jane Doe did not testify at trial, because she was in Europe at the time. See Trial Transcript at 10:4-7 (Winder) (taken June 22, 2006). Pamela Garcia testified at trial, but only as to her observation of the event in June 2004, which did *4 not include any sexual act or contact. 4 At trial, the Court and/or the jury considered all eight counts in the Redacted Second Superseding Indictment. The Counts in the Indictment and the two Superceding Indictments were subject to many variations and several rulings by the Court. At the time of the jury charge, the Court initially instructed the jury with respect to four Counts: Counts 1 and 3 (corresponding to Counts 1 and 7 of the Redacted Second Superseding Indictment), alleging abusive sexual contact in, respectively, September and June 2004, and Counts 2 and 4 (corresponding to Counts 2 and 8 of the Second Superceding Indictment), alleging aggravated sexual abusive contact in, respectively, September and June 2004. See Instruction No. 8, at 9-10. The Court then instructed the jury as to the required elements for abusive sexual contact. See Instruction No. 9, at 11. The Court next instructed the jury as to the required elements for aggravated sexual abuse. See Instruction No. 11, at 13. This Instruction defined the alleged sexual act, an element of aggravated sexual abuse, as \"intentional touching, not through clothing, of the genitalia of [Jane Doe] . . .,\" a part of the definition of \"sexual *585 act\" in 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2246(2)(D). See Instruction No. 9. The Court then instructed the jury as to the required elements for attempting to commit aggravated sexual abuse, as well as instructing the jury that they could find Sandoval guilty of abusive sexual contact. See Instruction No. 12, at 15. 585 After the jury commenced its deliberations, and following further discussions between the Court and counsel, the Court dismissed Counts 1 and 3 as they appeared in Instruction No. 8. The Court then gave Supplemental Jury Instruction No. 1, and the Court substituted a 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/27 replacement Verdict Form for the verdict form it initially provided the jury. Supplemental Jury Instruction No. 1 is directed toward the remaining Counts 2 and 4, alleging aggravated sexual abuse. See *5 Supplemental Instruction No. 1 at 2, filed June 22, 2006. 5 In the first paragraph, Supplemental Jury Instruction No. 1 states that, if the jury were to acquit or were unable to agree on a verdict with respect to aggravated sexual abuse as charged in Counts 2 and 4, it could consider abusive sexual contact as a lesser included offense. See id. Supplemental Jury Instruction No. 1 also clarifies a distinction between the greater offense of aggravated sexual abuse and the lesser included offense of abusive sexual contact. See id. In the second paragraph, the Court states: \"The difference between these two offenses is that, to convict Mr. Sandoval of Abusive Sexual Contact, the government does not have to prove that the intentional touching was not through clothing.\" Id. The Verdict Form likewise required the jury to first consider the greater offense of aggravated sexual abuse committed in or about September 2004 as charged in Count 2. See Verdict, Question 1, at 1. If the jury found that the United States had failed to prove Sandoval committed the completed offense of aggravated sexual abuse, it would then have to consider, as Instruction No. 12 directed, attempting to commit aggravated sexual abuse. See id., Question 2, at 1. If the jury also found that the United States had failed to prove Sandoval committed the attempted offense of aggravated sexual abuse, it was then to consider the lesser included offense of abusive sexual contact. See id., Question 1A, at 1. The Court also required the jury to follow an identical process with respect to aggravated sexual abuse, attempted aggravated sexual abuse, and the lesser included offense of abusive sexual contact, committed in or about June 2004, as charged in Count 4. See id., Question 2 and 2A, at 1-2. The jury found Sandoval not guilty of both the greater offenses of aggravated sexual abuse and attempted aggravated sexual abuse.See id., Questions 1 and 2, at 1. The jury also found *6 Sandoval not guilty of the lesser included offense of abusive sexual contact, as charged in Count 4, committed in or about June 2004. See id., Question 2A, at 2. The jury found Sandoval guilty of the lesser included offense of abusive sexual contact, as 6 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/27 charged in Count 2, committed in or about September 2004. See id., Question 1A, at 1. The Court either dismissed the remaining counts or they resulted in not guilty verdicts from the jury. 2. The . To most adequately determine if restitution is applicable in this case, the asked Jane Doe and Bedoni how this offense has impacted them physically, emotionally, and financially. Based on information that Bedoni provided during the Victim Impact Interview conducted on July 27, 2006, the determined that restitution could not be requested. The information in paragraph 33 of the was all that Bedoni provided regarding *586 bills or other costs that remained outstanding after Sandoval's arrest. 586 The United States did not file any objections to the regarding Sandoval. Sandoval, through his attorney, filed his Statement of Objections to the on September 15, 2006, and served it on the United States' counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Samuel L. Winder. See Defendant's Objections at 1; Addendum to the Pre-Sentence Report at 1, issued September 26, 2006 (\"Addendum\"). Sandoval reviewed the file, however, and realized that, through an oversight, he did not file the Statement of Objections with this Court. See id. On September 26, 2006, the prepared a response and disseminated it to both attorneys assigned to the case. By way of formal Addendum, the addressed all of the issues presented to date. See Addendum. The Addendum references and attempts to address the Defendant's Statement of Objections to the September 1, 2006 PSR. *7 7 Sandoval offers objections in writing to the PSR, dated September 1, 2006, and the Addendum thereto, dated September 26, 2006. See Defendant's Objections II. Sandoval attached a copy of the Defendant's Statement of Objections, dated September 15, 2006, to his Statement of Objections to Presentence Report and Addendum Disclosed on September 27, 2006. Sandoval reiterates the objections in the September 15 Objections and incorporates them into his October 6 Objections by reference. See id. at 1-2. 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/27 1. Constitutionality of Considering Relevant Conduct and the Applicable Evidentiary Standard . The United States filed a motion for upward departure from Sandoval's suggested offense level of 16. See Upward Departure Motion at 1-2; Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum at 2, filed November 6, 2006 (Doc. 180) (\"Sentencing Memo\"). As appears from the letter from the former War Chief of the Pueblo of San Felipe, Michael Sandoval, it may be that Bedoni and her children have no right, under tribal law, to stay on the Pueblo because they are not enrolled as members of the San Felipe Pueblo. See Letter from Michael Sandoval to the Court at 3, dated September 29, 2006. The Pueblo Governor has apparently agreed, exceptionally to date, to let Bedoni and her children remain on the Pueblo. See id. Michael Sandoval believes the Governor and the Tribal Council have made this exception out of respect for Sandoval. See id In a sentencing proceeding, the United States need only prove the existence of a fact relevant to sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. The recent upheavals in federal sentencing jurisprudence has not affected the preponderance standard for *8 sentencing proceedings in the Tenth Circuit. Moreover, acquitted conduct may fairly be used as relevant conduct so long as the preponderance standard is satisfied. 8 The Supreme Court of the United States has expressly and repeatedly approved of reliance upon acquitted conduct. The practice is, in essence, an artifact of the lower burden of proof that has always been applicable to sentencing proceedings. Furthermore, the use of acquitted conduct for sentencing purposes is consistent with Fifth Amendment due process and the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial. The Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit have already both definitively spoken on this issue. *587 587 In Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 115 S.Ct. 2199, 132 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995), the Supreme Court upheld the use of uncharged conduct at sentencing against a double jeopardy challenge. The Supreme Court concluded that 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/27 \"consideration of information about the defendant's character and conduct at sentencing does not result in 'punishment' for any offense other than the one of which defendant was convicted.\"Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. at 401. Rather, the defendant is \"punished only for the fact that the present offense was carried out in a manner that warrants increased punishment. . . .\" Id. at 403, 115 S.Ct. 2199. In United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997), the Supreme Court upheld the use at sentencing of conduct for which a defendant is acquitted against a double jeopardy challenge. The Supreme Court ruled that a judge may consider evidence of conduct for which a defendant is acquitted in arriving at a sentence. See id. at 155-58. The Supreme Court decided, in a per curiam opinion, that in a federal case in which the accused had been convicted on one charge and acquitted on another charge, the jury's verdict of acquittal did not prevent the sentencing court from considering the accused's conduct underlying the acquittal charge. The Supreme Court began its *9 opinion by stating that every Court of Appeals \u2014 other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit \u2014 has held that a sentencing court may do so, if the government establishes that conduct by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. at 149. 9 2 2 In a footnote at that point in the opinion, the Supreme Court cited United States v. Coleman, 947 F.2d 1424, 1428-1429 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 972 (1992). There were two Ninth Circuit cases on appeal in United States v. Watts, In United States v. Watts, despite Watts' acquittal on the firearms count, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Watts had possessed the guns in connection with the drug offense. See id. at 150. In United States v. Putra, the district court explained that the second sale was relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.3, and it therefore aggregated the amounts of both sales in calculating Putra's base offense level under the Guidelines. See 519 U.S. at 151. The Ninth Circuit had vacated and remanded both cases. The Supreme Court began its analysis in United States v. Watts with 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661: \"No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/27 which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.\" 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661; See 519 U.S. at 151. According to the Supreme Court, \"the Guidelines did not alter this aspect of the sentencing court's discretion.\" United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. at 152, 117 S.Ct. 633. The Supreme Court reiterated the different limitations on the presentation of evidence at trial and at sentencing: \"'Highly relevant \u2014 if not essential \u2014 to [the judge's] selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life and characteristics.'\" Id. at 151-52 (quotingWilliams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949)). The Supreme Court noted that, under the pre-Guidelines sentencing *10 regime, it was \"'well established that a sentencing judge may take into account facts introduced at trial relating to other charges, even ones of which the defendant has been acquitted.'\" United States v. *588 Watts, 519 U.S. at 152 (quoting United States v. Donelson, 695 F.2d 583, 590 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (Scalia, J.)). 10 588 The Supreme Court in United States v. Watts then turned to the Guidelines. The Supreme Court found that the Guidelines conclude that \"'relying on the entire range of conduct, regardless of the number of counts that are alleged or on which a conviction is obtained, appears to be the most reasonable approach to writing workable guidelines for these offenses.'\" 519 U.S. at 153 (quoting U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.3 comment., backg'd). The Supreme Court stated that, \"[i]n short, we are convinced that a sentencing court may consider conduct of which a defendant has been acquitted.\" 519 U.S. at 154. The Watts Court then spent considerable time stating why its ruling did not conflict with its double jeopardy jurisprudence. The Supreme Court stated that, as it explained in Witte v. United States, sentencing enhancements do not punish a defendant for crimes of which he was not convicted, but rather increase his sentence because of the manner in which he committed the crime of conviction. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. at 154 (citingWitte v. United States, 515 U.S. at 395). The Supreme Court inUnited States v. Watts, stated that it had explained that \"acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.'\" 519 U.S. at 155 (quoting United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361 (1984)). \"'An acquittal is not a finding of any fact. An acquittal can only be an acknowledgment that 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/27 the government failed to prove an essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Without specific jury findings, no one can logically or realistically draw any factual *11 finding inferences. . . .\" United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. at 155 (quoting United States v. Putra, 78 F.3d 1386, 1394 (9th Cir. 1996) (Wallace, C.J., dissenting)). The Supreme Court stated \"the jury cannot be said to have 'necessarily rejected' any facts when it returns a general verdict of not guilty.\" United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. at 155. The Supreme Court noted that \"it is impossible to know exactly why a jury found a defendant guilty on a certain charge.\" Id. See id. at 157 (\"The acquittal sheds no light on whether a preponderance of the evidence established [a defendant's] participation in that transaction.\"). 11 In United States v. Watts, the Supreme Court stated that, for these reasons, \"'an acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the Government from relitigating an issue when it is presented in a subsequent action governed by a lower standard of proof.'\" 519 U.S. at 156 (quoting Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 349 (1990)). The Supreme Court acknowledged, however, a divergence of opinion among the Circuits whether, in extreme circumstances, relevant conduct that would dramatically increase the sentence must be based on clear-and-convincing evidence. See United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. at 156 n. 2. In footnote two, the Supreme Court cited cases from the Supreme Court and from the First, Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and the District of Columbia Circuits. See,e.g., United States v. Lombard, 72 F.3d 170, 186-87 (1st Cir. 1995) (authorizing downward departure in \"an unusual and perhaps a singular case\" that may have \"exceeded\" constitutional limits, where acquitted conduct calling for an \"enormous\" sentence enhancement \"is itself very serious conduct,\" \"where the ultimate sentence is itself enormous, and where the *589 judge is seemingly mandated to impose that sentence\");United States v. Tounley, 929 F.2d 365, 369 (8th Cir. 1991) (\"At the very least,McMillan [v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91-92, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986),] allows for the possibility that the preponderance standard the Court approved for garden variety *12 sentencing determinations may fail to comport with due process where, as here, a sentencing enhancement becomes 'a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense.'\") (quoting McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. at 88); United States Restrepo, 946 F. 2d 654, 656 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1991) (en 589 12 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/27 banc) (suggesting that clear-and-convincing evidence might be required for extraordinary upward adjustments or departures), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 961 (1992). The Tenth Circuit, however, which has rejected a higher standard, created the split in the circuits. See United States v. Washington, 11 F.3d 1510, 1516 (10th Cir. 1990) (\"At least as concerns making guideline calculations the issue of a higher than a preponderance standard is foreclosed in this circuit.\"), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1020 (1994). In the end, the Supreme Court inUnited States v. Watts reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that even \"a jury's verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquittal charge, so long as the conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.\" 519 U.S. at 157. If there were any doubt about where the Tenth Circuit stood after United States v. Watts and United States v. Washington, Judge McConnell, writing for a panel with Judges Lucero and Murphy, ended the debate in United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d 672 (10th Cir. 2005). In United States v. Magallanez, the Tenth Circuit held that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), andUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), had not changed the district court's enhancement findings/analysis, and that United States v. Watts retained vitality. United States v. Magallanez involved plain error review of a drug sentence in which a jury, after rendering its verdict, through special interrogatory, attributed to the defendant 50-500 grams of methamphetamine, but the judge at sentencing attributed 1200 grams of methamphetamine to him. In United States v. Magallanez, the jury made findings that (i) the defendant was guilty; and (ii) that a certain quantity of drugs should *13 be attributed to him. The jury was given a special interrogatory for purposes of determining the quantity of drugs attributable to Magallanez. See id. at 682. There were three ranges available: 0-50 grams, 50-500 grams, and over 500 grams. See id. The jury found 50-500 grams. The district judge in United States v. Magallanez accepted the jury's findings of guilt, but found a higher quantity of drugs \u2014 1.21 kilograms \u2014 should be used for sentencing. The district court made this determination by adding together the various amounts that government witnesses testified they had sold to Magallanez. The district court stated: \"[This] is the amount that the government has proven to the Court's satisfaction. Frankly, they proved it 13 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/27 408 F.3d at 683-84. The Tenth Circuit stated that, after passage of the Sentencing Reform Act, sentencing courts maintained the power to consider the broad context of a defendant's conduct, even when a court's view of the conduct conflicted with the jury's verdict. See id. at 684. The Tenth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court reversed two decisions of the Ninth Circuit holding that \"'sentencing courts could not consider conduct of the defendants' underlying charges of which they had been acquitted.'\" See id. (quoting United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. at 149). The Tenth Circuit found significant that the Supreme Court had held that the lower court decisions beyond any doubt in my mind but certainly 'by a preponderance of the evidence' standard.\" Id. at 682 sentence based on the jury's finding was 63-78 months; a sentence based on the judge's finding was 121-151 months. Magallanez argued that the district court's additional findings with respect to the amount of drugs attributable to him violated Blakely v. Washington. The Tenth Circuit acknowledged the Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Booker, but because Magallanez did not raise his Blakely/Booker *590 argument at trial or sentencing, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for plain error. On appeal, Magallanez argued that Blakely v. Washington andUnited States v. Booker required the district court to accept the jury's finding of drug quantity. 590 The Magallanez court emphasized that the district judge had determined \"beyond any doubt\" that the sentencing enhancements should be applied. See id. at 677. The Tenth Circuit discussed in its opinion, however, that the preponderance standard governed at sentencing and noted that the district judge's different determination of the drug quantity from what the jury found was proper. Judge McConnell then responded to Magallanez' argument, stating: *14 14 The defendant in this case might well be excused for thinking that there is something amiss, under this constitutional principle, with allowing the judge to determine facts on which to sentence him to an additional 43 months in prison in the face of a jury verdict finding facts under which he could be required to serve no more than 78 months. 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/27 conflicted not only with the Sentencing Guidelines, but with the \"'clear implications of 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661.'\" See United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 684 (quoting United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. at 149). The Tenth Circuit, after quoting the Supreme Court's statement that the Guidelines did not alter 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661, stated that it follows that the Supreme Court's partial invalidation of the Guidelines in United States v. Booker could not have altered it, either. Judge McConnell explained that the decision in United States v. Watts was predicated on the rationale that \"'different standards of proof . . . govern at trial and sentencing.'\" United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 684 (quoting United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. at 155). The Tenth Circuit stated that an acquittal by the jury proves only that the defendant was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See 408 F.3d at 684. The Tenth Circuit noted that, both before and under the Guidelines, facts relevant to sentencing have generally been found by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. The Tenth Circuit concluded that a jury verdict of acquittal on related conduct, therefore, \"'does not *15 prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.'\" Id. (quoting United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. at 157). 15 Judge McConnell stated that \"[n]othing in Booker changes this analysis.\" United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 684. At the end of that sentence, Judge McConnell included his only footnote in the opinion. The Tenth Circuit acknowledged in that footnote that Justice Stevens in United States v. Booker, on the merits, had indicated that United States v. Watts did not involve analysis of Sixth Amendment issues and that \"'[n]one of our prior cases is inconsistent with today's decision.'\"United *591 States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 685 n. 1 (quoting United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 754). Judge McConnell noted that Justice Stevens, in a footnote, described United States v. Watts as presenting a very narrow question regarding the interaction of the Guidelines and the Double Jeopardy Clause.See United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 685 n. 1. Judge McConnell concluded that Justice Stevens' footnote did not change United States v. Watts and stated that it could not \"overrule\" United States v. Watts: \"Nonetheless, the statement in the text demonstrates that Watts remains good law, and it is 591 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/27 United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 685. See United States v. Cage, 451 F.3d at 592 (describing United States v. Booker as \"a decision that struck down judicial fact-finding [yet] resulted in a system where judges had more rather than less discretion\"). not the place of an inferior court to overrule it. See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237-38, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997).\"United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 685 n. 1. In the text, Judge McConnell continued: \" 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661, which underlay the decision in Watts, remains in full force.\"United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 684. Judge McConnell stated that, to be sure, after United States v. Booker, the Guidelines do not bind sentencing courts; the Guidelines have become \"effectively advisory.\" United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 685 (quoting United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 757). Judge McConnell noted, however, that in sentencing criminal defendants in federal crimes, district courts are still required to consider Guideline *16 ranges, which are determined through application of the preponderance standard, just as they were before. See United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 685. Judge McConnell stated that the \"only difference\" is that the court has latitude, subject to reasonableness review, to depart from the resulting Guideline ranges. See id. at 685. Like every other Circuit Court to consider the issue since United States v. Booker, the Tenth Circuit through Judge McConnell concluded: 16 Applying the logic of Watts to the Guidelines system as modified by Booker, we conclude that when a district court makes a determination of sentencing facts by a preponderance test under the now-advisory Guidelines, it is not bound by jury determinations reached through application of the more onerous reasonable doubt standard. In this respect, the prior Guidelines scheme is unchanged by the seeming revolution of Booker. Based on the foregoing, within the Tenth Circuit, a court can consider uncharged, dismissed, and acquitted conduct that a preponderance of the evidence supports in determining whether to enhance a sentence. See United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 685. Moreover, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/27 \u00a7 3661, \"No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.\" 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661. Additionally, a court may consider reliable hearsay under the preponderance of the evidence standard. See U.S.S.G. \u00a7 6A1.3. 2. Restitution: 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3663A(a)(1) and (2) . Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3663A(a)(1) and (2), a court shall order that the defendant make *17 restitution to the victim or the victim's guardian if the victim is under 18 years of age and if the offense of conviction is a crime of violence. 17 The Court will sustain some of the formal objections to the and Addendum, *592 and overrule others. The Court will deny the United States' request for an upward departure. 592 15, 2006 . Sandoval's counsel asks that, if the Court deems it necessary to separately file the original Statement of Objections dated September 15, 2006, the Court give him leave to do so. The Court grants him that leave, but it is unnecessary. The Court has a copy of the September 15 Objections, the has considered them, and the Court will consider them. 1 \u00b6 8, at 4 . The states that both the victim and Sandoval are enrolled members of the Navajo Nation. Sandoval contends that he is not an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation, but is an enrolled member of the Pueblo of San Felipe. See Defendant's Statement of Objections to Pre-Sentence Report Disclosed on September 5, 2006 at 1, filed October 6, 2006 (attached to Defendant's Objections II) (\"Defendant's Objections I\"). The states that, by way of the Addendum, it will correct the information in the PSR. See Addendum at 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/27 1. Given that the has corrected the PSR, the Court will overrule this objection and correction regarding factual matters as moot. 2 \u00b6\u00b6 9-14, at 4-6 . Sandoval contends that the section of the that is entitled \"The Offense Conduct\" barely addresses the conduct involved in the offense for which the jury found him guilty. See Defendant's *18 Objections at 1-2. Sandoval asserts that the inclusion of information presented in these paragraphs is inappropriate and irrelevant for the purpose of sentencing. See id. Sandoval states that the section entitled \"Offense Conduct\" should not include any mention of the charges of aggravated sexual abuse and aggravated sexual contact with the victim, because the jury rejected these allegations. See id. Sandoval contends that it is inappropriate to review and consider any of the allegations of various sexual acts that would have suggested the more serious charges of aggravated sexual abuse. See id. 18 The information set forth in the provides the Court information concerning Sandoval's background, character, and conduct. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661 and U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.4, the Court may consider, without limitation, any information concerning Sandoval's background, character, and conduct. See U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.4 Accordingly, it is proper for the Court to consider the information that the United States Attorney's Office has provided the Court through discovery. Notwithstanding that Sandoval was not convicted of the more serious crime, it is proper for the Court to consider this information with regard to sentencing. The also maintains that the information is reliable information based on the available discovery. See Addendum at 2. The states that any possible verification of the information with the Assistant United States Attorney was completed and acknowledges the allegations in the Redacted Second Superseding Indictment, which allegedly occurred between June 2004 and September 2004. See id. The further states that the information presented to the Grand Jury in this case was factually sufficient to warrant the Redacted Second Superseding Indictment in Counts 1 through 8, all of which allege the elements of offenses that required Sandoval to answer to the allegations. See id. 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 16/27 The contends that it provided the to the Court based on the local rules, as well *19 as on the Administrative Office of the Courts' national standards and guidelines, which provide a format consistent *593 with congressional, statutory, and sentencing guideline provisions and authority. See id. Moreover, the information neither enhances Sandoval's statutory maximum penalty, nor any departure outside of the applicable guideline range. See id. 19 593 Although Sandoval was convicted of the lesser included offense in Count 2, pursuant to U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.4, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661,United States v. Watts, and Witte v. United States, the other information alleged in Count 1 and Counts 3-8 is relevant to sentencing, and nothing restricts the sentencing judge from considering that information. The Court will, therefore, overrule the objection. 3 \u00b6 14, at 6 . Sandoval objects to paragraph 14 of the PSR, because, he argues, it is inappropriate for the Court to consider any of Jane Doe B's and Garcia's allegations. See Defendant's Objections at 2. Sandoval contends that their statements are inadmissible hearsay and grossly prejudicial. See id. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.4, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661, United States v. Watts, and Witte v. United States, the Court will overrule the objection and consider the information. 4 \u00b6\u00b6 17-23, at 6-8 . Sandoval contends that the information presented in the section entitled \"Offense Behavior Not Part of Relevant Conduct\" is not pertinent to sentencing, as the information takes into consideration uncharged allegations that other witnesses made.See id. at 2-3. Specifically, Sandoval contends it is inappropriate to consider any of the allegations of uncharged offenses that either Jane Doe or Garcia made against him. See id. It is proper for the Court to consider this information to ascertain Sandoval's life and background. Regarding the issues raised in paragraphs 17- 23 of the PSR, \"Offense Behavior Not *20 Part of the Relevant Conduct,\" the maintains the information has sufficient indicia of reliability and that 20 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 17/27 it is necessary in fully gauging the brevity of Sandoval's conduct within the time period specific in Counts 1 through 8 of the Redacted Second Superseding Indictment. See Addendum at 2. The Court will consider the information. Based upon U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.4, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661, United States v. Watts, and Witte v. United States, the Court will overrule the objection. 5 \u00b6 56, at 16 . Sandoval contends that he had contact with Jane Doe in November 2005, because Jane Doe went to Sadie's Restaurant where Sandoval was working at La Pasada Halfway House's direction. See Defendant's Objections at 4. Sandoval alleges that he immediately reported this contact to his Pre-Trial Services Officer, to his attorney, and, through his attorney, to Mr. Winder. See id. The Court believes that amendments to the make clear that Sandoval's contact with Jane Doe was not at his instigation. As such, the Court will overrule the objection as moot. 6 \u00b6\u00b6 24-35, at 9-11 . Sandoval objects to the inclusion of the section entitled \"Victim Impact Statement,\" as no restitution is being requested at this time. See Defendant's Objections at 4. Because restitution is not requested, see id. \u00b6 97, at 25, Sandoval is unsure upon what basis the included this entire section, entitled \"Victim Impact Statement,\" see Defendant's Objections at 4. The Court understands that restitution is not being sought; however, pursuant to U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.4, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3661, United States v. Watts, and Witte v. United *594 States, the Court believes that it may consider this information. The Court will, therefore, overrule the objection. *21 7 \u00b6 28, at 9 . 594 21 Sandoval objects to paragraph 28 of the PSR, because, he argues, it allows Bedoni to complain about the unwillingness of his family to maintain contact with the children. See Defendant's Objections at 4. Bedoni 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 18/27 complains that \"it has only been until recently [sic] that one or two of the defendant's family members will speak or wave 'hello' to the children \u00b6 28, at 9. Bedoni's statement that Sandoval's family only recently began speaking or waving to them was her way of explaining that she and her children were ostracized within the Pueblo of San Felipe for a long period of time after Sandoval was arrested for this offense. Sandoval states that his conditions of release prohibited him from having contact, directly or indirectly, with Bedoni and the children. See Defendant's Objections at 4. Sandoval contends that contact by his family members might be construed as indirect contact on Sandoval's behalf. See id.; cf \u00b6 58, at 17. Given that Sandoval has now had the opportunity, through the Addendum, to state his position on the matter, the Court believes that this objection is moot and will, therefore, overrule it. 8 \u00b6 33, at 11 . As stated in paragraph 33, Bedoni withdrew a substantial amount of money from her retirement account to support her children. Sandoval objects to paragraph 33 of the PSR, because it implies that he left Bedoni and their children in financial hardship. See Defendant's Objections at 4-5. Sandoval contends that he did not choose to leave Bedoni and the children struggling financially. See id. Given that Sandoval has supplemented the with information concerning the matter addressed in paragraph 33 of the PSR, the Court believes that this objection is moot and will, accordingly, overrule it. *22 9 \u00b6 59, at 17 . 22 Sandoval objects to paragraph 59 of the PSR, because, he contends, it lacks necessary context. Sandoval states that the questions in the interview asked him to identify only those persons with whom he had been sexually intimate. See Defendant's Objections at 9. Thus, Sandoval contends, in the August 11, 2006 letter from his counsel to the USPO, he identified only Carmella Tenorio of Santa Domingo Pueblo as a woman with whom he had sexual intimacy. See id. 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 19/27 The Court believes that Sandoval has supplemented the paragraph and that the objection is now moot. As such, the Court will overrule the objection. 10 \u00b6 66, at 19 . Sandoval seeks to highlight that, in the August 11, 2006 letter from his counsel to the USPO, with reference to the questions regarding masturbation, he reiterated that when he was an adolescent he was already involved in the spiritual life and practices of his tribe and Pueblo. See id. at 9. The USPO, by way of the Addendum, amends paragraph 66 of the to include the statement that Sandoval was already involved in the spiritual life and practices of his tribe and of the Pueblo during his adolescence, thus influencing the issue of masturbation in his formative years. The Court thus overrules the objection to paragraph 66 as moot. 11 \u00b6\u00b6 79-81, at 22 . Paragraphs 79-81 detail financial information pertaining to Sandoval as provided in his credit report. See \u00b6\u00b6 79-81, at 22. Sandoval contends that various issues in paragraphs 79-81 require clarification. *595 See Defendant's Objections at 9-10. Sandoval states that his conditions for release prevent him from receiving any information regarding his accounts and indebtedness, and prohibit him from continuing in his former employment, making him unable to meet the full extent of his financial *23 obligations. See id. In its Addendum, the recognizes that changes in Sandoval's custodial and employment status have impacted his financial obligations. The Court thus overrules the objection to paragraphs 79-81 of the as moot. 595 23 12 \u00b6 98, at 25 . In paragraph 98, Sandoval suggests that he may submit a sentencing memorandum that might identify factors warranting a sentence below the advisory guidelines. See \u00b6 98, at 25; Defendant's Objections at 10. Paragraph 98 simply seems to indicate that Sandoval may submit a sentencing memorandum. See \u00b6 98, at 25. To the extent that this is an objection, the Court overrules it as moot. 13. Six Letters of Reference Pertaining to Sandoval . 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 20/27 Sandoval objects to the fact that six letters of reference were neither attached to, nor mentioned in, the PSR. See Defendant's Objections at 10. The Court has received and reviewed the letters, and will thus overrule the objection as moot. 14. Letter from Dr. Godner . Sandoval seeks to have the letter from Dr. Godner removed from the Addendum. See Defendant's Objections at 3. Sandoval argues that, with considerable sadness, his family members have faithfully observed the restrictions that his conditions of release set; his family cannot have contact with his male children by Bedoni \u2014 their grandchildren, nephews, and cousins.See id. The Court will overrule the objection and consider the letter as additional information. *24 . 24 Sandoval objects to the Offense Level Computation and contends that the guideline range is directly tied to \u00a7 2A3.4 of the 2003 Sentencing Guidelines. Sandoval indicates that the special offense characteristics and the cross- reference used in calculating the Offense Level Computations are inappropriate, because the victim was not entrusted to him at the time of the offense, and because the Court, the United States, or the jury had dismissed the charged conduct. The Court does not concur with the regarding the offense level computation and thus will sustain Sandoval's objections to it in part and overrule them in part U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2A3.4 CROSS-REFERENCE. Sandoval argues that, in light of the verdicts, U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2A3.4(c)(1)'s cross- reference to \u00a7 2A3.1, Criminal Sexual Abuse, is inapplicable to establishing the advisory guidelines sentencing range.See Sentencing Memo at 5. Sandoval contends that the jury's verdict expressly rejects any completed or attempted sexual act, a necessary element of aggravated sexual abuse.See id. He maintains that the verdict does not include any finding, and expressly rejects, that the offense for which Sandoval is to be sentenced involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2241 \u2014 use of force, threat, or other means. See id. Sandoval argues that without either threats or a completed or 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 21/27 attempted sexual act, the verdict cannot be said to have involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2242.See id. Sandoval states that, as such, it is inappropriate to use the \u00a7 2A3.4(c) cross-reference, see id., because his offense does not \"involve criminal *596 sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse (as defined in 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2241 or \u00a7 2242 . . .),\" U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2A3.4(c)(1). 596 The United States contends that, based upon the information set forth in the PSR, the Court \"could\" apply \u00a7 2A3.4(c)(1). Response at 1. As noted in the PSR, it is only the Count of conviction *25 that the has used to establish Sandoval's base offense level, specific offense characteristics, and any applicable cross-references or enhancements. See \u00b6\u00b6 36-45, at 12-13. 25 The Court finds that the cross-reference is operative when the offense involved criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse. See U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2A3.4(c)(1). The Court does not, however, find by a preponderance of the evidence that there was criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse. \"When the defendant makes a timely objection to the PSR, if the sentencing court chooses to make a finding with respect to the disputed facts, it must do so on the basis of evidence, and not the PSR.\" See United States v. Poor Bear, 359 F.3d 1038, 1042 (2004). Uncharged, dismissed, and acquitted conduct may be used for sentencing purposes if proved by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d at 684-85. Sandoval objected to the paragraphs of the presenting relevant and other relevant conduct. The Court, therefore, must look for evidence beyond the PSR. The Addendum states that the Court can consider the evidence that was adduced at trial pertaining to the conduct alleged in Count 1 and Counts 3-8 of the Redacted Second Superceding Indictment. The Court believes, however, that the evidence *26 does not support a finding that Sandoval's offense involved criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse. Jane Doe's testimony at trial was too ambiguous for the Court to find that Sandoval's conduct amounted to criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse. Also, other than Bedoni's testimony about what she directly observed on September 1, 2004 \u2014 upon which they jury may have relied in rendering its guilty verdict on the lesser included offense of abusive sexual contact on or about September 1, 2004 \u2014 any information 3 26 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 22/27 U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.1. received from Bedoni and Witt about the alleged offenses was necessarily hearsay. In light of the Court's dismissals and the jury's verdicts, the Court cannot reasonably regard the hearsay as reliable hearsay information. The Court, therefore, cannot use that hearsay evidence to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Sandoval's conduct involved criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse. 3 At the hearing, the Court stated that the plain language of the cross- reference provides that it is operative when the conviction offense involved criminal sexual abuse or attempt to commit criminal sexual abuse. See Hearing Transcript at 19:18-20:1 (Court). The Court is no longer of that opinion. After the hearing the Court located U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.1, which provides: \"Offense\" means the offense of conviction and all relevant conduct under \u00a7 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) unless a different meaning is specified or is otherwise clear from the context. The term \"instant\" is used in connection with \"offense,\" \"federal offense,\" or \"offense of conviction,\" as the case may be, to distinguish the violation for which the defendant is being sentenced from a prior or subsequent offense, or from an offense before another court (e.g. an offense before a state court involving the same underlying conduct). With respect to Jane Doe B, the Court does not believe it is in a position to find that the alleged conduct occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court notes that it allowed the facts concerning *597 Jane Doe to be admitted via pretrial order, and that Jane Doe did not come to testify. The Court would find it troubling to find by a preponderance of the evidence information about which a witness refused to testify. Considering the foregoing, the Court will sustain Sandoval's objection regarding use of the cross-reference. 597 CALCULATION. 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 23/27 Sandoval contends that the offense level should be 16. Sandoval arrives at that level by starting with a base offense level of 10, based upon \u00a7 2A3.4(a) (3), which the used in preparing the PSR. See Sentencing Memo at 6. Sandoval states that 4 levels should be added, pursuant to special offense characteristic (b)(1), which concerns the victim's age, to the base level of 10.See id. Sandoval also states that \u00a7 2A3.4(b)(1) requires an increase of the offense level from 14 to 16, *27 because the offense level that would result otherwise is less than 16. See id. 27 Sandoval also urges the Court to consider that Jane Doe had not been \"entrusted to the defendant\" as \u00a7 2A3.4(b)(3) contemplates. Sandoval argues that, in light of the verdicts acquitting him of any offense in June 2004, the reference in the Addendum recommending application of special offense characteristic \u00a7 2A3.4(b)(3), based upon Sandoval's custody of Jane Doe in June 2004, is inappropriate. See Defendant's Objections at 3. Sandoval argues that, if the Court accedes to his arguments about the base offense level, special offense characteristic \u00a7 2A3.4(b)(3), regarding whether Jane Doe had been \"entrusted to the defendant,\" is rendered academic by \u00a7 2A3.4(b)(1), which requires an increase of the offense level from 14 to 16 if the resulting offense level is less than 16. See id. The United States urges the Court to increase the base offense level pursuant to the enhancement \u00a7 2A3.4(b)(3). See Response at 3. Application Note 2 of U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2A3.1, states that the Court should look at the actual relationship that existed between the defendant and the victim when determining whether to apply \u00a7 2A3.1(b)(3)(A). See U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2A3.1, app. n. 2. In this case, the victim is Sandoval's biological daughter, with whom he shared permanent residency and whom he financially supported. In United States v. Miller, 293 F.3d 468 (8th Cir. 2002), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that \u00a7 2A3.5(b)(3)'s enhancement applied because the defendant was the victim's \"Dad\" \u2014 the defendant lived with the victim's mother as husband and wife, the victim referred to the defendant as \"Dad,\" and the defendant referred to the victim as his \"child.\" 293 F.3d at 471-72. The Court believes, based upon United States v. Miller, that \u00a7 2A3.1(b)(3)(A) takes parents as a starting point for evaluating who is in custody, care, and control of the victim, and that it does 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 24/27 not require that *28 parents have any additional \"entrustment.\" Accordingly, the Court finds that \u00a7 2A3.1(b)(3)(A)'s two-level enhancement applies. 28 Based on that assessment, the Court finds that Sandoval's Total Offense Level should be 18. General Application Principle U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.1(b), states: \"Determine the base offense level and apply any appropriate specific offense characteristics, cross references, and special instructions contained in the particular guideline in Chapter Two in the order listed.\" U.S.S.G. \u00a7 1B1.1(b). Accordingly, under \u00a7 2A3.4, Sandoval's base offense level is 10,see U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2A3.4, which is enhanced to level 16 because Jane Doe was less than twelve years old, see U.S.S.G. *598 \u00a7 2A3.4(b)(1), which is enhanced another 2 levels to 18 because Jane Doe was in Sandoval's custody, care, and supervisory control, see U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2A3.4(b)(3). See also United States v. Meacham, 115 F.3d 1488, 1497 (1997) (applying the guideline provisions in the same manner to a similarly situated defendant). Thus, the proper offense level for Sandoval is 18. 598 . In response to the Court's conclusion that the cross-reference is inapplicable, the United States requests the Court depart upward to an offense level of 25. See Upward Departure Motion at 1. The United States argues that, pursuant to U.S.S.G. \u00a7 5K2.21, Sandoval's dismissed and uncharged conduct supports a higher adjusted offense level than 18. See id. at 1. Specifically, the United States requests that the Court consider the facts associated with Count 6, which involved contact between Sandoval's penis and Jane Doe's mouth, and was dismissed because of the difficult time Jane Doe had testifying at the trial. See id. at 3. The United States also urges the Court to consider the facts associated with the uncharged conduct involving Jane Doe B.See id. at 4. *29 29 The Court will not grant the United States' request for an upward departure. Under the facts and circumstances of this particular case, where so much of conduct that the United States references relates to counts that were either not submitted to the jury for various evidentiary reasons or the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court believes that it should be very 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 25/27 cautious about using such conduct to increase Sandoval's sentence, particularly as dramatically as the United States requests. The Court also notes that it allowed the facts concerning Jane Doe to be admitted via pretrial order, and that Jane Doe did not come to testify. The Court, moreover, has trouble distinguishing this case from other sex crimes cases that it and other federal courts come across regularly. Even if departure were warranted under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court would exercise its discretion not to depart, because, despite this case's sadness, it believes that it still remains within the heartland of cases. Considering the foregoing, the Court will not grant the United States' Motion for Upward Departure that the Defendant's Statement of Objections to Pre- sentence Report and Addendum Disclosed September 27, 2006 is granted in part and denied in part; the Court sustains Sandoval's objection to the use of U.S.S.G. \u00a7 2A3.4(c)(1) in determining his offense level and overrules his other objections. The Court denies the United States' request for an upward departure. *646 646 About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 26/27 Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/13/25, 11:04 U.S. v. Sandoval, 506 F. Supp. 2d 582 | Casetext Search + Citator 27/27", "7653_105.pdf": "Page 1 of 6 April 30, 2019 Focused Follow-up Re: Human Resources Infrastructure at initiated a focused follow-up to the James Sandoval Title and Whistleblower investigations. This report represents the summary findings of that review, along with background about the review, and addresses other related issues which arose during that review Proposal and Rationale: Conduct a focused follow-up to the findings from the Title and Whistleblower investigations related to former Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs (VCSA), James Sandoval, to understand lessons learned and potential opportunities and enhancements for processes moving forward. This focused follow-up aims to consider and evaluate the human resources infrastructure on campus, which includes the central office as well as those decentralized human resources assets that would have or should have been involved. The follow-up will also consider complaint and investigation processes, designed to detect and respond to misconduct. While Office of the President (UCOP) has completed investigations, those investigations were focused on identifying the misconduct\u2014not on addressing areas of potential campus improvement. We believe it is our duty to conduct a focused follow-up to the investigation findings from a campus policy/process perspective. There are several additional reviews taking place to address concerns regarding workplace misconduct, climate, and favoritism (particularly in hiring and appointments) for the Division of Student Affairs and the entire campus (e.g., Campus Culture Task Force). Although those reviews\u2019 findings and recommendations are outside the scope of this report, the multiple reviews will be considered holistically to work toward improving campus policies, procedures, and culture. Who is initiating this Focused Follow-up? The focused follow-up was initiated by the Vice Chancellor for Planning, Budget and Administration\u2019s PB&A) office. Interviews were conducted and co-led by Gerry Bomotti PB&A, and Kiersten Boyce, Associate Vice Chancellor and Chief Compliance Officer/Locally Designated Official (LDO). Expected Goals and Outcomes of Focused Follow-up: This review was intended to identify opportunities to prevent misconduct of this nature from occurring and persisting without review and action. The outcomes from the focused follow-up would include the following: \uf0b7 Review of the current identification, reporting and action process for campus supervisor/employee issues and concerns, and suggest any appropriate improvements. \uf0b7 Identify any significant opportunities for improvements, as well as mechanisms to deliver these specific improvements to the campus. \uf0b7 Communicate those findings and recommendations for action and campus implementation in an open and appropriate manner. Overall Context: It is important to recognize that whenever one reviews past actions, hindsight is valuable to identify opportunities for improvements. Mistakes are inevitable, and it is important to work toward learning from those mistakes. Thus, the primary goal of this report is to improve campus and related complaint policies and practices \u2013 not to assign guilt or fault to specific individuals. This focused follow-up intends to look at a past Page 2 of 6 situation and identify what might be able to do to improve its overall infrastructure on campus and safeguard a healthy, fair workplace moving forward. It is relevant to note that former Vice Chancellor Sandoval was found to have violated Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence Policy, based on an investigation led by the Office of the President. Pasted below is information from the web site regarding Sexual Harassment. Sexual Harassment is unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: Quid Pro Quo: a person\u2019s submission to such conduct is implicitly or explicitly made the basis for employment decisions, academic evaluation, grades or advancement, or other decisions affecting participation in a University program; or Hostile Environment: such conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it unreasonably denies, adversely limits, or interferes with a person\u2019s participation in or benefit from the education, employment or other programs and services of the University and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find to be intimidating or offensive. Accordingly, this report seeks to identify specific opportunities for and other campus policies and practices to more effectively interface with the above sexual harassment definition and policy. It is important to note here that there are other concurrent assessments associated with the Sandoval situation, and those discussions are outside the scope of this report, but may support or align with the current set of recommendations (Student Affairs, Campus Climate Task Force, and perhaps others). The preliminary recommendations listed below are intended to generate feedback and input on changes that will benefit UCR. Summary Recommendations from focused follow-up: (Note: While the Sandoval situation initiated this focused follow-up, some of these recommendations came about naturally out of the review and not all parts of all recommendations flow just from the Sandoval situation.) 1. Overall Evaluation, in Hindsight: It is important to look at significant issues within an organization and work to learn from them, and to identify improvements in institutional policies, process, and in some cases, culture. In order to identify possible solutions and improvements to the existing processes, we need to acknowledge that prior actions related to the Sandoval case were not ideal for UCR; and we can, with the benefit of hindsight, learn from this experience and identify improvements going forward. It appears that various issues and concerns regarding Sandoval\u2019s behavior had been raised with or identified by HR, and that opportunities to recognize the seriousness and validity of these issues and concerns were missed. The specific relationship (later determined to constitute sexual harassment) identified in May 2017 should have immediately been discussed with the Title office to determine an appropriate course of action. Additionally, following the disclosure of the relationship, there were no clear or obvious consequences for Sandoval. In hindsight, for this particular situation, a response more in keeping with UCR\u2019s commitment to its staff would have been for the supervisor with authority to have been immediately removed from the workplace and placed on investigatory leave, in order to allow a thorough and robust inquiry into the situation. Additionally, more direct communications with the staff in the office would have been appropriate, as they were in Page 3 of 6 general left with little information to understand what was happening in their office environment, while most had been subject to observing some unusual activities. Action Follow-up and will work together to assure training of existing key staff is addressed and updated standard operating procedures are developed for both and Compliance Office. Completion of this task is estimated to be no later than November, 2019. These procedures will include a standard response to situations where a responsible employee fails to report a complaint or incident as required. 2. Encourage reporting of misconduct by empowering employees. Employees need to be empowered to address unethical behavior and abuse of power. When campus expectations are not clear, or when employees struggle to identify unethical conduct, matters are unlikely to be addressed. Education and awareness efforts need to be enhanced (Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy) training is necessary but more is needed. Employees also need to know how to report misconduct. It is important to assure that clear information is provided to all campus employees at least annually about options to report issues of concern, irregularities, fraud, violations of policy and/or law (including sexual harassment, discrimination, etc.) and to provide this information on the web site as well has recently rolled out a new resource that can help in this area \u2013 help@ucr website It should also be noted that all employees are required to participate in sexual harassment training every two years (online or in person). Action Follow-up: The Central Office and Compliance Office will coordinate to finalize an appropriate annual announcement schedule for the campus, and assure the resources on the central web site are sufficient, and work to identify effective ways to promote core ethical values. Completion of these tasks is estimated to be no later than September, 2019. Developing and delivering a comprehensive education and awareness program for UCR, no later than March, 2020. 3. Addressing staff fear of retaliation. It appears that there was some specific knowledge of misconduct in the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs office, but no formal complaint or report was made until a whistleblower report was filed in August 2017. Fear of retaliation is a significant barrier to reporting does not tolerate retaliation and takes steps to try to protect employees from retaliation, but it is important to consider how to reassure employees (staff, faculty, or students) that measures are in place to protect individuals from retaliation. The campus should therefore consider more robust steps to prevent retaliation; appropriate disciplinary action, when retaliation does occur; and sufficient measures to ensure that retaliation does not continue or recur. Action Follow-up: Some of the other actions noted in this report should assist with this recommendation, and and Compliance Office will work together to identify other appropriate responses that support this recommendation. Completion of this task is estimated to be no later than January, 2020. Page 4 of 6 4. Consistently treat all complaints seriously and professionally needs robust Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for coordinated intake and assessment of all issues, complaints, and reports of misconduct. This is to ensure that such reports are reviewed promptly and professionally, without bias or preconceptions, and regardless of which office first becomes aware of the matter. Reports must be reviewed by trained professionals, skilled in identifying harassment, discrimination, and other misconduct, and who are familiar with and campus procedures. This must be done to avoid valid concerns being trivialized or misunderstood, or key issues being missed. Checks and balances should be in place, in order to avoid a single individual making decisions on complex and highly consequential issues and to ensure that any complaint regarding a senior administrator is handled fairly, without bias in favor of the administrator. All relevant campus-based processes must be codified so that they can be fully understood, and to ensure consistent action going forward. Moreover, these processes should be regularly reviewed, as they may evolve and should be improved over time. Some adjustments to our existing processes are likely needed in order to better serve UCR. The relatively new investigations group has made some steps to improve review and triage of complaints, by providing some checks and balances on single decision-makers; but further improvement is needed. Similarly, the fact-finding team within the Compliance Office has begun developing SOPs, working with and others, but this work is not yet complete. Action Follow-up and Compliance Office will work together to finalize updated SOP\u2019s no later than October, 2019. 5. Expectation to review/share otherwise confidential information with those who need to know: While it is very important to protect \u201cconfidential\u201d information, there are those individuals with a need-to-know, including Central staff and other appropriate offices related to and working with Central HR. Central does not appear to have a culture of sharing critical or confidential information with team members, in order for them all to help participate in solutions to specific issues that arise across campus. While respect for sensitive information is essential within an office, there are clearly many team members who need to be brought into key discussions (especially if there are items arising within the client group they directly support, as they would be able to bring critical context details to the discussion), along with other appropriate offices such as Title and the needs to be effective in working together as a team to solve/address issues, and this requires trust and appropriate sharing of information within the office, for those with a need-to-know. Some of these needed discussions may happen at the Investigations Group, with appropriate adjustments to their meeting schedule and process. Action Follow-up will work directly with the office to implement an appropriate process for communications of confidential information, to include internal procedures. Completion of this task is estimated to be no later than June, 2019. Additional case management teams are being assembled to formalize the information-sharing between HR, the and other key offices. These teams are expected to be established no later than September, 2019. 6. Cognizant Vice Chancellor involvement: The Vice Chancellor to which reports needs to have some direct involvement in significant issues \u2013 including those involving other Vice Chancellors. Without the adequate involvement and oversight from the Vice Chancellor and other Page 5 of 6 appropriate campus offices, the division is working in isolation, which is not the most appropriate way to support and fully develop recommendations to the Chancellor. Action Follow-up will work with to put into effect immediately. 7. Workplace sexual/romantic relationships: When organizational power differentials between a supervisor and employee exist, a sexual or romantic relationship is inappropriate and presents a conflict of interest. To put it simply, supervisors should not seek out or engage in such relationships with their subordinates. While there was not an official \u201cconsensual relationship\u201d policy in place until relatively recently, a situation involving a supervisor and an employee over which they hold power is and has been prohibited by policies on conflicts of interest, and needs to be evaluated by those with relevant expertise (Title IX) regarding improper sexual relationships. In the Sandoval case, the Title office should have been consulted immediately will strengthen its consensual relationships policy to ensure appropriate review occurs. Action Follow-up and Compliance Office, consistent with other action follow-ups noted above, will work to complete this task no later than September, 2019. 8. Consistent application of policies, regardless of position title: It is important to assure that Central (and all service offices across campus) treat everyone on campus in a consistent and fair manner. Unfortunately, it appears that \u201cexceptions to policy\u201d were more frequently granted than perhaps warranted. When assumptions or exceptions are made solely based on position title or level, it undermines the effectiveness of to consistently and fairly serve the campus. While some individuals on campus can overrule recommendations, any exceptions to policy should be considered under rare circumstances and verified in writing recommendations (including for exceptions) need to be based on existing policy and procedures that are consistently applied across the campus. If recommendations are based on the campus positions involved, this approach must be addressed and corrected. This, of course, applies to the Vice Chancellor to which reports, as well as everyone else on campus. In addition, there also appeared to be recurrent admonishments that reasonable requests could not be granted because they were deemed to be \u201cagainst policy\u201d. These actions, combined with the frequency of \u201cexceptions to policy\u201d, give the impression that decisions may be ad-hoc, arbitrary or unfair. There should be a transparent mechanism put in place for reasonable policy changes or exceptions to be reviewed and approved, along with second-level review by the cognizant Vice Chancellor (and all provided in writing). Such a mechanism will help to ensure that policies and practices do not remain static, and support the campus\u2019s ability to adjust or improve based on evolving circumstances. Action Follow-up will work with to implement immediately and assure there are written procedures in place to document all exceptions. 9. Opportunities for delegations of authority and responsibility relative to activities has a strong infrastructure on campus, with many professionals in the central office, but many working in units across campus (e.g., CFAOs Business Partners, analysts focused review should be made as to what delegations of authority and responsibility, appropriately balanced against risk, could be made to these professionals across the campus that would better serve Page 6 of 6 overall. Any delegations should be based on the experience, training, skills and abilities of the individual under consideration for delegation, and not as a blanket delegation, and with a goal of allowing central staff more time to focus on higher priority and higher risk issues. Additionally, delegations need to be made formally and with a structure to assure strong accountability and performance. This could also reinforce the role of local professionals as \u201cresponsible employees\u201d to identify and report possible sexual violence/sexual harassment. Action Follow-up will work with and professionals across to develop a delegation proposal that best serves UCR. Completion of this task is estimated to be no later than November, 2019.", "7653_106.pdf": "By By | | [email protected] [email protected] | San Bernardino Sun | San Bernardino Sun UPDATED: UPDATED: April 16, 2018 at 4:53 April 16, 2018 at 4:53 Kim Wilcox Riverside chancellor. Kim Wilcox Riverside chancellor Riverside Chancellor Kim Wilcox Riverside Chancellor Kim Wilcox denies ignoring sexual harassment, denies ignoring sexual harassment, abuse complaints at Michigan State abuse complaints at Michigan State 2/13/25, 11:04 Riverside Chancellor Kim Wilcox denies ignoring sexual harassment, abuse complaints at Michigan State \u2013 Daily Bu\u2026 1/4 Riverside Chancellor Kim Wilcox on Friday denied allegations he ignored sexual harassment Riverside Chancellor Kim Wilcox on Friday denied allegations he ignored sexual harassment and abuse while he was provost at Michigan State University, saying he was unaware of his and abuse while he was provost at Michigan State University, saying he was unaware of his associate\u2019s behavior. associate\u2019s behavior. William Strampel, the former dean of MSU\u2019s College of Osteopathic Medicine, was arrested William Strampel, the former dean of MSU\u2019s College of Osteopathic Medicine, was arrested March 26 as part of an investigation into how former sports doctor Larry Nassar was able to March 26 as part of an investigation into how former sports doctor Larry Nassar was able to sexually abuse more than 250 girls and women while at the university, including many sexually abuse more than 250 girls and women while at the university, including many members of the U.S. Women\u2019s Gymnastics team. members of the U.S. Women\u2019s Gymnastics team. It is the worst sexual abuse case in sports history. It is the worst sexual abuse case in sports history. Last year, Last year, Nassar pleaded guilty Nassar pleaded guilty to molesting patients and possessing child pornography. He to molesting patients and possessing child pornography. He will will spend the rest of his life in prison spend the rest of his life in prison.. Strampel is the first person besides Nassar to be charged in connection with the case. He is Strampel is the first person besides Nassar to be charged in connection with the case. He is charged with harassing, propositioning, sexually assaulting and soliciting pornographic videos charged with harassing, propositioning, sexually assaulting and soliciting pornographic videos of female students. He\u2019s also accused of not keeping an eye on Nassar after cleared the of female students. He\u2019s also accused of not keeping an eye on Nassar after cleared the doctor in 2014 of inappropriate sexual behavior with a former student. doctor in 2014 of inappropriate sexual behavior with a former student. Complaints from students and faculty members about Strampel came up in a review process Complaints from students and faculty members about Strampel came up in a review process eight years ago. eight years ago. In a 2010 letter in Strampel\u2019s personnel file, obtained in part by the Detroit News, Wilcox wrote In a 2010 letter in Strampel\u2019s personnel file, obtained in part by the Detroit News, Wilcox wrote that Strampel would stay medical school dean after the review. that Strampel would stay medical school dean after the review. \u201cOur several discussions over the past several months have reinforced my commitment and \u201cOur several discussions over the past several months have reinforced my commitment and that of Dean Strampel to advancing the goals of the College within the broad mission of that of Dean Strampel to advancing the goals of the College within the broad mission of Michigan State University,\u201d Wilcox wrote. Michigan State University,\u201d Wilcox wrote. On Friday, Wilcox released a written statement saying he was unaware of Strampel\u2019s behavior On Friday, Wilcox released a written statement saying he was unaware of Strampel\u2019s behavior and expressing regret for Strampel\u2019s alleged victims. and expressing regret for Strampel\u2019s alleged victims served as provost at Michigan State University (MSU) from August 2005 through December served as provost at Michigan State University (MSU) from August 2005 through December 2012, during which time supervised then-dean William Strampel,\u201d Wilcox\u2019s statement begins. 2012, during which time supervised then-dean William Strampel,\u201d Wilcox\u2019s statement begins. \u201cTo the best of my knowledge, none of the feedback received while supervising Strampel \u201cTo the best of my knowledge, none of the feedback received while supervising Strampel described behaviors articulated in the Michigan Attorney General\u2019s criminal complaint filing. described behaviors articulated in the Michigan Attorney General\u2019s criminal complaint filing. Notwithstanding have been troubled by the revelations about Strampel\u2019s alleged actions at Notwithstanding have been troubled by the revelations about Strampel\u2019s alleged actions at MSU.\u201d MSU.\u201d During his time at MSU, Wilcox oversaw Strampel\u2019s five-year review in 2010, but not the 2005 During his time at MSU, Wilcox oversaw Strampel\u2019s five-year review in 2010, but not the 2005 review. review. \u201cAs part of the 2010 review process received some anonymous feedback that Strampel had \u201cAs part of the 2010 review process received some anonymous feedback that Strampel had made several inappropriate comments,\u201d Wilcox wrote. \u201cIn response instituted a corrective made several inappropriate comments,\u201d Wilcox wrote. \u201cIn response instituted a corrective action plan that directed Strampel to cease making such comments and to obtain counsel on action plan that directed Strampel to cease making such comments and to obtain counsel on proper and professional communications also recommended a follow-up review be done in proper and professional communications also recommended a follow-up review be done in 2013.\u201d 2013.\u201d Wilcox became Riverside\u2019s Chancellor in 2013. Wilcox became Riverside\u2019s Chancellor in 2013. 2/13/25, 11:04 Riverside Chancellor Kim Wilcox denies ignoring sexual harassment, abuse complaints at Michigan State \u2013 Daily Bu\u2026 2/4 \ue905 \ue905 Originally Published: Originally Published: April 13, 2018 at 4:27 April 13, 2018 at 4:27 \u201cHaving reviewed the criminal complaint against Strampel deeply regret that he caused pain \u201cHaving reviewed the criminal complaint against Strampel deeply regret that he caused pain for so many further regret that some individuals felt they could not report Strampel\u2019s actions for so many further regret that some individuals felt they could not report Strampel\u2019s actions at the time they occurred, and admire the courageous individuals who have come forward to at the time they occurred, and admire the courageous individuals who have come forward to report sexual harassment and sexual violence at MSU,\u201d his statement concludes. \u201cFinally report sexual harassment and sexual violence at MSU,\u201d his statement concludes. \u201cFinally continue to support efforts to provide the public and authorities with all documents and continue to support efforts to provide the public and authorities with all documents and records necessary for a full and transparent investigation, including any records that involve my records necessary for a full and transparent investigation, including any records that involve my participation.\u201d participation.\u201d While Wilcox has been chancellor at Riverside, several employees have been disciplined for While Wilcox has been chancellor at Riverside, several employees have been disciplined for sexual harassment, according to university spokesman John Warren. sexual harassment, according to university spokesman John Warren. \u201cSince Chancellor Kim Wilcox began at on August 9, 2013, through April 10, 2018, 10 then- \u201cSince Chancellor Kim Wilcox began at on August 9, 2013, through April 10, 2018, 10 then- current employees have been found to have committed sexual harassment. No employees current employees have been found to have committed sexual harassment. No employees were found to have committed sexual violence/assault,\u201d Warren wrote in an email. were found to have committed sexual violence/assault,\u201d Warren wrote in an email. \u201cIn all cases, disciplinary measures were taken. Four out of 10 respondents were terminated \u201cIn all cases, disciplinary measures were taken. Four out of 10 respondents were terminated from employment. Two other respondents voluntarily separated after the investigation results from employment. Two other respondents voluntarily separated after the investigation results were disclosed to them, and four respondents were suspended without pay. Suspension is the were disclosed to them, and four respondents were suspended without pay. Suspension is the most serious disciplinary action we take other than termination,\u201d Warren wrote. \u201cOnly two most serious disciplinary action we take other than termination,\u201d Warren wrote. \u201cOnly two respondents still work at UCR.\u201d respondents still work at UCR.\u201d Earlier this week Riverside\u2019s student newspaper, The Highlander, Earlier this week Riverside\u2019s student newspaper, The Highlander, reported reported that former that former Riverside Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs James Sandoval had been the subject of a Title Riverside Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs James Sandoval had been the subject of a Title sexual harassment investigation. Sandoval had been on leave since Nov. 10, according to the sexual harassment investigation. Sandoval had been on leave since Nov. 10, according to the university. He retired on Jan. 3. university. He retired on Jan. 3. Wilcox was not among those disciplined. There have been no substantiated complaints against Wilcox was not among those disciplined. There have been no substantiated complaints against Wilcox himself during his time at Riverside, according to a lawyer for the school. Wilcox himself during his time at Riverside, according to a lawyer for the school. The university would not release information about any unsubstantiated complaints against The university would not release information about any unsubstantiated complaints against Wilcox. Those are exempt under the California Public Records Act, according to David Wilcox. Those are exempt under the California Public Records Act, according to David Bergquist, Chief Campus Counsel for Riverside. Wilcox\u2019s performance reviews during his five Bergquist, Chief Campus Counsel for Riverside. Wilcox\u2019s performance reviews during his five years at the university are also exempt, Bergquist wrote. years at the university are also exempt, Bergquist wrote. The Southern California News Group requested the records after a report that Wilcox may have The Southern California News Group requested the records after a report that Wilcox may have let complaints of sexual abuse and harassment slide when he was the provost at Michigan let complaints of sexual abuse and harassment slide when he was the provost at Michigan State University. State University. Last year, the University of California system Last year, the University of California system reported reported there were 113 sexual harassment cases there were 113 sexual harassment cases in the system between Jan. 1, 2013 to April 6, 2016. Fifty-two of them occurred at Southern in the system between Jan. 1, 2013 to April 6, 2016. Fifty-two of them occurred at Southern California universities. California universities. 2/13/25, 11:04 Riverside Chancellor Kim Wilcox denies ignoring sexual harassment, abuse complaints at Michigan State \u2013 Daily Bu\u2026 3/4 2018 2018 \ue907 \ue907April April \ue907 \ue90713 13 2/13/25, 11:04 Riverside Chancellor Kim Wilcox denies ignoring sexual harassment, abuse complaints at Michigan State \u2013 Daily Bu\u2026 4/4"} |
7,468 | Scott Eaton | Northern Kentucky University | [
"7468_101.pdf",
"7468_102.pdf",
"7468_103.pdf"
] | {"7468_101.pdf": "paid former worker $200K to avoid sex lawsuit James Pilcher [email protected] Published 1:00 a.m Feb. 15, 2015 Key Points paid former associate athletic director %24200%2C000 in 2013 to avoid sexual harassment lawsuit. Chrissy Soards worked for former Scott Eaton%2C who was later fired for ethical violations. Eaton had sexual affairs with several workers and at least one adult student. Eaton now serving 10 years for embezzling %24311%2C000 from the school over 4 years \u2013 Northern Kentucky University paid the subordinate of convicted embezzler Scott Eaton nearly a quarter of a million dollars two years ago to avoid a potential sexual harassment lawsuit and gained that worker's subsequent silence \u2013 the only such settlement reached in the wake of the Eaton scandal, The Enquirer has learned. Former associate athletic director for compliance Chrissy Soards first complained to the school about the behavior of her boss Eaton in early March 2013, school officials acknowledged last week. The Enquirer previously reported that the first phone call about Eaton came in on March 8. On March 16, the school fired Eaton for ethics violations, and two days later, Soards signed the $200,000 settlement agreement. The Enquirer obtained the agreement through a series of open records requests later discovered Eaton stole $311,000 from using a university-issued credit card, and that he had inappropriate relationships with at least four women on campus, including an adult student. The university has steadfastly refused to identify the women involved, although Board of Regents chairman Dennis Repenning this week acknowledged to The Enquirer that Soards 2/13/25, 11:04 paid former worker $200K to avoid sex lawsuit 1/6 and her attorney had threatened the school with a sexual harassment lawsuit. Repenning also said Soards' initial complaint threatened legal action and was the first sign anything was amiss with Eaton's behavior. \"This was the first we had heard about Eaton's activities ... prior to that, we thought he was a Boy Scout,\" said Repenning, an Erlanger-based lawyer. \"He seemed to be everybody's favorite. Once we learned of this activity, this whole house of cards just fell apart. \"And would not accept any characterization that we bought this woman's silence ... that would be incredibly unfair to the individual involved.\" Eaton pleaded guilty to felony theft charges in April 2014 and is serving a 10-year sentence in the Campbell County Detention Center in Newport. Soards resigned from the school on March 25, less than two weeks after Eaton was fired. The settlement prohibits Soards from suing the school or helping anyone else sue the school. It was signed on March 18, 2013, and the payments were to be made by April 1, 2013. It also referred to a pre-existing and unrelated workers' compensation case Soards brought against the school. She is still eligible for her retirement benefits through the Kentucky Retirement System. \"Soards agrees not to hereafter initiate a lawsuit based on any claims released by her ... be party to such a lawsuit, or in any way assist or cooperate with any other person or entity of any kind or nature against NKU,\" the agreement states. It also requires her not to speak about the agreement and \"not to make any statements or remarks that are disparaging toward or anyone at the school. Repenning said the settlement \"was a big deal for us ... this was no drop in the bucket.\" \"Two hundred thousand bucks is nothing to sneeze at and, as a lawyer myself, that is not a small number,\" Repenning said. \"Look at what she was making and we are talking about three years of her salary and benefits settled quickly, now seeks reimbursement At the time of the settlement, Soards was NKU's athletic compliance officer, making sure the school adhered to all the rules set forth by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). She started working at the university in 2005, according to her personnel file, also obtained through open records requests. 2/13/25, 11:04 paid former worker $200K to avoid sex lawsuit 2/6 Reporting directly to Eaton, Soards was earning $55,017.96 annually when she left the school. That's 24 percent more than the $44,195.64 Soards earned in 2010, although she received a 13.6 percent boost later in 2010 that was part of a campus-wide pay raise program. Soards declined comment through her attorney Barbara Bonar of Covington, citing the settlement's confidentiality clause. Bonar also declined comment on the case, including when Soards initially threatened a lawsuit against NKU, citing the same confidentiality clause. Bonar also said she had no knowledge of Soards' claim for workers' compensation and that it predated her other legal issues with NKU. \"We did not represent her on that case,\" Bonar said president Geoff Mearns, who approved the final agreement, deferred comment to university spokesman Chris Cole. The settlement was made \"to eliminate any possible distraction or reduction in resources as we investigated the full damage done to the school by Scott Eaton,\" Cole said. The document itself does not list specific issues with the school. Coles declined to say whether Soards was romantically involved with Eaton. \"We have released a lot of information about this case but one thing we have remained consistent on is our commitment to respect the privacy of the other individuals involved, so therefore we will not release their names,\" Cole said. \"This is the only settlement agreement that was made in connection with the investigation of Scott Eaton.\" After Soards' initial contact in early March 2013, Mearns asked the school's board of regents for guidance, Cole and Repenning said. Mearns then approved the final settlement. \"This all happened very quickly ... within a matter of weeks,\" Cole said. He added that the school also was bound by the agreement's confidentialty clause, which he said prohibited from discussing the settlement unless \"bound by law.\" Cole also declined to discuss Soards' workers' compensation case, citing privacy laws, saying only that it was unrelated to the Eaton situation is part of the state public university system, which is funded in part by tuition, student fees and state/federal tax dollars. The school has a budget of about $225 million annually. 2/13/25, 11:04 paid former worker $200K to avoid sex lawsuit 3/6 The school is seeking reimbursement from Eaton as well as its insurance company for both the stolen money and the $200,000 settlement with Soards, Cole said. Like most major public institutions has an indemnity insurance policy to cover lawsuits, settlements and thefts. \"We know that we will recoup some of that settlement from the insurance company, we just don't yet know how much,\" Cole said. Possible violation of open records laws The university initially denied The Enquirer access to any documents surrounding Soards or Eaton two years ago, citing the ongoing investigation at the time. Cole, however, said there is no record of any initial specific requests for settlements associated with the case from 2013 again denied access to the agreement when The Enquirer specifically requested any settlements with Soards or others involved with the case in an October 2014 open records request said the request sought \"forty plus years\" of settlement records, and that it \"places an unreasonable burden\" on the school. The document was produced only after The Enquirer threatened legal action last month to enforce its right to access the public record. \"We acknowledge that there was a misinterpretation of the request and once we realized that the request was more narrow than we originally thought, we produced the document within a week,\" Cole said. The Enquirer's Fort Mitchell-based attorney, Lyn Hils Mathews of the firm Graydon Head, said NKU's initial response violated state open records law, but it was unclear if the settlement agreement had been willfully withheld by NKU. \"We hope that will put systems in place in the future to allow it to make an efficient and good faith search of its records to provide a complete response to a records request the first time around,\" Mathews said. \"Neither The Enquirer nor the public should be forced to obtain legal counsel just to gain access to non-exempt public records.\" Settlement was 'money well spent' Eaton declined visit requests made to him at the Campbell County Detention Center. His actions and the subsequent scandal rocked during Mearns' first year at the school. Repenning said he and other board members wanted to \"move on\" after Eaton was fired for 2/13/25, 11:04 paid former worker $200K to avoid sex lawsuit 4/6 the sexual misconduct. But he credits Mearns for going back and taking a deeper look at the finances of the athletic department. \"We obviously thought it was appropriate to terminate him (Eaton), and we were all ready to turn the page,\" Repenning said. \"We thought there was no way in hell that he was actually ripping us off financially am so glad Geoff went back and did that review and think Geoff's handling of this has been pretty good throughout. \"In hindsight, this (settlement) was still money well spent and would do it again under the same circumstance,\" Repenning said. The school has since fired another employee, dance team coach Jennifer Hilvert, also for using school credit cards. Hilvert racked up nearly $7,000 worth of air travel and was fired in June 2014. She has since paid back $5,300 of the $6,800 taken, and did not refer the case for criminal prosecution. Campbell County commonwealth attorney Michelle Snodgrass asked for a follow-up investigation that could result in criminal charges for Hilvert after reading about the case in The Enquirer. Snodgrass declined comment on the ongoing investigation, now being conducted by the police department. In an interview last month, Mearns declined comment on the Hilvert case, including why he didn't turn the case over to prosecutors, citing the current investigation March 8, 2013 - Chrissy Soards or her attorney approaches administrators, threatening a possible sexual harassment lawsuit in conjunction with the actions of Scott Eaton. March 16, 2013 president Geoff Mearns announces the firing of Eaton for \"ethical violations.\" Those included affairs with employees, including subordinates, as well as at least one adult-aged student. Mearns also immediately launches a financial review of the athletic department. March 18, 2013 - Soards signs a settlement agreement for $200,000. In return, she agrees to not sue the school or help anyone else do so. She also agrees to remain silent on the agreement itself and not speak out against or anyone who works there. March 25, 2013 - Soards resigns from the school. 2/13/25, 11:04 paid former worker $200K to avoid sex lawsuit 5/6 April 1, 2013 - The agreement calls for Soards to receive her settlement. April 23, 2013 announces that Eaton had misappropriated at least $150,000 while serving as athletic director and turns the investigation over to police. Sept. 12, 2013 tells its Board of Regents that Eaton had actually stolen $311,000, primarily by using the school-issued credit card, spending more than $260,000 on Kroger gift cards. He also would buy products through the school's procurement system and then return the items to the store and personally pocket the proceeds. April 17, 2014 - Eaton pleads guilty to theft charges and receives a 10-year prison sentence, which he is currently serving at the Campbell County Detention Center. Oct. 24, 2014 - The Enquirer asks for a copy of any settlement agreements between the school and Soards or others involved with the case. Jan. 30, 2015 releases a copy of the settlement agreement to The Enquirer after threat of legal action. 2/13/25, 11:04 paid former worker $200K to avoid sex lawsuit 6/6", "7468_102.pdf": "\uf39e \uf16d\ue61b\ue07b Thursday, February 13, 2025 Enter Search Term \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f Former Athletic Director Scott Eaton. Breaking News Crime Featured Story News Sports UPDATED: University paid $200,000 to ex-employee related to Scott Eaton case Carrie Crotzer, Managing Editor | February 17, 2015 paid a former employee $200,000 to prevent sexual harassment lawsuits against the university, according to a report from The Enquirer. According to the report, the employee Associate Athletic Director for Compliance Chrissy Soards complained to officials about former Athletic Director Scott Eaton\u2019s behavior in March of 2013. On March 16 Eaton was terminated from the university for ethical violations. Days later Soards signed the $200,000 settlement agreement. Chris Cole, director of marketing and communications, said in a statement to The Northerner the school made the decision to reach the agreement with Soards so that they could focus on the investigation against Eaton. In The Enquirer report, Dennis Repenning, Board of Regents chairman, stated that Soards and her attorney had threatened the university with a sexual harassment lawsuit, which began the initial investigation into Eaton. \u201cThe Enquirer reporter suggested that authorized the settlement in order to keep the Eaton matter secret President Geoffrey Mearns said in an email sent to faculty and staff. \u201cThat theory is counterfactual, given that publicly disclosed the matter within 72 hours of authorizing the settlement with Ms. Soards.\u201d Mearns\u2019 email further explained that the settlement with Soards was reached because after conferring with legal counsel Mearns concluded that Soards had a \u201cpotentially credible claim against the university.\u201d According to Mearns the settlement with Soards is the only agreement the school made in \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f \u00a9 2025 Pro WordPress Theme by \u2022 Log in According to Mearns the settlement with Soards is the only agreement the school made in connection with the Eaton scandal. The university is looking to recover the cost through insurance claims and from Eaton himself. Be sure and follow The Northerner for any further development on the story. Other articles on the Scott Eaton investigation: Investigation on Scott Eaton reveals over $300,000 \u2018misappropriated\u2019 \u201cClosure\u201d to Scott Eaton investigation The Northerner The Independent Student Newspaper of Northern Kentucky University. \uf39e \uf16d \ue61b \ue07b\uf167 Enter Search Term \uf002 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f", "7468_103.pdf": "\uf0e78 weather alerts \uf5492 closings/delays \uf002 \uf26c Watch Now Quick links I-Team Scott Eaton's secrets revealed about embezzlement at Northern Kentucky University was embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars Menu 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 1/11 By: Jason Law Staff Posted 2:51 PM, Oct 27, 2014 and last updated 4:54 PM, Sep 11, 2018 HEIGHTS, Ky. \u2013 While the athletic director was having affairs with his many girlfriends at Northern Kentucky University, he was embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from the school and using the money to give them cash and buy them gifts. Scott Eaton said he gave one of his five girlfriends $2,500 a month in university funds for two years, according to evidence the state used to send him to jail. Eaton, 51, said he stopped when the woman's husband contacted him. Eaton, a husband and a father, paid one lover's tuition during their 13-year \"on and off\" affair, mailed Christmas gifts to her last year and sent her e-mails early this year telling her he still loved her, the woman told a criminal investigator working the case. Eaton told investigators he started that affair in 2000 and two more in 2008. He also said he had affairs in 1998 - the year he was hired at - and 2002. The I-Team examined dozens of documents - including investigators' reports, girlfriends' testimony and a university audit - and discovered what Eaton bought with the money and how he got away with his theft for years. Eaton himself wrote a letter to the I-Team from jail. It's the first time he has communicated publicly outside of court since he pleaded guilty last April. He was fired in March 2013. Eaton's long trail of theft, deceit and betrayal landed him a 10-year prison sentence. For now he is in the Campbell County Detention Center - prisoner number 353556 \u2013 awaiting transfer to a state prison. Once a week his ex-wife Katherine brings their children to the jail to visit him. 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 2/11 In his letter to the I-Team, Eaton says he spends his time tutoring inmates and preparing them for their exams. Although it's only a few miles from NKU, it\u2019s a far cry from where he was just a few years ago, leading the flourishing athletic program into Division I. To NKU's fault, no one was paying attention to how he spent the university's and taxpayers' money. \"It went on for a while because he was able to access the money, he was able to direct the money and he did not have sufficient oversight,\" said Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, whose office put Eaton behind bars. Eaton said he began experiencing \"financial difficulties\" in 2006. He told investigators he realized the university was not keeping track of his spending. At the start of 2007, Eaton began buying Kroger gift cards with his university credit card and using them to buy other store gift cards to make purchases. Sometimes he bought items and returned them for cash. Over the next six-plus years, Eaton used his credit card 183 times to buy Kroger gift cards for his personal use. He started buying them in amounts of $2,125, then raised that to $3,135. By mid-2008, maybe because he started to worry about getting caught, he started spending less on cards - $1,440 was a favorite amount \u2013 but bought them more often. By mid-2009, he was back up to $1,800. By 2011, it was $2,700, then $3,600. He was still buying them in amounts of $3,600 when he got caught in early 2013. By that time, Eaton had bought $262,106 in Kroger gift cards for his personal use, according to an audit. The audit tracked his illegal spending to a 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 3/11 dozen retailers. In all, the university said Eaton embezzled $311,215 for his personal use. (See the chart below). But that wasn't all. Kroger Gift Card Fraud (2007-2013) $262,106 Total minus $41,134 for room and board provided to student athletes via gift cards. Procurement Card Fraud (2007-2013) $32,919 Charges specifically identified as fraudulent by Scott Eaton Printing Facilities Fraud (2005-2013) $16,190 Used to produce stationery, programs and newsletters for Massachusetts Basketball Coaches Assn $311,215 NKU's audit found that Eaton spent another $145,760 for university uses against university policy or without proper authorization. (See the chart below). That had not been disclosed publicly until now. Procurement Card Fraud and Abuse Fraud Abuse Missing Receipts Barnes and Noble $9,168 $17,353 $2,851 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 4/11 Walmart $6,891 $1,434 Kohl's $4,119 $4,657 Sam's $3,665 $1,655 Dick's Sporting Goods $2,375 $2,618 Apple $1,399 Best Buy $1,335 $7,252 Staples $1,311 $22,507 $809 Bursar $1,197 Miscellaneous $681 $6,849 $147 Meijer $367 $1,996 Kroger $316 $3,347 $272 Bookstore $96 $6,362 Baden Sports $18,588 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 5/11 Campus Book And Supply $17,660 $1,823 Bowman's Framing Inc. $9,111 Papa John's $5,094 Kaeser and Blair $4,898 Josten's $2,217 Frame King Moulding $2,175 Fort Thomas Florist $1,471 Target $1,131 $179 Hobby Lobby $790 $179 Toys Us $556 $32,919 $145,760 $6,081 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 6/11 According to NKU, Eaton's \"abuse\" buying included textbooks and clothing for student athletes and grad assistants in violation of university policy. Some of his spending went for sports equipment, printing and office supplies, summer camps, and other athletic department purposes, including picture frames and flowers. But the university said Eaton did not use contracted vendors or provide receipts in some cases. All told, Eaton spent more than $26,000 at Barnes and Noble and more than $8,000 at Kohl's and Best Buy, according to NKU's audit Scott Eaton What did Eaton buy? > At Barnes and Noble, he bought six copies of \"It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown,\" nine CDs of Charlie Brown Christmas,\" four Cinderella CDs, two sets of \"Indiana Jones: The Adventure Collection,\" several copies of \"High School Musical\" and \"Miracle on 49th Street,\" a and various accessories, and dozens more CDs and books, including \"The Confident Woman\" and \"Consider Love: Its Moods and Many Ways\" as well as the self-help title, \"Communicating at Work.\" > At Kohl's, he spent $233.98 on ladies socks and towels, $299.112 on ladies socks, men's knits, misses fitness towels and basic shorts and $600 on basic pants, basic shorts and men's Nike tops. > At Best Buy, a 60-inch TV, a Cingular Go-Phone and minutes, and a Kodak 10-inch digital photo frame. 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 7/11 Eaton's mistresses included at leastfour university employees and one student. Two investigators interviewed one of the women at a McDonald's near campus last January. She said she had been having a sexual relationship with Eaton since 2000. She said she was aware he was married but not that he was having relationships with other women. She said Eaton called her the day that officials confronted him. \"They know about us,\" she said he told her. She said she went to Eaton's office, cleaned out some things and put them in her car. She said she told Eaton not to contact her anymore, but he repeatedly sent her emails and a Christmas present. She said she called him and refused to meet him, but she took his items and put them in his unlocked car parked at Amazon, where he was working after fired him the girlfriend's interview with investigators Conway said the story should be about Eaton's crimes, not his trysts. \"There's some salacious details to this story recognize that,\" Conway said. \"But he is not in jail for being a bad husband. He's in jail for stealing over $311,000 from Northern Kentucky University.\" Eaton turned down WCPO's request for an interview. In his letter he admits much of what happened \"is indefensible\" but he also wrote: 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 8/11 dedicated 15 years of my life to and making it a better place and am sure that there are many who would like to learn 'the rest of the story', but do not think it is a good idea at this point in time, especially for my family showed Eaton's letter to Conway. He wasn't sympathetic. Scott Eaton after pleading guilty \"He appears to say he dedicated more than 15 years of his life to making a better place would say that he really shook the confidence that a lot of people have in NKU,\" Conway said President Geoffrey Mearns said the school has tightened its accounting and reduced the number of workers who carry a university credit card. \"We have done and continue to do all that we can to minimize the risk that anything like this will happen again,\" Mearns said. The earliest Eaton can be released is May 2016. When he does get out of prison, he is required to begin paying back the $311,215 he stole Scott Eaton's interview with investigators 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 9/11 Traffic News Money Sports Entertainment Life Marketplace Support Sitemap Privacy Policy Privacy Center Journalism Ethics Guidelines Corrections Policy Terms of Use Careers Public Files Application Public File Contact Accessibility Statement Scripps Media Trust Center Closed Captioning Contact Scripps Local Media \u00a9 2025 Scripps Media, Inc Give Light and the People Will Find Their Own Way Scott Eaton Letter Back Page 1 page - Greg Noble (WCPO) - Mon Oct 27 2014 Project Scott Eaton letter Scott Eaton Front Page bl ( ) Scott Eaton letter Copyright 2013 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Sign up for the Breaking News Newsletter and receive up to date information. E-mail Submit \uf09a \uf16d \ue61b \ue07b 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 10/11 2/13/25, 11:05 I-Team AD's embezzlement secrets revealed 11/11"} |
7,652 | Eric Buskirk | University of California – Riverside | [
"7652_101.pdf",
"7652_102.pdf"
] | {"7652_101.pdf": "The Wayback Machine - Eric Buskirk Senior associate athletics director for development An Employee & Labor Relations investigation found that Eric Buskirk, while on a staff retreat at Riverside's Big Bear Lake Cabin from Aug. 4-7, 2014, made comments of a sexual nature to his subordinate staff, participated in a discussion of other people's personal sexual histories and touched the breast of \"another member of the campus community.\" Buskirk was also found to have consumed alcohol and allowed his staff to consume alcohol while operating a boat. Buskirk admitted to some of the allegations but said he did not touch anyone's breasts. He resigned after being placed on an unpaid leave of absence. Campus: Riverside Complaint date: Aug. 28, 2014 Questions, comments or corrections? Email [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]). Data and code is open-source on GitHub ( projects). Support innovative, independent student journalism. Donate today. ( Copyright \u00a9 2019 The Daily Californian, The Independent Berkeley Student Publishing Co., Inc. 2/13/25, 11:05 The Daily Californian 1/1", "7652_102.pdf": "By By | | [email protected] [email protected] | Long Beach Press-Telegram, | Long Beach Press-Telegram | | [email protected] [email protected] | Orange County Register and | Orange County Register and | | [email protected] [email protected] | Orange County Register | Orange County Register PUBLISHED: PUBLISHED: March 24, 2017 at 6:11 March 24, 2017 at 6:11 At Irvine, one employee left sex toys in another employee\u2019s work area. At Irvine, one employee left sex toys in another employee\u2019s work area. He was fired. He was fired. At Riverside, a supervisor repeatedly stuck his face into a co-worker\u2019s neck to smell her At Riverside, a supervisor repeatedly stuck his face into a co-worker\u2019s neck to smell her perfume. perfume. He was suspended for two days. He was suspended for two days. At UCLA, a married French professor professed his love to a graduate student and wrote her At UCLA, a married French professor professed his love to a graduate student and wrote her hundreds of poems. hundreds of poems. He resigned, but was granted emeritus status on condition he not teach again. He resigned, but was granted emeritus status on condition he not teach again. These and other reports of sexual harassment at four University of California schools in the Los These and other reports of sexual harassment at four University of California schools in the Los Angeles and San Diego region were included among 113 cases released this month by the Angeles and San Diego region were included among 113 cases released this month by the University of California system. Overall, the documents cover a three-year period, from Jan. 1, University of California system. Overall, the documents cover a three-year period, from Jan. 1, 2013 to April 6, 2016, in which employees in the 10-campus system were found to have violated 2013 to April 6, 2016, in which employees in the 10-campus system were found to have violated the system\u2019s sexual violence and sexual harassment policies for that period. the system\u2019s sexual violence and sexual harassment policies for that period 113 sexual harassment cases reported 113 sexual harassment cases reported in the University of California system in in the University of California system in 3 years 3 years 2/13/25, 11:06 113 sexual harassment cases reported in the University of California system in 3 years \u2013 Daily Bulletin 1/6 The 52 allegations at the Southern California schools ranged from inappropriate sexual The 52 allegations at the Southern California schools ranged from inappropriate sexual innuendos to unwanted touching to sexual assault. innuendos to unwanted touching to sexual assault. Accusers included students and cafeteria workers, subordinates and co-workers; nurses and Accusers included students and cafeteria workers, subordinates and co-workers; nurses and even a child patient. Offenders ranged from custodians to professors to a Irvine dean. even a child patient. Offenders ranged from custodians to professors to a Irvine dean. The documents, gathered through a public records request by the Bay Area News Group and The documents, gathered through a public records request by the Bay Area News Group and other media, offer an unprecedented but limited glimpse at sexual harassment claims and how other media, offer an unprecedented but limited glimpse at sexual harassment claims and how they are investigated in one of the most prestigious university systems in the country. The they are investigated in one of the most prestigious university systems in the country. The heavily redacted paperwork reflects only completed investigations involving University of heavily redacted paperwork reflects only completed investigations involving University of California employees, so open investigations and student-on-student accusations weren\u2019t California employees, so open investigations and student-on-student accusations weren\u2019t included. included. Some critics and observers say punishments meted out in the cases that were made public Some critics and observers say punishments meted out in the cases that were made public reveal power dynamics unique to academia, with rock star faculty \u2014 who bring in money and reveal power dynamics unique to academia, with rock star faculty \u2014 who bring in money and prestige \u2014 receiving different treatment than lower-tier workers. Officials who track prestige \u2014 receiving different treatment than lower-tier workers. Officials who track harassment claims for the system deny that any double-standard exists. harassment claims for the system deny that any double-standard exists. As much as anything, the documents, and interviews with more than a dozen experts, reveal an As much as anything, the documents, and interviews with more than a dozen experts, reveal an evolving approach to investigating complaints. evolving approach to investigating complaints. In 2015, the University of California came under fire after In 2015, the University of California came under fire after high-profile sexual harassment high-profile sexual harassment allegations at Berkeley allegations at Berkeley, including a case involving a law school dean. , including a case involving a law school dean. Since January of last year, the system has beefed up its efforts to prevent, investigate and Since January of last year, the system has beefed up its efforts to prevent, investigate and adjudicate sexual violence and harassment through a new systemwide policy prohibiting sexual adjudicate sexual violence and harassment through a new systemwide policy prohibiting sexual harassment and sexual violence. harassment and sexual violence. Faculty, staff and students within the system now are required to undergo annual sexual Faculty, staff and students within the system now are required to undergo annual sexual harassment prevention training. Support services for victims have been expanded. The harassment prevention training. Support services for victims have been expanded. The system streamlined how it responds to harassment claims, using a team-based approach that system streamlined how it responds to harassment claims, using a team-based approach that includes investigators, a sworn police officer and a Title compliance officer at each school. includes investigators, a sworn police officer and a Title compliance officer at each school. And created a system-wide office to oversee campuses on the issue and assure a And created a system-wide office to oversee campuses on the issue and assure a uniformed approach to how complaints are processed. uniformed approach to how complaints are processed. The system last year set a 60-day deadline to complete investigations. It also now provides both The system last year set a 60-day deadline to complete investigations. It also now provides both sides complainants and the accused of copies of investigation reports, and tells both parties sides complainants and the accused of copies of investigation reports, and tells both parties about any outcome, including discipline. And by this summer, every school will create a peer about any outcome, including discipline. And by this summer, every school will create a peer review committee to advise on cases involving faculty, somewhat similar to another system- review committee to advise on cases involving faculty, somewhat similar to another system- wide peer review committee created last year to review and discipline its most senior staff wide peer review committee created last year to review and discipline its most senior staff members, like a chancellor. members, like a chancellor. \u201cEvery case is significant,\u201d said Claire Doan, a spokeswoman. \u201cWe strive to be fair and to be \u201cEvery case is significant,\u201d said Claire Doan, a spokeswoman. \u201cWe strive to be fair and to be timely and transparent in dealing with these cases, and to impose discipline that matches the timely and transparent in dealing with these cases, and to impose discipline that matches the seriousness of the behavior.\u201d seriousness of the behavior.\u201d The documents don\u2019t show if sexual harassment is or isn\u2019t particularly rampant within The documents don\u2019t show if sexual harassment is or isn\u2019t particularly rampant within University of California system. University of California system. 2/13/25, 11:06 113 sexual harassment cases reported in the University of California system in 3 years \u2013 Daily Bulletin 2/6 More than sex More than sex About 200,000 people work at the ten campuses, making the University of California system About 200,000 people work at the ten campuses, making the University of California system the state\u2019s third biggest employer. Doan, among others, points out that 113 cases in over three the state\u2019s third biggest employer. Doan, among others, points out that 113 cases in over three years probably isn\u2019t out of line with other organizations of similar size. years probably isn\u2019t out of line with other organizations of similar size. But other system officials, as well as lawyers and others who work on harassment claims, say But other system officials, as well as lawyers and others who work on harassment claims, say the documents made public reflect only a sliver of the harassment that actually takes place. the documents made public reflect only a sliver of the harassment that actually takes place. \u201cFor the system) to suggest that \u2018our numbers aren\u2019t that bad\u2019 really illustrates how they are \u201cFor the system) to suggest that \u2018our numbers aren\u2019t that bad\u2019 really illustrates how they are woefully blind or just can\u2019t see what\u2019s in front of them,\u201d said John Kristensen, a Los Angeles woefully blind or just can\u2019t see what\u2019s in front of them,\u201d said John Kristensen, a Los Angeles attorney who represented a Santa Cruz student who said she was raped by a professor who attorney who represented a Santa Cruz student who said she was raped by a professor who took her off campus for wine tasting, got her drunk and assaulted her. took her off campus for wine tasting, got her drunk and assaulted her. Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, a non-profit that advocates for Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, a non-profit that advocates for girls and women, said the number was \u201cextremely high and unacceptable.\u201d girls and women, said the number was \u201cextremely high and unacceptable.\u201d \u201cIf you were a parent sending your child to one of the campuses, would this information matter \u201cIf you were a parent sending your child to one of the campuses, would this information matter to you in entrusting your child to this campus?\u201d Farrell asked. to you in entrusting your child to this campus?\u201d Farrell asked. Attorney Leslie Levy, who represented the executive assistant of former Berkeley Law School Attorney Leslie Levy, who represented the executive assistant of former Berkeley Law School Dean Sujit Choudry in a lawsuit that prompted publicity and his resignation as dean, said sexual Dean Sujit Choudry in a lawsuit that prompted publicity and his resignation as dean, said sexual harassment is grossly under reported at campuses. harassment is grossly under reported at campuses. \u201cThey know damn well they are getting nothing but the tip of the iceberg.\u201d \u201cThey know damn well they are getting nothing but the tip of the iceberg.\u201d Sexual harassment is not just about sex, but about power. And in a university setting, where Sexual harassment is not just about sex, but about power. And in a university setting, where young adults are getting their first footing in life \u2014 and where aspiring academics often move young adults are getting their first footing in life \u2014 and where aspiring academics often move up based on recommendations and reputation \u2014 many argue that students can be particularly up based on recommendations and reputation \u2014 many argue that students can be particularly vulnerable. vulnerable. \u201cThe power dynamic is profound,\u201d said Equal Rights Advocates\u2019 Farrell. \u201cThe power dynamic is profound,\u201d said Equal Rights Advocates\u2019 Farrell. \u201cIn some ways, it is not just extremely harmful in the moment, but it can have consequences on \u201cIn some ways, it is not just extremely harmful in the moment, but it can have consequences on someone\u2019s life.\u201d someone\u2019s life university also offers ample opportunity for bad actors university also offers ample opportunity for bad actors. In one investigation, an academic adviser at Irvine admitted to campus investigators that he In one investigation, an academic adviser at Irvine admitted to campus investigators that he asked students to show, photograph and describe their penis and kept a list of students with asked students to show, photograph and describe their penis and kept a list of students with whom he had compared penis sizes. The adviser \u2014 whose job was to \u201ccounsel students about whom he had compared penis sizes. The adviser \u2014 whose job was to \u201ccounsel students about school and help them choose appropriate courses\u201d \u2014 is believed to have involved at least 39 school and help them choose appropriate courses\u201d \u2014 is believed to have involved at least 39 students, according to the documents. students, according to the documents. Though the documents don\u2019t show if that case sparked a criminal investigation, it\u2019s policy to Though the documents don\u2019t show if that case sparked a criminal investigation, it\u2019s policy to have a sworn police officer review every claim. But in many cases, it\u2019s up to individuals to have a sworn police officer review every claim. But in many cases, it\u2019s up to individuals to pursue prosecution. pursue prosecution. \u201cWe don\u2019t make that report on behalf of the victim,\u201d said Kathleen Salvaty, UC\u2019s Title \u201cWe don\u2019t make that report on behalf of the victim,\u201d said Kathleen Salvaty, UC\u2019s Title Coordinator. \u201cIt\u2019s their choice.\u201d Coordinator. \u201cIt\u2019s their choice.\u201d 2/13/25, 11:06 113 sexual harassment cases reported in the University of California system in 3 years \u2013 Daily Bulletin 3/6 Stubborn problem Stubborn problem The counselor in the Irvine case, Andrew Simmons, resigned before complaints against him The counselor in the Irvine case, Andrew Simmons, resigned before complaints against him were concluded, according to documents. He could not be reached for comment. were concluded, according to documents. He could not be reached for comment. Sexual harassment can sometimes cost the university a lot of money. Sexual harassment can sometimes cost the university a lot of money. In the Santa Cruz rape accusation, attorney Kristensen said his client recently accepted a In the Santa Cruz rape accusation, attorney Kristensen said his client recently accepted a $1.15 million settlement. It\u2019s unclear how much the system has spent \u2014 if anything \u2014 to settle $1.15 million settlement. It\u2019s unclear how much the system has spent \u2014 if anything \u2014 to settle other accusations, but documents show the system is spending more on sexual harassment. other accusations, but documents show the system is spending more on sexual harassment. As part of Title \u2014 the federal anti-discrimination law that\u2019s better known for mandating As part of Title \u2014 the federal anti-discrimination law that\u2019s better known for mandating gender equality in athletics, but which also applies to harassment claims \u2014 the system has gender equality in athletics, but which also applies to harassment claims \u2014 the system has hired Salvaty and investigators. In the 2013-14 school year, the system\u2019s Title spending on hired Salvaty and investigators. In the 2013-14 school year, the system\u2019s Title spending on sexual harassment was $67,327. That jumped to $342,000 the next year and, this year, it\u2019s sexual harassment was $67,327. That jumped to $342,000 the next year and, this year, it\u2019s expected to reach $1.6 million. That doesn\u2019t include spending on related efforts in student expected to reach $1.6 million. That doesn\u2019t include spending on related efforts in student affairs and other departments, or what individual universities spend to prevent or track affairs and other departments, or what individual universities spend to prevent or track harassment spokeswoman Doan said. At UCLA, for example, the number of investigators harassment spokeswoman Doan said. At UCLA, for example, the number of investigators has been bumped from two to seven. has been bumped from two to seven. Still, some critics say it\u2019s not enough. Still, some critics say it\u2019s not enough. Irene Morrison, a Riverside doctoral candidate and past southern vice president of the Irene Morrison, a Riverside doctoral candidate and past southern vice president of the student\u2019s union, which falls under the United Auto Workers and represents 16,000 student student\u2019s union, which falls under the United Auto Workers and represents 16,000 student workers across the system, questioned the sincerity of the system\u2019s push against workers across the system, questioned the sincerity of the system\u2019s push against harassment. harassment. \u201cThese efforts are geared toward reducing the university\u2019s legal liability.\u201d \u201cThese efforts are geared toward reducing the university\u2019s legal liability.\u201d Harassment and assault on campus have gained a lot of media attention in recent years, but Harassment and assault on campus have gained a lot of media attention in recent years, but the problem isn\u2019t going away. the problem isn\u2019t going away 2015 survey by the American Association of Universities found 48 percent of students, male 2015 survey by the American Association of Universities found 48 percent of students, male and female, indicated that they have been victims of some form of sexual harassment. More and female, indicated that they have been victims of some form of sexual harassment. More than 60 percent of female undergraduates reported being harassed, with the most common than 60 percent of female undergraduates reported being harassed, with the most common behavior being inappropriate comments about their body, appearance or sexual behavior, behavior being inappropriate comments about their body, appearance or sexual behavior, followed by sexual remarks, or insulting or offensive jokes. followed by sexual remarks, or insulting or offensive jokes. Overall, more than 91 percent of perpetrators were other students, while 9 percent were Overall, more than 91 percent of perpetrators were other students, while 9 percent were identified as faculty, according to the survey. Graduate students were more likely to report identified as faculty, according to the survey. Graduate students were more likely to report harassment by a faculty member, the survey found. harassment by a faculty member, the survey found. Some argue the punishments aren\u2019t severe enough. Some argue the punishments aren\u2019t severe enough. At UCI, one staff member filed 26 allegations against Joseph Lewis, the former dean of the At UCI, one staff member filed 26 allegations against Joseph Lewis, the former dean of the Claire Trevor School of the Arts. Claire Trevor School of the Arts. The staff member \u2014 who the Register is not identifying because she is a victim in a sexual The staff member \u2014 who the Register is not identifying because she is a victim in a sexual harassment case \u2014 said Lewis gave her unwelcome sexual attention, pressured her to go to harassment case \u2014 said Lewis gave her unwelcome sexual attention, pressured her to go to lunch and commanded her to \u201cget up, turn around\u201d so he could look at her body. lunch and commanded her to \u201cget up, turn around\u201d so he could look at her body. 2/13/25, 11:06 113 sexual harassment cases reported in the University of California system in 3 years \u2013 Daily Bulletin 4/6 \ue905 \ue905 In one instance, according to the documents, the woman said Lewis \u201cdrew his initials on (her) In one instance, according to the documents, the woman said Lewis \u201cdrew his initials on (her) neck with his finger,\u201d and when she asked what he was doing he said \u2018branding you.\u2019 She later neck with his finger,\u201d and when she asked what he was doing he said \u2018branding you.\u2019 She later said his actions became \u201ca pattern of behavior,\u201d and that she changed her work life \u2014 and even said his actions became \u201ca pattern of behavior,\u201d and that she changed her work life \u2014 and even the way she dressed \u2014 to avoid him. the way she dressed \u2014 to avoid him. Lewis did not reply to e-mail requests for comment. But in UC\u2019s investigation, he denied most of Lewis did not reply to e-mail requests for comment. But in UC\u2019s investigation, he denied most of the allegations and offered a different view or explanation on others. Lewis told investigators the allegations and offered a different view or explanation on others. Lewis told investigators that the woman who filed the claim did it to distract attention from verbal counseling he had that the woman who filed the claim did it to distract attention from verbal counseling he had given her. given her. Lewis was demoted from his role as dean, but remains employed as a professor. State records Lewis was demoted from his role as dean, but remains employed as a professor. State records show that Lewis earned $238,000 in 2014, the same year he was disciplined. In 2015, the most show that Lewis earned $238,000 in 2014, the same year he was disciplined. In 2015, the most recent year available, his pay was cut to $205,000, records show. recent year available, his pay was cut to $205,000, records show. Last year, the Board of Regents voted to fire a tenured instructor Riverside Professor Last year, the Board of Regents voted to fire a tenured instructor Riverside Professor Robert Latham \u2014 after he was accused of making inappropriate sexual remarks as well as Robert Latham \u2014 after he was accused of making inappropriate sexual remarks as well as kissing and touching students without consent. Latham argued that his remarks and actions kissing and touching students without consent. Latham argued that his remarks and actions were misinterpreted, but was unable to convince the regents. were misinterpreted, but was unable to convince the regents. Eric Buskirk was let go by the university after an August 2014 staff retreat to Big Bear Lake that Eric Buskirk was let go by the university after an August 2014 staff retreat to Big Bear Lake that included a boat outing where those on board were drinking and engaging in sexual repartee. included a boat outing where those on board were drinking and engaging in sexual repartee. Buskirk was also accused of touching the breast of one of his bikini-clad co-workers. Buskirk was also accused of touching the breast of one of his bikini-clad co-workers. In another incident, Martina Villalba, a food services administrator, was accused of verbal In another incident, Martina Villalba, a food services administrator, was accused of verbal sexual harassment and trying to kiss one of her subordinates. She was fired. sexual harassment and trying to kiss one of her subordinates. She was fired. James Grant, a spokesman for Riverside argues that actions taken in the eight incidents James Grant, a spokesman for Riverside argues that actions taken in the eight incidents reported by his school \u2014 seven of which resulted in employee terminations \u2014 shows the reported by his school \u2014 seven of which resulted in employee terminations \u2014 shows the system is working. system is working. \u201cIf you look at the entire system, our campus included, we have been enhancing resources,\u201d \u201cIf you look at the entire system, our campus included, we have been enhancing resources,\u201d he said. he said. Farrell, of the Equal Rights Advocates, said the system \u201chas been vocal about wanting to Farrell, of the Equal Rights Advocates, said the system \u201chas been vocal about wanting to embrace change.\u201d embrace change.\u201d Salvaty, who runs the new statewide Title office, said she\u2019d welcome something that Salvaty, who runs the new statewide Title office, said she\u2019d welcome something that might be counter-intuitive: more complaints. She said more claims would signal that the new might be counter-intuitive: more complaints. She said more claims would signal that the new policy is working and more people feel comfortable reporting sexual harassment and sexual policy is working and more people feel comfortable reporting sexual harassment and sexual violence. violence. \u201cAt the outset, you\u2019re actually looking for more people to report, so you can address the \u201cAt the outset, you\u2019re actually looking for more people to report, so you can address the behavior,\u201d Salvaty said. behavior,\u201d Salvaty said. \u201cThe ultimate goal is to change the culture.\u201d \u201cThe ultimate goal is to change the culture.\u201d Staff writer Mark Muckenfuss contributed to this report. Staff writer Mark Muckenfuss contributed to this report. 2/13/25, 11:06 113 sexual harassment cases reported in the University of California system in 3 years \u2013 Daily Bulletin 5/6 2017 2017 \ue907 \ue907March March \ue907 \ue90724 24 2/13/25, 11:06 113 sexual harassment cases reported in the University of California system in 3 years \u2013 Daily Bulletin 6/6"} |
7,673 | Alan Tansman | University of California – Berkeley | [
"7673_101.pdf",
"7673_102.pdf",
"7673_103.pdf",
"7673_104.pdf",
"7673_105.pdf",
"7673_106.pdf",
"7673_107.pdf",
"7673_108.pdf"
] | {"7673_101.pdf": "Trending: Street race tragedy | Farallon Islands | State Farm denied | Dam removal impersonators By Nanette Asimov, Higher Education Reporter Updated May 22, 2018 6:00 a.m. Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags Students pass in front of the Campanile Tower on the Cal campus in Berkeley Wednesday, February 11, 2016. Subscribe Sign in 2/16/25, 8:11 Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags 1/10 Report finds past harassment by professor, but\u2026 0:00 6:34 1x Everlit If the Berkeley doctoral student expected the university to investigate her claim that a professor sexually harassed her for years \u2014 coming on to her, telling her his sexual preferences, describing a violent sex fantasy about a colleague \u2014 she would have to write a detailed report on all that happened and persuade each witness to come forward herself. That was in 2009. The student got therapy instead was devastated,\u201d recalled the woman, who is now a tenured professor at another university and spoke on condition of anonymity. Having the university investigate her claim \u201cwould require a Herculean effort on my part, and the risks\u201d \u2014 exposure and retaliation within her field \u2014 \u201cwould almost singularly fall on me.\u201d Now, she and other women who say they were sexually harassed by Berkeley professors years ago are demanding belated justice. Inspired by the #MeToo movement and an earlier wave of campus activism that forced the university to make it easier for victims to report predator professors, alumnae and others are coming forward to file complaints with the university. The students may be long gone, or may never have attended Berkeley. But they want the university to investigate professors who are still teaching and advising. Michael Short / Special to the Chronicle 2016 2/16/25, 8:11 Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags 2/10 And the campus is complying. It recently concluded the investigation into the former doctoral student\u2019s case and is looking into at least two others. \u201cThere is no time limit\u201d for coming forward, said Janet Gilmore, a Berkeley spokeswoman. More than 1,000 people have complained about sexual violence or harassment at Berkeley since 2014. Gilmore said the campus doesn\u2019t track whether the complaints come from alumnae. Anecdotally, however, \u201cit does seem that the campus has been receiving more accounts from former students regarding incidents that occurred years ago,\u201d Gilmore said. Last spring, the former doctoral student filed a complaint against the professor who had been her adviser and co-chair of her dissertation committee, who is still at Berkeley. In February, a investigator found that he had sexually harassed his student over several years. She had been a doctoral student from 2003 to 2007, and a postdoctoral fellow from 2008 to 2009. 2/16/25, 8:11 Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags 3/10 The Chronicle obtained a copy of the investigative report, which identifies no one by name. But the former student confirmed that the professor is Alan Tansman in the department of East Asian Languages and Cultures. Messages for Tansman were returned by his lawyer, who confirmed that he was the subject of the report. Alan Tansman Screen Grab Berkeley 2/16/25, 8:11 Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags 4/10 In her 99-page report, investigator Suzanne Taylor called the professor \u201cwell- known and highly respected in his field.\u201d She said his behavior was \u201csufficiently severe and pervasive that it created a hostile environment and interfered with (the student\u2019s) work.\u201d Taylor interviewed 38 witnesses, including five women \u2014 former or current students and a former research assistant \u2014 who said the professor also sexually harassed them or flirted repeatedly. Taylor found that he had \u201cmade sexual overtures\u201d to the student, calling her sexy and propositioning her. In some of the professor\u2019s more \u201cominous comments,\u201d Taylor wrote, he told the student he fantasized about having violent sex with a colleague he didn\u2019t like, and said he regretted not having sex with a previous student who was emotionally disturbed. Students found it hard to object to the professor\u2019s behavior, Taylor wrote, because he \u201cwas in a position of influence.\u201d Taylor concluded that the professor had a \u201chistory of projecting feelings of attraction to his graduate students\u201d and \u201cacting on that attraction.\u201d Tansman\u2019s lawyer, Andre Miltenberg, told The Chronicle: \u201cIt is unfortunate that this confidential report \u2014 which is not yet in final form and is based on 15-year-old allegations \u2014 was leaked.\u201d \u201cLike all Americans, Professor Tansman is entitled to due process,\u201d Miltenberg said. The University of California considers such reports confidential until the disciplinary process has concluded, said Claire Doan, a spokeswoman for the 2/16/25, 8:11 Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags 5/10 president\u2019s office. Miltenberg added: \u201cAs this matter is not concluded, we trust that this improper leak will not deprive Professor Tansman of his rights, including those in accordance with Berkeley\u2019s policies and procedures.\u201d Ultimately, tenured faculty have the right to a confidential hearing before their peers on the Privilege and Tenure committee of the Faculty Senate. The process is an appeals court of sorts, and the panel can recommend a range of consequences, including recommending that the regents fire their colleague. Although people filing complaints have seen a transformation in the system for reporting misconduct and in how investigations are conducted, there has been little apparent change in what happens after tenured faculty are found to break the rules. In June, the California state auditor will issue a detailed study of how handles sexual harassment cases involving faculty and staff. At Berkeley, campus officials would not discuss the Tansman case. But Sharon Inkelas, the chancellor\u2019s faculty adviser on sexual misconduct, described the options for tenured professors who sexually harass others in a recent opinion piece in the Daily Californian student newspaper. More By Nanette Asimov Survivor of Cambodian killing fields now a Berkeley graduate 2/16/25, 8:11 Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags 6/10 Berkeley researchers\u2019 errors resulted in deaths of 22 lab animals State audit finds colleges did not accurately disclose campus-area crimes In such cases, she wrote, campus officials decide between a legal settlement with the professor or disciplinary charges. These might include a warning letter, salary reduction, suspension, demotion, changes to emeritus status or, in extremely rare cases, dismissal. In the 150-year history of the system, the regents have fired just eight tenured professors. If there is no settlement, the professor can have a hearing before the faculty Committee on Privilege and Tenure. Deliberation time \u201ccan take many months from start to finish,\u201d Inkelas wrote. In 2016 began requiring nearly every employee to report all harassment cases to the campus Title office, named for the federal law that prohibits gender discrimination at schools that get federal funding. Changes in reporting sexual harassment also included better communication about the status of the investigation and its outcome, said Gilmore, the campus spokeswoman. She said Berkeley also has hired more counselors, improved staff training and added a website, to explain how things work. Denise Oldham, director of Berkeley\u2019s Title office, declined to be interviewed. 2/16/25, 8:11 Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags 7/10 May 21, 2018 | Updated May 22, 2018 6:00 a.m. Nanette Asimov Nanette covers California's public universities - the University of California and California State University - as well as community colleges and private universities. She's written about sexual misconduct at and Stanford, the precarious state of accreditation at City College of San Francisco, and what happens when the Berkeley student government discovers a gay rights opponent in its midst. She has exposed a private art college where students rack up massive levels of debt (one student's topped $400k), and covered audits peering into finances, education lawsuits and countless student protests. But writing about higher education also means getting a look at the brainy creations of students and faculty: Robotic suits that help paralyzed people walk. Online collections of folk songs going back hundreds of years. And innovations touching on everything from virtual reality to baseball. Nanette is also covering the COVID-19 pandemic and served as health editor during the first six months of the crisis, which quickly ended her brief tenure as interim investigations editor. Previously, Nanette covered K-12 education. Her stories led to changes in charter school laws, prompted a ban on Scientology in California public schools, and exposed cheating and censorship in testing past president of the Society of Professional Journalists' Northern California chapter, Nanette has a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University and a B.A. in sociology from Queens College. She speaks English and Spanish. Nanette Asimov is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @NanetteAsimov Top Of The News 2/16/25, 8:11 Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags 8/10 Yosemite halts camping reservations, with no timetable for their return The announcement comes amid a staffing shortage during a federal hiring freeze and an indefinite delay on Yosemite National Park\u2019s entrance reservation system Retail theft keeps rising in the Bay Area. Now is helping some owners stop thieves Trump hasn\u2019t targeted these tax rebates \u2014 yet. What to know for your return this year How seriously should homebuyers take Zillow\u2019s climate risk data? Here\u2019s what experts say 2/16/25, 8:11 Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags 9/10 $15 wine tastings? California wineries desperate for visitors are rolling out deals Let's Play Cross|word Flipart Really Bad Chess SpellTower About Contact Services Account \u00a9 2025 Hearst Communications, Inc. Terms of Use Privacy Notice Notice at Collection Your Privacy Rights (Shine the Light Industry Opt Out Your Privacy Choices (Opt Out of Sale/Targeted Ads) Top 2/16/25, 8:11 Report finds past harassment by professor, but punishment lags 10/10", "7673_102.pdf": "Trending: Street race tragedy | Farallon Islands | State Farm denied | Dam removal impersonators By Nanette Asimov, Higher Education Reporter Updated Feb 19, 2019 6:47 p.m Berkeley suspends prominent professor accused of sexual harassment Professor Alan Tansman denies the charges. Subscribe Sign in 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends prominent professor accused of sexual harassment 1/8 Berkeley suspends prominent professor accused of\u2026 0:00 5:45 1x Everlit Berkeley has suspended a prominent professor in the department of East Asian languages and cultures after finding in 2018 that he sexually harassed a student, told her his sexual preferences, described sex fantasies and created a hostile work environment for her, The Chronicle has learned. Alan Tansman, a tenured professor who is well known in his field and has written or edited books on Japanese literature and culture, agreed to disciplinary measures on Nov. 20 that were described to his former student in a letter from Berkeley Vice Provost Ben Hermalin. It said, in part, that \u201cTansman will be suspended from his normal duties as a Berkeley faculty member for a two-year period.\u201d One year is to be unpaid, and the other partially paid. The letter, obtained by The Chronicle, says Tansman\u2019s unpaid suspension \u201crepresents a significant loss of income of over $190,000, in addition to a loss of all benefits, including service credit toward his retirement,\u201d while in the second year, \u201cProfessor Tansman agrees to forfeit all his sabbatical credits.\u201d What the letter doesn\u2019t say is that Tansman has been granted a paid sabbatical for the second year, a perk that professors with seniority apply for in order to focus on research while free of the daily obligations of campus life. His former student was appalled Berkeley 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends prominent professor accused of sexual harassment 2/8 \u201cHe was able to broker a devil\u2019s deal,\u201d said the woman. \u201cIt\u2019s an affront to anyone who reports sexual harassment.\u201d The woman\u2019s allegations against Tansman were upheld in February 2018, in a confidential report obtained by The Chronicle campus investigator interviewed 38 witnesses, five of whom said Tansman had sexually harassed or flirted repeatedly with them. Neither Tansman nor his lawyers responded to requests for comment. However, in its arrangement with Tansman Berkeley agreed to make available a public statement that preserved his anonymity, and to include his denial. The statement, released to The Chronicle, said that over two years a professor engaged \u201cin unwelcomed verbal conduct of a sexual nature that was found to be sufficiently severe that it created a hostile environment and interfered with a complainant\u2019s study and work.\u201d The statement added that the professor \u201cdenied, and continues to deny, the allegations.\u201d Also as part of the agreement, Tansman lost his endowed chair \u2014 an honor with financial support for research \u2014 and may not participate in department activities or access his office until July 1, 2020, according to the letter to his former student. He is barred from serving on new graduate student committees until June 30, 2022. But current students may continue working with him if they choose, although it\u2019s unclear whether they will be told about Tansman\u2019s situation. The professor\u2019s former student said the terms of the agreement raise questions about Berkeley\u2019s commitment to reversing years of tolerance toward professors who sexually harass students and colleagues, a practice that many students and employees believed would end when Chancellor Carol Christ took the helm in 2017. 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends prominent professor accused of sexual harassment 3/8 \u201cThis is a closed-room deal between two men,\u201d the former student said. \u201cSomeone with a long pattern of sexual harassment should have been fired.\u201d Campus officials said Christ was aware of the agreement. They declined to comment on the Tansman case beyond their prepared statement. The Chronicle first reported the story about Tansman in May as part of an article about women who said they were harassed years ago by Berkeley professors still employed by the university. Now they were seeking delayed justice and asking the university to investigate their complaints. In Tansman\u2019s case, the student who complained had been his doctoral student from 2003 to 2007, and a postdoctoral fellow in 2008 and 2009. She tried to report the professor\u2019s behavior in 2009, but was told she would have to find and persuade each witness to come forward, and write a detailed report on all that happened. She gave up. In 2017, inspired by the #MeToo movement and an earlier wave of campus activism that forced the university to make it easier for victims to report predator professors, she filed a second report. This one prompted the investigation. After interviewing dozens of witnesses, investigator Suzanne Taylor concluded that Tansman \u201cmade sexual overtures\u201d to the student between 2007 and 2009, called her sexy and propositioned her. He told her he fantasized about having violent sex with a colleague, and said he regretted not having sex with a previous student. Because the professor held a \u201cposition of influence,\u201d Taylor wrote, it was difficult for students to object to his behavior. She determined that the professor had a \u201chistory of projecting feelings of attraction to his graduate students\u201d and \u201cacting on that attraction.\u201d 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends prominent professor accused of sexual harassment 4/8 Feb 19, 2019 | Updated Feb 19, 2019 6:47 p.m. Nanette Asimov Nanette covers California's public universities - the University of California and California State University - as well as community colleges and private universities. She's written about sexual misconduct at and Stanford, the precarious state of accreditation at City College of San Francisco, and what happens when the Berkeley student government discovers a gay rights opponent in its midst. She has exposed a private art college where students rack up massive levels of debt (one student's topped $400k), and covered audits peering into finances, education lawsuits and countless student protests. But writing about higher education also means getting a look at the brainy creations of students and faculty: Robotic suits that help paralyzed people walk. Online collections of folk songs going back hundreds of years. And innovations touching on everything from virtual reality to baseball. In June, four months after Taylor issued her report, the California state auditor issued a report broadly critical of the University of California\u2019s response to sexual harassment complaints. Among the concerns singled out in the audit was the length of time it takes to discipline faculty who sexually harassed students or colleagues. The audit reviewed 23 cases at Berkeley Davis and UCLA, and found that it took an average of 43 days to discipline staff after an investigation. But for faculty, the average time was 220 days. Tansman\u2019s agreement was finalized in November, 265 days after Taylor issued her report. The office of University of California President Janet Napolitano is revising its rules to reduce the time to impose discipline, said spokeswoman Claire Doan, as is the systemwide Academic Senate composed of professors. Nanette Asimov is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @NanetteAsimov 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends prominent professor accused of sexual harassment 5/8 Nanette is also covering the COVID-19 pandemic and served as health editor during the first six months of the crisis, which quickly ended her brief tenure as interim investigations editor. Previously, Nanette covered K-12 education. Her stories led to changes in charter school laws, prompted a ban on Scientology in California public schools, and exposed cheating and censorship in testing past president of the Society of Professional Journalists' Northern California chapter, Nanette has a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University and a B.A. in sociology from Queens College. She speaks English and Spanish. Top Of The News Yosemite halts camping reservations, with no timetable for their return The announcement comes amid a staffing shortage during a federal hiring freeze and an indefinite delay on Yosemite National Park\u2019s entrance reservation system 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends prominent professor accused of sexual harassment 6/8 Retail theft keeps rising in the Bay Area. Now is helping some owners stop thieves Trump hasn\u2019t targeted these tax rebates \u2014 yet. What to know for your return this year How seriously should homebuyers take Zillow\u2019s climate risk data? Here\u2019s what experts say $15 wine tastings? California wineries desperate for visitors are rolling out deals Let's Play Cross|word Flipart Really Bad Chess SpellTower About Contact Services Account \u00a9 2025 Hearst Communications, Inc. Terms of Use Privacy Notice Notice at Collection Top 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends prominent professor accused of sexual harassment 7/8 Your Privacy Rights (Shine the Light Industry Opt Out Your Privacy Choices (Opt Out of Sale/Targeted Ads) 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends prominent professor accused of sexual harassment 8/8", "7673_103.pdf": "BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) \u2014 The University of California, Berkeley has suspended a tenured East Asian languages and cultures department professor cultures after finding last year that he sexually harassed a female doctoral candidate and created a hostile work environment. Professor Alan Tansman agreed on Nov. 20 to a two-year suspension with one year unpaid and the other partially paid, according to a letter sent to the former student obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle and detailed in a story published Wednesday. The letter said the unpaid suspension of Tansman, a specialist in modern Japanese literature and culture, \u201crepresents a significant loss of income of over $190,000, in addition to a loss of all benefits, including service credit toward his retirement Berkeley declined to provide the letter to The Associated Press, saying personnel matters are confidential. In a statement Wednesday about the suspension that omitted the professor\u2019s name, the university said it concluded that between 2007 and 2009 a professor in the Arts and Humanities Division engaged in \u201cunwelcomed verbal conduct of a sexual nature that was found to be sufficiently severe that it created a hostile environment and interfered with a complainant\u2019s study and work.\u201d It added that that the university and the professor agreed in a settlement on the suspension and \u201ctwo-year limited access to the University of California.\u201d \u201cAt all times, the Professor denied, and continues to deny, the allegations and maintains that he did not engage in conduct that violated the Policy or the Faculty Code of Conduct,\u201d the university statement said Berkeley suspends professor accused of sexual harassment Published 1:24 CST, February 20, 2019 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends professor accused of sexual harassment News 1/3 Tansman did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Also as part of the agreement, Tansman lost his endowed chair and may not participate in department activities or access his office until July 1, 2020. He is also prohibited from serving on new graduate student committees until June 30, 2022, according to the letter to his former student. The professor\u2019s former student told the newspaper that the terms of the agreement appalled her and that Tansman should have been fired. \u201cHe was able to broker a devil\u2019s deal,\u201d said the woman. \u201cIt\u2019s an affront to anyone who reports sexual harassment.\u201d She told the Chronicle she tried to report Tansman\u2019s behavior in 2009 but was told she would have to find witnesses to come forward and write a detailed report. In 2017, she filed a second report after being inspired by the #MeToo movement and a new process to file complaints about sexual harassment. It prompted the investigation. The newspaper and the statement from the university did not name the woman, who the Chronicle reported is now a tenured professor at another university. The Associated Press typically does not name alleged victims of sexual harassment. ___ Information from: San Francisco Chronicle, 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends professor accused of sexual harassment News 2/3 Isolated Indigenous man returns to tribe in the Amazon rainforest after brief contact will lay off thousands of probationary workers in the middle of tax season lists companies that dump in its tactical spending guide for Black Americans Trump moves with dizzying speed on his to-do list. But there are warning signs in his first month New York police find body of missing man they say was tortured for more than a month by 5 people 1 2 3 4 5 2/16/25, 8:11 Berkeley suspends professor accused of sexual harassment News 3/3", "7673_104.pdf": "800-610-9646 | 800-610-9646 a a 1 Hi live, real person is available 24/7 at no obligation. Live Chat is secure, free and easy. Start whenever you are ready. Start Chat 2/16/25, 8:12 Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment \u2013 Makarem Law | Makarem & Associates 1/9 Here To Help Clients To Better Future Home \u00bb Articles \u00bb Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment 1 Hi live, real person is available 24/7 at no obligation. Live Chat is secure, free and easy. Start whenever you are ready. Start Chat 2/16/25, 8:12 Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment \u2013 Makarem Law | Makarem & Associates 2/9 prominent professor in the department of East Asian languages and cultures has been suspended by Berkeley after it was found that he sexually harassed a student in 2018. Allegations of Sexual Harassment According to The Chronicle, the accused, Alan Tansman, sexually harassed her and told her about his sexual preferences, described his sexual fantasies which created a hostile work environment for her. Tansman is a tenured professor in his field and has written numerous books on Japanese literature and culture. These allegations against the professor were supported in a confidential report in February of 2018. Thirty-eight witnesses were interviewed by a campus investigator, out of which 5 said that the professor had either flirted or sexually harassed them repeatedly. Tansman and his lawyers have not publicly responded, but Berkeley has issued a public statement without disclosing the professor\u2019s identity. The statement which was published by The Chronicle, states that \u201ca professor\u201d was involved in unwelcomed verbal conduct of sexual nature for over two years. Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment On Behalf of Makarem & Associates | Feb 25, 2019 | Articles 1 Hi live, real person is available 24/7 at no obligation. Live Chat is secure, free and easy. Start whenever you are ready. Start Chat 2/16/25, 8:12 Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment \u2013 Makarem Law | Makarem & Associates 3/9 It also said that the professor denies these allegations. Suspension by Berkeley As a part of an agreement with Berkeley, the professor lost his endowed chair and may not be allowed to access his office until the 1st of July 2020. In addition, he may not participate in department activities and is barred from serving on new graduate student committees until the 20th of June 2022. The victim, who was Tansman\u2019s former student, said that Berkeley\u2019s commitment toward sexually harassed students seems highly questionable in the light of their agreement. She said that someone like Tansman, who has been sexually harassing his students for such a long period of time, should have been fired immediately. This story was first reported in May in the media as part of an article about women who reported they were sexually harassed years ago by the still-on- campus professors of Berkeley. Now, these women are requesting the university to look into their complaints and seek delayed justice. #MeToo Movement is the Catalyst the University \u2018Needed\u2019 The student who complained about Tansman was his doctoral student from 2003 to 2007, and a postdoctoral fellow in \u201908-\u201909. She says that she tried to report his inappropriate behavior in 2009, but was told she will have to locate and convince every witness to come forward as well and write a detailed account of the incident. Then in 2017, when the #MeToo movement heartened the campus activism, the university was forced to take action so that the victims of sexual harassment by professors will come forward. This encouraged her to file a second report which ultimately started the investigation. Campus investigator Suzanne Taylor interviewed dozens of witnesses and concluded that Tansman made unwelcomed sexual advances to the student between 2007 and 2009 1 Hi live, real person is available 24/7 at no obligation. Live Chat is secure, free and easy. Start whenever you are ready. Start Chat 2/16/25, 8:12 Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment \u2013 Makarem Law | Makarem & Associates 4/9 Taylor also reported that the professor called the student \u201csexy\u201d, propositioned her, and told her he fantasized about having sex with an associate. He also said that he regretted not having sex with a former student. Taylor wrote in her report that since Tansman was an influential person, students found it difficult to object to his behavior. The University\u2019s Slow Response to Complaints of Sexual Harassment Four months after Taylor provided her report, the California state auditor issued a report in June, criticizing the university\u2019s response to sexual harassment complaints total of 23 cases were audited at Berkeley, UCLA, and Davis. It was found that the university takes an average of 43 days to take disciplinary action against staff after an investigation. However, when it comes to faculty, it takes 220 days on average. According to Claire Doan, the spokeswoman for the University of California President, they are revising the rules in order to reduce the time it takes to impose discipline. Consult with a Competent Sexual Assault Attorney in California If you or one of your loved ones have been subjected to sexual harassment in any form (whether now or in the past), you should contact the skilled and experienced sexual harassment attorneys at Makarem & Associates in California. To schedule an appointment, call800-610-9646 or email us at [email protected] today! Recent Posts Your California employer cannot fire you for these reasons Search \u2026 Search 1 Hi live, real person is available 24/7 at no obligation. Live Chat is secure, free and easy. Start whenever you are ready. Start Chat 2/16/25, 8:12 Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment \u2013 Makarem Law | Makarem & Associates 5/9 Case Study | Nightshift Cashier Sexually Harassed by Employee Case Study | California Workplace Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Case Study | Restaurant Workplace Sexual Harassment and Exploitation Case Study | Empowering Justice: a store worker\u2019s Sexual Harassment Case Against her Supervisor Archives Select Month Categories Articles Discrimination Employment Law Employment Litigation Firm News Landlord Tenant Legal Malpractice Pregnancy Litigation Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment sexual harassment in the workplace Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation witness to sexual harassment Workers' Compensation 1 Hi live, real person is available 24/7 at no obligation. Live Chat is secure, free and easy. Start whenever you are ready. Start Chat 2/16/25, 8:12 Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment \u2013 Makarem Law | Makarem & Associates 6/9 wrongful termination Feed Subscribe To This Blog\u2019s Feed Empower Us To Empower You Contact Makarem & Associates today if you have a legal question or concern, especially regarding sexual harassment, legal malpractice, wage and hour, consumer or employment law. Loading Form 1 Hi live, real person is available 24/7 at no obligation. Live Chat is secure, free and easy. Start whenever you are ready. Start Chat 2/16/25, 8:12 Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment \u2013 Makarem Law | Makarem & Associates 7/9 Office Location 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2440 Los Angeles 90025 Contact 800-610-9646 1 Hi live, real person is available 24/7 at no obligation. Live Chat is secure, free and easy. Start whenever you are ready. Start Chat 2/16/25, 8:12 Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment \u2013 Makarem Law | Makarem & Associates 8/9 \u00a9 2025 Makarem & Associates \u2022 All Rights Reserved Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw 1 Hi live, real person is available 24/7 at no obligation. Live Chat is secure, free and easy. Start whenever you are ready. Start Chat 2/16/25, 8:12 Eminent Berkeley Professor Suspended On Charges Of Sexual Harassment \u2013 Makarem Law | Makarem & Associates 9/9", "7673_105.pdf": "Campus professor suspended over sexual harassment allegations By Andreana Chou Feb 22, 2019 Content warning: Sexual violence and sexual harassment Campus professor Alan Tansman has been suspended after a Title investigation found that he violated the university\u2019s sexual violence and sexual harassment, or SVSH, policy between 2007 and 2009, as first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle . Tansman, a tenured professor in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, agreed Nov. 20 to a suspension beginning Dec. 1, 2018, the Chronicle reported. Tansman is suspended without pay for the first year and could lose more than $190,000 of income, according to the Chronicle. Campus spokesperson Janet Gilmore said in an email that Tansman will be on a previously earned sabbatical for the second year of his suspension until July 2020 and will receive seven months of full pay because of the sabbatical credits earned. Tansman must temporarily refrain from teaching and advising new students, however, and only has limited campus access, according to a campus statement. According to the Chronicle, the student involved was Tansman\u2019s doctoral student from 2003 to 2007 and also a postdoctoral fellow from 2008 to 2009. Tansman \u201cengaged in unwelcome verbal conduct of a sexual nature,\u201d according to the campus statement. Five witnesses also supported the student\u2019s allegations in interviews with a campus investigator, alleging that Tansman repeatedly flirted with or sexually harassed them, the Chronicle reported suspension is certainly warranted given the accusation,\u201d said Senator Zach Carter in an email. \u201cPart of a survivor-centric campus culture involves creating spaces where people can learn safely and our educators understand boundaries and healthy relationships.\u201d According to the campus statement, Tansman maintained he did not violate the code with his conduct and denied allegations. The Chronicle reported that Vice Provost for the Faculty Ben Hermalin wrote a letter to the student involved, detailing the disciplinary measures taken against Tansman to inform her of the outcome of the case. The letter also stated that Tansman would lose his endowed chair position and may not participate in departmental activities or access his office until July 1, 2020, according to the Chronicle state audit in 2018 reviewed cases of sexual harassment in the system and found 2/16/25, 8:12 Campus professor suspended over sexual harassment allegations | Archives | dailycal.org 1/2 that while it took campuses an average of 43 days to discipline staff, they took an average of 220 days to discipline faculty after an investigation. According to the Chronicle, it took 265 days to finalize a disciplinary agreement with Tansman after the initial report was issued. In 2018, retired campus professor Nezar AlSayyad was similarly suspended after a Title investigation found that he had more likely than not sexually harassed a graduate student. After reviewing the evidence of the case, Chancellor Carol Christ found that AlSayyad had engaged in a \u201cpattern of sexual harassment,\u201d and she pushed to extend his suspension to three years without pay. He, too, was barred from teaching and had limited campus access Senator Teddy Lake said the school must have and enforce a zero-tolerance policy for instances of sexual violence and harassment on its campus brief, partially-paid suspension is not justice for the survivors impacted by Professor Tansman\u2019s abuse\u2014 fractional justice isn\u2019t justice at all,\u201d Lake said in an email. Neither Tansman nor his lawyer could be reached for comment as of press time. 2/16/25, 8:12 Campus professor suspended over sexual harassment allegations | Archives | dailycal.org 2/2", "7673_106.pdf": "Berkeley Releases Details About Suspended Professor Accused Of Harassment February 20, 2019 / 4:06 San Francisco SF) -- The University of California at Berkeley said on Wednesday that it has suspended a professor in its arts and humanities division for sexually harassing a female student 10 years ago. However, the university didn't name the professor in it's press release News Weather Sports Video 48\u00b0 Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley Releases Details About Suspended Professor Accused Of Harassment San Francisco 1/4 Berkeley said that in 2018, after an extensive investigation, its Office for the Prevention of Harassment & Discrimination \"concluded that a professor violated the university's Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy by engaging in unwelcomed verbal conduct of a sexual nature that was found to be sufficiently severe that it created a hostile environment and interfered with a complainant's study and work.\" The university said the behavior occurred between 2007 and 2009 Berkeley said, \"At all times, the professor denied, and continues to deny, the allegations and maintains that he did not engage in conduct that violated the (harassment) policy or the Faculty Code of Conduct.\" The university said the investigation \"did not find the professor responsible for violating the university's non-discrimination policy by treating complainant differently from her peers based on her sex.\" While the university did not name the professor in its press release, other reports identified him as Alan Tansman. Suspended Berkeley Professor Alan Tansman Berkeley) Watch News Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley Releases Details About Suspended Professor Accused Of Harassment San Francisco 2/4 He is a professor in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures. The decision was handed down in November. The San Francisco Chronicle reports a student claims he sexually harassed her in 2018. Five women also accused him of misconduct in a confidential report. Tasman denies the allegations Berkeley said a vice provost and the professor engaged in settlement negotiations before it brought administrative charges before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the Academic Senate. The university said it reached a settlement with the professor which includes a suspension and two-year limited access to the university, temporary denial of teaching or advising of new students and limiting the professor's access to the campus \"to that which is afforded to general members of the public Berkeley said, \"The campus remains firmly committed to increasing transparency on the issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence.\" \u00a9 Copyright 2019 Broadcasting Inc. and Bay City News Service. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. More from News Missing elderly man in Monterey County found dead in Carmel River Person dies in Brentwood house fire San Francisco fire crews search for person in water near Pier 32, 1 rescued Classic inspires Oakland point guard to follow his passions Watch News Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley Releases Details About Suspended Professor Accused Of Harassment San Francisco 3/4 \u00a92025 Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Cookie Details Contact News Sports Weather Program Guide Sitemap About Us Advertise Television Jobs Public File for / CBS5 Public File for / KPIX+ Public Inspection File Help Applications Report \u00a9 2019 Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. In: Sexual Harassment Berkeley Watch News 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley Releases Details About Suspended Professor Accused Of Harassment San Francisco 4/4", "7673_107.pdf": "Get your day in court for sexual harassment U.C. Berkeley has suspended Professor Alan Tansman for sexually harassing one of his female students. We are investigating whether others are affected and if an Alan Tansman sexual harassment lawsuit is merited. If Alan Tansman sexually harassed you, or made sexually suggestive comments creating a hostile environment, you may be entitled to compensation. No student should have to suffer. Contact us today for a free consultation. U.C. Berkeley Investigation into Professor Tansman Sexual Harassment The Daily Californian, U.C. Berkeley\u2019s school newspaper, reports that Professor Alan Tansman was suspended by the university after a Title investigation found that he had violated the university\u2019s policy on sexual violence and sexual harassment. Name Alan Tansman Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Investigation 2/16/25, 8:12 Alan Tansman Sexual Harassment Lawsuit | U.C. Berkeley Sexual Harassment 1/3 The Title investigation delved into allegations by a former doctoral student and postdoc of Professor Tansman who said that he created a hostile working environment with the sexual comments he would make. The investigation also uncovered 5 other witnesses who said that Alan Tansman repeatedly flirted with or sexually harassed them, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. Temporary Suspension of Prof. Tansman Doesn't Go Far Enough, Say Some The Chronicle reports that Tansman\u2019s two-year suspension will cost the professor a year of income, amounting to over $190,000, and he will be forced to forfeit sabbatical credits he hasn\u2019t already cashed in. The problem is, according to the Chronicle, that he was already granted a sabbatical for the second year, so he will receive full pay. His former postdoc was appalled, reports the Chronicle. She said: He was able to broker a devil\u2019s deal. It\u2019s an affront to anyone who reports sexual harassment. Many don\u2019t see the punishment as severe enough when the university\u2019s own report concluded that Professor Tansman\u2019s \u201cconduct of a sexual nature\u201d was \u201csufficiently severe that it created a hostile environment\u201d for his female student, which interfered with her work and studies. For example, one student senator said brief, partially-paid suspension is not justice for the survivors impacted by Professor Tansman\u2019s abuse\u2014 fractional justice isn\u2019t justice at all. Our Attorneys Investigating Tansman Sexual Harassment 2/16/25, 8:12 Alan Tansman Sexual Harassment Lawsuit | U.C. Berkeley Sexual Harassment 2/3 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland 94607 Attorney Advertising Careers Privacy Policy \u00a9 Gibbs Law Group 2025 Karen Menzies Steven Tindall Amy Zeman Amanda Karl 2/16/25, 8:12 Alan Tansman Sexual Harassment Lawsuit | U.C. Berkeley Sexual Harassment 3/3", "7673_108.pdf": "Call Today For Free Consultation: 855-239-0102 855-239-0102 a a 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley professor suspended after sexual harassment allegations | Jay S. Rothman & Associates | Jay S. Rothman & Associates 1/9 On behalf of Jay S. Rothman & Associates on Wednesday, March 6, 2019. The University of California, Berkeley has suspended a well-known professor over credible allegations of sexual harassment. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a former doctoral student accused the professor of describing his sexual preferences and fantasies to her. Multiple witnesses said they were harassed After reporting the professor, a campus investigator interviewed her and 38 other witnesses. Five of the witnesses stated the East Asian languages and cultures department professor had harassed or flirted with them. The investigator, Suzanne Taylor, stated the professor referred to the former student as sexy and propositioned her for sex. He also described sexual fantasies about colleagues and students. Investigator found the former student believable Her investigation concluded that he did make these sexual overtures. She also found it problematic because the professor held a position of power over the students, which made it hard for them to object. Berkeley professor suspended after sexual harassment allegations On Behalf of Jay S. Rothman & Associates | Mar 6, 2019 | Firm News | 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley professor suspended after sexual harassment allegations | Jay S. Rothman & Associates | Jay S. Rothman & Associates 2/9 The former student\u2019s allegations were upheld by the university in February 2018. The disciplinary committee ruled the professor had created a hostile work environment. The professor agreed to the disciplinary measures on Nov. 20, 2018. The university\u2019s deal with the professor included a stipulation that his name remain anonymous. However, the woman who accused him received a letter from Berkeley describing how the professor, Alan Tansman, will be disciplined. Tansman was suspended for two years Tansman is suspended from his normal duties as a faculty member on the Berkeley campus for two years. The first year he receives no pay. However, in the second year, he will receive partial pay. He will be on sabbatical the second year In fact, for the second year, he will be on a paid sabbatical sabbatical is paid leave for tenured professors so they can focus on research. It is typically sought after by professors. The woman believes he should have been fired His former student is appalled by the so-called disciplinary action. She called it an affront to anyone who reports sexual harassment. The former student stated Tansman should have been fired. Tansman maintains he is innocent and harassed no one. She tried to report the incidents in 2009 The woman was a doctoral student from 2003 to 2007 and then a postdoctoral fellow from 2008 to 2009. She tried to report Tansman\u2019s behavior back in 2009, but was informed she would have to find and persuade other witnesses to come forward. She decided not to proceed. But in 2017, the woman was encouraged by the #MeToo movement and campus activism, so she filed a second report. This lead to the investigation and eventually the disciplinary hearing. 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley professor suspended after sexual harassment allegations | Jay S. Rothman & Associates | Jay S. Rothman & Associates 3/9 The University of California has been accused of not responding appropriately to sexual harassment complaints, particularly regarding how long it takes to discipline faculty. Workplace sexual harassment is illegal in the U.S. If you have faced harassment at work, you can report this behavior to your human resources department. If this does not resolve the issue, you may want to consider your legal options. You have the right to a workplace free of sexual overtures or lewd language. Search Search Recent Posts Archives \uf0a9How should employees handle retaliation at work? \uf0a9How has remote work impacted workplace harassment reporting? \uf0a9Can you be terminated for social media activity outside of work? \uf0a9Understanding hair discrimination in California workplaces \uf0a9Minimum Wage Increase For Fast Food Workers In California \uf0a9January 2025 \uf0a9October 2024 \uf0a9July 2024 \uf0a9April 2024 \uf0a9February 2024 \uf0a9January 2024 \uf0a9November 2023 \uf0a9October 2023 \uf0a9September 2023 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley professor suspended after sexual harassment allegations | Jay S. Rothman & Associates | Jay S. Rothman & Associates 4/9 \uf0a9August 2023 \uf0a9July 2023 \uf0a9June 2023 \uf0a9May 2023 \uf0a9April 2023 \uf0a9March 2023 \uf0a9February 2023 \uf0a9January 2023 \uf0a9December 2022 \uf0a9November 2022 \uf0a9October 2022 \uf0a9September 2022 \uf0a9August 2022 \uf0a9July 2022 \uf0a9June 2022 \uf0a9May 2022 \uf0a9April 2022 \uf0a9February 2022 \uf0a9October 2021 \uf0a9August 2021 \uf0a9May 2021 \uf0a9February 2021 \uf0a9November 2020 \uf0a9October 2020 \uf0a9August 2020 \uf0a9May 2020 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley professor suspended after sexual harassment allegations | Jay S. Rothman & Associates | Jay S. Rothman & Associates 5/9 Categories \uf0a9March 2020 \uf0a9March 2019 \uf0a9February 2019 \uf0a9January 2019 \uf0a9December 2018 \uf0a9November 2018 \uf0a9October 2018 \uf0a9September 2018 \uf0a9August 2018 \uf0a9July 2018 \uf0a9June 2018 \uf0a9May 2018 \uf0a9April 2018 \uf0a9March 2018 \uf0a9Arbitration \uf0a9blog \uf0a9Current Events \uf0a9Discrimination \uf0a9Employment \uf0a9Firm News \uf0a9Hostile Work Environment \uf0a9Pre-Trial Procedure \uf0a9retaliation \uf0a9sexual harassment \uf0a9Uncategorized 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley professor suspended after sexual harassment allegations | Jay S. Rothman & Associates | Jay S. Rothman & Associates 6/9 Feed Subscribe To This Blog\u2019s Feed \uf0a9wage and hour \uf0a9Workplace discrimination \uf0a9wrongful termination Request Consultation Loading Form... 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley professor suspended after sexual harassment allegations | Jay S. Rothman & Associates | Jay S. Rothman & Associates 7/9 Contact Us Office Location Jay S. Rothman & Associates 21900 Burbank Blvd. Suite 210 Woodland Hills 91367 Phone: 855-239-0102 Woodland Hills Office 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley professor suspended after sexual harassment allegations | Jay S. Rothman & Associates | Jay S. Rothman & Associates 8/9 Review Us \u00a9 2025 Jay S. Rothman & Associates \u2022 All Rights Reserved Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw \ue093 \ue094 \ue09d 2/16/25, 8:12 Berkeley professor suspended after sexual harassment allegations | Jay S. Rothman & Associates | Jay S. Rothman & Associates 9/9"} |
8,990 | William Hussey | Roosevelt University | [] | {} |
7,820 | David Carrera | University of Southern California | [
"7820_101.pdf",
"7820_102.pdf",
"7820_103.pdf",
"7820_104.pdf",
"7820_105.pdf"
] | {"7820_101.pdf": "Breaking News Australia Video University Guide Deep Dive China Debate Meghan Markle Prince Harry King Charles Weather Login Home News Royals U.S. Sport Showbiz Femail Health Science Money Travel Podcasts Shopping shares 54 male official resigns after being accused of sexually harassing female colleagues David Carrera, 50, the vice president for advancement and health sciences development, was ousted from his post last week Carrera, who is married with three children, is accused of asking colleagues about their dating habits and discussing his sex life with them Last week, Dr Rohit Varma, dean of USC's Keck School of Medicine, resigned over sexual misconduct claims dating back 15 years Varma's predecessor, Dr Carmen Puliafito, was fired in March 2016 for smoking meth and keeping bad company In September, assistant men's basketball coach Tony Bland was arrested as part of corruption bust By PUBLISHED: 17:15 GMT, 12 October 2017 | UPDATED: 22:02 GMT, 12 October 2017 top fundraising executive at University of Southern California has stepped down amid allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace. David Carrera, 50, the vice president for advancement and health sciences development, was ousted from his post last week, but his departure was not made public until Wednesday has been rocked by several high-profile scandals involving alleged sexual misconduct and corruption over the past year, which was marked by the back-to- back ousters of two medical school deans and the arrest of an assistant basketball coach. According to a Los Angeles Times report, Carrera is the subject of an ongoing internal investigation being carried out by the Office of Equity and Diversity, which has already conducted dozens of interviews with female employees. \u2018Discrimination and harassment have no place at Executive Director Gretchen Dahlinger Means told The Times. \u2018The university does not tolerate behavior that violates its strict policy and takes appropriate disciplinary action when it does.\u2019 The Times article says that so far, at least five women have come forward complaining about Carrera's conduct, claiming that the administrator responsible for raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the university would ask female colleagues about their dating habits and discuss his sex life with them. 9 View comments Site Web Enter your search Has Ellen already fallen out of love with her \u00a315m Cotswolds dream home? Residents say talk show queen is already eyeing up new rural retreat Trump praises Vance's 'brilliant' speech attacking allies as his envoy says Europe will be part of Ukraine peace talks - sparking emergency summit and... Elon Musk's 'lover' Ashley St Clair shares 'messages that led to secret baby' after whirlwind romance sparked by gay best friend who showed her his 'rocket laun... The secret influencers hierarchy: Our snitch leaks the real to list of the social media elite, from the top entry who's the talk of Hollywood to the freshly demoted B- lister It Girl Netflix star Kim Sae- ron dies aged 24: Actress who starred in hit K-drama Bloodhounds found dead in her home as fans pay tribute 'We're sick of Downing Street': Labour ministers lift the lid on the brutal civil war raging in No10 as one whispers 'we're about to commit electoral suicide': ... The mystery of Meghan's jam... from a sticky issue with the trademark to the Montecito farmers who know nothing about its production Privacy Policy Feedback Sunday, Feb 16th 2025 8PM 21 11PM 19 5-Day Forecas 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 1/35 Out: David Carrera, 50, the vice president for advancement and health sciences development, was ousted from his post amid an internal sexual harassment investigation has been rocked by multiple scandals involving sexual harassment and corruption allegations this past year Trump tells Europe they will be part of Ukraine peace talks 11.4k viewing now We find the real reason so many people have autism 24.2k viewing now Couple at war with 'nightmare' neighbour over pool and gym in garden 2.9k viewing now According to the reporting, Carrera also would make inappropriate comments about female colleagues and other women. +6 View gallery Couple at war with 'nightmare' neighbour stopping them building pool and gym for teen son in back garden of their \u00a31.3m home was widowed at 35 with 3 young children but the cruellest blow was the judgement faced for moving on less than a year after my husband died Alice Evans reveals she's being evicted from her home after being 'unable to pay her rent' amid her bitter court battle with ex Ioan Gruffudd We couldn't wait to start our new life in Australia - until a routine health check put us through five years of hell: British family warns of little- known rule woke up to an ugly six foot wall built at the bottom of my garden after my rich neighbours launched a huge refurb - it's awful The real story behind Meghan's 'baby shower': It was used by Meghan and her friends as a 'launch-pad' for their careers How Kate 'put her foot down' and stopped George, Charlotte and Louis taking part in a gory centuries-old tradition for young royals, new book claims Heartbreaking new details of Caroline Flack's desperate final hours... and a shock revelation about her boyfriend reveals took my newborn to the doctor for a minor symptom. The next day, all five of my children were taken into care - and it's happening to thousands of families found that very difficult but she was no longer aware': Dame Maggie Smith's son Toby Stephens reveals he wasn't with his mum when she died 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 2/35 Carrera had been at since August 2014. Prior to that, he had occupied the position of assistant vice president of the Fund of Johns Hopkins Medicine at Johns Hopkins University for nearly nine years. His LinkedIn page indicates that Carrera earned a Bachelor's degree in marketing from Loyola University-Maryland. Records and social media posts show that Carrera is married, and he and wife Jackie have two sons and a daughter together. Jackie Carrera, a fellow Loyola University alumnus, operates a yoga studio in Rancho Palos Verdes, which she opened after resigning as of a non-profit foundation in Baltimore in 2014. One-two punch: Last week, Dr Rohit Varma (left), dean of USC's Keck School of Medicine, resigned over sexual misconduct claims dating back 15 years. Varma's predecessor, Dr Camera Puliafito (right), was fired in March 2016 for somking meth and keeping bad company +6 View gallery +6 View gallery Scientists reveal what and where is Revealed: London's most dangerous Tube and overground lines stops as crime epidemic spirals to an all-time high - are they stations that travel to was told I'd be in 18 months if retired star's shocking confession as he reveals how working on popular show helped him cope with a devastating d... Kyle Walker splashes out on \u00a310,000 -a-week city centre Milan apartment for himself as he adjusts to his new club - but his wife Annie Kilner has stayed at home Jockey Michael O'Sullivan dead at 24: Cheltenham-winner dies ten days after tragic horse pile-up during race The sombre reason why Meghan Markle shutting the car door was a security headache for her staff Who is David Harbour's new girlfriend? Aspiring model Ellie Fallon boasts glam Insta which gives away clue as to when the pair met This stupid law has turned me into a drug mule - and I've been forced to sell my home and racked up \u00a3100,000 debt buying cannabis for my daughter was on The 1% Club and there's a secret behind where we're placed on set bosses know exactly what they're doing 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 3/35 Foul play: In September, assistant men's basketball coach Tony Bland was arrested and charged with solicitation of bribery Carrera was suspended from his job at on September 9 and stepped down about four weeks later. As of Thursday morning, his name has been almost entirely expunged from USC\u2019s website. Carrera's ouster comes a week after Dr Rohit Varma, a well-respected ophthalmologist and dean of USC's Keck School of Medicine, stepped down after the Times revealed that he was disciplined 15 years ago over allegations that he sexually harassed a researcher but was allowed to stay on at USC. Varma officially took over as dean in January, after his predecessor Dr Carmen Puliafito was fired for smoking meth and keeping company with prostitutes and criminals. +6 View gallery The dangerous side of the latest global fitness craze Hyrox you don't see on Instagram discovered the secret to weight loss and shed 20kg in just nine months Ozempic or strict dieting: This is everything did Condom tycoon fell asleep on his 48ft yacht in enemy waters and his horrific nightmare began... until Trump saved his life After another parade of celebrity Valentine's pictures, here's my message to these narcissistic couples fans obsessed with 'phenomenal' crime drama that 'needs another series' - but you only have days left to watch it Inside the spectacular beach house that's got everyone talking - and the heartwarming story behind why the owners are selling With 700,000 cases in Britain alone, we find the real reason so many people have autism - like my son David Why Trump's Harry and Meghan move will be a 'relief' to Charles... as insider tells me savage comment that reveals how some in the Palace feel E... Elon Musk takes break from after breaking his silence on Ashley St. Clair's claim she's given birth to his 13th child - sparking furious response from her The Masked Singer fans are left baffled and claim they have 'never heard' of series winner after Pufferfish was unmasked in grand finale Former medical school dean talks about taking ecstasy f Watch the full video w f d / 0:00 0:18 t g i k m h j 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 4/35 Family man: Carrera is married, and he and wife Jackie (pictured together above) have two sons and a daughter together. 54 shares Share or comment on this article official resigns over sexual harassment claims In September, assistant men's basketball coach Tony Bland was arrested and charged with solicitation of bribery for allegedly accepting payments to persuade players to sign with specific agents. Bland was among 10 men who were netted in a massive sting operation targeting corruption in college basketball. Bland has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation that is being carried out by a former director. According to a letter sent to USC\u2019s medical school community Tuesday night, Provost Michael Quick said there is a plan in the works to appoint a vice provost to \u2018provide leadership training to address our expectations of deans and senior leaders, and to evaluate their performance,\u2019 reported The Times will also create an ombudsman office to address staff complaints. California +6 View gallery Embed this Tourists spot shark in same area where woman had hands Kid Rock gets cheers from audience after statements on Dems Binman runs in terror as rat jumps out of bin Captive British couple appeared on Channel 4's New Place In Bill Maher slams Nike ad starring female athletes: 'It's not brat' Police release footage of missing woman Tayla Spies Shocking moment woman becomes human bomb in blast Starmer: Ukraine on 'irreversible path' to join in swipe at Newest Oldest Best rated Worst rated Comments 9 Share what you think Laughing shoplifters, drugs, and prostitution: How district in Leeds became one of the worst places in England to bring up a young child At 66 don't think I've ever had sex sober - now I'm trapped in a dry hotel in Turkey (with little prospect of a kiss, much less anything else Furious Canadian hockey fans boo national anthem again amid Donald Trump tariff threat Meghan Markle gives rare glimpse of daughter Lilibet in recent video - as fans notice similarity with 'her mama' Hidden messages in the tattoos that adorn gang member inmates of El Salvador's 'hellhole' mega jail Revealed: Lily Allen's husband David Harbour, 49, has a new model girlfriend 22 years his junior White Lotus is back, and you simply won't believe the real-life drama when the cameras rolling on TV's hottest show don't feel sorry for the nakedly ambitious Bianca Censori. Her marriage to Kanye turned her from a nobody into a global superstar Mending your 'broken heart'? Maura Higgins sings along to Whitney Houston hit on Valentine's night out after taking a swipe at 'cheating' ex Pete Wicks Is this the most confusing crossroads in Britain? Bumbling council who spent \u00a35.5m on pedestrian crossing paintjob blasted by furious parents 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 5/35 The comments below have been moderated in advance. BlueAngel, Nashville, United States, 7 years ago WOW!! Between this and Harvey Weinstein, Liberal California seems to have a Sex Problem!! Click to rate 69 8 BlueAngel, Nashville, United States, 7 years ago Dang, all kinds of Liberals in California are falling DOWN!! Click to rate 59 8 road_glide, Kalifornistan, United States, 7 years ago = Univercity of Spoiled Children Click to rate 48 3 azjoe, Phoenix, 7 years ago More of the Republican War on Women....oh wait...... Click to rate 42 6 Zina, Phoenix, United States, 7 years ago Fired for smoking meth and keeping bad company, the bad company was really other colleagues at the university. Commenting on this article has ended Log in Powered by Terms | Privacy | Feedback Woman, 22, smashed in the face with claw hammer by scorned mother after she discovered she had been sleeping with her boyfriend while pregnant Paul Mescal and singer girlfriend Gracie Abrams 'make up' after public spat last month as Gladiator star reprises role LIST: The Princess of Wales hasn't put a foot wrong. Until now The easiest way to add \u00a325,000 to value of your house revealed...these simple and affordable home security measures can add a whopping premium. Here's our exper... Love Island: All Stars villa 'left in chaos as star suffers head injury after passing out - as show medics are called in' Meet the former tennis star who quit to become a lingerie model and was accused of fleeing authorities for tax evasion - and has now landed a new role in sport don't believe people would prefer an unending war in Europe to a peace deal in Ukraine - so here's what world leaders can learn from Churchill Hulking 6ft 8in paedophile who snatched seven-year- old girl from her tent before raping, strangling and throwing her body into the sea makes bid for freedom Myleene Klass turns heads in a racy black lace look as she arrives at work at Smooth Radio - after her quirky new headgear looks were explained Show more 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 6/35 Rylan Clark is forced to pull out of his Radio 2 show after health concern as Strictly Come Dancing star steps in at the last minute Methylene blue's been touted as a miracle cure for cancer and as protection from radiation on flights. Now doctors reveal the fascinating truth about the dye found a lump on my neck, so Googled it - and wasn't worried. But please don't make the same terrible mistake as me... Austria attacker swore allegiance to Islamic State before stabbing boy, 14, to death and knifing others in evil rampage Revealed: Britain's fattest towns - as neighbours of the podgiest kids slam lazy parents who don't know how to cook... is child at risk? The expert guide to the world's luxury holiday super-dupes: they've got the views and the vibes the crowds (and you'll be amazed by how much you can sav... How Taylor Swift's ex Joe Alwyn is chasing fame in wake of his split from pop megastar - after 'breaking up over privacy fears' The making of Aimee Lou Wood: How the working class star overcame a traumatic childhoo and 'many mental illnesses' to landa Max George reveals he underwent a secret heart operation after first pacemaker surgery left him in agony The Invictus Games are Harry's tribute to the bravery of injured military heroes. But this year they were also the perfect opportunity for Meghan 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 7/35 Brooks Nader goes on the beach as she enjoys Valentine's Day getaway in Mexico without boyfriend Gleb Savchenko Who is set to triumph at the BAFTAs? Conclave and The Brutalist among favourites with Ralph Fiennes and Demi Moore set to scoop gongs This \u00a331 beauty buy loved by Victoria Beckham and Zendaya is so good one is sold every - now you'll donate \u00a35 to charity with every purchase Ever since Covid keep noticing weird smells that aren't there - as medical experts explain the cause, there's one symptom you must never ignore The nepo baby set for superstardom: From starring alongside his famous mother to his romance with another child star, inside Sam Nivola's rise to fame Film Awards 2025: Live updates from the red carpet and ceremony as Hollywood stars descend on Royal Festival Hall Phillip Schofield's helping hand for pal Gino D'Acampo following allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour Love Island's Tasha Ghouri hints at the heartbreaking reason behind her shock split from Andrew Le Page don't feel sorry for the nakedly ambitious Bianca Censori. Her marriage to Kanye turned her from a nobody into a global superstar After another parade of celebrity Valentine's pictures, here's my message to 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 8/35 these narcissistic couples How to watch the BAFTAs 2025 and what time it starts: Live stream the film awards from anywhere as David Tennant returns to hosting duties Billie Piper is reprising her iconic Doctor Who role opposite Christopher Eccleston in honour of the revival's 20th Anniversary TOWIE's James Argent takes huge step in his relationship with Spanish girlfriend Nicoline Artursson Kate and Rio Ferdinand enjoy family work out with their sons Cree, four, and Tate, 16, in their lavish home gym Ozzy Osbourne, 76, reveals he will not perform a full set at Black Sabbath's farewell gig as he confesses he can only manage 'little bits and pieces' Olivia Bowen shares sweet clip of the moment she told her husband Alex she was pregnant with their second child Good Morning Britain star welcomes his first child with wife as he shares newborn's sweet name Bridget Jones fans devastated after watching Mad About The Boy as sobbing cinemagoers say they spent the 'whole time crying' Katie Price, 46, and Slater, 33, hit Liverpoolbut risk a parking ticket as they dump Pink Pricey Range Rover outside a sexual health clinic 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 9/35 Kaya Scodelario reveals 'terrifying' teenage sex scenes on set of Skins were 'improvised' as she opens up about being a child actor pre #MeToo Valentine's Day date? Tom Cruise, 62, and Ana de Armas, 36, are all smiles as they are mobbed by fans during night out in London Justin Bieber and Hailey spend Valentine's Day together in Beverly Hills amid rumored marriage woes Amanda Holden angers bosses after breaching commercial guidelines with advert for her own interior design range 'People thought was wearing falsies!' Beauty fans are 'totally in love' with new volume-boosting \u00a313 mascara - and it's beating out high-end brands Eamonn Holmes makes sweet marriage remark live on air months after split from ex Ruth Langsford How Beyonce feels about husband Jay-Z's shock rape case dismissal Boris Becker, 56, and wife Lilian de Carvalho Monteiro, 33, put on a loved-up display as they party at the 75th Berlinale International Film Festival Rita Ora shows off her toned figure in skimpy gym gear as she shares photo dump documenting her extended stay in Australia Love Island: All Stars' Ronnie Vint leaves girlfriend Harriett Blackmore reeling by revealing his hair in hilarious unseen clip Britain's Got Talent's Bruno 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 10/35 Tonioli shares that for the sake of entertainment 'sometimes you have to be a little spicy' How Amelia Dimoldenberg built her multi-million pound empire from a chicken shop: Inside comedian's surprising rise to fame ahead of Oscar's red carpet gig I'm the voice of Come Dine With Me - fans will be stunned to learn the truth about my catty swipes at the contestants Kylie Minogue cuts a stylish figure as she departs Perth Airport after kicking off Australian tour Gemma Atkinson reveals sex secrets including one- night stands and two engagements before settling down with fianc\u00e9 Gorka Marquez Celeb chefs rated: Best and worst reviews for Gordon Ramsay, Gino D'Acampo and Jamie Oliver revealed Kim Kardashian teases her 50 appearance where she's 'set to reunite' with ex Pete Davidson Maura Higgins takes a brutal swipe at 'cheating' ex Pete Wicks during Valentine's Day night out as she addresses split for first time Is this the end for Kanye West? Slurs, a crumbling marriage with wife Bianca Censori and collaborators fleeing Britney Spears and ex- felon Paul Soliz confirm they're back on as they spend Valentine's Day with his kids 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 11/35 Make-up free Isla Fisher enjoys breakfast with children after reports her amicable divorce from Sacha Baron Cohen is set to turn nasty Chrissy Teigen and John Legend sing to their late dog Penny's ashes in a touching Valentine's Day video Jacqueline Jossa 'brings in lawyers over unpaid five figure sum from In The Style as fashion retailer faces administration' Jessica Chastain dazzles in a strapless dress and boa sleeves at Berlinale International Film Festival Liam Gallagher 'plans to spend Oasis reunion payout on a Cotswolds manor house' ahead of \u00a3100million tour Strictly's Tasha Ghouri says she's 'still processing' split from ex Andrew Le Page in emotional update as he moves out of their shared home Sydney Sweeney exudes Hollywood glamour in strapless gown at Armani Beauty Party during Berlinale Film Festival Prince Harry does knee slide and kisses bald man's head as he joins in boisterous celebrations of one of the last events of the Invictus Games Kanye West breaks his silence over alleged $250k resurfaced sex tape amid Bianca Censori divorce Queen Mary of Denmark quietly slips into Australia for a 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 12/35 family holiday in her native Tasmania 2025 Writers Guild Awards: Anora's Sean Baker continues winning streak as he nabs top honor Who won the Masked Singer? Pufferfish is crowned and identity is revealed as Samantha Barks Heidi Klum, 51, reveals she has 'chin and boob' hair as she gets candid about aging: 'It's as long as my pinky finger' Linkin Park star Chester Bennington's child, 22, comes out as transgender - five years after the rock star killed himself Drake performs songs from new album in tiny Sydney bar during Australian leg of Anita Max Win tour Emma Watson makes surprise appearance at All-Star Celebrity Game in rare public outing Phil Foden's childhood sweetheart Rebecca Cooke 'sparks engagement rumours after sporting huge diamond ring' following romantic getaway Prince Harry is greeted by raucous crowd at the Invictus Games and holds impromptu royal get- together with Denmark's Princess Marie and Prince Joachim Kiernan Shipka takes the plunge in floral maxi dress as she leads the stars at Awards in Beverly Hills Selling Sunset's Chrishell Stause puts 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 13/35 on a leggy display in pink mini dress as she and spouse Flip grab Valentine's Day dinner Vanessa Kirby exudes elegance in a draped gown as she joins classy Lily James and Ellie Bamber at the Charles Finch & Chanel Pre party Taylor Swift's pal Este Haim and Jonathan Levin are engaged! Singer debuts massive diamond ring: 'I'm taken' Megan Thee Stallion sets pulses racing in stringy blue bikini as she celebrates 30th birthday Lizzo is accused of 'copying' Lily-Rose Depp as she breaks down in tears in teaser for 'new era' of music Wendy Williams flashes a smile as she rides mobility scooter during rare public outing in Miami amid battle to end guardianship David Blaine, 51, reveals he is working on final ever stunt and plans to retire at the same age that his hero Harry Houdini died Anna Kendrick stuns in a red mini dress as she joins Camila Cabelo and Mikey Madison at the Film Awards Nominees' Party Dannii Minogue opens up about sister Kylie's devastating cancer diagnosis: 'We were going to lose her' Renee Zellweger appears to hide her ring finger amid Ant Anstead engagement rumors in 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 14/35 How does Amber Turner maintain her jaw- dropping physique star's strict workout routine and diet is revealed Jake Quickenden opens up about the challenges of pursuing his career while raising a young family: 'It can be tough' Jeremy Clarkson goes on furious 'cancel culture' rant as he defends under-fire stars Gino D'Acampo, Wynne Evans and Gregg Wallace Adrien Brody puts on a loved-up display with girlfriend Georgina Chapman at Film Awards nominees party Kevyn Major Howard dead at 69: Full Metal Jacket actor passes away after being hospitalized for weeks The Masked Singer final: Wolf is unveiled as a legendary 80s singer after missing out on a place in the top two as Pufferfish and Dressed Crab make it through Princess Eugenie shares pictures of her children in heartfelt (and slightly apologetic) Valentine's Day tribute to her husband James Brooksbank Pregnant Jesy Nelson shows off her blossoming baby bump in jumper dress as she enjoys Valentine's Day date with boyfriend Zion Foster The 1% Club contestant takes home biggest ever prize on gameshow after risking everything to take on the final question Pamela Anderson turns heads in a dramatic 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 15/35 tulle hat as she attends The Last Show Girl in London Kerry Katona shows off her two-stone weight loss in a red bikini as she enjoys her first solo Valentine's Day in Thailand since split from Ryan Mahoney Nathalie Emmanuel wows in a slinky black dress as she joins glam Toni Collette and leather-clad Robert Pattinson at the Mickey 17 premiere during Berlin Film Festival How Queen Camilla introduced this bunion- busting footwear to celebrity friends Judi Dench and Mary Berry Fans go wild after Meryl Streep flips middle finger at Will Ferrell during 50th concert Hailey Bieber and husband Justin cuddle up in post-Valentine's Day photos amid rumors of marital issues Gino D'Acampo 'kissed' international footballer's wife on the lips in front of her husband - telling onlookers did that because f***ing can Helen Flanagan oozes glamour in a baby pink midi dress and statement heels as she attends the Elle Sera Galentine's lunch in Liverpool Gladiators legend recalls horrifying moment she could have been left 'dead or paralysed' after a live stunt went wrong Kanye West and Bianca Censori 'have prenup' as estranged couple are headed for 'divorce' 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 16/35 Georgia Harrison stuns in sheer black lace dress as she wishes new boyfriend Jack a happy Valentine's Day Auf Wiedersehen, Pet and Doctor Who star Maya Woolfe dies aged 72 as tributes pour in EastEnders stars Danielle Harold and Max Bowden unfollow each other after stint on Celebrity Antiques Road Trip Hollywood A-lister on Saturday Kitchen says she's 'going to cry' just minutes into appearance on show as fans share their shock Sacha Baron Cohen claims it's with Isla Fisher as \u00a360 million divorce could turn nasty: Friends tell Rihanna shares raunchy throwback video with Rocky for Valentine's Day amid trial Khloe Kardashian shares Valentine's snaps with True and Tatum as she reveals son's nickname for Kris Jenner All you need is planning permission! Now Stella McCartney's \u00a35m Highland hideaway hits a bum note with locals... again Clueless? No Tunstall's West End debut was child's play thanks to all those music lessons as a kid! Diddy accused of hiring trafficked underage girl 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 17/35 for Miami sex party in a new lawsuit Liam Payne asked me to be his best man. Three days later he was dead: Star's closest confidant tells horrifying truth of singer's drug use Leo Woodall, 28, isn't 'bothered' by toyboy label after age-gap Bridget Jones role as gives rare update on his relationship with Meghann Fahy, 34 Model, 30, who has a famous sister looks chic as she attends the Apple brunch - but can guess who her A- list sibling is? Andrew Le Page admits he's 'cried more than ever' as he marks the 'end of an era' after shock split from Tasha Ghouri and moves out of the home they shared Star of iconic 90s show who also played Marilyn Monroe is unrecognizable on rare outing in The surprising career changes of iconic Noughties band revealed: From Net Zero manager and songwriters to the stars to reality contestants Laura Whitmore shares her final messages with Caroline Flack on the fifth anniversary of her death and confirms she won't appear in the new doco about the late star TOWIE's Ella Rae Wise confirms she is back together with Dan Edgar as she shares romantic Valentine's Day snaps Dave Chappelle reveals censored his viral monologue over two topics 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 18/35 Pamela Anderson, 57, stuns in a stylish green jumper and satin midi skirt as she arrives at Studios to promote The Last Showgirl amid career resurgence Brian Cox, 78, looks dapper in a checked suit as his glam wife Nicole, 56, rocks tight pencil skirt at star- studded Baftas brunch in London Keely Hodgkinson looks incredible in a black cropped jacket as she hosts her Keely Klassic debut at Utilita Arena Birmingham Justin Baldoni issues stinging retort after Blake Lively and Ryan Reynold's Hollywood agent mocked his name Jessica Chastain commands attention in lime green suit as she steps out to the Dreams photocall at the 75th Berlinale International Film Festival Prince Harry's risque joke makes former Marine laugh at Invictus games - even though veteran had to battle testicular cancer Inside Amelia Dimoldenberg's love life as she settles with Adam Faze: How star sparked romance rumours with of Andrew Garfield and Aitch Jamie Theakston issues health update after cancer treatment and sends touching message to radio listeners Kid Rock's shocking claim about Kendrick Lamar and Colin Kaepernick after Super Bowl halftime show 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 19/35 Katie Price and Slater put split rumours to bed as they enjoy loved-up night out at a Manchester nightclub on Valentine's Day Love Island All Stars highest earners as expert predicts which couple will be the most profitable after leaving the villa On your marks! Queen Camilla is effortlessly chic in statement faux fur hat as she watches races at Ascot Kylie Minogue, 56, proves she's an ageless beauty as she stuns in sheer black gown while kicking off her Australian tour Nirvana reunite on stage with Post Malone for milestone SNL50 gig - in Dave Grohl's second performance since his cheating scandal The Bangles bombshells! First-ever authorized biography of iconic 80s band reveals in-house jealousies, disturbing fan mail and being stalked by Prince Hollywood horror icon with a Star Wars connection is unrecognizable at 77... can you guess who he is? Helen Flanagan sets pulses racing in a busty black gown for Galentines event - before shocking fans with an unrecognisable throwback snap Davide Sanclimenti makes dig at ex Ekin-Su Culculoglu as he marks Valentine's Day with his new girlfriend and says 'true love doesn't destroy you' Newly-single Maura Higgins sizzles in a scarlet strapless dress as she hits the town for Valentine's Day with pals after split from Pete Wicks Meghan 'made jokes about Harry having different parents to 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 20/35 William', thought senior royals 'behaved like babies' and Kate was a 'goody two shoes', insiders reveal Bridgerton's Luke Thompson reveals why he declined to seek the advice of his co-stars ahead of taking a lead role in season 4 The Traitors' Mollie Pearce reflects on heartbreak after split with long-term boyfriend as she shares Valentine's relationship status update Follow Daily Mail Subscribe Daily Mail Follow @DailyMail Follow Daily Mail 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 21/35 Follow @dailymailuk Follow Daily Mail Liam Payne's girlfriend Kate Cassidy shares devastating Valentine's Day tribute with a 'special' link to the late singer Princess of Wales's top 20 sell-out items show the 'Kate effect' isn't waning - from a \u00a31,000 jacket to earrings you can find on the high street Inside Belle Gibson's warped mind after Netflix's Apple Cider Vinegar made her a 'star': Who she blames for her downfall, her hope for the future Ben Fogle reveals he applied to be on Cilla Black's Blind Date because he was 'so shy' with women - but turned it down for Castaway As Kanye and Bianca head for 'divorce', we reveal the Censori family's chilling theory for why their daughter became a rapper's nude plaything Hilarious moment Breakfast star is interrupted by his phone live on air - as he says 'I've got to go!' Sabrina Carpenter takes brutal swipe at ex Barry Keoghan in new music video with Dolly Parton Cher, 78, turns back time in see-through bodysuit as she sings at 50: The Homecoming Concert Gaby Roslin shares her heartbreak over the death of beloved family member and says grief is like 'being punched in the stomach' 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 22/35 Viewers roast as the same dinner jacket appears on a different groom one year later in editing fail EastEnders star Davood Ghadami 'leaves wife for married mother-of-three co- star amid pair's sizzling on-stage chemistry' Did Prince Harry have to physically stop Meghan from breaking royal protocol? Unearthed footage shows what really happened during awkward walkabout Lisa Snowdon candidly confesses her 'reservations' about getting married to fianc\u00e9 George Smart eight years after they got engaged Emotional Jay hails 'victory' as teen rape case with Diddy is by accuser's attorney We broke records on Dragons' Den - the panel were different when the cameras stopped rolling and we couldn't believe what happened after New romance alert? Zoe Kravitz spotted with Noah Centineo four months after Channing Tatum split Anya Taylor-Joy looks ethereal as she cosies up to husband Malcolm McRae at the SNL50: The Homecoming Concert on Valentine's Day Philly turns on hometown girl Taylor Swift as they reveal why Super Bowl could have been for the 'traitor Victoria Beckham is 'desperate' for her new documentary to be a hit as excitement builds after huge success of husband David's Netflix show Kylie Jenner bares cleavage in sparkly gown as she spends 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 23/35 Valentine's Day with Timothee Chalamet at Berlinale Fans ecstatic as beloved show returns to screens after more than 30 years - and it's finally confirmed whether original star is back Gracie Abrams wows fans with special performance ahead of The Secret of Us European tour after sparking outrage over her 'pricey' merch Beyonce sizzles in gold bustier to promote her fragrance after Jay teen rape case with Diddy was dismissed Netflix fans gripped by 'captivating' hooligan drama 'full of twists and turns' as it rockets up the charts Leonardo DiCaprio has frog named after him - and no, it's not because it is only attracted to young females Leo Woodall's great aunts who were the Bridget Joneses of their day! Nation's new heartthrob comes from a long line of trailblazing women Katie Price insists she's 'not on fat loss jabs' and is in 'a really good place' after cleaning up her diet amid concerns over her drastic weight loss Tilda Swinton announces she is taking a break from 'merciless' movie- making... hours after accepting lifetime achievement award Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus get A-listers dancing as they lead star-studded performances at 50: Concert Bianca Censori's creepy two word comment to Kanye West days before 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 24/35 shock 'divorce' revealed Mauricio Umansky to undergo surgery after skiing accident in Aspen as he shares health update from hospital bed Jason Momoa and girlfriend Adria Arjona have the look of love as they make their red carpet debut as couple at SNL50: The Homecoming Concert Bhad Bhabie breaks silence on claims she lied about having cancer after being slammed for vaping Craig Conover denies texting other women behind ex Paige DeSorbo's back prior to shock split bosses putting 'a ring of steel around the ceremony' after YouTube prankster gatecrashed the stage in 2024: 'They are taking no risks' Charli looks effortlessly cool as she steps out of Melbourne hotel braless in brown tank top Why Kim Kardashian has stayed silent despite fears amid Kanye West and Bianca Censori 'split Elsa Pataky puts on a leggy display in denim short shorts as she pampers 'new family member' with pats in Byron Bay Danielle Lloyd breaks down in tears as she reveals she's been diagnosed with skin cancer - and star issues important health warning to her fans 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 25/35 Lady Gaga stuns in edgy black gown outside Radio City Music Hall ahead of the SNL50: The Homecoming Concert Selena Gomez's fianc\u00e9 Benny Blanco slammed over 'disgusting' Valentine's Day gesture Teri Hatcher, 60, shows off her age- defying figure in a busty yellow bandeau and matching suit at SNL50: The Homecoming Concert in New York Prince Harry is all smiles despite Meghan being 1,000 miles away with their children on Valentine's Day Caroline Flack's hidden legacy: Star's mother Christine fights to prevent others from her heartbreak, after her daughter's tragic passing Meghan Markle shares video of children Archie and Lilibet making love heart treats for Valentine's Day hours after her gushing post kissing Prince Harry Robbie Williams movie biopic Better Man to be transformed into a West End musical after nod ALERT: Married At First Sight couple Adrian Araouzou and Awhina Rutene spotted together on Valentine's Day Jermain Defoe, 41, and Alisha LeMay, 31, 'split': Pair call it quits as influencer 'unfollows' the footballer on social media - a year after cheating scandal Bridgerton series four first look: Teaser images show Penelope and Colin as parents and a steamy new love story 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 26/35 Bafta After Party is thrown into chaos after venue of Chiltern Firehouse is ravaged by huge fire - as organisers scramble to find somewhere else to host celebrity bash Jesse McCartney and wife Katie Peterson reveal they are expecting their first child: 'Our lil Valentine' Amanda Byram, 51, gives birth to a baby boy! Irish presenter welcomes second 'miracle child' after a 'surprise' labour and journey Nepo baby island! New Channel 4 reality show plans to dump offspring of famous faces on a desert island and there's a shock twist Miley Cyrus puts on a united front with mom Tish amid Billy Ray drama at the SNL50: The Homecoming Concert Jessica Alba shows off her bikini body enjoying the single life in Cabo... while ex Cash Warren is alone in Jason Momoa and girlfriend Adria Arjona hold hands as they make first public outing as couple on Valentine's Day Jonathan Ross reflects on 'awkward' moment Macy Gray stormed off the stage on The Masked Singer Love Island All Stars viewers in shock as Harriett Blackmore 'pies off' Ronnie Vint and turns down his romantic proposal for the time Rihanna branded an 'evil human being' for wearing fur by animal rights protester at Rocky shooting trial 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 27/35 Dance Moms star JoJo Siwa returns to Sydney for a very romantic Valentine's Day with Aussie partner Kath Ebbs Pete Davidson reveals sad reason he gets 'harassed' over A-List dating life after whirlwind Ariana Grande romance Love Island: All Stars in shock as three couples are at risk of being dumped from the villa - but fans are all saying the same thing Jennifer Lopez leaves sassy note about 'self love' during first Valentine's Day in 4 years after Ben Affleck split Love Island fans brand Pritchard 'fake' as he changes his tune on Ekin-Su - after previously calling for her to be 'REMOVED' from villa Emmerdale's Lisa Riley admits there's 'never a day' she feels 'safe' from being axed on the soap as she says producers treat cast 'like chess pieces' Corrie star Simon Gregson's wife Emma spotted without her wedding ring after he was forced to deny split rumours Grammy-winning pop singer set to join Euphoria season 3 cast starring alongside Zendaya and Sydney Sweeney Days of our Lives star shares candid update about husband's Parkinson's diagnosis Gene Allen dead at 63: What's Love Got To Do With It? actor passes 'suddenly' at home leaving family in 'shock' 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 28/35 Timoth\u00e9e Chalamet rocks a casual baby pink ensemble before showing off his moves as he leads the stars at the Complete Unknown premiere Stacey Solomon has an unexpected Valentine's night in Paris with husband Joe Swash after making major mistake with half term holiday Maura Higgins and Pete Wicks after calling time on their private romance following series of rows Hailey Bieber shares cryptic note about forgiveness as husband Justin posts loved up snaps for Valentine's Day Married At First Sight's Ryan Donnelly steps out solo after breaking his silence on X-rated comment about Jaqui Burfoot Taylor Swift breaks record for female artist with most Number 1 albums as she knocks Madonna off top spot Justin Baldoni shakes off Blake Lively drama as he showcases buff physique in Hawaii amid latest bombshell Saoirse Ronan dazzles in bold blue dress as she joins Bridgerton beauty Nicola Coughlan and Cillian Murphy at the Awards Selena Gomez poses with fianc\u00e9 Benny Blanco as they talk love and being engaged for first joint interview Renee Zellweger, 55, is a wrinkle-free wonder posing with Bridget Jones co-star Leo Woodall, 28...after he hit back at age gap romance Addison Rae channels Britney Spears in suggestive music video 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 29/35 for new song High Fashion Former Modern Family star Rico Rodriguez is unrecognizable as he steps out for Cobra Kai red carpet Revealed: Bridget Jones star Ren\u00e9e Zellweger's family tree that shows she is almost as British as her alter ego Euphoria confirms changes to cast for season three... including multiple exits Catentines! Zara McDermott wishes her fur babies a happy Valentine's Day following her split from Sam Thompson Bruce Willis' wife Emma shares heartwarming message on Valentine's Day amid his dementia battle Robbie Williams' rarely-seen daughter, Teddy, 12, lands first Hollywood role as she is seen on set with A- list star Rebel Wilson Patrick Schwarzenegger looks handsome in a clean- cut suit as he joins White Lotus castmates at series 3 Bangkok premiere Uma Thurman's daughter Maya Hawke was told she'd be 'prettier' if she made a change to her face by a Hollywood producer Colin Firth's telling five-word response after finding out about beloved Bridget Jones character's fate in new sequel New 'Bianca Censori' statement is not as it seems: Confused 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 30/35 social media users react to tweet defending Kanye West following his vile anti- Semitic meltdown Kylie Jenner flashes her abs in Georgia as she surprises her 'amazing' fans with autographs and selfies Eye-watering ticket prices of last ever Black Sabbath show as hometown gig sells out in 16 minutes Explosive new Diddy lawsuit claims rapper held woman captive while she text her husband for help Selena Gomez reveals if she had say in designing the diamond engagement ring fianc\u00e9 Benny Blanco gave her The vile anti-Semitic rant that 'spelled the end' for Kanye and Bianca Censori's marriage - after naked Grammys stunt sparked 'coercive control' rumours Lizzie Cundy, 56, cuts a trendy figure in hot pink power suit as she steps out in London after calling out Keir Starmer Drew Barrymore, 49, shares rare throwback snap with Adam Sandler from over 20 years ago Renee Zellweger as you've never seen her before! A-lister, 55, channels Marilyn Monroe in a leggy shoot for Magazine as she admits she 'never existed in Hollywood' Gordon Ramsay's smearing me, ITV's complicit and wait until you hear 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 31/35 revelations: Gino D'Acampo's furious fightback is revealed to Selena Gomez's fiance Benny Blanco admits he almost messed up the proposal after he made her 'upset' Lily Collins shares adorable snap of her newborn baby with then and now tribute on Valentine's Day What Kim Kardashian thinks about Bianca Censori as model 'divorces' her ex Kanye West - and her cryptic 'marriage ending' comment Love Island: All Stars SPOILER: The islanders' romantic dates descend into chaos as couples face being dumped from the villa What does 'reheating nachos' mean? Halle Berry and other A-List stars baffled by bizarre new online slang Sam Thompson fights back tears as he shares emotional moment with his sister Louise as they spend Valentine's Day together following his split from Zara McDermott Vanessa Kirby flashes her toned abs in a \u00a310,000 black crop top co-ord for Brunello Cucinelli's intimate pre dinner at Chiltern Firehouse Calvin Klein sparks concern over 'frail' appearance in new video from New York Fashion Week Jason Manford defends Peter Kay after Lisa Riley 'lookalike' claimed she felt 'humiliated by funnyman's weight jibe' 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 32/35 Taylor Swift's pal Danielle Haim flashes her lingerie in sheer dress as sister models white leotard in How Meghan Markle usually expects to spend Valentine's Day as she and Prince Harry separated by Invictus Games Today's headlines Most Read Elon Musk's 'lover' Ashley St Clair shares 'messages that led to secret baby' after whirlwind romance... Trump praises Vance's 'brilliant' speech attacking allies as his envoy says Europe will be part of was widowed at 35 with 3 young children but the cruellest blow was the judgement faced for moving on... With 700,000 cases in Britain alone, we find the real reason so many people have autism - like my son... The secret influencers hierarchy: Our snitch leaks the real to list of the social media elite, from the... Scientists reveal what and where is Revealed: The real reason why Meghan Markle threw extravagant 'baby shower' which 'bore no resemblance' to a found a lump on my neck, so Googled it - and wasn't worried. But please don't make the same terrible... Netflix star Kim Sae-ron dies aged 24: Actress who starred in hit K-drama Bloodhounds found dead in her home... The easiest way to add \u00a325,000 to value of your house revealed...these simple and affordable home security... Revealed: London's most dangerous Tube and overground lines stops as crime epidemic spirals to an... The mystery of Meghan's jam... from a sticky issue with the trademark to the Montecito farmers who know... Dame Maggie Smith's son Toby Stephens shares heartbreak that he wasn't with his mum when she died last year... Jockey Michael O'Sullivan dead at 24: Cheltenham-winner dies ten days after tragic horse pile-up during race Heartbreaking new details of Caroline Flack's desperate final hours... and why friends fear 'blame game'... The sombre reason why Meghan Markle shutting the car door was a security headache for her staff Couple at war with 'nightmare' neighbour stopping them building pool and gym for teen son in back garden of... Austria attacker swore allegiance to Islamic State before stabbing boy, 14, to death and knifing others in... Hidden messages in the tattoos that adorn gang member inmates of El Salvador's 'hellhole' mega jail 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 33/35 Revealed: Britain's fattest towns - as neighbours of the podgiest kids slam lazy parents who don't know how... Condom tycoon fell asleep on his 48ft yacht in enemy waters and his horrific nightmare began... until Trump... Who is David Harbour's new girlfriend? Actor, 49, moves on from Lily Allen with aspiring model and actress... Hulking 6ft 8in paedophile who snatched seven-year-old girl from her tent before raping, strangling and... Earl Spencer's estranged wife moves out of Althorp family estate amid acrimonious divorce - as insider says... Is this the most confusing crossroads in Britain? Bumbling council who spent \u00a35.5m on pedestrian crossing discovered the secret to weight loss and shed 20kg in just nine months Ozempic or strict dieting woke up to an ugly six foot wall built at the bottom of my garden after my rich neighbours launched a... Max George reveals he underwent a secret heart operation after first pacemaker surgery left him in... Alice Evans reveals she's being evicted from her home after being 'unable to pay her rent' amid her... Kyle Walker splashes out on \u00a310,000-a- week city centre Milan apartment for himself as he adjusts to his new... Maura Higgins sings along to Whitney Houston hit about 'broken hearts' on Valentine's Day night out after... Has Ellen already fallen out of love with her \u00a315million Cotswolds dream home? Residents say talk show... Furious Canadian hockey fans boo national anthem again amid Donald Trump tariff threat My pet was killed after being let off the lead by Britain's worst dog walker and still have not received... The ghosts of King's Cross station: TfL reveal schoolboy, 15, spotted reported seeing spirits at famous... Woman, 22, smashed in the face with claw hammer by scorned mother after she discovered she had been sleeping... The dangerous side of the latest global fitness craze Hyrox you don't see on Instagram was on The 1% Club and here's the real reason behind where we're placed on screen - there's nothing random... Celeb chefs rated: Best and worst reviews for Gordon Ramsay, Gino D'Acampo and Jamie Oliver revealed How Aimee Lou Wood overcame a traumatic childhood, bulimia and 'many mental illnesses' to land The White... Ex-Man United star accuses opponent of racism during Championship game - as he insists he will 'not be... Laughing shoplifters, drugs, and prostitution: How district in Leeds became one of the worst places in... Meet the former tennis star who quit to become a lingerie model and was accused of fleeing authorities for... Meghan Markle gives rare glimpse of daughter Lilibet in recent video - as fans 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 34/35 Sitemap Archive Video Archive Authors Topics Index Mobile Apps Screensaver Text-based site Reader Prints Our Papers Top of page Daily Mail Mail on Sunday This is Money Metro Jobsite Mail Travel Mail Subscriptions Help & FAQs Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group dmg media Contact us How to complain Leadership Team Advertise with us Contributors Terms Subscription Terms & Conditions Do not sell or share my personal information About MailOnline Privacy Settings Privacy policy & cookies notice similarity with 'her 50: Help! My daughter's sneaky move with money is causing fights with my husband Family of hero who taught Prince William how to fly helicopters warn hundreds of army staff could have... Inside the spectacular beach house that's got everyone talking - and the heartwarming story behind why the... Is this the most brutal death recorded in history? Deep sea divers 'sucked through' tiny hole and 'exploded... The expert guide to the world's luxury holiday super-dupes: they've got the views and the vibes the... Royal expert reveals Kate Middleton 'put her foot down' and stopped George, Charlotte and Louis taking part Back to top Home News Royals U.S. Sport Showbiz Femail Health Science Money Travel Podcasts Shopping 2/16/25, 8:13 official resigns over sexual harassment claims | Daily Mail Online 35/35", "7820_102.pdf": "Becker's Healthcare: Hospital Spine Clinical Health Dental Payer Podcasts Behavioral Physician MyBHC Contact Us Subscribe Search... Newsletters Sign Up For Our Free E-Newsletters Hospital Review Report Report Health Report Clinical Leadership Revenue Cycle Management + Digital Innovation Supply Chain Report Payer Issues Pharmacy Report Women's Leadership Physician Leadership Laboratory Review Cardiology Report Oncology Report + Talent Review Post-Acute Report Life Sciences Behavioral Health Marketing Report Anesthesia Report Radiology Report Events Upcoming Conferences and Events 15th Annual Meeting Spring Payer Issues Roundtable Clinical Leadership Summit \u2261 Channels Becker's Healthcare Websites Newsletters Events Virtual Events Webinars Partner Content Podcasts Lists Print Multimedia Surveys About Us Most Read Top 40 Articles \u00d7 2/16/25, 8:13 administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment 1/10 Spring Chief Pharmacy Officer Summit Behavioral Health Summit 22nd Annual Spine, Orthopedic and Pain Management-Driven + The Future of Spine Conference Future of Dentistry Roundtable 10th Annual Health + Digital Health Annual Meeting: The Future of Business and Clinical Technologies 31st Annual The Business and Operations of ASCs 13th Annual Roundtable Fall Payer Issues Roundtable Fall Chief Pharmacy Officer Summit Key Insights from Becker's 9th Annual Health + Digital Health Event Exhibiting & Sponsoring Call for Speakers Virtual Events Upcoming Virtual Events The Driving Forces Transforming the Dental Industry Virtual Forum Behavioral Health Virtual Event Oncology Virtual Summit Digital Innovation + Patient Experience + Marketing Virtual Event Past Virtual Events Webinars Upcoming Webinars OnDemand Webinars Partner Content Current Partner Content Archives Podcasts Our Podcasts Becker's Healthcare Podcast Episodes Becker\u2019s Digital Health + Health Podcast Becker\u2019s Payer Issues Podcast Podcast Summaries Becker's Behavioral Health Podcast Becker's Ambulatory Surgery Centers Podcast Becker's Spine and Orthopedics Podcast Becker's Dental Review Podcast Becker\u2019s Clinical Leadership Podcast Becker\u2019s Pediatric Leadership Podcast Becker's Cardiology + Heart Surgery Podcast Becker's Women's Leadership Podcast Becker's + Revenue Cycle Podcast Lists 180+ chief medical officers to know | 2025 100 great community hospitals | 2024 Nominations Channels Becker's Healthcare Websites Newsletters Events Virtual Events Webinars Partner Content Podcasts Lists Print Multimedia Surveys About Us Most Read Top 40 Articles \u00d7 2/16/25, 8:13 administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment 2/10 Sign up for list nomination updates Print Current Issue Past Issues Current Issue - Becker's Clinical Leadership Past Issues - Becker's Clinical Leadership Subscribe Multimedia Intuitive + Becker's Content Hub Health Content Hub LeanTaaS Solutions Healthcare Upside/Down Podcast Series Featured Content Featured Videos Career Center Surveys The move to outpatient: Where\u2019s your health system? Physician recruitment and engagement: Where\u2019s your health system? Behavioral health: Where\u2019s your health system? Pipeline programs: Where\u2019s your health system? GLP-1s: Where\u2019s your health system? About Us About Becker's Hospital Review Careers at Becker's Contact Us Request Media Kit Content Specifications Reprints MyBHC Physicians Leadership Strategy Executive Moves Transaction & Valuation GLP-1s Capital Nursing Supply Health Equity Patient Experience Pharmacy Care Coordination Legal & Regulatory Compensation Payer Channels Becker's Healthcare Websites Newsletters Events Virtual Events Webinars Partner Content Podcasts Lists Print Multimedia Surveys About Us Most Read Top 40 Articles \u00d7 2/16/25, 8:13 administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment 3/10 Rankings Workforce Specialties Cardio Lab Orthopedics Post-Acute Surgery Centers Oncology Dental Radiology Channels Becker's Healthcare Websites Newsletters Events Virtual Events Webinars Partner Content Podcasts Lists Print Multimedia Surveys About Us Most Read Top 40 Articles \u00d7 2/16/25, 8:13 administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment 4/10 Integration & Physician Issues administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment Alyssa Rege - Thursday, October 12th, 2017 Save Post Tweet Share Listen Text Size Print Email Channels Becker's Healthcare Websites Newsletters Events Virtual Events Webinars Partner Content Podcasts Lists Print Multimedia Surveys About Us Most Read Top 40 Articles \u00d7 2/16/25, 8:13 administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment 5/10 David Carrera, former vice president of advancement and health sciences development at Los Angeles-based University of Southern California, left his post in the wake of allegations he sexually harassed several female colleagues. Mr. Carrera was reportedly responsible for raising millions of dollars in funding for nine of USC's professional schools, including the Keck School of Medicine at USC, the Los Angeles Times reports. University officials did not specify whether Mr. Carrera was fired or had resigned from his post. However, the Los Angeles Times confirmed he was the subject of an internal investigation regarding the sexual harassment allegations at the time of his departure. Sources familiar with the investigation told the Los Angeles Times received at least five complaints about Mr. Carrera's alleged behavior. In interviews with investigators, some employees reportedly claimed Mr. Carrera routinely questioned female colleagues about their dating habits and that he made comments about the desirability of female co-workers and women he encountered at fundraising events, the report states launched an investigation into Mr. Carrera in August. He continued working on campus until placed him on administrative leave in September. Mr. Carrera's departure follows the recent resignation of former Keck medical school Dean Rohit Varma, MD, who similarly resigned last week after multiple reports surfaced stating Dr. Varma allegedly sexually harassed a female colleague in 2002 and Dr. Varma reportedly settled the case with the unidentified woman in 2003 and paid her an estimated $135,000. Dr. Varma's predecessor, former medical school Dean Carmen Puliafito, MD, resigned from his position last March. He is currently under investigation by multiple authorities regarding alleged drug misuse Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs Michael W. Quick, PhD, wrote in a letter to the campus community Oct. 10 the university plans to create a new vice president provost position to \"provide leadership training and to evaluate their performance,\" according to the report. Dr. Quick said will also establish an ombuds office to field complaints and help manage \"difficult situations that arise in the workplace,\" the report states. Subscribe to the following topics: hospital physician medical school usc keck Channels Becker's Healthcare Websites Newsletters Events Virtual Events Webinars Partner Content Podcasts Lists Print Multimedia Surveys About Us Most Read Top 40 Articles \u00d7 2/16/25, 8:13 administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment 6/10 Latest articles on Hospital-Physician Relationships: Nicklaus Children's partners with Florida International University: 3 notes Why Houston Methodist's academic chief is thinking 'decades ahead' Physicians hop on the GLP-1 train We think you might be interested in this webinar: Stronger documentation delivers smarter revenue which will take place on Tuesday, March 11th, 2025 at 1:00 - Register Now Copyright \u00a9 2025 Becker's Healthcare. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Cookie Policy. Linking and Reprinting Policy. Subscribe to the Becker's Hospital Review newsletter for the latest in healthcare news! Email* You can unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For more information, please review our Privacy Policy. Articles We Think You'll Like 1. Hospitals grapple with hurricane aftermath: 15 things to know 2 hospitals face fluid shortage 3. 16 hospital ownership changes made in 1 day 4. The 73 drugs made at Baxter's flooded site 5. 12 women making moves in healthcare 6. 10 best small cities to live in Invite a Friend school usc keck Channels Becker's Healthcare Websites Newsletters Events Virtual Events Webinars Partner Content Podcasts Lists Print Multimedia Surveys About Us Most Read Top 40 Articles \u00d7 2/16/25, 8:13 administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment 7/10 7. UnitedHealthcare sues over 1 phone call 8 Health's nurse-led site leadership: 1 year in 9. Sentara Health to retire 10. AHRQ's new patient safety alliance: What leaders need to know 11. 2 longtime healthcare CEOs retire 12. The most powerful women in business: Fortune Featured Whitepapers Featured Webinars Related Articles 1. Former Keck medical school dean raised 'barely 1%' in funding during tenure says 2 began receiving complaints about former medical school dean's behavior 5 years ago: 7 things to know 3. Police release audio recording of former Keck medical school dean's questioning: 10 things to know 4 hires lawyer with 'extensive ties' to university to investigate claims against former Keck medical school dean 5. Police union reviewing hotel incident involving officer, former Keck medical school dean following accusations: 8 things to know 10 Most-Read Articles 1. 1 dead after shooting at AdventHealth hospital 2. 57 health systems on Forbes' list of best large employers 3. 5,200 job cuts at HHS: What to know 4 Jr. confirmed as secretary 5. White House forms 'Make America Healthy Again' commission 6. Cleveland Clinic refutes allegations in new ad campaign Channels Becker's Healthcare Websites Newsletters Events Virtual Events Webinars Partner Content Podcasts Lists Print Multimedia Surveys About Us Most Read Top 40 Articles \u00d7 2/16/25, 8:13 administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment 8/10 7. Kansas system to retire 8. Hospitals stuck in 'wait-and-see mode' 9. Providence: Benefits set to lapse for striking nurses 10. Judge blocks Trump order on gender care for youth: 4 notes Becker's Websites Hospital Spine Clinical Health Dental Payer Podcasts Behavioral Health Physician Leadership MyBHC Career Center Virtual Learning Webinars Whitepapers Podcasts Conferences 15th Annual Meeting Spring Payer Issues Roundtable Clinical Leadership Summit Spring Chief Pharmacy Officer Summit 22nd Annual Spine, Orthopedic and Pain Management-Driven + The Future of Spine Conference Behavioral Health Summit Upcoming Contact Us Channels Becker's Healthcare Websites Newsletters Events Virtual Events Webinars Partner Content Podcasts Lists Print Multimedia Surveys About Us Most Read Top 40 Articles \u00d7 2/16/25, 8:13 administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment 9/10 1.800.417.2035 [email protected] Copyright \u00a9 2025 Becker's Healthcare. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Cookie Policy. Linking and Reprinting Policy. | Employee Access 2/16/25, 8:13 administrator who raised millions for Keck medical school out following claims of sexual harassment 10/10", "7820_103.pdf": "Photo by Padsquad19 68 faculty members signed an October 28 letter that questioned the university\u2019s handling of Fenwick\u2019s complaint against Guerrero. Less than a week after a graduate student sued the University of Southern California for allegedly failing to adequately protect her f professor who she said had sexually harassed her, students in USC\u2019s School of Social Work told administrators they did not feel saf Students Blast USC\u2019s Handling of Sexual Harassment Case Published on October 31, 2017 By Jessica Goodheart \uf099 \uf09a \uf1a1 \uf0e1 \uf0e0 Less than a week after a graduate student sued the University of Southern California for allegedly failing to adequately protect her from a professor who she said had sexually harassed her, students in the university\u2019s School of Social Work told administrators they did not feel safe 2/16/25, 8:13 Students Blast USC's Handling of Sexual Harassment Case 1/4 \u201cOur main message to the administration was that we don\u2019t feel safe the way things are right now,\u201d Social Work doctoral student Robin Petering said after what she described as a \u201ctense\u201d but productive meeting on Monday where she said students covered the room\u2019s windows to ensure their anonymity. In her suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court doctoral candidate Karissa Fenwick said Social Work Professor Erick Guerrero, her dissertation advisor, tried to kiss her, causing her to flee his hotel room in January when they attended a conference in New Orleans. The next day, the suit said, Guerrero warned her not to tell anyone about the incident, saying, the Dean \u201chas invested a lot in me and would never take your side.\u201d Fenwick said she wrestled with whether to report Guerrero. \u201cOn the one hand, reporting him felt like was sabotaging my whole career,\u201d she told news after filing her lawsuit. \u201cAnd on the other hand felt like could not stand back and just wonder if it was going to happen to somebody else if never said anything felt had to do it to protect other students.\u201d The university said in a statement that it took Fenwick\u2019s complaint \u201cvery seriously\u201d and \u201cthoroughly investigated the claims.\u201d Based on its findings, the statement said disciplined Guerrero financial penalty was imposed, he was barred from leadership positions, his office was relocated away from students, and he will not teach classes or supervise students for the current academic year and beyond,\u201d the statement said. \u201cAnd he was warned that any recurrence or retaliation could lead to dismissal.\u201d The statement also said \u201csought to support\u201d Fenwick by providing a new dissertation advisor and prohibiting Guerrero \u201cfrom any and all contact with her.\u201d Guerrero has denied the charges in Fenwick\u2019s suit and has filed a grievance against the university for its handling of the case. He alleged in court papers responding to her complaint that Fenwick is retaliating against him for confronting what he called her inappropriately flirtatious dancing at a piano bar they and other colleagues visited before returning to his hotel room where he went to charge his phone. He said he also suggested that she find another supervisor for her dissertation would never put myself in a compromising situation that can take away all the things have worked so hard to accomplish,\u201d Guerrero said in a statement to news. Fenwick has denied Guerrero\u2019s accusations, and her lawyer, John Winer, called his characterization of the evening in New Orleans as \u201cslut-shaming.\u201d Fenwick\u2019s lawsuit contends that a second student, identified only as \u201cStudent X,\u201d also received unwelcome sexual attention from Guerrero about six years ago with invitations to the opera and compliments about her hair and outfits. Guerrero, the complaint alleges, once told Student X\u2019s boyfriend at a dinner they attended, \u201cYou have good taste, and I\u2019m not talking about your plate of food.\u201d Sixty-eight faculty members signed an October 28 letter that questioned the university\u2019s handling of Fenwick\u2019s complaint against Guerrero. \u201cWe simply cannot reconcile the limited sanctions imposed by the university in light of our Office of Equity and Diversity\u2019s determination that this colleague not only sexually harassed two students, but also then attempted to dissuade a complainant from reporting the incident,\u201d the letter said. It also called on the university to consider dismissing Guerrero. Fenwick and her supporters would like to use her case to make university-wide changes that result in more stringent discipline for harassment and more transparency about the results of investigations. 2/16/25, 8:13 Students Blast USC's Handling of Sexual Harassment Case 2/4 The lawsuit and university investigation are playing out against the backdrop of a rash of media reports of sexual harassment and other improprieties at USC, raising the question for some whether the university is doing enough to create a safe environment on campus. The Los Angeles Times has reported that Vice President of Advancement and Health Sciences Development David Carrera left his job in the wake of allegations that he sexually harassed female colleagues. The Times reported in July that the former Keck School of Medicine Dean, Carmen Puliafito, had engaged in illegal drug use and consorted with prostitutes. Puliafito\u2019s replacement, Rohit Varma, resigned as dean in early October after the Times revealed that he had been disciplined after a sexual harassment allegation from a young researcher in 2003. These administrators were in high-profile positions and responsible for raising millions of dollars for the university. Guerrero, an associate professor, is an important figure his field, according to Fenwick, who has published with him. The university has taken some steps in response to the harassment cases that have come to light over the past year. It has created a task force to oversee and implement workplace standards and a new vice provost of leadership development is being established to oversee hiring processes and work environment, according to the Daily Trojan, the campus newspaper. Fenwick, who does not know if she will continue to pursue a career in academia, told Capital & Main she was asked to keep the investigation confidential even after the university found that Guerrero had violated the school\u2019s sexual harassment policy. That sends the wrong message, she said. \u201cIt\u2019s hard to prevent sexual misconduct if people don\u2019t ever see any deterrent to those behaviors,\u201d Fenwick added. She said that while she can understand the impulse to want protect the professional reputation of someone found to have engaged in harassment, it is more important to the overall culture of an organization to send a message that the behavior will not be tolerated think we need to have more open conversations about what went wrong in my case,\u201d Fenwick said. \u201cWe need to discuss what zero tolerance really means for anyone who is found to have engaged in sexual misconduct.\u201d Guerrero\u2019s attorney, Mark Hathaway, said this case represents what\u2019s wrong with having university administrators enforce Title rules governing sexual misconduct cases that can have such dire consequences for the accusers and the accused. Hathaway said his client was unable to examine the evidence used to support the university\u2019s sanctions against him. \u201cThe use of secret evidence in the 21st Century of the United States\u201d for making important decisions is \u201cunfathomable,\u201d Hathaway said. The university did not respond to Capital & Main\u2019s request for a response to Hathaway\u2019s comments. On Monday, School of Social Work Dean Marilyn Flynn released an open letter to students, faculty, staff and friends of the school in which she addressed the broader discussion around sexual harassment taking place across the country. \u201cThe situation we find ourselves in today is sadly playing out in greater numbers and far beyond the walls of our institution,\u201d Flynn wrote am proud that the shame or fear that drives these incidents into secrecy is being replaced by the courage to come forward and say, \u2018This happened to me and won\u2019t be silent about it anymore.\u2019\u201d Correction: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this article incorrectly ascribed Erick Guerrero\u2019s quote to Student X\u2019s boyfriend as having been made to Karissa Fenwick\u2019s boyfriend. 2/16/25, 8:13 Students Blast USC's Handling of Sexual Harassment Case 3/4 # How Big Insurance\u2019s Investment in Fossil Fuels Came Back to Bite It / January 22, 2025 Uber and Lyft Drivers Ramp Up Push Against \u2018Firing By App / January 20, 2025 Four Months In, Kaiser Mental Health Strike Remains in a Standoff / January 30, 2025 \u2018We\u2019ve Never Seen This in Ame History Before / January 17, 2025 As California Data Centers Grow, So Does Dirty Energy / January 21, 2025 How This Teachers\u2019 Union Is Gearing Up for Trump 2.0 / January 24, 2025 Maui\u2019s Post-Wildfire Housing Crisis Offers a Warning for Los Angeles / January 28, 2025 Will Trump\u2019s Return Be a Devi for Workers Seeking to Organ / January 20, 2025 About Capital & Main Our Staff Board of Directors Advisory Board Awards Columns Special Series Latest Videos Donate Careers Subscribe Contact Us Donor Transparency Policy Donor Disclosure Editorial Independence Policy Copyright 2024 | Fact-based reporting, not opinion. | | Top Stories We regret the error. Copyright Capital & Main 2/16/25, 8:13 Students Blast USC's Handling of Sexual Harassment Case 4/4", "7820_104.pdf": "This article is 8 years old. Information may not be up to date responds to David Carrera\u2019s departure amid sexual harassment investigation University says it has zero tolerance toward harassment on campus, following allegations against one of its top fundraising executives. Expand (Areil Tu / Annenberg Media) By Cici Pan October 12, 2017 at 3:36PM \uf4f3 Listen \"Discrimination and harassment have no place at USC. We do not tolerate behavior that violates our strict policy and take appropriate disciplinary action when it does,\" said Gretchen Means, executive director of the Office of Equity and Diversity, or OED. In a statement on Wednesday, Means said the immediately opened an investigation after receiving complaints about Carrera, who was initially placed on administrative leave. Carrera was named vice president for health sciences development in August 2014 after he led a historic $6-billion fundraising campaign that expanded the university's medical enterprises, including the Keck School of Medicine Verdugo Hills Hospital and Norris Cancer Hospital. The university told the Times that Senior Vice President Albert Checchio was aware of the complaints about Carrera's behavior in March, but he claimed it was not necessary to alert OED. Although Carrera is no longer an employee of the university, Means said, the investigation will continue until all findings are completed. \u201cWe recognize that the values and conduct of our leaders should be beyond reproach, and we are committed to living out these values,\u201d Quick wrote. Editor's picks 1 takes round one of the Crosstown Showdown in front of electric home crowd A\u6587 Share IZ! | Premier League Players of the Week | Mandatory apartment dining plan more than doubles in price | Annenberg Media News App will comply with 2/16/25, 8:14 responds to David Carrera\u2019s departure amid sexual harassment investigation \u2013 Annenberg Media 1/5 2 These 2024 gems got zero Oscar nominations 3 From presidential debate to self-driving Lyft 4 Cupid made me gay: What should do for Valentine\u2019s? 5 Love, and inflation, is in the air Latest You Are Unrivaled: Vol. 4 Sleepers of the Week: Vol. 2 2/16/25, 8:14 responds to David Carrera\u2019s departure amid sexual harassment investigation \u2013 Annenberg Media 2/5 Men\u2019s college basketball updated rankings Army Reserve Officer Training Corps is phasing out its programs New web page tracks presidential executive orders 2/16/25, 8:14 responds to David Carrera\u2019s departure amid sexual harassment investigation \u2013 Annenberg Media 3/5 Recommended \u201cThe Wandering Earth\u201d is a landmark in Chinese film industry About Annenberg Media \u2022 Contact Us \u2022 Get Involved uscannenbergmedia.com \u00a9 2024 Annenberg Media Info About Alumni Ethics Guide Code of Conduct Resources Accessibility Watch Impact Production Blogs Annenberg Radio News From Where We Are Match Volume Podcasts Trojan Tales Los Angeles From the Classroom International South Read Arts, Culture & Entertainment The Beacon Project Black. Capsule 2/16/25, 8:14 responds to David Carrera\u2019s departure amid sexual harassment investigation \u2013 Annenberg Media 4/5 D\u00edmelo Earth elevASIAN Gaming and Esports Health & Wellness Interactives Politics Voices Sports Baseball Basketball Column Football Soccer Track and Field Volleyball 2/16/25, 8:14 responds to David Carrera\u2019s departure amid sexual harassment investigation \u2013 Annenberg Media 5/5", "7820_105.pdf": "Fundraising Executive Parts Ways With University Over Sexual Harassment Allegations By City News Service \u2022 Published October 11, 2017 \u2022 Updated on October 11, 2017 at 9:07 pm USC, already reeling from the ouster of two deans at its medical school and the recent arrest of an assistant basketball coach, suffered another black eye Wednesday with news that one of its vice presidents has parted ways with the university over sexual harassment allegations. David Carrera, one of the leaders of the university's $6 billion fundraising campaign, left his post last week, although it was unclear if he was fired or resigned, the Los Angeles Times reported on its website. According to the report, the Office of Equity and Diversity is conducting an investigation that has involved dozens of interviews about Carrera's treatment of women. \"Discrimination and harassment have no place at executive director Gretchen Dahlinger Means told The Times. \"The university does not tolerate behavior that violates its strict policy and takes appropriate disciplinary action when it does.\" Means said the investigation into Carrera is continuing. According to The Times received at least five complaints about Carrera this year, but an investigation did not begin until a Times story in July focusing on allegations of drug use by Carmen Puliafito, the former dean of the Keck School of Medicine, which prompted a renewed complaint against Carrera. According to The Times report, employees have alleged that Carrera asked women who worked for him about their dating habits and talked to them about his sex life, and he also made comments about the desirability of female co- workers and women he met at fundraising events. Watch News 24/7 \u2614\ufe0fFebruary Storms Resources for Fire Vicitms Help Fire Victims Black Herita\u2026 2/16/25, 8:14 Fundraising Executive Parts Ways With University Over Sexual Harassment Allegations Los Angeles 1/3 Carrera had been with since 2014, but was placed on leave Sept. 9, The Times reported. News Top news of the day Police investigate Santa Monica bar stabbing that left 1 dead, 1 injured Man in custody after climbing to top of Hollywood sign \u2018D' and waving flag News of his departure follows last week's resignation of Keck medical school Dean Rohit Varma, who stepped down amid renewed questions about a 2002 sexual harassment allegation against him by a female researcher. Varma had succeeded Puliafito, who left in March 2016 amid questions about drug use and consorting with criminals. In September assistant men's basketball coach Tony Bland was arrested in connection with a wide-ranging federal bribery probe. Copyright City News Service This article tagged under: Weather Forecast 52\u00b0 Fair 48 9 14 2/16/25, 8:14 Fundraising Executive Parts Ways With University Over Sexual Harassment Allegations Los Angeles 2/3 0% Precip 68 NBC4 52 Public Inspection File Accessibility Employment Information Applications Send Feedback Advertise With Us Privacy Policy Terms of Service Cookie Notice Notice Ad Choices Copyright \u00a9 2025 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All rights reserved 2/16/25, 8:14 Fundraising Executive Parts Ways With University Over Sexual Harassment Allegations Los Angeles 3/3"} |
7,678 | Gabriel Piterberg | University of California – Los Angeles | [
"7678_101.pdf",
"7678_102.pdf",
"7678_103.pdf",
"7678_104.pdf",
"7678_105.pdf",
"7678_106.pdf",
"7678_107.pdf"
] | {"7678_101.pdf": "NEWS: Black History Month 2025 2/16/25, 8:15 settles lawsuit with graduate students alleging Title violations - Daily Bruin 1/6 settles lawsuit with graduate students alleging Title violations Two graduate students who claimed they were sexually harassed by professor Gabriel Piterberg received a dissertation year fellowship and $460,000 total in settlements from the Board of Regents. (Jintak Han/Assistant photo editor) By Evolet Chiu Sept. 9, 2016 6:50 p.m settled a lawsuit Thursday that was filed by two graduate students who claimed they were sexually harassed by professor Gabriel Piterberg. According to a statement, the Board of Regents agreed to pay one student $350,000 and the other student $110,000. They will also provide one of the students with a dissertation year fellowship in her final year of graduate school. Nefertiti Takla and Kristen Glasgow, both graduate students in history, sued in June 2015, alleging that violated Title when dealing with their claims of sexual h h d d i b f ki l l d 2/16/25, 8:15 settles lawsuit with graduate students alleging Title violations - Daily Bruin 2/6 harassment. The students accused Piterberg of making unwelcome sexual advances and comments, conversing about sexual matters and forcing his tongue into their mouths. The students\u2019 lawyers said in a press release that officials discouraged the graduate students from making a formal complaint about Piterberg\u2019s misconduct. The statement did not specify which student received which settlement. Piterberg was suspended in spring 2015, after the graduate students filed sexual assault complaints against him. In May 2015, Piterberg resigned from his position as director of the Center for Near Eastern Studies. But allowed Piterberg to resume teaching following a settlement in February. The settlement stated that Piterberg could not contact Takla or be romantically involved with students. Piterberg paid the Regents $3,000. Piterberg also resigned from a visiting scholar appointment abroad in May 2016 after students petitioned for his removal from the European University Institute. In June, Piterberg and Stephen Aron, the chair of the history department, agreed that Piterberg will not teach in fall 2016 and resume teaching in winter and spring. However, Piterberg was scheduled to teach a course titled History 105A Survey of Middle East, 500 to Present: 500 to 1300 in fall 2016, according to the Registrar\u2019s Office. The course was later cancelled and rescheduled to winter 2017 officials said the change was due to the interests and needs of the history department. According to a letter by Aron that outlined the agreements, Piterberg will be allowed to use his office in Bunche Hall only on weekends and as needed for the 2016-2017 academic year. Piterberg also agreed to hold office hours on campus in Charles E. Young Research Library with the office door open and during business hours. The arrangements will be in effect until June 16, 2017 and revisited at that time. Last year officials created the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and hired a new Title coordinator, to whom members of the community are encouraged to report any incident of sexual harassment or violence. According to the statement also created peer review committees to review proposed sanctions for any 2/16/25, 8:15 settles lawsuit with graduate students alleging Title violations - Daily Bruin 3/6 also created peer review committees to review proposed sanctions for any faculty member found to violate the Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment. Share this story: Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Evolet Chiu | Science & Health editor \u00bb About Contact Submit Advertise Staff Stonewall Editorial Board Privacy Comment Policy Community Guide Copyright \u00a9 2025 Daily Bruin 2/16/25, 8:15 settles lawsuit with graduate students alleging Title violations - Daily Bruin 4/6 2/16/25, 8:15 settles lawsuit with graduate students alleging Title violations - Daily Bruin 5/6 2/16/25, 8:15 settles lawsuit with graduate students alleging Title violations - Daily Bruin 6/6", "7678_102.pdf": "Professor Fired After Sexual Harassment Claims Made Against Him By City News Service \u2022 Published March 15, 2018 \u2022 Updated on March 15, 2018 at 3:37 am professor accused of sexual harassment has lost his job with the university and any chance of future employment with the University of California under a settlement announced this week, it was reported Thursday. History professor Gabriel Piterberg made unwelcome sexual comments and contact \"including an open-mouth kiss\" to a person or persons in 2008 and between 2009 and 2013, a Title investigation has found, according to the Los Angeles Times did not disclose the number or names of the complainants. Piterberg disputes the findings but agreed to leave and forgo any emeritus status, future employment in the system, office space or other privileges under the settlement, The Times reported statement said the university \"remains firmly committed to increasing transparency on the issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence university spokesman declined to provide further details. Piterberg's ouster followed years of legal tussling. Copyright City News Service Watch News 24/7 \u2614\ufe0fFebruary Storms Resources for Fire Vicitms Help Fire Victims Black Herita\u2026 2/16/25, 8:15 Professor Fired After Sexual Harassment Claims Made Against Him Los Angeles 1/2 Weather Forecast 52\u00b0 Fair 0% Precip 48 68 NBC4 52 Public Inspection File Accessibility Employment Information Applications Send Feedback Advertise With Us Privacy Policy Terms of Service Cookie Notice Notice Ad Choices Copyright \u00a9 2025 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. All rights reserved 2/16/25, 8:15 Professor Fired After Sexual Harassment Claims Made Against Him Los Angeles 2/2", "7678_103.pdf": "Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Statement concerning Title Investigation of Professor G. Piterberg (2018) In 2017, after an extensive investigation, the Title Office found that Prof. Gabriel Piterberg committed sexual harassment in violation of University sexual harassment policy by making unwelcome comments of a sexual nature and unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature (in the form of an open mouth kiss). According to the investigation report, these comments and conduct occurred in 2008 and during the time period of 2009 to 2013. The investigation report was submitted to the appropriate Administration and Academic Senate units for further handling. At the urging of the Privilege and Tenure Committee of the Academic Senate, the Administration and Prof. Piterberg engaged in settlement negotiations. Prof. Piterberg disputes and denies the findings of the Title investigation report. The parties have reached a settlement, which includes separation from employment, denial of emeritus status, denial of future employment with the University of California, denial of permanent or temporary office space or support, and denial of parking privileges and campus access beyond that which is afforded to general members of the public. The Administration remains firmly committed to increasing transparency on the issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence. \u27a1 Back to \u201cInvestigation Reports and Summaries\u201d Report an Incident About Accountability Civil Rights Education Engagement Support 2/16/25, 8:16 Statement concerning Title Investigation of Professor G. Piterberg (2018 Equity, Diversity & Inclusion 1/2 UCLA's Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) leads and advances strategies for enhancing equity, diversity and inclusion; protecting civil rights; and upholding dignity for all in our community. As a land grant institution, the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion at acknowledges the Gabrielino/Tongva peoples as the traditional land caretakers of Tovaangar (Los Angeles basin, So. Channel Islands). If you know of a valuable resource that we have overlooked on this website, please let us know at [email protected] Homepage Diversity Terms of Use (310) 825- 3935 Murphy Hall, Los Angeles 90095- 1405 \u00a9 2025 Support 2/16/25, 8:16 Statement concerning Title Investigation of Professor G. Piterberg (2018 Equity, Diversity & Inclusion 2/2", "7678_104.pdf": "students vowed to resume their protests Wednesday against Gabriel Piterberg, an Israel- educated historian, over charges by two of his female students of repeated sexual harassment. Piterberg, a graduate of Tel Aviv University who served in the Israeli army, until now was more widely known as a fierce critic of Israel and its founders. When Piterberg appeared at his Monday morning class \u2014 for the first time since settling a sexual harassment case with the university \u2014 he was greeted by chants of \u201cHey, hey, ho, ho, Piterberg has got to go,\u201d according to the Daily Bruin student newspaper and members of Bruins Against Sexual Harassment photograph taken in his classroom shows a message on the blackboard reading, \u201cIf a tenured professor sexually assaults his own students it\u2019s abuse of power.\u201d Some 20 minutes after the start of the class a student stood up and left, after which Piterberg dismissed the other students and also canceled his scheduled afternoon class. Protesters said they would return and continue their disruptions during Piterberg\u2019s scheduled Wednesday classes. In 2013, two female graduate students accused Piterberg, 61, of harassing them over many years by making sexual comments, pressing himself against their bodies and forcing his tongue into their mouths, the Los Angeles Times reported. Protests as Israeli professor accused of harassment returns to Students walk out as Gabriel Piterberg begins class after settling sexual misconduct case with university By 12 January 2017, 12:51 am professor Gabriel Piterberg delivers a lecture at the American Muslims for Palestine Southern California's Conference for Palestine held in Irvine on December 7th, 2013. (screen capture: YouTube) 2/16/25, 8:16 Protests as Israeli professor accused of harassment returns to | The Times of Israel 1/3 Piterberg, who has declined all requests for interviews, has formally denied the charges, but in a 2014 settlement with the administration he accepted a $3,000 fine, a suspension without pay for one quarter and agreed to attend a training course against sexual harassment. He was also removed from his position as director of the Gustav von Grunebaum Center for Near Eastern Studies at and was forbidden to meet individually with certain students except during office hours, and then only if the door remained open. The settlement did not prevent Piterberg\u2019s return to his teaching post, triggering widespread complaints that the university had been too lenient in the case group of 38 history professors sent a letter to Chancellor Gene Block that stated, in part, \u201cStudents, staff and faculty must contend with the presence of an admitted harasser in our midst,\u201d and noted that Piterberg had expressed no remorse for his actions or for the damage he had inflicted on the history department. According to his resume, Piterberg served in the Israeli army in the early 1980s, and saw action against forces in Southern Lebanon. He was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, but grew up in Israel. After his army discharge, Piterberg studied and received academic degrees \u2013 all with highest honors \u2013 from Tel Aviv University in Middle East history and political science, and a doctorate from Oxford University, where his research focused on the history of the Ottoman Empire. Subsequently, he taught at England\u2019s University of Durham and at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev. In 1999, he joined the history faculty, advanced to full professor in 2008 and was named director of the Near East Studies Center in 2013. At seminars and in specialized scholarly publications, Piterberg early on earned a reputation as an unrelenting critic of the creation and existence of Israel. He has described himself as \u201cnot only a non-Zionist, but in certain ways also anti-Zionist.\u201d One of his most vocal critics at has been Judea Pearl, a professor of computer science and director of its Cognitive Systems Laboratory. He and his wife, Ruth, are also co-founders of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, created in memory of their son, The Wall Street Journal reporter murdered by Islamist extremists in Pakistan in 2002. \u201cPiterberg belongs to a group of extreme left so-called historians who see their role as the reinterpretation of history to fit their political agenda,\u201d Pearl said. Pearl said that Piterberg has greatly damaged and its history department by trying to legitimatize anti-Israel movements on campus and \u201cdemoralizing Jewish students.\u201d 2/16/25, 8:16 Protests as Israeli professor accused of harassment returns to | The Times of Israel 2/3 2/16/25, 8:16 Protests as Israeli professor accused of harassment returns to | The Times of Israel 3/3", "7678_105.pdf": "Campus Watch Middle East Studies in the News Gabriel Piterberg, a tenured history professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, faced two allegations of sexual harassment in the past five years. After the first accusation, Dr. Piterberg was barred from closed-door, one-on-one meetings with students in his office, was told by not to have romantic relationships with students, paid a fine and took a one-quarter suspension, the school said. The allegations, according to a legal complaint, included unwelcome comments and forcing his tongue into a graduate student\u2019s mouth. Dissatisfied with the response, the student\u2014and another with similar complaints\u2014sued and settled in 2016 for a combined $460,000, according to the lawsuit and settlement documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. In March, after a new investigation by the university into that conduct, he signed a separation agreement from the school. Dr. Piterberg declined to comment, though has said he disputes the internal investigation\u2019s findings spokesman noted that the school has changed its policies and procedures since the original settlement with Dr. Piterberg. The school, in a statement about the investigation and 2018 settlement, said it \u201cremains firmly committed to increasing transparency on the issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence.\u201d Universities Slap Rules on Professors Accused of Sexual Harassment [incl. Gabriel Piterberg] June 6, 2018 \u2022 Melissa Korn \u2022 The Wall Street Journal 2/16/25, 8:16 Universities Slap Rules on Professors Accused of Sexual Harassment [incl. Gabriel Piterberg] - Middle East Forum 1/7 Colleges and universities have struggled for years with how to handle complaints of sexual harassment and assault, since long before the #MeToo movement and Michigan State University\u2019s $500 million settlement last month with victims of former sports-medicine doctor Larry Nassar raised the stakes over the issue. It is too soon to know whether schools have been prompted to rethink their responses in the wake of the latest developments; some, like the University of California system, had already begun to revamp their policies after seeing institutions criticized for light penalties. Schools often choose to resolve complaints outside the court system but within the constraints of the tenure system, coming up with workarounds for accused faculty members: Keep your office door open. Don\u2019t mentor any women. No coffees or dinners with students. Tenure protections, intended to ensure that faculty aren\u2019t penalized for having unpopular views or for researching controversial topics, mean there is a high bar for more serious sanctions. \u201cWhat you often see is behavior that would get a staff member fired is not enough to get a tenured faculty member fired for cause,\u201d said Natasha Baker, a partner at employment and higher-education law firm Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP. In the summer of 2016, University of Wisconsin administrators met with urban- and regional-planning professor Harvey Jacobs to discuss his alleged behavior, according to a letter they sent to Dr. Jacobs in April 2017 that was reviewed by the Journal. Administrators received more complaints last spring, including that he stared at a colleague\u2019s breasts and made her feel \u201cextremely uncomfortable, objectified, and victimized,\u201d the letter said. They took a more direct tack: Dr. Jacobs was told not to meet alone with, advise or mentor female students, staff or junior faculty, according to the letter. In December, the restrictions were extended to men, so women weren\u2019t disadvantaged by limited access to the professor, the school said. Dr. Jacobs retired effective May 21, though the school said its investigation into his behavior continues spokeswoman said the university is committed to addressing sexual harassment and climate issues and supports a number of enhanced prevention and education programs. 2/16/25, 8:16 Universities Slap Rules on Professors Accused of Sexual Harassment [incl. Gabriel Piterberg] - Middle East Forum 2/7 Dr. Jacobs didn\u2019t respond to emailed requests for comment in May or earlier this month woman who answered the phone at a number listed for Dr. Jacobs\u2019 home on Tuesday said he wasn\u2019t available. \u201cWhat kind of message does it send that you\u2019re allowing someone to work on campus but you don\u2019t trust them with students?\u201d asked Will Mallari, an independent Title workplace investigator and attorney who used to run such inquiries at the University of California system, speaking broadly about restrictions some schools place on faculty members. Limiting how faculty members interact with students, without removing them from the school entirely, sometimes can fulfill a school\u2019s Title requirements to eliminate harassment and prevent its recurrence, said Josh Richards, vice chair of the higher education practice at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP. \u201cThere\u2019s no playbook for how institutions are required to do that,\u201d he said. While students or others may call for a more severe penalty, \u201cthat\u2019s just not required under the law.\u201d During his final two months at the University of Michigan, statistics professor Edward Rothman had agreed to \u201climit student contact to classroom teaching and regularly-scheduled office hours,\u201d and to \u201cnot socialize with students which includes, but is not limited to, having meals or coffee with students,\u201d according to a settlement agreement reviewed by The Journal. He retired at the end of 2016 and received a $135,000 payout, according to the settlement documents. Accusations or findings against Dr. Rothman weren\u2019t disclosed, but Michigan released the documents in response to a public-records request by the Journal for settlements related to sexual-harassment allegations. In February 2017, he was identified by the school\u2019s regents as \u201can exceptional scholar, teacher and mentor,\u201d and he remains an emeritus professor Michigan spokesman said the university\u2019s response to harassment allegations \u201cis always tailored to a specific situation.\u201d He noted that Dr. Rothman doesn\u2019t have a faculty office on campus. Dr. Rothman declined to comment. 2/16/25, 8:16 Universities Slap Rules on Professors Accused of Sexual Harassment [incl. Gabriel Piterberg] - Middle East Forum 3/7 Latest Announces Leadership Transition: Pipes Becomes Chairman, Roman Named Executive Director February 14, 2025 The U.N. Must Stop Being the Houthis\u2019 Willing Hostage in Yemen February 14, 2025 \u00b7 Michael Rubin The Case for Ending the Israel-Hamas Ceasefire February 13, 2025 \u00b7 Jonathan Spyer Voice of America\u2019s Kurdish Service Needs Top-to-Bottom Reform February 13, 2025 \u00b7 Michael Rubin Emiratis Place U.K.-Based Companies on Terrorist List February 12, 2025 \u00b7 Anna Stanley See more on this Topic University of California, Los Angeles Gabriel Piterberg Middle East Studies Experts Behaving Badly 2/16/25, 8:16 Universities Slap Rules on Professors Accused of Sexual Harassment [incl. Gabriel Piterberg] - Middle East Forum 4/7 Harvard Wants to Talk about Israel-Palestine: Can It Succeed? November 22, 2024 Building a Pipeline of Hate George Washington University\u2019s Failure to Remove from Its Middle East Studies Program Shows a Continued Tolerance for the Promotion of Terrorism October 29, 2024 2/16/25, 8:16 Universities Slap Rules on Professors Accused of Sexual Harassment [incl. Gabriel Piterberg] - Middle East Forum 5/7 Program Meant To Boost National Security Funds Anti-American Professors, Study Finds One Columbia Professor Touted in a Federal Grant Application Gave a Talk Called \u2018On Zionism and Jewish Supremacy\u2019 October 16, 2024 Campus Watch Middle East Quarterly Islamist Watch Terms and Conditions Middle East Forum Observer Privacy Policy Israel Victory Project Cookie Policy Focus on Western Islamism Contact Us Load More 2/16/25, 8:16 Universities Slap Rules on Professors Accused of Sexual Harassment [incl. Gabriel Piterberg] - Middle East Forum 6/7 The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects the West from Middle Eastern threats. \u00a9 2025 Middle East Forum \u2022 E-mail: [email protected] \u2022 Tel: 1 (215) 546-5406 2/16/25, 8:16 Universities Slap Rules on Professors Accused of Sexual Harassment [incl. Gabriel Piterberg] - Middle East Forum 7/7", "7678_106.pdf": "NEWS: Black History Month 2025 2/16/25, 8:16 Professor involved in Title lawsuit resigns from fellowship position - Daily Bruin 1/4 Professor involved in Title lawsuit resigns from fellowship position Students and faculty called for professor Gabriel Piterberg\u2019s removal in an April demonstration. Piterberg resigned from a European University Institute position after a petition asked for his removal. (Daily Bruin file photo) By Ryan Leou May 26, 2016 1:38 p.m history professor Gabriel Piterberg, who has been accused of sexual harassment by several graduate students, resigned Sunday from a visiting scholar appointment in Florence, Italy, according to an email from the European University Institute petition calling for Piterberg\u2019s removal from the European University Institute was circulated among and European University Institute students and faculty. The petition garnered 254 signatures. The petition cited a federal lawsuit two graduate students filed against the Regents i i ffi i l f di i th f fili l h t 2/16/25, 8:16 Professor involved in Title lawsuit resigns from fellowship position - Daily Bruin 2/4 in June, accusing officials of discouraging them from filing sexual harassment complaints against Piterberg. The lawsuit alleges Piterberg made sexual comments and unwanted advances toward the two students. Before the lawsuit was filed and Piterberg reached a settlement in which suspended Piterberg for a quarter without pay and fined him $3,000, but allowed him to continue teaching. Piterberg also agreed to take sexual harassment training. The European University Institute had awarded Piterberg the Fernand Braudel Fellowship last spring, around the time Piterberg was suspended from UCLA. The fellowship provides research funding at the institute. Although Piterberg resigned from the visiting scholar appointment, he remains a professor at UCLA. Share this story: Facebook Twitter Reddit Email Ryan Leou | Assistant News Editor \u00bb About Contact Submit Advertise Staff Stonewall Editorial Board Privacy Comment Policy Community Guide 2/16/25, 8:16 Professor involved in Title lawsuit resigns from fellowship position - Daily Bruin 3/4 Copyright \u00a9 2025 Daily Bruin 2/16/25, 8:16 Professor involved in Title lawsuit resigns from fellowship position - Daily Bruin 4/4", "7678_107.pdf": "Campus Watch Middle East Studies in the News history professor suspended over sexual harassment allegations returned to teaching Monday, but his classes were canceled after students launched noisy protests. Gabriel Piterberg, a Mideast specialist, was accused by two female graduate students of repeatedly harassing them over many years by making sexual comments, pressing himself against their bodies and forcing his tongue into their mouths. In a settlement with reached in 2014 but released only last spring, Piterberg did not concede he had engaged in unlawful or inappropriate conduct but agreed to pay a $3,000 fine, accept a suspension without pay for one quarter and attend sexual harassment training also removed him as director of UCLA\u2019s Center for Near East Studies and imposed restrictions on his contact with students, including a three-year ban on closed-door individual meetings with students. The settlement was widely criticizedby students, faculty and staff for what they viewed as weak sanctions and unwarranted secrecy. The two graduate students, Nefertiti Takla and Kristen Glasgow, filed a federal lawsuit against the University of California in 2015, alleging insufficient action on their complaints. They reached a settlement last September, with one student receiving $350,000 and the other $110,000 and a fellowship to support continued work on her dissertation. On Monday, several students who protested Piterberg\u2019s return said the sanctions he faced were not strong enough Professor Sanctioned Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations Returns to Teaching, Sparks Protests [on Gabriel Piterberg] January 9, 2017 \u2022 Teresa Watanabe \u2022 The Los Angeles Times 2/16/25, 8:16 Professor Sanctioned Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations Returns to Teaching, Sparks Protests [on Gabriel Piterberg] - Mid\u2026 1/6 They hung a poster on his classroom blackboard saying, \u201cGood morning sexual harasser\u201d and placed informational fliers about his case on the seats campus official removed the fliers and sign before Piterberg arrived for his 8 a.m. class on the Ottoman empire but left intact a message written on the blackboard saying, \u201cIf a tenured professor sexually assaults his own students, it\u2019s abuse of power,\u201d according to Melissa Melpignano, a fourth-year doctoral student and member of Bruins Against Sexual Harassment. Five of about 45 students in the classroom stood and held signs calling for his ouster, while dozens of others chanted protests outside his classroom. After about 20 minutes, campus officials entered the classroom and suggested Piterberg cancel the class, which he did, according to Melpignano, who witnessed the events. Piterberg\u2019s second class, a survey of Middle East history from 500 to the present, was also canceled. \u201cWe wanted to send a clear message to the university and the history department that we don\u2019t think someone accused of sexual harassment should be teaching undergraduate classes,\u201d Melpignano said. UCLA, Piterberg and history department chair Stephen Aron did not respond to requests for comment. In its 2014 settlement with Piterberg agreed not to pursue action with the Academic Senate that could force the professor out or jeopardize his tenure. The university also agreed to end its Title investigation into the harassment charges without reaching a conclusion spokeswoman Dianne Klein said the Piterberg case was handled under old university policies, which have since been reformed. While a few senior administrators decided the sanctions against Piterberg, proposed sanctions in cases against senior leaders and faculty today would be evaluated by campus peer review committees to make sure they were commensurate with the misconduct. The campus committees are modeled after one President Janet Napolitano launched systemwide last year to review and approve all proposed sanctions in sexual misconduct cases involving senior university leaders. 2/16/25, 8:16 Professor Sanctioned Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations Returns to Teaching, Sparks Protests [on Gabriel Piterberg] - Mid\u2026 2/6 also has created a new Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion led by Vice Chancellor Jerry Kang, and hired Kathleen Salvaty, a well-respected civil rights attorney, as its Title coordinator. Viola Ardeni, a fourth-year doctoral student in Italian who protested Piterberg\u2019s return Monday, said campus advocates against sexual harassment are hopeful that Salvaty will be more open than the previous coordinator to student ideas for further improvement of sexual-misconduct policies. Students want more transparency in how cases are handled and resolved, among other things, she said. \u201cTo obtain more transparency would be a bigger victory than having (Piterberg) removed,\u201d Ardeni said. The students said they would continue to protest Piterberg, and the campus Daily Bruin, which reportedthe story, quoted one student who said he planned to drop his class. Latest Announces Leadership Transition: Pipes Becomes Chairman, Roman Named Executive Director February 14, 2025 The U.N. Must Stop Being the Houthis\u2019 Willing Hostage in Yemen February 14, 2025 \u00b7 Michael Rubin University of California, Los Angeles Gabriel Piterberg Middle East Studies Experts Behaving Badly 2/16/25, 8:16 Professor Sanctioned Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations Returns to Teaching, Sparks Protests [on Gabriel Piterberg] - Mid\u2026 3/6 The Case for Ending the Israel-Hamas Ceasefire February 13, 2025 \u00b7 Jonathan Spyer Voice of America\u2019s Kurdish Service Needs Top-to-Bottom Reform February 13, 2025 \u00b7 Michael Rubin Emiratis Place U.K.-Based Companies on Terrorist List February 12, 2025 \u00b7 Anna Stanley See more on this Topic Harvard Wants to Talk about Israel-Palestine: Can It Succeed? November 22, 2024 2/16/25, 8:16 Professor Sanctioned Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations Returns to Teaching, Sparks Protests [on Gabriel Piterberg] - Mid\u2026 4/6 Building a Pipeline of Hate George Washington University\u2019s Failure to Remove from Its Middle East Studies Program Shows a Continued Tolerance for the Promotion of Terrorism October 29, 2024 Program Meant To Boost National Security Funds Anti-American Professors, Study Finds One Columbia Professor Touted in a Federal Grant Application Gave a Talk Called \u2018On Zionism and Jewish Supremacy\u2019 October 16, 2024 Load More 2/16/25, 8:16 Professor Sanctioned Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations Returns to Teaching, Sparks Protests [on Gabriel Piterberg] - Mid\u2026 5/6 Campus Watch Middle East Quarterly Islamist Watch Terms and Conditions Middle East Forum Observer Privacy Policy Israel Victory Project Cookie Policy Focus on Western Islamism Contact Us The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects the West from Middle Eastern threats. \u00a9 2025 Middle East Forum \u2022 E-mail: [email protected] \u2022 Tel: 1 (215) 546-5406 2/16/25, 8:16 Professor Sanctioned Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations Returns to Teaching, Sparks Protests [on Gabriel Piterberg] - Mid\u2026 6/6"} |
8,068 | Douglas Fugman | Rutgers University | [
"8068_101.pdf"
] | {"8068_101.pdf": "Rutgers official accused of raping, harassing employee for 10 years Sergio Bichao @sbichao Published 6:02 p.m June 18, 2015 Updated 6:22 p.m June 18, 2015 Key Points Rutgers University employee%27s lawsuit says she was sexually assaulted by a supervisor. The supervisor%2C who no longer works for Rutgers%2C denies wrongdoing. Rutgers declined to release report of investigation into claims former Rutgers University professor and managing director of one of the university's most important research centers is being accused of sexually harassing and raping an employee over the course of a decade. The accusations against Douglas Fugman, who was terminated last year following a university investigation, were revealed in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed earlier this year in Superior Court by an employee of the Rutgers University Cell and Repository (RUCDR). Fugman has denied any wrongdoing. The Dunellen resident also has not been charged with a crime and his accuser never reported the alleged assaults to police. The employee \u2014 who is not being named because MyCentralJersey.com and the Home News Tribune do not identify victims of sexual assault \u2014 is seeking an unspecified amount for damages under provisions against a hostile work environment and sexual quid pro quo under the state's Law Against Discrimination. The lawsuit names Fugman and the university as defendants. The employee said the harassment began shortly after she was promoted to lab supervisor in 2002. Source: N.J. Division on Civil Rights 2/16/25, 8:19 Rutgers official accused of raping, harassing employee for 10 years 1/3 \"Dr. Fugman began a course of sexual harassment and assault which continued for approximately 10 years,\" the lawsuit says, claiming she was denied promotions and requests to change her shift. The alleged harassment included \"looks,\" sexual comments, grabbing, \"forcibly kissing\" and \"physical attacks.\" After she was transferred to the night shift that year, Fugman \"then began coming at plaintiff during the nighttime in an extremely aggressive manner,\" the lawsuit says. The \"sexual assaults became increasingly more severe in nature\" with Fugman forcing the woman to perform oral sex on him and sexual intercourse in his office, the lawsuit claims. \"Over the course of time, these assaults escalated in frequency to the point where they were occurring on a regular basis,\" and he even showed up at her home demanding to be let in, the lawsuit says. The woman says the assaults subsided after she got married in 2005 and she threatened to tell her husband. The lawsuit says Office of Employment Equity investigated the complaint and issued a report in February 2014 that determined that such a relationship had occurred and that same was not welcome to plaintiff due to the \"imbalance of power within the workplace.\" The woman's attorney, Gregory Noble of O'Connor, Parsons, Lane & Noble in Westfield, declined to provide MyCentralJersey.com with a copy of the university's report. The university also denied a reporter access to the report citing exemptions in the state's Open Public Records Act for documents regarding sexual harassment complaints or employee grievances. Fugman could not be reached for comment, and his attorney, Steven Backfish, of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper in Westfield, referred all questions to a Rutgers spokesman, who said the university does not comment on pending litigation. In court papers, Fugman denies any assault or sexual harassment and says all contact between him and the woman \"was consensual.\" Fugman said he was only one of the woman's many supervisors and denies that he \"unilaterally controlled plaintiff's ability to transfer or receive a promotion.\" 2/16/25, 8:19 Rutgers official accused of raping, harassing employee for 10 years 2/3 Fugman's response acknowledges the university's report but says only that it \"speaks for itself.\" University payroll records indicate Fugman, who was earning $132,600, was terminated Sept. 30, 2014. His accuser remains on the payroll. The describes itself as the world's largest university-based biorepository and assists research into the genetic causes of diseases. Staff Writer Sergio Bichao: 908-243-6615; [email protected] 2/16/25, 8:19 Rutgers official accused of raping, harassing employee for 10 years 3/3"} |
7,759 | James Harwood | University of Kentucky | [
"7759_101.pdf",
"7759_102.pdf",
"7759_103.pdf",
"7759_104.pdf",
"7759_105.pdf",
"7759_106.pdf",
"7759_107.pdf",
"7759_108.pdf",
"7759_109.pdf",
"7759_110.pdf"
] | {"7759_101.pdf": "Sunday, Feb. 16, 2025 \uf002 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f Administration News Public Records Details of the James Harwood investigation and records battle Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. listens to UK\u2019s lawyer during oral arguments heard by the Kentucky Supreme Court in UK\u2019s lawsuit against the Kernel on Friday, Oct. 23, 2020, at the Kentucky Supreme Court in Frankfort, Kentucky. Photo by Michael Clubb | Staff. Emily Girard August 26, 2021 James Harwood, at the time an associate professor of entomology at UK, resigned from his position in February 2016 after being accused of sexual harassment. The terms of his resignation agreement stated that he would receive pay and benefits until that August with no direct contact with faculty, staff or students. Background In 2016, the Kernel made an open records request to for documents pertaining to the case, which denied. The Kernel appealed to the Kentucky Attorney General, who ruled that had no legal right to withhold records under the Kentucky Open Records Act announced it would sue the Kernel in an attempt to appeal the decision, a statement which, despite the Kernel already receiving 122 pages of redacted records, they followed through on in September 2016. The lawsuit prompted wide responses both at and across the state. Though UK\u2019s Board of Trustees initially took no action in regard to the lawsuit added kentuckykernel Kentucky Kernel 12.6K followers \u2022 1,935 posts View full profile on Instagram Tweets by KyKernel Follow us on Instagram \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f initially took no action in regard to the lawsuit added a sexual misconduct history check to its hiring process. At a later meeting in October 2016, the Board of Trustees mentioned that walk-ins to UK\u2019s Violence Intervention and Prevention center have decreased since the investigation was reported on by the Kernel. That November, a week after the Kernel reported that other Kentucky public universities had begun following UK\u2019s lead in denying records, the Feminist Alliance and others protested UK\u2019s handling of the case. The case\u2019s legal history In January 2017, a Fayette County Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of UK, citing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The Kernel brought the decision to the appeals court. Oral arguments were heard in the appeal in September 2018, and in May 2019, the court ruled in favor of the Kernel, ordering once more to comply with the Open Records Act and give the Kernel more documents asked the Kentucky Supreme Court to reveal the appellate court\u2019s decision, a request that was granted in December 2019. However, the verdict did not come until March 28, 2021. The Supreme Court decision The court unanimously ruled in favor of the Kernel and ordered to turn over the documents by May 28, finding that \u201cthe University failed to comply with its obligations under the [Open Records Act] and that the trial court clearly erred in finding the entire investigative file exempt from disclosure \u201d \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f investigative file exempt from disclosure. \u201cIt\u2019s very unusual to get an opinion of that length which includes language so critical of one of the party\u2019s actions,\u201d said Tom Miller, one of the Kernel\u2019s attorneys. However, the Supreme Court\u2019s opinion appeared to significantly restrict the ability to obtain details of any alleged sexual misconduct \u2014 even, in this case, whether the misconduct was sexual harassment or sexual assault, a distinction that carries different levels of repercussions. The court argued that these details should not be revealed since it was conceivable that victims could somehow be identified by this information, Miller said. UK\u2019s refusal to follow the law came at a considerable price, Miller said. The university paid $52,368.47 in outside counsel from 2016 to April 2021 spokesperson Jay Blanton said. Miller said that the university\u2019s total bill includes its payment of $30,000 of the Kernel\u2019s legal fees and an estimated $100,000 to its own attorneys. The documents The Kernel received the documents on May 28, 2021, but after reviewing them, objected, stating they were overly redacted. It requested that reveal the details of Harwood\u2019s described misconduct, the locations where it took place and the \u201cangry emails\u201d Harwood allegedly sent to students involved with the investigation refused, saying this information could potentially identify the victims. Rather than take back to court, the Kernel decided alongside its attorneys in August to not pursue any \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f a o gs de ts atto eys ugust to ot pu sue a y further litigation so as to not potentially reverse any progress made in the Kentucky Supreme Court win. If the Kernel had challenged the redactions and lost, the university may theoretically have been able to cite the court opinion as legal precedent to redact important investigation details in future open records requests. Miller said his main concern was that the judge would disagree with the Kernel and \u201cwrite an opinion that would somehow restrict the ability of the Kernel and the students to get information and documentation from going forward,\u201d had the Kernel decided to challenge the redactions. Leave a Comment kykernel.com 9 Blazer Dining Lexington 40506 Phone: (859) 257-1915 Email: [email protected] About Us Advertise With Us Subscribe To Our E\u2026 Support The Kernel Mens Basketball Women\u2019s Basketball Football Baseball Softball Volleyball Gymnastics Men\u2019s Soccer Women\u2019s Soccer Tennis News Features Sports Opinions Multimedia Classifieds Local Events \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f \u00a9 2025 Pro WordPress Theme by \u2022 Log in \uf39e \uf16d\ue61b\ue07b\uf167\uf0e0 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f", "7759_102.pdf": "Details of the James Harwood investigation and records battle | News | kykernel.com Page 1 of 4 battle/article_e68eb8b4-06ce-11ec-90be-ebd5933863f0.html Details of the James Harwood investigation and records battle Emily Girard Aug 26, 2021 Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. listens to UK's lawyer during oral arguments heard by the Kentucky Supreme Court in UK's lawsuit against the Kernel on Friday, Oct. 23, 2020, at the Kentucky Supreme Court in Frankfort, Kentucky. Photo by Michael Clubb Staff. Michael Clubb James Harwood, at the time an associate professor of entomology at UK, resigned from his position in February 2016 after being accused of sexual harassment. The terms of his resignation agreement stated that he would receive pay and benefits until that August with no direct contact with faculty, staff or students. 9/13/2021", "7759_103.pdf": "View Comments University Will Sue Its Own Student Newspaper For Reporting On Sexual Assault Case The University of Kentucky will take its student paper to court to avoid releasing documents detailing scientist James Harwood\u2019s alleged sexual assault against two students. Azeen Ghorayshi BuzzFeed News Reporter Posted on August 23, 2016 at 3:58 pm Subscribe to BuzzFeed Daily Newsletter 2/16/25, 8:20 University Will Sue Its Own Student Newspaper For Reporting On Sexual Assault Case 1/7 Wikipedia In an unprecedented move to keep the contents of a faculty sexual assault investigation secret, the University of Kentucky intends to sue its own student newspaper. In February, two months after being charged with sexual assault and harassment against two students in his department, James Harwood resigned from his position as an associate professor of entomology without stated cause. According to 122 pages of investigation documents that were leaked to the student paper, the independently run Kentucky Kernel, Harwood violated school sexual assault policies by \u201cfondling\u201d the two students at two conferences in 2012 and 2013. He was also found to have sexually harassed the students in each case. Three other students did not file formal complaints but testified to the investigator about other alleged incidents of sexual misconduct as recently as 2015. The university would not confirm the authenticity of the documents, which the Kernel reported are signed by the university\u2019s deputy Title coordinator, Martha Alexander. 2/16/25, 8:20 University Will Sue Its Own Student Newspaper For Reporting On Sexual Assault Case 2/7 The investigation, which concluded in December, was initially kept secret. The investigator recommended that Harwood\u2019s \u201cemployment with the University be terminated and his tenure as a faculty member be revoked.\u201d But Harwood\u2019s subsequent agreement with the university allowed him to resign instead of going through the lengthy process of a disciplinary hearing. This also means that the investigation won\u2019t be disclosed if he applies to new jobs. Following Harwood's resignation, a representative for the two complainants approached the student paper about the case, and the paper immediately filed a public-records request with the university. The school initially provided Kernel with Harwood\u2019s settlement documents, but refused to disclose the full investigation. The documents they did release provided no mention of charges of sexual assault. Kernel took the case to Kentucky\u2019s attorney general, Andy Beshear, who on Aug. 8 ruled that the university must release all of the documents \u2014 with names redacted \u2014 to the school paper. Instead, the next day, university President Eli Capilouto sent a campus- wide email (later republished as a blog post with the title \u201cThe Tension of Competing Values\u201d) explaining that the university intends to sue the independent student paper to block the release of the documents. After that, an anonymous source involved in the case provided Kernel with the full investigation documents. To date, the paper has published 10 stories about the case. The most recent, published on Monday, revealed that Harwood was also investigated for fabricating data on a $50,000 international project on insect research. That misconduct investigation was completed, but never fully resolved because of Harwood\u2019s resignation. 2/16/25, 8:20 University Will Sue Its Own Student Newspaper For Reporting On Sexual Assault Case 3/7 2/16/25, 8:20 University Will Sue Its Own Student Newspaper For Reporting On Sexual Assault Case 4/7 Marjorie Kirk Michael Reaves / Kentucky Kernel \u201cIt\u2019s incredibly disappointing to find out that your university is protecting someone like this, or doesn\u2019t have the best interests of its students in mind,\u201d Marjorie Kirk, Kernel\u2019s current editor-in-chief and a senior, told BuzzFeed News. \u201cWe believe we are in the right and we believe that the judge would see it that way.\u201d The university stands by its decision to keep the investigation documents confidential, saying it sets an important precedent for privacy. \u201cOur University cannot \u2014 and should not \u2014 decide when it is appropriate to violate a victim-survivor\u2019s privacy \u2014 and a victim-survivor\u2019s trust \u2014 by providing information to the Office of the Attorney General, the Kernel (our student newspaper), or any other entity,\u201d university spokesman Jay Blanton told BuzzFeed News by email. \u201cThat is why it is essential that this dispute be settled in a court of law.\u201d The two complainants, through an unnamed representative, told BuzzFeed News by email that this explanation is \u201cflimsy and suspect.\u201d The women \u201cwere surprised and outraged,\u201d they added, that the school was trying to block release of the documents. \u201cWe care most about preventing Harwood from leaving for another university where he could repeat these behaviors,\u201d they wrote. In a response to the paper, Harwood denied the charges brought against him, citing \u201cfamily medical reasons\u201d as the cause for his resignation. He will still get his $109,900 annual salary until the end of August, and he will receive health benefits from the university through Dec. 31 or until he receives a new job elsewhere. Harwood did not respond to a request for comment from BuzzFeed News. The university\u2019s decision to sue the paper over the investigation documents is a reflection of its stance on transparency, Kirk said. 2/16/25, 8:20 University Will Sue Its Own Student Newspaper For Reporting On Sexual Assault Case 5/7 a brand. Azeen Ghorayshi BuzzFeed News Reporter Comments Share your thoughts \u201cIf they continue to go down this rabbit hole and follow this lawsuit,\u201d Kirk said, \u201cthey\u2019re distancing themselves further and further from what think is the right path, which think is being transparent and open August 23, 2016 at 5:28 The investigation documents were given to the Kernel by an anonymous source involved with the case previous version of this story stated that the documents were given by the complainants. Post Comment CatLG university turned on its students? What's left in a 'university' without the students? 40 Reply Top Comment 8 years ago 2/16/25, 8:20 University Will Sue Its Own Student Newspaper For Reporting On Sexual Assault Case 6/7 \u00a9 2025 BuzzFeed, Inc Press Privacy Consent Preferences User Terms Accessibility Statement Ad Choices Help Contact Sitemap 2/16/25, 8:20 University Will Sue Its Own Student Newspaper For Reporting On Sexual Assault Case 7/7", "7759_104.pdf": "University of Kentucky to sue its student newspaper over sexual harassment case \ue904 24 August 2016 DOI: BuzzFeed: The University of Kentucky\u2019s student newspaper, the Kentucky Kernel, is facing a legal wrangle with the university over the newspaper\u2019s demands for the release of documents concerning a sexual harassment case involving a university professor. In December James Harwood, an associate professor of entomology, was charged with sexual assault and harassment against two students in his department. Two months later he was allowed to resign his position and avoid a disciplinary hearing. Because of the university\u2019s refusal to provide the Kernel with information about the case, the paper appealed to the state\u2019s attorney general, who ruled in the paper\u2019s favor. Now university president Eli Capilouto says he plans to sue the paper to block the documents\u2019 release. Physics Today Comment Policy Comments are held for moderation by Physics Today staff. Off-topic statements and personal attacks will not be approved. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting. Got it Comments for this thread are now closed Share Best Newest Oldest \u00d7 0 Comments \ue603 1 Login This discussion has been closed. \uf109 \u00a9 2016 American Institute of Physics 2/16/25, 8:21 University of Kentucky to sue its student newspaper over sexual harassment case | Physics Today Publishing 1/2 2/16/25, 8:21 University of Kentucky to sue its student newspaper over sexual harassment case | Physics Today Publishing 2/2", "7759_105.pdf": "Search August 15, 2017 Danielle Dieterich \u2014 The state attorney general will appeal a ruling from a circuit court\u2019s determination that he does not have authority to review records the University of Kentucky has kept confidential following sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations. The Aug. 9 decision by the Eighth Division Fayette Circuit Court is the latest in an ongoing legal dispute with State Attorney Andy Beshear springing from a case in which the university, citing privacy concerns, sued the student newspaper, the Kentucky Kernel. Beshear issued a statement stating that the ruling \u201cwould deal a serious blow to public transparency, as well as the ability to hold universities accountable for how they respond to and investigate sexual assault by professors and administrators. The attorney general will appeal.\u201d Court says forbids sharing harassment records with attorney general We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Ok Privacy policy 2/16/25, 8:21 Court says forbids sharing harassment records with attorney general - Student Press Law Center 1/3 Beshear was seeking to review university documents under the Open Records Act to determine whether they are covered by the Family Educational Rights And Privacy Act. In 2016, the Kernel published stories about multiple student complaints of sexual harassment lodged against James Harwood, then an associate professor of entomology. The court on Jan. 23, 2017 sided with the university, which, citing privacy laws, provided the Kernel only with documents related to Harwood\u2019s departure from the university. It would not release other requested documents. The Kernel appealed to the state attorney general, who found fault with the university and ordered that all investigation documents be released, with the names of witnesses redacted. Then, the court reversed Beshear\u2019s decision, which led to an appeal. The Aug. 9 ruling is a parallel but separate part of the dispute. It involves the attorney general\u2019s authority to review university documents to decide whether they should be withheld under FERPA. The university refused to turn over the disputed records to Beshear, claiming that even sharing records with another state agency could put the university in violation of federal privacy law. In its Aug. 9 ruling, the court determined that documents related to the case are education records covered by FERPA, and the federal law supersedes the authority of the state attorney general. When Beshear files his appeal, the case will go to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. You can read about the Student Press Law Center\u2019s position on here and here staff writer Danielle Dieterich can be reached by email or (202) 833-4614. Want more stories like this? The Student Press Law Center is a legal and educational nonprofit defending the rights of student journalists. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to receive a notification on Fridays about the week\u2019s new articles. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Ok Privacy policy 2/16/25, 8:21 Court says forbids sharing harassment records with attorney general - Student Press Law Center 2/3 \u22c5 1 7 1 7 9 0 0 . 2 0 0 0 6 ( 2 0 2 ) 7 8 5 - 5 4 5 0 : 5 2 - 11 8 4 6 4 7 \u00a9 2 0 2 5 This form is currently private and cannot be viewed by the public. Tagged Attorney General Andy Beshear, FERPA, FOIA, Kentucky Kernel, open records, recent-news, University of Kentucky We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Ok Privacy policy 2/16/25, 8:21 Court says forbids sharing harassment records with attorney general - Student Press Law Center 3/3", "7759_106.pdf": "View Comments University Sued Its Own Student Newspaper And Won The University of Kentucky will not have to release documents detailing resigned professor James Harwood\u2019s alleged sexual misconduct. Tyler Kingkade BuzzFeed News Reporter Posted on January 24, 2017 at 1:23 pm Subscribe to BuzzFeed Daily Newsletter 2/16/25, 8:21 University Sued Its Own Student Newspaper And Won 1/6 The University of Kentucky's Memorial Hall. Andy Lyons / Getty Images Kentucky judge has denied a student newspaper\u2019s request to get ahold of documents related to claims that a professor sexually assaulted and harassed graduate students in a high-profile case that tested a federal privacy law. In August, the University of Kentucky sued the school\u2019s independent student newspaper, the Kentucky Kernel, after the state\u2019s attorney general ruled that the university must release documents related to an investigation into the allegations against entomology professor James Harwood. In a decision Monday, Judge Thomas Clark, of Fayette County Circuit Court, agreed with the university that even releasing redacted records \u2014 without the names of victims or witnesses, or details of the alleged assaults or harassment, as the Kernel requested \u2014 would leave people involved vulnerable to identification, violating federal privacy laws for students. The Kernel \u201cwill absolutely be appealing this decision,\u201d the paper\u2019s editor-in-chief, Marjorie Kirk, told BuzzFeed News. \u201cWhat\u2019s at stake here is much bigger than just one professor and one university\u2019s interests,\u201d she said. In December 2015, Harwood was accused of sexual harassment by two graduate students and two months later resigned his tenured position amid a university investigation. In March, a Kernel staff member submitted a records request for documents related to the claims against Harwood after getting a tip about the case. According to the Kernel and court filings, Harwood\u2019s accusers wanted to publicize the case because they were upset that Harwood was allowed to resign and continue receiving his $107,000 salary until Aug. 31, 2016. Harwood also was allowed to keep his medical benefits until the end of last year. Under terms of his resignation, Harwood did \u201cWhat\u2019s at stake here is much bigger than just one professor and one university\u2019s interests.\u201d 2/16/25, 8:21 University Sued Its Own Student Newspaper And Won 2/6 not admit wrongdoing, and the university agreed not to disclose information about the investigation to Harwood\u2019s future potential employers. The university\u2019s lawsuit kicked off a battle between President Eli Capilouto and the Kernel that divided activists on campus. Some agreed with the university that the documents should be withheld to preserve the victims\u2019 privacy, but others argued disclosure would protect other possible victims. The victims originally voiced support for the newspaper, but came out in favor of the school\u2019s position in September. Other universities in Kentucky tried to put responses to records requests on hold pending the case\u2019s outcome. 2/16/25, 8:21 University Sued Its Own Student Newspaper And Won 3/6 2/16/25, 8:21 University Sued Its Own Student Newspaper And Won 4/6 Tyler Kingkade BuzzFeed News Reporter Comments University of Kentucky attorneys said in court that releasing documents showing students\u2019 majors, advisers, projects, or the date of the alleged assaults and harassment all \u201cmake it possible for the Googlers or the Facebook nerds\u201d to find out victims\u2019 names. Judge Clark ruled the records contained too much personal information about the complainants to be effectively redacted, violating the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The university repeatedly blamed the Kernel\u2019s reporting for a drop in students seeking help from the school\u2019s Violence Intervention and Prevention Center to deal with sexual assault incidents. Ashley Rigby, the head of that center, said in a video put out by the university Tuesday morning that students who did seek help specifically worried about their cases becoming public without their consent. Capilouto in a video released by the school similarly said he hoped the ruling would cause reporting to increase due to a new sense of confidentiality. But some experts disagree. \u201cWe\u2019re seeing that tactic quite a bit \u2014 that universities are trying to make secrecy all about the interest of the victim, when in fact it\u2019s almost always motivated by the university\u2019s desire to conceal,\u201d Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, told BuzzFeed News. Going forward, Capilouto said the university will ask potential faculty hires to answer whether they were involved in a sexual misconduct case at their previous institutions. Marjorie Kirk Michael Reaves / Kentucky Kernel 2/16/25, 8:21 University Sued Its Own Student Newspaper And Won 5/6 a brand. \u00a9 2025 BuzzFeed, Inc Press Privacy Consent Preferences User Terms Accessibility Statement Ad Choices Help Contact Sitemap Share your thoughts Be One of the First to Comment 2/16/25, 8:21 University Sued Its Own Student Newspaper And Won 6/6", "7759_107.pdf": "Sunday, Feb. 16, 2025 \uf002 \uf086 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f Administration News Public Records Showcase story six years in the making Sarah Michels August 26, 2021 After an investigation found sufficient evidence to corroborate multiple sexual harassment allegations against former professor James Harwood, he was able to effectively retire from the university with tenure intact without being fired. Harwood resigned from his position in the entomology department in August 2016 after an investigation by the kentuckykernel Kentucky Kernel 12.6K followers \u2022 1,935 posts View full profile on Instagram Pages from the Harwood file detailing the Kernel Press v. University of Kentucky lawsuit. Some information has been redacted by UK. Tweets by KyKernel Follow us on Instagram \uf24dGallery \u2022 3 Photos \uf086 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f department in August 2016, after an investigation by the Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity (IEEO). Records obtained by the Kentucky Kernel through a years-long open records legal battle with the university, which ended with a unanimous Kentucky Supreme Court victory for the Kernel, highlighted several instances of Harwood\u2019s alleged sexual misconduct with students. Despite the IEEO\u2019s recommendation to terminate Harwood\u2019s employment and revoke his tenure, the university chose to settle instead \u2014 \u201cto resolve this matter without the need for further cost or expense,\u201d according to records obtained by the Kernel. Executive Director & Title Coordinator Martha Alexander led the investigation, which includes statements from multiple complainants about Harwood\u2019s alleged misconduct. The investigation report mainly focused on two complainants. The first complainant told Alexander that one night, Harwood took her and a group of students to a restaurant and bar, and then proceeded to get drunk and \u201cgross and creepy.\u201d Witnesses testified that Harwood arranged for the complainant to sit next to him at dinner, putting his arm around her despite her obvious discomfort. She added that she believed Harwood blacked out and, consequently, does not remember the incident. Even before this incident, Harwood frequently texted the first complainant late at night, according to the complainant. After the incident, the complainant emailed Harwood to tell him that the alleged harassment was not OK. However, she said she feared retaliation, since previous reports filed about Harwood\u2019s alleged behavior regarding alcohol and sexual harassment had not resulted in any consequences for Harwood, she told Alexander. \uf086 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f On the other hand, sometimes there was retaliation against harassment reporters, according to statements made by the complainant in the investigation report. The details of said retaliation were unspecified in the redacted report provided to the Kernel second complainant told Alexander that Harwood approached her and her friends at a bar and touched her without consent. Further details regarding these allegations against Harwood and his specific behavior in violation of the university\u2019s Policy on Sexual Assault, Stalking, and Relationship Violence have been redacted in the report provided to the Kernel. Several other students who testified against Harwood in the investigation spoke to a severe lack of professionalism. They cited an \u201cinappropriately, sexually charged\u201d lab environment, a tendency to pressure students to drink with him at bars and frequent intoxication at inappropriate times and locations as evidence. Harwood told Alexander that the complainants were trying to discredit him with \u201cabsolutely preposterous\u201d allegations of which he had no memory. He defended himself by telling Alexander that he can rarely go out without running into colleagues, and if he was acting inappropriately, they would have witnessed it. He also highlighted positive experiences with his students and mentioned that the timing of the allegations suspiciously occurred at a critical point in the writing process of one of his student\u2019s projects. Harwood brought forward five witnesses who cast doubts on the first complainant\u2019s character and told Alexander that they couldn\u2019t imagine Harwood behaving inappropriately. Two of the witnesses had first-hand k l d f h d i i i f h \uf086 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f knowledge of the event under investigation, one of whom told Alexander that he was with Harwood all night and he was not intoxicated. The investigation, however, found sufficient evidence to corroborate both complainants\u2019 accusations. There was also enough evidence to support a finding that Harwood violated the university\u2019s discrimination, harassment and/or sexual misconduct policies, according to the final investigative report documents. Under these policies \u2014 Administrative Regulation 6:1 andAdministrative Regulation 6:2 \u2014 the scope of sexual harassment violations includes sexual misconduct that occurs within a university program or activity that creates a hostile environment or involves an employee \u201cconditioning the provision of an aid, benefit, or service of the recipient on an individual\u2019s participation in unwelcome sexual conduct.\u201d The scope of sexual assault violations under these administrative regulations includes rape, fondling, incest and/or statutory rape on campus or at any other owned, leased, controlled or operated location, and during any UK-sanctioned function, such as internships, research and travel, regardless of location. It is unclear, due to document redactions concerning the specific details of Harwood\u2019s alleged behavior, whether his alleged actions included both sexual harassment and sexual assault or solely sexual harassment. According to the investigative report, Harwood \u201cperpetuated a hostile environment for her and other students \u2026 by forcing his students to attend social functions, imbibe alcohol, and by making comments and physical contact that were inappropriate given their relationship.\u201d \uf086 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f Once the investigation concluded, the submitted their recommendations of termination and tenure revocation spokesperson Jay Blanton told the Kernel that the university did not pursue those recommendations because they would take too long, and the university wanted \u201cto mitigate harm to the victim survivor\u201d and \u201cremove the threat as quickly as possible,\u201d in accordance with federal laws concerning sexual harassment cases. When charges are brought against professors has a lengthy termination process by design with multiple opportunities for appeals and hearings. Blanton said this process would have taken one to two years. \u201cAs a result, the quickest way to remove the threat from the campus was to seek a settlement, the result of which was the person in question leaving the university in a manner of weeks, rather than years,\u201d Blanton told the Kernel. \u201cIt is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a perfect system. But those were the choices the institution had. As always, we sought to do what we believed would be in the best interests of the well-being and privacy of the victim survivors.\u201d As part of his settlement with the university, Harwood agreed to resign and cut off direct contact with faculty, staff and students unless explicitly approved. In return, the university would not revoke his tenure and continue paying him a $109,900 salary with benefits until either August 2016 or upon finding employment elsewhere. The agreement included \u201cconfidentiality\u201d and \u201cnon- disclosure provisions,\u201d which \u201ceffectively prevented from warning other potential employers of the danger he posed to students,\u201d Kernel attorney Tom Miller said. The Kernel was unable to determine Harwood\u2019s current whereabouts, but he has remained active in research \uf086 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f \u00a9 2025 Pro WordPress Theme by \u2022 Log in and could pursue employment as a professor at other educational institutions if he wished. Leave a Comment kykernel.com 9 Blazer Dining Lexington 40506 Phone: (859) 257-1915 Email: [email protected] About Us Advertise With Us Subscribe To Our E\u2026 Support The Kernel Mens Basketball Women\u2019s Basketball Football Baseball Softball Volleyball Gymnastics Men\u2019s Soccer Women\u2019s Soccer Tennis News Features Sports Opinions Multimedia Classifieds Local Events \uf39e \uf16d\ue61b\ue07b\uf167\uf0e0 \uf086 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f", "7759_108.pdf": "Campus Life 2016 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 1/15 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case The school says it's doing so to protect \"student privacy 3, 2017 In an unusual move, the University of Kentucky is suing its student newspaper, the Kentucky Kernel, in an effort to keep it from getting more details surrounding allegations of a professor sexually assaulting and harassing students. Last school year, the Kernel began publishing a series of articles detailing the cases of two unidentified students who were allegedly sexually assaulted and harassed by James Harwood, then an associate professor of entomology at the university, in 2012 and 2013. Typically, U.S. colleges are shielded from revealing records if a case is still open or pending, Buzzfeed notes. However, Harwood quietly resigned from the university in February, effectively closing his case at the institution in the process. Because the case was now a matter of public record, the Kernel requested the materials of the case per the Kentucky Open Records Act. The problem, according to the school, is that the official documents contain full names of multiple students who brought allegations against the professor as well as detailed descriptions of the incidents they say occurred. Thus, officials at the school refused to honor the request, stating that the information was a violation of privacy. \u201cOur University cannot \u2014 and should not \u2014 decide when it is appropriate to violate a victim-survivor\u2019s privacy \u2014 and a victim-survivor\u2019s trust \u2014 by providing information to the Office of the Attorney General, the Kernel (our student newspaper), or any other entity,\u201d university spokesperson Jay Blanton told BuzzFeed back in August. Because they feel that it's overstepping to hand out such sensitive documents, the college was required to sue its own student newspaper per a Kentucky state loophole 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 2/15 to try and keep the documents sealed. Students say that the legal battle is about more than this specific case; it's about university transparency when it comes to allowing students to report and identify professors who've committed sexual misconduct. In the Harwood case, for example, the student newspaper highlighted the lack of transparency surrounding the professor's dismissal. Harwood had the opportunity to resign instead of being fired following a disciplinary hearing, which means the entire case will not be revealed as he applies for future jobs. \u201cWe\u2019re just trying to correct a system that has for decades allowed the shuffling of people who are responsible for sexual misconduct to make their way in and out of academia without notice,\u201d Marjorie Kirk, editor in chief of the Kentucky Kernel, explained to Vice. Supporters of the paper say the school could just redact names and specifics to protect privacy. On the flip side, in its appeal, the university is sticking to its defense of student privacy and legal precedence that keeps them from revealing student records. Additionally, the two women named in the records (called Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2), who initially cooperated with and provided documents to the student newspaper through a representative, took the side of the university in the latest court appearances, feeling as though their identities are in jeopardy. The two said the whole reason they went through a Title hearing at the university instead of a criminal case was to avoid being publicly identified. \"There needs to be some sort of reporting system for professors accused of sexual misconduct while still protecting the privacy of victims like me and Jane Doe 1,\" Jane Doe 2 wrote in a legal briefing in support of the school's efforts to block the records, as reported. \"And the records that [the Kernel's editor-in-chief] is calling for, those hundreds of pages of documents aren't necessary for that reporting system.\" According to NPR, the official opinion from Judge Thomas Clark of the Fayette County Circuit Court is scheduled to come around the middle of January, though no specific date has been given. Related: This College Professor Is Keeping His Job After Harassing Students 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 3/15 Check this out Read More 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 4/15 Culture \"It has become clear that our paths are no longer aligned Music Love Is Blind\u2019s Ashley & Tyler Sperm Donor Drama to Divorce Timeline The Real Meaning Behind Bad Bunny's Most Political Lyrics on DtMf 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 5/15 You say Kendall Jenner say read up on Puerto Rico's past and current struggles Culture See the couple's complete relationship timeline here Tate McRae & The Kid Kicked Off 2025 With a Dreamy Vacay 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 6/15 Culture Tailgate brunch? Fashion shows? Exclusive parties? Yes, please Inside Super Bowl Weekend With Teen Vogue, From Partying With Doechii to Tini\u2019s Tailgate 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 7/15 Style We got styling tips and hacks from a pro The Best Ways to Style Sports Apparel, According to Kristin Juszczyk 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 8/15 Style Two is better than one Miley Cyrus Wore Two Roberto Cavalli Gowns for 50' Concert 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 9/15 Style She never disappoints Nicola Coughlan's Billowy Black Gown is Anything But Basic 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 10/15 Style The Soho is 90s nostalgia at its finest. Coach's Newest Launch Is Style in a Sneaker 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 11/15 Culture To celebrate Valentine's Day, Netflix has released a handful of new pics, footage, and First-Look Bridgerton Season 4 Pics Tease Benophie's Meet-Cute 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 12/15 Culture The pair share how they turned a situationship into couple goals \u2014 and dream about the art they want to make together Izzy & Emma, aka TurtleWithHat, Have Big Plans Beyond Cheeky TikTok Videos 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 13/15 Culture Mo wasn\u2019t just Palestinian-led \u2014 it was Palestinian through and through, in humor, heart, and defiance Netflix\u2019s Mo Revolutionized Palestinian Representation. We Can\u2019t Let It End. 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 14/15 Style I'll be using her lip balm hack from now on Hannah Bahng Taught Us How to Use Her rom&nd Makeup Collection 2/16/25, 8:22 The University of Kentucky Is Suing Its Newspaper Over a Sexual Assault Case | Teen Vogue 15/15", "7759_109.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc. Supreme Court of Kentucky Mar 25, 2021 620 S.W.3d 43 (Ky. 2021) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Take care of legal research in a matter of minutes with CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free 2019-SC-0468 03-25-2021 KENTUCKY, Appellant v. The PRESS, INC., d/b/a the Kentucky Kernel, Appellee APPELLANT: Joshua Michael Salsburey, Bryan Howard Beauman, Lexington, Donald Callaway Morgan, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC, William E. Thro, Lexington, General Counsel, University of Kentucky APPELLEE: Thomas Walcutt Miller, Elizabeth Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/31 Catesby Woodford, Miller, Griffin & Marks, PSC, Lexington 1 2: Melissa Foster Bird, Megan Basham Davis, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough UNIVERSITY: Ena Viteskic Demir, Thomas Neal Kerrick, Kerrick Bachert, PSC, Bowling Green CENTER: Michael Patrick Abate, Jon L. Fleischaker, Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird, LLP, Louisville APPELLANT: Joshua Michael Salsburey, Bryan Howard Beauman, Lexington, Donald Callaway Morgan, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC, William E. Thro, Lexington, General Counsel, University of Kentucky APPELLEE: Thomas Walcutt Miller, Elizabeth Catesby Woodford, Miller, Griffin & Marks, PSC, Lexington 1 2: Melissa Foster Bird, Megan Basham Davis, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough UNIVERSITY: Ena Viteskic Demir, Thomas Neal Kerrick, Kerrick Bachert, PSC, Bowling Green. 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/31 CENTER: Michael Patrick Abate, Jon L. Fleischaker, Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird, LLP, Louisville HUGHES*46 In 2015 two University of Kentucky graduate students complained of sexual assaults by Dr. James Harwood, a professor in the University's College of Agriculture. The University investigated the allegations, assembled an investigative file and prepared a final investigative report detailing its findings. In February 2016, the University reached a separation agreement with Harwood who left the University with certain continuing financial benefits and with tenure intact. Having received information regarding the foregoing events, The Kernel, the University's student-run newspaper, filed two Open Records Act (ORA) requests pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 61.870 -.884 seeking disclosure of various documents, including all documents pertaining to the University's investigation of Harwood. Although the University provided some personnel records and a copy of Harwood's resignation letter and separation agreement, a second request for the investigative file was denied. The Kernel requested review by the Attorney General pursuant to 61.880(2), and the Attorney General, after considering the University's legal memorandum, ordered the University to disclose the records with appropriate redactions. The University declined and sought judicial review. 46 Presented with the University's arguments and The Kernel's response, the Fayette Circuit Court conducted an in camera examination of the investigative file maintained by the University and concluded that the entire file was protected as \"education records\" under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1232g. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order, finding that the University failed in the first instance to comply with its statutory obligations under the and, when challenged, failed to meet its burden of showing that the requested records are exempt from disclosure. On discretionary review, we too find that the University failed to comply with its obligations under the and that the trial court clearly erred in finding the entire investigative file exempt from disclosure. For these reasons more fully explained below, we affirm the 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/31 Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings in accord with the and this Opinion In the summer of 2015 the University received complaints from two female graduate *47 students (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) concerning allegations of sexual assault committed by Dr. James Harwood, a tenured professor in the College of Agriculture. These instances of alleged misconduct occurred at off-campus conferences related to the graduate students\u2019 field of study. As required by Title of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1681 - 1688 (Title IX), the University's Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity (EEO) launched an investigation of the allegations informed the two graduate students that the University would do its best to ensure their anonymity. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were further assured that only Harwood and those in the University with a legitimate need to know would be made aware of their complaints. The also informed witnesses that the University would take steps to protect their privacy and to protect against disclosure of personally identifiable information to the public at large. 47 1 1 The two graduate students have filed an amici brief as \"amici curiae Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2.\" We adopt their terminology in this Opinion and in some instances refer to them collectively as \"the graduate students\" or \"the Jane Does.\" In the course of its investigation, the assembled an investigative file containing the investigative report; letters from the to specific parties concerning the allegations and final outcome of the investigation; letters written by the concerning the status of developments in the case; emails from the to the two graduate students and other witnesses; the EEO's interview notes; documents supplied by students and witnesses, including the Jane Does; and documents supplied by Harwood. The 470-page investigative file contains student-specific information, including explicit details of the alleged misconduct, witnesses\u2019 names and initials, phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, travel plans, research projects, photographs, text messages, medical information about a party's family member, information about the parties\u2019 personal lives, and details about 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/31 relationships and interactions among people in the relevant department at the College of Agriculture. In a final investigative report, the concluded that sufficient evidence existed to support a finding that Harwood assaulted and harassed both graduate students. After the relayed its findings to Harwood, he resigned prior to final adjudication. The University and Harwood reached a separation agreement on February 26, 2016 that provided that the University would not initiate proceedings to revoke Harwood's tenure; Harwood would continue to receive his salary with benefits until August 31, 2016, or until he found employment elsewhere if that occurred earlier; and Harwood and his family would continue to receive health benefits from the University through December 31, 2016, or the date Harwood started his new job, whichever came first. Realizing that Harwood could deny the allegations, leave the University quietly and seek academic employment elsewhere, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 wanted to remedy a perceived flaw in the Title reporting and investigation process by drawing attention to the matter. The Jane Does reached out to The Kernel through an intermediary, with the goal of exposing Harwood so that his misconduct would not remain hidden. On March 21, 2016, The Kernel submitted the following request to the University am requesting an opportunity to obtain copies of all records detailing Dr. James D. Harwood's resignation amid accusations of sexual assault. This request includes but is not limited to: the Title complaints filed by the two female students, any reprimands and any commendations, *48 48 Harwood's personnel file, and any documents detailing the University of Kentucky's investigation into allegations of sexual assault, sexual harassment, or allegations of alcohol abuse committed by Harwood. 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/31 In response, the University provided the student newspaper with records from its Human Resources Department and personnel records from the Department of Agriculture with redactions and omissions of sensitive personal information. The University also provided The Kernel with copies of Harwood's separation agreement and resignation letter, confirming the University had indeed investigated and addressed the two graduate students\u2019 allegations. However, the University declined to produce any other documents because it deemed them \"preliminary records,\" a broad category that encompassed handwritten notes, correspondence and memoranda; records covered by the attorney-client privilege; and/or records containing personally identifiable student information claimed to be protected by FERPA, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1232g, and its regulations. None of these withheld documents were specifically identified in the University's single-paragraph response. 2 2 The first sentence of the University's response erroneously labeled the request improper: \"Your request for \"... all records ...\" is improper under the Open Records Act.\" To be clear, The Kernel's request was not improper requests routinely seek \"all documents pertaining to [subject matter].\" The responsibility for identifying responsive records and any applicable exception lies with the receiving public agency, not the requester. On April 7, 2016, The Kernel again requested copies of all records detailing the University's investigation of Harwood. The University again refused in a single-paragraph response, reasoning that The Kernel's requests were for preliminary records which are exempt from disclosure 61.878(1)(i) and (j). The University also claimed some documents are protected pursuant to 61.878(1)(a) because they contain personal information, and other documents are protected by Kentucky Rule of Evidence (KRE) 503 because they are considered attorney-client privilege/work product material. Notably, the University did not detail the specific contents of the investigative file nor did it invoke FERPA, which it had previously mentioned, or other federal laws which it would later raise as grounds for nondisclosure. The Kernel appealed the matter to the Attorney General pursuant to 61.880(2). On May 26, 2016, the Office of the Attorney General sent the University a letter with inquiries regarding its refusal to disclose the 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/31 records, requesting a general description of how the University investigates sexual harassment/sexual assault claims against tenured professors, and what challenges the University believed impeded its ability to redact personally identifiable information. The Attorney General also requested copies of various documents, including the documents already disclosed to The Kernel and the documents the University refused to disclose so the basis for nondisclosure could be substantiated 61.880(2)(c). In response, the University raised new arguments in a 36-page memorandum but refused the Attorney General's request for copies of both the disputed and undisputed records. Again, the University failed to delineate the withheld documents. The Attorney General later noted that the University did not directly or, in some cases, even indirectly, address that office's inquiries. On August 1, 2016, the Attorney General rendered a decision in favor of The Kernel. *49 In Re: Kentucky Kernel/University of Kentucky , Ky. Op. Atty. Gen. 16-ORD-161 (Aug. 1, 2016). The Attorney General held that the University failed to meet its burden of proof in denying The Kernel's request. The Attorney General directed the University to \"make immediate provision for [The Kernel's] inspection and copying of the disputed records, with the exception of the names and personal identifiers of the complainant and witnesses ...\" per 61.878(1)(a). 49 Pursuant to 61.882 the University sought review of the Attorney General's decision in the Fayette Circuit Court, arguing that the documents withheld from The Kernel are exempt from disclosure under the ORA. The Attorney General intervened in the action to seek a declaration of rights on the issue of the Attorney General's authority to require government agencies to submit to the Attorney General for in camera review those documents withheld from requests.3 3 The Attorney General's authority to require government agencies to submit documents withheld from requests for substantiation purposes through in camera review was an issue at the trial court and also addressed in the Court of Appeals\u2019 opinion. The Attorney General is not a party to this appeal and that issue is not before us. We note, however, that the appellate court generally upheld the Attorney General's right to in camera review, observing: \"The [ORA] does not confer subpoena power on the AG. Perhaps 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/31 the General Assembly assumed state agencies would comply with such requests to further the interest in transparency. If that was the assumption, the University has proven it wrong.\" Kernel Press, Inc. v. University of Kentucky , 2017-CA-000394-MR, 2019 2236421, at *10 (Ky. App. May 17, 2019). The Court of Appeals recognized one valid exception to the University's obligation to submit withheld documents for review by the Attorney General, namely FERPA-protected \"education records with unredacted personally identifying information the University is prohibited from releasing\" pursuant to 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1232g(b)(1)(c) and 34 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) \u00a7 99.31(a)(3) and (9). Id. at *11. On November 17, 2016, the Jane Does filed an amici brief before the trial court asserting a position that aligned with the University's. They stated that what began as The Kernel's journalistic search for information had evolved into a public dispute that ignores their interests, noting that The Kernel had published 28 articles about Harwood's misconduct between April and November 2016 despite their requests to stop. They explained that each article forces them to relive the trauma they suffered and that the confidentiality offered to the two graduate students during the EEO's investigation of Harwood was integral to their decision to come forward and report the incidents. The Jane Does feared that releasing the investigative file documents to The Kernel, even with redaction, would allow the public to quickly deduce their identities. On January 23, 2017, the Fayette Circuit Court entered an order reversing the Attorney General's order. The trial court determined that two of the exceptions to the were relevant to the documents in question 61.878(1)(a), which excludes the disclosure of \"[p]ublic records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy ...\" and 61.878(1)(k), which excludes the disclosure of \"[a]ll public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited by federal law or regulation....\" By virtue of this second exclusion, FERPA, a federal law that controls the use and disclosure of student education records, is incorporated into the ORA's list of exemptions. 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1232g. Under FERPA, no federal funds can be provided to an educational institution that releases education records or personally identifiable *50 information without the appropriate consent. 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1232g(b)(1). An education 50 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/31 record is defined as a record that is \"directly related\" to a student. 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1232g(a)(4)(A)(i). After conducting an in camera review of the investigative file, the trial court determined that the documents are \"educational records\" pursuant to FERPA. The trial court was persuaded by the holding in Rhea v. District Board of Trustees, 109 So. 3d 851, 858 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013), which adopted a broad construction of \"directly related.\" 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1232g(a)(4)(A)(i). The Florida District Court concluded that \"directly related\" is not a \"primarily related\" test and that a record can relate directly to both a student and a teacher. Rhea, 109 So. 3d at 857-58. In its analysis, the trial court first found that the investigative file relates to a former University professor but also to the two graduate students. Some documents describe their perceptions of the alleged events and the subsequent investigation. The file also contains documents with information about classes, area of study, and matters specifically related to the educational experiences of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. Focusing on references to students, the trial court concluded that the various documents at issue are educational records pursuant to FERPA. The trial court further ruled that given the nature of the documents in the investigative file, coupled with the nature of the facts underlying the investigation, even disclosure of redacted documents would not offer adequate protection: The record at issue is thoroughly interwoven with explicit details of the alleged sexual assault and other facts submitted by parties and witnesses. Although the record also contains information such as names, addresses, and phone numbers, which could reasonably be redacted, the record is so extensively laced with details of the alleged assault that redaction alone would not protect these complaining witnesses. Further, [the] size of the graduate program from which these allegations stem is small; the pool of female graduate students in this program is even smaller. When also factoring in that both allegations originated at specific dates and at specific off-campus conferences, the possible identity of a 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/31 complaining witness becomes even easier to pinpoint. For instance, it would be simple for one to deduce the identities of the complaining witnesses by requesting financial records from the off- campus conferences. Analyzing the totality of the specifics [sic] facts at hand, if the records are turned over, even in (redacted form), the identities of the complaining witnesses will be known within reasonable certainty. The trial court reversed the Attorney General's decision, leaving The Kernel with no access to any part of the investigative file. Two weeks following a hearing on the matter and one day after the trial court entered its January 23, 2017 order, the University for the first time prepared and submitted an index of the \"Harwood Investigative File.\" The University apparently did so only because it was directed to by the trial court. The index, filed over nine months after The Kernel made its first request, includes bullet points with brief descriptions of the contents of each of the ten sections of the investigative file. Examples of document descriptions include \"[e]mail correspondence between Complainant 1 and Harwood regarding Harwood's alleged sexual misconduct\"; \"social media post from the event at which Complainant 2 alleges Harwood's sexual misconduct occurred\"; and \"Alexander notes from meeting with Student A.\" The *51 index also listed the number of pages in each section of the investigative file. Within each section of the index the University claimed all material was exempt, listing the very same seven exemptions for each section and thus every document in the investigative file: 51 The records indexed under this tab are exempt in whole or in part pursuant to FERPA, [the Violence Against Women Act], [the Jeanne] Clery [Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act], and/or the U.S. Constitution consistent with 61.878(l)(k). The records are further exempt in whole or in part pursuant to 61.878(1)(a), (i) and/or (j) as preliminary records and/or records for which disclosure would create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/31 While most of the documents in the investigative file are Martha Alexander's notes and correspondence from communicating with and interviewing the two graduate students and witnesses, the file also contains other documents such as the University's policies on harassment and sexual assault, Harwood's curriculum vitae, and excerpts from the user manual of a camera owned by one of the two graduate students. 4 4 Martha Alexander, the University's Title Deputy Compliance Officer, was eventually the author of the three Final Determination Letters\u2013individual letters addressed to Harwood, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. Based on the newly-provided index, The Kernel filed a motion to alter, amend or vacate the trial court's order insofar as it concluded that every part of the Harwood Investigative File was protected from disclosure and no part of the file could be redacted so as to protect the Jane Does\u2019 identities. The trial court denied the motion but made its January 23, 2017 order final and appealable. As noted, The Kernel appealed to the Court of Appeals where it received a very different ruling. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's finding that all records were exempt from disclosure was not supported by substantial evidence. The University failed to explain how specific exemptions applied to particular records, thereby failing to fulfill its statutory responsibilities under 61.880(1), which requires an agency to state the \"specific exception authorizing withholding of the record.\" Quoting Kentucky New Era, Inc. v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 88 (Ky. 2013), the Court of Appeals held the does not permit \"the nondisclosure of an entire record or file on the ground that some part of the record or file is exempt[.]\" The Court of Appeals emphasized that the University belatedly filed a deficient index of the withheld records and did not even attempt to comply with the in any meaningful way. The appellate court also concluded that the trial court made an erroneous factual finding that all the records in the investigative file are covered by FERPA. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for the University (1) to separate nonexempt records from records claimed exempt, (2) to redact personally identifying information from exempt records, and (3) to the extent possible without disclosing 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/31 exempt information, state with exactness why any withheld record is exempt from disclosure.5 5 The appellate court also observed that although The Kernel had not requested the statutorily-authorized costs and attorney fees or penalties, \"if requested upon remand and upon a finding that the University willfully violated the [ORA], those amounts may be awarded.\" Kernel Press , 2019 2236421, at *11. Having granted discretionary review, heard oral arguments and carefully considered *52 the record, we affirm the Court of Appeals. We also take this opportunity to reiterate the obligations of a state agency, statutory obligations that were ignored or minimized by the University at every step in this case. 52 The crux of this case is the interaction of Kentucky's ORA, a statutory scheme that allows public access to records maintained by public agencies such as the University, and FERPA, a federal statute that prohibits the disclosure of a student's educational records without their consent. The trial court made a factual finding that the entire Harwood Investigative File constituted \"educational records\" under FERPA, and after further concluding that redaction could not adequately protect the two graduate students\u2019 privacy rights, deemed all documents within the file totally exempt from disclosure. We review a trial court's factual finding in these circumstances for clear error. New Era, 415 S.W.3d at 78. Here, the trial court clearly erred. I. The Open Records Act and Public Agency Obligations The 61.870 -.884, was enacted in 1976 to give the public access to public records in the possession of a public agency, such as the University 61.871 states the General Assembly's intent as follows: The General Assembly finds and declares that the basic policy of 61.870 to 61.884 is that free and open examination of public records is in the public interest and the exceptions provided for by 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/31 61.878 or otherwise provided by law shall be strictly construed, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others. The generally favors disclosure. See Ky. Bd. of Exam'rs of Psychologists v. Courier\u2013Journal , 826 S.W.2d 324 (1992). However, the right to examine public records is not absolute and 61.878(1) provides fourteen categories of public records that are \"excluded from the application of 61.870 to 61.844,\" including: (a) Public records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; .... (i) Preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals, other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of final action of a public agency; (j) Preliminary recommendations, and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended; (k) All public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited by federal law or regulation[.] As noted, the General Assembly has expressly declared that these exceptions \"shall be strictly construed 61.871 public agency can deny an request based on one or more of the statutory exceptions but the agency's obligation in those circumstances is clear: \"An agency response denying, in whole or in part, inspection of any record shall include a statement of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld 61.880. \"The agency's explanation must be detailed enough to permit the court to assess its claim and the opposing party to challenge it.\" New Era , 415 S.W.3d at 81. Moreover, \"[t]he public agency that is the subject of an 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/31 Open Records request has the burden of proving that the document *53 sought fits within an exception to the Open Records Act.\" Hardin Cty. Sch. v. Foster, 40 S.W.3d 865, 868 (Ky. 2001). 53 The Kernel requested the Harwood Investigative File, in part, to understand how the University handled the students\u2019 complaints and the investigation. The Kernel contends that the University's actions prior to entering into the separation agreement with Harwood should be made public. The public's right to know how effectively public institutions perform their taxpayer- funded functions is unquestionably central to the ORA. The public's \"right to know\" under the Open Records Act is premised upon the public's right to expect its agencies properly to execute their statutory functions. In general, inspection of records may reveal whether the public servants are indeed serving the public, and the policy of disclosure provides impetus for an agency steadfastly to pursue the public good. Bd. of Exam'rs, 826 S.W.2d at 328. Here, two students at a state-funded university alleged they were sexually assaulted by a professor, a public employee, who committed the acts at work-related conferences. The public interest in how promptly, thoroughly and effectively the University responded to those serious allegations is manifest but that does not translate into automatic disclosure of all requested documents. While the favors disclosure, \"the policy of disclosure is purposed to subserve the public interest, not to satisfy the public's curiosity....\" Id. The University maintains that the public interest has been served in this case, the \"public already knows all it needs to know\" and further disclosures would invade the Jane Does\u2019 privacy rights. The Kernel responds that it has no interest in revealing the two students\u2019 identities or harming them in any way. Rather, The Kernel's primary objective is to understand how the University handled the complaints, investigated the claims and protected the two graduate students as well as any other individuals at the University. In this vein, the newspaper contends the public has a strong interest in the investigatory methods used by a public university in cases such as this generally and in determining 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/31 specifically whether the University complied in this case with any applicable state and federal laws, including Title IX.6 6 Amici curiae Kentucky Press Association, Student Press Law Center, Society of Professional Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and News Leaders Association have submitted a brief emphasizing accountability and discussing the nationwide interest in similar cases which often become known through newspaper coverage following open records requests. They pointedly note that other state universities\u2013including Eastern Kentucky University, Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University and the University of Louisville\u2013have released records exactly like those at issue here, redacted as appropriate, with no adverse consequences under FERPA. Competing interests are at the core of every case and judicial resolution\u2013the eventual balancing of those interests within the parameters laid out by the legislature\u2013is only achieved when the public agency complies fully with its statutory obligations and this Court's precedent. In City of Fort Thomas v. Cincinnati Enquirer, 406 S.W.3d 842, 852 (Ky. 2013), we rejected the proposition that a public agency could invoke a statutory exemption to clothe an entire investigative file with protection from disclosure, thereby avoiding a document-by-document review and detailed response to the requester. Although that case involved a different exemption than those at issue in this case, it merits consideration as we address the University's one-paragraph, *54 four-sentence response to The Kernel's request for an investigative file that was ultimately determined to contain 470 pages of documents of varying types. 54 In City of Fort Thomas, id. at 846, the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper made an request to the City of Fort Thomas seeking to inspect and copy the entire police file generated during a high-profile homicide investigation. At the time, the defendant had been convicted and waived her right to appeal but she had not yet been sentenced. Id. The City denied the request, claiming the exemption to disclosure of records in 61.878(1)(h), which excludes \"records of law enforcement agencies ... that were compiled in the process of detecting and investigating statutory ... violations if the disclosure of the information would harm the agency ... by premature release of information used in a prospective law enforcement action.\" Id. at 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/31 846-47. The circuit court ruled in favor of the City, but the Court of Appeals remanded for a more particularized consideration of the documents in the police file, rejecting the City's blanket rationale for nondisclosure. Id. at 847. Similarly, this Court held that a police department's investigatory file is not categorically exempt from disclosure under the merely because it pertains to a prospective enforcement action. Id. at 849. Rather, the agency must articulate a factual basis for applying an exemption, explaining how the release poses a risk of harm to the agency in a prospective action. Id. at 851. The agency is not required to justify nondisclosure on a line-by-line or even document-by-document basis. Id. With respect to voluminous requests, \"it is enough if the agency identifies the particular kinds of records it holds and explains how the release of each assertedly exempt category would harm the agency in a prospective enforcement action.\" Id. Notably, the police file at issue in City of Fort Thomas was estimated to consist of thirty boxes of documents. 7 7 The City reasoned that while the defendant's conviction was final and nonappealable, a collateral attack pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 remained prospectively available. While City of Fort Thomas involved a different exemption, the Court's holding is nonetheless instructive as we review what occurred in this case. The University responded to The Kernel's second request, the April 7, 2016 request, with one paragraph: RESPONSE: Please be advised that all records detailing the above- referenced investigation from the University's Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity are unable to be released pursuant to 61[.]878(1)(i) and (j). These records are considered preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals, other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of a final action of a public agency; or preliminary recommendations, and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended and are exempt from disclosure. Additionally, some documents in the file are protected pursuant to 61.878(1)(a), as they contain information of a personal nature where the public disclosure 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 16/31 thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Finally, some documents are protected pursuant to the Kentucky Rules of Evidence 503, as they are considered attorney- client/work product privileged and are exempt from disclosure. No effort was made to itemize the contents of the Harwood Investigative File or even *55 to identify \"the particular kinds of records it holds,\" id. , and, curiously, the University seemingly abandoned any reliance on or other federal statutes it would later raise as grounds for nondisclosure. When The Kernel sought review by the Attorney General, the University provided a legal memorandum outlining its Title obligations and its position on several exemptions as well as and other federal statutes, but it still offered no description of the various documents in the 470-page investigative file and how they individually or by category qualified for an exemption. Indeed, an index of the contents of the Harwood Investigative File was not forthcoming until after the circuit court had ruled that the file did not have to be disclosed and only then at that court's direction. Even then while the index listed and categorized the documents in the investigative file, the same boilerplate, multiple-grounds exception, quoted above, was claimed for every single document in the file. Simply put, this is not how the process works. 55 The University's initial, single-paragraph assertion of a blanket exemption to disclosure of the entire Harwood Investigative File was wholly insufficient. While a line-by-line or document-by-document explanation is not necessarily required in every case, in this particular case the University had only 470 pages to identify/categorize with an explanation of how a particular exemption or exemptions justified withholding the particular document or category of documents. Later, at the direction of the trial court, the University finally offered specific document descriptions, identifying for example, \"email correspondence between Complainant 1, Student and Harwood regarding the night Complainant 1 alleges sexual misconduct occurred\"; \"social media post from the event at which Complainant 2 alleges Harwood's sexual misconduct occurred\"; and \"Final Investigative Report.\" The obligation to obtain this level of response from the public agency is not the trial court's, but rather the agency's obligation in the first instance, a statutory obligation. Here the entire file was treated as a single record, like 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 17/31 the investigative file in City of Fort Thomas, a \"record\" that the University maintained and would neither delineate nor produce. We reiterate that a public agency has the obligation to prove that requested documents fit within an exception to the ORA. Foster, 40 S.W.3d at 868. Under Kentucky law, the University's response to The Kernel's request was required to be \"detailed enough to permit the court to assess its claim and the opposing party to challenge it.\" New Era, 415 S.W.3d at 81. The University failed to meet this requirement. In essence, the University treated the Harwood Investigative File as if it were one giant record, unable to be separated or compartmentalized when in fact the investigative file is a 470-page collection of various types of records. Grouping all the documents together as one record to avoid production is patently unacceptable under the 61.878(4) specifically requires that \"[i]f any public record contains material which is not excepted under this section, the public agency shall separate the excepted and make the nonexcepted material available for examination.\" Because the investigative file likely contains documents that are excepted under the and documents that are not, the University's duty, as a public agency, was to separate excepted and nonexcepted documents. For each document the University claims can be properly withheld from production pursuant to the ORA, the University had the burden to prove that the document fits within an exception by identifying the specific exception and explaining how it applies 61.880. The *56 boilerplate paragraph\u2013this but if not this then that\u2013used for every withheld document was wholly unacceptable. With those principles in mind and the overall inadequacies of the University's response identified, we turn to the various bases for the University's refusal to produce any part of the Harwood Investigative File. 56 II. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Although not cited in its initial April 11, 2016 response to The Kernel's second request, the University eventually relied primarily on FERPA, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1232g, to defend its refusal to disclose the Harwood Investigative File. The trial court erroneously accepted this federal statute as a basis for 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 18/31 nondisclosure of the entire contents of the file under 61.878(1)(k), the exception \"for records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited by federal law or regulation.\" FERPA, a funding statute, imposes conditions on the availability of federal funds to educational institutions and controls the use and disclosure of students\u2019 education records. \"Congress enacted under its spending power to condition the receipt of federal funds on certain requirements relating to the access and disclosure of student educational records.\" Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 278, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002). Because is a federal law regarding access to documents, it is incorporated into the list of exemptions in the ORA, which includes public records the disclosure of which is prohibited by federal law 61.878(1) (k provides, in pertinent part, that [n]o funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein ...) of students without the written consent of their parents to any individual, agency or organization.... 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1232g(b)(1 defines an education record: (4)(A) For the purposes of this section, the term \"education records\" means, except as may be provided otherwise in subparagraph (B), those records, files, documents, and other materials which\u2014 (i) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution. 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1232g(a)(4)(A)(i)(ii). 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 19/31 While the definition of \"education record\" in the statute and its accompanying regulations is broad, courts have generally defined education records as documents with information about academic performance, financial aid, or disciplinary matters. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Education website recites the statutory definition of \"education record\" and then provides: \"These records include but are not limited to grades, transcripts, class lists, student course schedules, health records (at the K-12 level), student financial information *57 (at the postsecondary level), and student discipline files.\" Records relating to a particular student but also involving other individuals have received different treatment. Most courts have concluded that records relating to employee misconduct do not constitute student educational records because they directly relate to the activities and behaviors of employees, although at least one court has determined that education records can directly relate to a student and teacher simultaneously. In Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free School District, 549 F. Supp. 2d 288, 293 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the court held that even where a document qualifies as an \"education record does not prohibit an institution from releasing that record if \"all personally identifiable information [is] redacted.\" (Quoting U.S. v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d at 824 ). Redaction of FERPA-protected education records is commonplace. 8 57 9 10 11 12 13 8 See U.S. v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2002) (affirming a lower court's ruling that university disciplinary records are education records under FERPA); Dahmer v. W. Ky. Univ., 2019 1781770, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2019) (holding that records related to student complaints of sexual discrimination and Title investigations are not \"educational records\" that seeks to protect from disclosure); Bauer v. Kincaid, 759 F. Supp. 575, 591 (W.D. Mo. 1991) (holding that criminal investigation and incident reports are not educational records because they are unrelated to the type of records which expressly protects, i.e. records relating to academic performance, financial aid, or scholastic probation which are kept in individual student files). 9 U.S. Dept. of Educ., What is an education record? (last visited Mar. 19, 2021). 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 20/31 10 See Briggs v. Bd. of Trs. Columbus State Cmty. Coll., 2009 2047899, at *1 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (holding that records relating directly to school employees and only indirectly to students are not education records under FERPA); Wallace v. Cranbrook Educ. Comm. , 2006 2796135, at *4 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (holding that documents related to alleged sexual misconduct of a teacher toward students were not education records because they did not directly relate to students); Ellis v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1019, 1024 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (holding that protects educationally-related information, not records directly related to an alleged incident of harassment by a teacher). 11 See Rhea v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Santa Fe Coll., 109 So. 3d 851, 858 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that if a record directly relates to a student, it is irrelevant whether it is also related to a teacher under FERPA). The professor in Rhea was given a redacted copy of a student's email complaining about his conduct. The Court addressed the professor's request for an unredacted copy, so he could know the student's identity. 12 In Ragusa, 549 F. Supp. 2d at 293, a high school math teacher denied tenure filed an employment discrimination action and sought to compel production of records pertaining to grades and evaluations regarding academic performance and behavior given to all students in the mathematics department. The Court determined that while the records were undoubtedly education records as defined by FERPA, redacted versions of the documents could be produced because nothing in prohibits disclosure of education records with no personally identifiable information. Id. Further permits an educational institution to disclose education records to comply with a judicial order. Id. 13 See Osborn v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. , 254 Wis.2d 266, 647 N.W.2d 158, 168 (2002) (holding that the University must redact records, where necessary, to comply with an open records request for records of applicants); State ex rel. The Miami Student v. Miami Univ. , 79 Ohio St.3d 168, 680 N.E.2d 956, 959 (1997) (holding that in producing disciplinary records, the University may properly redact student names, social security numbers, student identification numbers, and date and time of the incident); Unincorporated Operating Div. of Newspapers, Inc. v. Trs. of Ind. Univ. , 787 N.E.2d 893, 908-09 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that \"Although contains no redaction provision, neither does it prohibit such.\" The appellate court instructed the trial court upon remand to review materials and redact or separate any portion of the documents which might contain 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 21/31 personally identifiable information in violation of FERPA.); Doe v. Rollins Coll. , 2019 11703979 at *5 (M.D. Fla.) (ordering that records be produced in redacted form because does not prohibit the release of records so long as a student's personally identifiable information is redacted). The \"education record\" exclusion was clearly not intended as an \"invisibility cloak\" that can be used to shield any document that involves or is associated in some way with a student, the approach taken by the University in this case. We are persuaded that \"education *58 record\" should be narrowly construed, as courts generally have when considering its scope, and that even those documents that qualify may still be subject to production in redacted form. As noted aims to protect the privacy of student education records and to prohibit educational institutions from disclosing personally identifiable information in those records regulations offer guidance for redacting. According to 34 C.F.R. \u00a7 99.3, \"personally identifiable information\" includes, but is not limited to: 58 (a) The student's name; (b) The name of the student's parent or other family members; (c) The address of the student or student's family; (d personal identifier, such as the student's social security number, student number, or biometric record; (e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student's date of birth, place of birth, and mother's maiden name; (f) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or (g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 22/31 or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates. In Hardin County Schools v. Foster , 40 S.W.3d 865, 869 (Ky. 2001), a case involving an request for a statistical compilation of student disciplinary records, the Court interpreted the federal regulation defining personally identifiable information to \"include information that makes the identity of the student easily traceable, such as a name, address or personal characteristics.\" The regulation and this Court's reading of it have thus focused on granular information which can be redacted from education records before production pursuant to an request. Turning to the case before us, it is not this Court's role to review the investigative file at issue and determine which documents, if any, are education records protected by and therefore arguably exempt from disclosure or, more likely, subject to disclosure after appropriate redactions. However, even a cursory review of the index the University belatedly provided reveals that a considerable number of the documents in the investigative file cannot conceivably relate \"directly\" to a student, and therefore would not qualify as an education record under FERPA. Some obvious examples of non-qualifying documents include a camera user manual, the University's policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment and assault, and Harwood's curriculum vitae. These documents are manifestly not education records, raising serious questions about the University's decision to wholly deny the open records request for all documents in the investigative file when some documents very clearly have no protection under Kentucky or federal law. As for other documents that do specifically mention students, many of those also are not likely education records under the narrow reading of adopted by most courts. To reiterate, it was incumbent upon the University in the first instance to specifically claim the exclusion where legally applicable and to articulate how a given document qualifies as an \"education record.\" Of course, even education records are generally subject to production in redacted form. On remand, the University must fulfill its statutory obligations under the so that The Kernel has sufficient information to 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 23/31 challenge any *59 claims, and the trial court can then rule as to any documents that remain in dispute. 59 We note that the University argues that the entire investigative file constitutes personally identifiable information and it cannot be redacted because the University reasonably believes that The Kernel knows the two students\u2019 identities. The above-quoted regulation states that personally identifiable information includes \"[i]nformation requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates.\" 34 C.F.R. \u00a7 99.3(g). This focus on whether anyone at The Kernel knows the Jane Does\u2019 identities is immaterial at this point, however, because the first consideration is which, if any, of the requested documents are in fact FERPA-protected education records. If documents exist that constitute education records, then those records can be redacted to remove personally identifiable information, including information that could lead The Kernel to identifying the Jane Does. To the extent the trial court concludes 34 C.F.R. \u00a7 99.3(g) may apply in this case, then some fact finding is in order to determine what impact The Kernel's alleged knowledge of the Jane Does\u2019 identities should have on the University's production obligations with regard to documents that qualify as FERPA-protected education records. III. The 61.878(1)(a) Privacy Exemption The University argues that regardless of whether the Harwood Investigative File contains education records under FERPA, the Jane Does\u2019 constitutional privacy rights still prohibit disclosure of any part of the 470-page file. The University relies on federal caselaw characterizing the intimate details of a sexual assault as falling within an individual's constitutionally-protected right to privacy. See, e.g., Bloch v. Ribar , 156 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 1998) (involving a sheriff's release of details of a sexual assault on a victim whose identity was already known to the public due to newspaper coverage). Further, the University asserts that while redacting names and basic identifiers is typically sufficient to protect identities, redaction is constitutionally insufficient if disclosure of the remaining information would allow someone to deduce an individual's identity through a skillful internet search. 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 24/31 The contains a privacy exemption, excluding from disclosure \"[p]ublic records containing information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 61.878(1)(a). To determine whether a record was properly withheld under this exemption, \"[w]e must balance the interest in personal privacy the General Assembly meant to protect, on the one hand, against, on the other, the public interest in disclosure.\" New Era, 415 S.W.3d at 82. In New Era, id. at 78, the Kentucky New Era, a newspaper, filed an open records request seeking copies of certain arrest citations and police incident reports from January 1 through August 31, 2009, out of concern that the Hopkinsville Police Department might be responding inconsistently to similar criminal complaints depending upon the neighborhood involved. After proceedings in circuit court, New Era received redacted copies of all requested law enforcement records. The records contained the names of the individuals involved but their social security numbers, driver's license numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers were removed. Id. at 80. New Era sought discretionary review for the Court to consider whether the Court of Appeals misapplied the in upholding the *60 city's redactions of the addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and driver's license numbers of the victims, witnesses and suspects appearing in the requested police records. Id. 60 In examining the personal privacy interest of the individuals to whom the records pertained, the Court explained that an individual's interest in preventing the dissemination of personal information becomes stronger when the dissemination could subject them to adverse repercussions, such as embarrassment, stigma and reprisal. Id. at 83. Kentucky private citizens retain more than de minimis interest in the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information collected from them by the state. This interest increases as the nature of the information becomes more intimate and sensitive and as the possible consequences of disclosure become more adverse. 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 25/31 Id. at 85. Likewise, victims of sexual assault at the hands of a public university professor have more than a de minimis interest in the confidentiality of the personally identifiable information they provide to enable the university to investigate the alleged misconduct. While this privacy interest must be recognized and protected, it cannot be the basis for wholesale shielding of public records. In New Era , the Court reasoned that \"where the disclosure of certain information about private citizens sheds significant light on an agency's conduct, we have held that the citizen's privacy interest must yield.\" Id. at 86. For cases where the public interest is more attenuated, the disclosure of private information may not be warranted. Id. Ultimately the Court concluded that the release of the additional requested information such as the individuals\u2019 contact information and social security numbers would \"constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,\" and therefore the City's redaction of that information did not contravene the ORA. Id. at 88. So, although the public interest in assessing the quality and thoroughness of a publc agency's performance of its duties is always strong, Board of Examiners, 826 S.W.2d at 328, courts must also consider whether a record production will result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy. We cannot say that disclosure of some or even all of the Harwood Investigative File would \"constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy\" because the privacy concerns presented by disclosure can likely be resolved through careful redaction. Kentucky citizens have a strong interest in ensuring that public institutions, including the University, respond appropriately to accusations of sexual harassment by a public employee. To the extent the personal privacy exemption is claimed as to a particular document on remand, the trial court must balance that interest against the strong public interest in knowing how promptly and effectively the University handled this matter. The Kernel has no objection to and, in fact, requested the redaction of any information that personally identifies the women Harwood sexually assaulted. We agree with the University that protection of the two graduate students\u2019 privacy interests will entail redaction of more than simply names 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 26/31 and addresses. The Jane Does were two females in a very small, male- dominated program. Revealing information such as their particular area of study, year of graduate work, names of their advisors, or the years or locations of their sexual assault could lead to their identification. On remand, the University should make its specific privacy interest exemption claims as to the specific requested documents and propose redactions. The trial court can *61 then consider whether the resulting document production appropriately balances the public and private interests at stake. 61 IV. The 61.878(1)(i) and (j) Preliminary Records Exemptions Finally, we consider the primary reason the University stated in its April 11, 2016 response as grounds for withholding the entire Harwood Investigative File, i.e., the contents were not subject to disclosure because they were all documents preliminary in nature. The relevant \"preliminary records\" provisions of the exclude the following from disclosure: (i) Preliminary drafts, notes, correspondence with private individuals, other than correspondence which is intended to give notice of final action of a public agency; (j) Preliminary recommendations, and preliminary memoranda in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended 61.878(1)(i) and (j). The University contends that it took final action on the Jane Does\u2019 complaints when it accepted Harwood's resignation and entered into the separation agreement but all records that preceded that event were preliminary in nature and therefore excluded from disclosure. This position reflects a misunderstanding of the relevant exceptions. In University of Kentucky v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 830 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Ky. 1992), the University of Kentucky received a complaint from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) regarding alleged rules violations by the University. The University President launched an investigation into the allegations and prepared an official response on behalf of the University which was sent to the NCAA. Id. at 375. The response 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 27/31 incorporated transcripts of interviews and documents gathered during the investigation. Id. When the Courier-Journal sought disclosure of the response, the University raised several exemptions to disclosure in the ORA, including 61.878(1)(i) and (j). Id. at 377. This Court reasoned that \" [t]he Response signed by the University's president and submitted to the constituted the final result of an extensive investigation.\" Id. at 378. The Court also held that \"investigative materials that were once preliminary in nature lose their exempt status once they are adopted by the agency as part of its action.\" Id. Therefore, the entire Response was subject to disclosure. Id. 14 14 The has been amended since the Courier-Journal opinion was rendered. At the time of the opinion, these exemptions were contained in 61.878(1)(g) and (h). The language of the exemptions is identical. Here, the University, through its Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity, investigated the sexual assault allegations against Harwood and created a \"Final Investigative Report\" as well as a \"Final Determination Letter\" sent to Harwood and the Jane Does. The University concedes that it took final action on the two students\u2019 complaints when it accepted Harwood's resignation and entered into a separation agreement with him, but it disputes that documents in the investigative file lost their preliminary status when Harwood resigned. The University correctly points out that nothing in 61.878(1)(i) and (j) states that preliminary materials ever lose their preliminary status yet the Court in Courier-Journal created a narrow exception to the plain language of the statute. *62 However, \"when the General Assembly revises and reenacts a statute ... it \u2018is well aware of the interpretation of the existing statute and has adopted that interpretation unless the new law contains language to the contrary.\u2019 \" Ballinger v. Commonwealth, 459 S.W.3d 349, 354-55 (Ky. 2015) (citing Butler v. Groce, 880 S.W.2d 547, 549 (Ky. 1994) ). The Courier-Journal opinion was rendered in 1992. The General Assembly revised and reenacted the in 1994, 2005, 2013 and 2018. Despite these numerous opportunities to revise the statute to address this Court's interpretation of the preliminary document exceptions in Courier-Journal, through each amendment and reenactment, the language of 61.878(1)(i) and (j) has 15 62 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 28/31 remained exactly the same. Further, the alleged \"narrow construction\" of the exception adopted in Courier-Journal is in accordance with 61.871, which requires that \"the exceptions provided for by 61.878 ... shall be strictly construed....\" 15 The position taken by the Court regarding preliminary documents had been adopted by the Court of Appeals years before. See, e.g. , City of Louisville v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times , 637 S.W.2d 658 (Ky. App. 1982) ; Ky. State Bd. of Med. Licensure v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times , 663 S.W.2d 953 (Ky. App. 1983). Here, even though Harwood resigned prior to a final adjudication by the University, this fact does not render the investigative file a collection of \"forever preliminary\" documents. In Palmer v. Driggers, 60 S.W.3d 591, 594 (Ky. App. 2001), a newspaper filed an request seeking disciplinary records pertaining to local police officers. One of the officers who was the subject of a formal complaint, Palmer, resigned during the disciplinary proceedings with the Owensboro City Commission. Id. When the trial court ordered that a redacted copy of the complaint against Palmer be released to the newspaper, Palmer appealed. Id. at 594-95. The Court of Appeals held, correctly in our view, that \"a resignation from a position by an employee before the Commission has reached a decision concerning possible termination is a \u2018final action.\u2019 \" Id. at 597. Like in Palmer, the effect of Harwood's resignation was to end the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; his resignation constitutes a final action. These parts of the Harwood Investigative File that were once preliminary in nature lost that exempt status when the University agreed to end the investigation and proceedings by accepting Harwood's resignation and entering into a separation agreement. Courier-Journal, 830 S.W.2d at 378. The preliminary document exceptions invoked by the University at one point in these proceedings are thus not applicable and should not be considered on remand The Open Records Act encourages the \"free and open examination of public records\" even where examination \"may cause inconvenience or 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 29/31 embarrassment to public officials or others 61.871. The University may find The Kernel's requests burdensome and intrusive or even ill- advised but the University is not authorized to decide what public records must be disclosed and what records can lawfully be withheld. Those decisions are ultimately for the courts within the parameters of the ORA, and to facilitate those decisions the University must first fulfill its obligations to the public under the statute and this Court's precedent. We trust that the University will do so on remand and the trial court can proceed to a proper resolution of this unnecessarily protracted open records action. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals and remand this matter to Fayette Circuit *63 Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. 63 All sitting. All concur. About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 30/31 Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 8:22 Univ. of Ky. v. Kernel Press, Inc., 620 S.W.3d 43 | Casetext Search + Citator 31/31", "7759_110.pdf": "Two professors accused of harassment left with settlements, no mention to future employers By Linda Blackford [email protected] Updated December 16, 2016 9:16 PM| The Kentucky Open Records Act allows citizens to get public records from their state and local governments. Government officials sometimes redact portions of the records, which can be challenged. Charles Bertram [email protected] Only have a minute? Listen instead 1.0x Powered by Trinity Audio 00:00 07:53 10 10 $1.99 2 Immerse yourself in stories you love with our digital subscription Log In | Subscribe 2/16/25, 8:22 settled with two professors accused of sexual harassment | Lexington Herald Leader 1/7 In 2012 and 2013, University of Kentucky investigators recommended that two professors not return to teaching because of violations of the school\u2019s harassment and discrimination code. They left, but with settlement deals promising that would not disclose the cases to future employers. The deals are similar to a nationally publicized case from UK, where associate professor James Harwood was accused of sexually harassing students but was allowed to resign earlier this year under a settlement agreement. The Kentucky Kernel publicized his case, which has turned into an open records court battle with President Eli Capilouto has been particularly critical of the Kernel, saying that writing about the case has hurt the victims. In a recent interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Capilouto said he assumed that any problems with departing faculty would come to light during interviews and reference checks as they seek new jobs. But when asked whether the university would disclose those problems, Capilouto said, \u201cIt would depend on the circumstances around a particular case.\u201d In the two earlier cases, both professors adamantly denied any wrongdoing and left with separation settlements before either case was adjudicated through the university appeals process. One of them moved directly to another school. Harwood\u2019s case raised questions about how widespread harassment and discrimination are at UK, and how often perpetrators are punished. The Herald- Leader requested the final cover letters of UK\u2019s other harassment investigations, and it received heavily redacted copies from the Office of Institutional Equity under the state\u2019s Open Records Act. Most of the letters were written by Patty Bender, vice president for equal opportunity at UK. The documents show that the office investigated 57 people between 2011 and 2016 for violations of UK\u2019s harassment and discrimination policy. Investigators 2/16/25, 8:22 settled with two professors accused of sexual harassment | Lexington Herald Leader 2/7 recommended that 40 percent of them, mostly staff, be fired, including Christopher Romanek and Anthony Worlbarst. Romanek, a NASA-funded earth science professor who now teaches at Furman University, was investigated in 2013 by the Office of Institutional Equity, which looks into all charges of harassment and intimidation. According to a heavily redacted letter released by UK, Romanek had some type of relationship with a student. This is not prohibited under policy, but it\u2019s discouraged. However, relationships are supposed to be disclosed so a professor does not oversee the work of a student with whom they are involved. \u201cWhen he was questioned about the behavior that finally prompted the student to seek help from our office, Dr. Romanek then stated that he just wanted to advise her in a way that was best for her professional career,\u201d the letter says. \u201cDr. Romanek was clearly in violation of university policy. What is without question is that at no time did he arrange for her to actually be transitioned to another adviser without his ongoing supervision.\u201d The letter also said that he treated the student \u201cin a manner increasingly negative and different than others after she refused a relationship and it was clear that she would not reconsider.\u201d Romanek was suspended from campus and from contact with the student, due to the seriousness of the matter, the letter says. Romanek\u2019s attorney, Steve Amato of Lexington, said Romanek did arrange another adviser, and Amato denied any other inappropriate behavior. \u201cHe was looking for a better professor job anyway, was in the process of being recruited elsewhere and elected at the end of the day not to pursue his defense of this through the full institutional appeal process and simply moved on and voluntarily resigned,\u201d Amato said. Romanek received two months salary and a $25,000 lump-sum payment as part of his settlement agreement. Also in the agreement said that a copy of the 2/16/25, 8:22 settled with two professors accused of sexual harassment | Lexington Herald Leader 3/7 investigative letter would be kept in the Office of Legal Counsel, but a copy would not appear in any of Romanek\u2019s personnel files, and that \u201cany official letter of recommendation from the university will give dates of employment, title/position, rate of pay, and reason for termination, e.g., resignation for personal reasons.\u201d Romanek now teaches at Furman University. Furman spokesman Vince Moore would not comment on the case and said only that the university conducts criminal background checks on all prospective faculty and staff. In another case, Anthony Wolbarst, a faculty member in the department of clinical sciences, was investigated twice in 2012 for inappropriate comments and retaliation against whoever reported it, according to the cover letter from the university\u2019s investigative file. \u201cThe ... finding is that Dr. Wolbarst has ignored the warnings and information given to him previously and is clearly in violation of the university\u2019s policy prohibiting both harassment and retaliation,\u201d the Oct. 30, 2012, letter says. \u201cThe office therefore recommends that Dr. Wolbarst should not continue in his position as a faculty member at the University of Kentucky.\u201d By Jan. 30, 2013, Wolbarst and had come to an agreement that would \u201cresolve this matter without the need for further cost or expense and without the need to continue the investigation.\u201d Under the agreement, Wolbarst would resign Sept. 30 and receive about half of his $126,344 salary and any accrued vacation pay during the six months, although he would not report to work. The agreement forbade him from having contact with students or from suing UK, but gave him full retirement benefits. Anyone who asked for references would be given Exhibit B, a list of Wolbarst\u2019s experience in research, publishing and teaching that makes no mention of any of the investigations against him. It says only that he retired in 2013. 2/16/25, 8:22 settled with two professors accused of sexual harassment | Lexington Herald Leader 4/7 In a phone interview, Wolbarst said that he did make some \u201ctasteless\u201d comments, but they didn\u2019t warrant losing his job. \u201cIn hindsight can see it wasn\u2019t a great thing to say, but it was not sexual harassment,\u201d he said. He called the investigation \u201ca Kafkaesque situation spokesman Jay Blanton said he could not comment on specific disciplinary matters but that universities often choose settlement agreements to part with faculty because pursuing tenure revocation is a complicated process that could take years. Tenure was created to protect the intellectual freedom of faculty, but it also can protect faculty against firing for misconduct. \u201cBut as President Capilouto has said repeatedly, our approach is guided by the principles of federal law \u2014 stop the victimization, mitigate the effects of that victimization and prevent it from occurring again on our campus,\u201d Blanton said. \u201cSometimes the most efficient and effective way of meeting those obligations is to settle quickly in order to remove the tenured faculty member from campus.\u201d He added: \u201cUnder President Capilouto, the university has utilized settlements far less often than in the past. But they have been used in instances where we believe the alternative is a long and expensive process that would allow a potential perpetrator to stay on campus indefinitely because of the protections provided by tenure.\u201d In September, Capilouto promised reforms regarding the issue of sexual harassment, including a policy that would require any new faculty to complete a questionnaire about past sexual or research misconduct. Those issues would also be examined before granting tenure to faculty. Linda Blackford: 859-231-1359, @lbblackford This story was originally published December 16, 2016 at 11:53 AM. Want to see more content like this Newsletter 2/16/25, 8:22 settled with two professors accused of sexual harassment | Lexington Herald Leader 5/7 The latest local, state and national headlines delivered each weekday afternoon By submitting agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. Take Us With You Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand Start a Subscription About Us McClatchy Advertising 2/16/25, 8:22 settled with two professors accused of sexual harassment | Lexington Herald Leader 6/7 Part of the McClatchy Media Network Customer Service Edition Herald-Leader Now Vacation Hold Pay Your Bill Contact Us Newsletters Archives Sports Betting Personal Finance Place an Ad Place a Classified Ad Place an Ad - Celebrations Place an Obituary Staffing Solutions Political | Advocacy Advertising 2/16/25, 8:22 settled with two professors accused of sexual harassment | Lexington Herald Leader 7/7"} |
7,528 | Mohammed A. Malik | Roxbury Community College | [] | {} |
7,592 | Steven Chamberlain | Syracuse University | [
"7592_101.pdf",
"7592_102.pdf"
] | {"7592_101.pdf": "Commercial Chamberlain Resigns, Pleads Guilty to Charges by SpaceNews Editor May 1, 2006 After publicly maintaining his innocence for months, Steven Chamberlain pled guilty to a fourth- degree sex offense involving a 14-year-old girl \u2014 days after resigning from his positions as chief executive officer and chairman of the board for Integral Systems Inc. Chamberlain\u2019s plea was entered before Judge Diane O. Leasure in Howard County d., Circuit Court April 26. He originally was charged with two felonies, but the charges were downgraded as a result of a plea agreement, according to Howard County State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s Office spokesman T. Wayne Kirwan. Chamberlain is scheduled to be sentenced May 4, where he will face up to a year in prison and up to $1,000 in fines for the amended charges. Under the original felony charges, he faced a maximum penalty of up to 15 years in prison for one count, and up to 10 years in prison for the other, Kirwan said April 28. According to an April 27 statement from the state\u2019s attorney\u2019s office, Chamberlain inappropriately touched the 14-year-old victim on a number of occasions between November 2003 and May 2004, and bought her a series of valuable gifts, including clothing, a digital camera, a cell phone, a Schwinn bicycle and a player. The offenses took place in Chamberlain\u2019s Columbia, Md., home, according to the original statement of charges from the District Court. The victim remained quiet about the incidents but became upset during a sex education class in her high school in October 2004, which broached the topic of sexual abuse, prompting her to report the crimes, the court documents said. 2/16/25, 8:23 Chamberlain Resigns, Pleads Guilty to Charges - SpaceNews 1/2 \u00a9 2025 SpaceNews. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Newspack Chamberlain has been plagued with both his own personal legal troubles \u2014 he had been scheduled to face trial this July \u2014 and months of wrangling over a potential sale of Lanham, Md.-based Integral Systems. All this eventually culminated in his resignation, which was made public in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission April 21. Integral spokeswoman Tory Walker would not comment on the resignation April 25, and did not return calls seeking comment on the guilty plea April 28. Chamberlain will be replaced as chief executive officer by Peter Gaffney, Integral\u2019s chief operating officer who has been with the company since 1986. R. Doss McComas, currently a company director, has taken Chamberlain\u2019s role as chairman. The filing stated that Chamberlain had planned to remain active in the company after the resignation, particularly in its prospects for future sale. Integral enlisted the services of investment banking firm Capital Markets/Windsor Group, a division of Richmond, Va.-based Scott & Stringfellow Inc., April 11 to explore a potential sale. \u201cAs far as know, everyone \u2014 the shareholders, the management, the board, the investment bankers \u2014 is operating on the assumption that this company will be acquired in the relatively near future,\u201d said Bonnie Wachtel, a former member of Integral\u2019s board of directors, in a phone interview April 25. Wachtel resigned from the board April 5 after questioning the company\u2019s leadership and various governance decisions, particularly the fact it had not yet put the company up for sale. She also found fault with Chamberlain\u2019s decision not to immediately disclose his legal troubles to the board. While Wachtel said the rule of thumb is that it takes four to five months to sell a company, this may happen sooner since the prospect of the sale has been talked about for months lot of people in the industry have been lining up and making a preliminary evaluation,\u201d she said. Comments: [email protected] 2/16/25, 8:23 Chamberlain Resigns, Pleads Guilty to Charges - SpaceNews 2/2", "7592_102.pdf": "( (/) ( Former professor under investigation By Nic Corbett (/writers/nic-corbett (HTTP://134.122.2.157:8080 (HTTP://134.122.2.157:8080/CONTACT/) (/SEARCH/) 19 years ago Steven Chamberlain, a Syracuse University neuroscience professor who resigned March 14, is being investigated by the Onondaga County District Attorney\u2019s Office after \u2018new and troubling\u2019 allegations of personal misconduct toward individuals compelled the university to file a report April 13, according to an News press release. Some faculty had complained to a University Senate committee in January about Chamberlain\u2019s \u2018grossly inappropriate conduct towards students,\u2019 leading to an investigation that uncovered \u2018egregious personal misconduct of physical and emotional abuse involving several individuals,\u2019 according to the statement. Chamberlain was suspended March 9, the Thursday before spring break, which meant he could neither return to campus nor stay in contact with any students, faculty or staff, the release stated. The charges against him were misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a tenured professor and conduct in violation of faculty professional ethics. He then resigned March 14 to avoid a formal hearing that \u2018certainly would have resulted in his termination.\u2019 Although Chamberlain cited health reasons as the reason for his resignation, the university did not make any comments regarding this, the release stated. Eric Spina, dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Science, declined to comment, referring all inquiries to Kevin Morrow, director of News Services. Morrow said he would not comment further on Chamberlain\u2019s case. The university is asking anyone with information about possible personal misconduct by Chamberlain to call the District Attorney\u2019s Office at 435-2470. An News Alert was sent out to students Monday regarding help available for relationship abuse. The alert detailed what constitutes an abusive relationship between students and faculty members, coaches, advisers or supervisors. \u2018It was a message sent out to the university community tied around the White Ribbon Campaign and the Take Back the Night events, talking in general about relationship abuse and what forms that relationship abuse can take place and what resources are available on campus,\u2019 Morrow said. \u2018Certainly for those individuals who may be affected by Dr. Chamberlain\u2019s actions, this message is very important to them as well,\u2019 he said. Gus Engbretson, chair of the biomedical and chemical engineering department, said he was not made aware of the investigation until he had a talk with Spina at the time of Chamberlain\u2019s suspension March 9. \u2018We\u2019ve had some conversations that would refer to as privileged communications, that there had been some allegations and I\u2019m privy to some of the allegations, but don\u2019t know. Allegations are a long ways from facts,\u2019 Engbretson said. When asked what the allegations were, Engbretson said don\u2019t know the allegations know there are allegations.\u2019 Engbretson said he was initially surprised to hear about the investigation and had not previously suspected anything of Chamberlain student who requested anonymity said she was not surprised by Chamberlain\u2019s suspension, which students were not informed about until the statement\u2019s release. The student, who took Chamberlain\u2019s introductory neuroscience course last semester, said he had made general sexual remarks during his lectures that some might find inappropriate. \u2018Sometimes you\u2019d think, \u2018What? Did he say that? Isn\u2019t he a professor?\u201d she said. The student said she never approached anyone about it, saying it wasn\u2019t that big of a deal, although it did put her off. \u2018(Students in the class) just laughed,\u2019 she said didn\u2019t really notice people feeling uncomfortable. Maybe they did and they didn\u2019t show it.\u2019 Despite the inappropriate comments, the student said she thought Chamberlain was a really good professor. \u2018It really was my favorite class at SU, and really enjoyed his class, but wasn\u2019t surprised he might have been suspended,\u2019 she said. Pamela Parker, a sophomore psychology major who is currently taking the introductory neuroscience course, said the resignation was really sudden and left students confused as to why Chamberlain did not wait until the end of the semester, even if the reason was declining health. \u2018He seemed physically fine,\u2019 Parker said guess it makes sense that that wasn\u2019t the reason.\u2019 Published on April 18, 2006 (/2006/04/18/) at 12:00 pm (HTTP://WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/SHARE.PHP?U=HTTPS%3A//DAILYORANGE.COM/2006/04 (HTTP://TWITTER.COM/INTENT/TWEET?URL=HTTPS%3A//DAILYORANGE.COM/2006/04 ORANGE&BODY=HTTP://DAILYORANGE.COM/2006/04 (/TAGS/MENS-LACROSSE) 'We just have to learn how to win': No. 2 fades late in loss to No. 6 Maryland (/2025/02/syracuse-mens-lacrosse-loss-maryland/) By Cooper Andrews | February 15, 2025 News ( On Campus ( campus/) City ( Crime ( State ( Culture ( Slice of Life ( life/) From the Kitchen ( and-drink/) Beyond the Hill ( the-hill/) Sports ( Men's Basketball ( basketball-sports/) Women's Basketball ( basketball-sports/) Football ( (/2025/02/syracuse-mens- lacrosse-loss-maryland/) (/2025/02/opinion-tim-rudds- senseless-rampage-requires- his-accountability/) (/2025/02/syracuse-mens- basketball-north-carolina- loss/) No. 2 Syracuse fell to No. 6 Maryland 11-7 on the road Saturday, marking the program\u2019s seventh straight loss to the Terrapins. Read more \u00bb (/2025/02/syracuse-mens-lacrosse-loss-maryland (/OPINIONS/COLUMNS) Opinion: Tim Rudd\u2019s senseless rampage requires his accountability (/2025/02/opinion-tim-rudds- senseless-rampage-requires-his-accountability/) By Sarhia Rahim | February 12, 2025 Rather than fostering conversations on accountability within our local government and valid concerns from Rudd on financial transparency, he used his platform and voice to target Owens. Read more \u00bb (/2025/02/opinion-tim-rudds-senseless-rampage-requires-his-accountability (/TAGS/MENS-BASKETBALL) Syracuse drops 10th game in 88-82 loss to North Carolina (/2025/02/syracuse-mens- basketball-north-carolina-loss/) By Justin Girshon | February 15, 2025 Syracuse dropped its 10th game of the season, falling 88-82 to North Carolina Saturday. The Orange now have just a two-game advantage in the win column over State to qualify for the final Tournament spot. Read more \u00bb (/2025/02/syracuse-mens-basketball-north-carolina-loss/) National ( Acts of Hate ( #NotAgainSU ( Israel-Hamas War ( hamas-war ( Obituary ( Interstate 81 ( Student Association ( association) Graduate Students ( students/) From the Stage ( pulp/) From the Studio ( columnists/entertainment/) Men's Lacrosse ( lacrosse-sports/) Women's Lacrosse ( lacrosse-sports/) Softball ( Men's Soccer ( soccer-sports/) Women's Soccer ( soccer-sports/) Field Hockey ( hockey/) Ice Hockey ( hockey/) Rowing ( Track & Field ( field/) Tennis ( Volleyball ( Cross Country ( country/) Opinion ( Editorial Board ( board/) Columns ( Guest Column ( column/) Letters to the Editor ( to-editor/) Black Voices ( voices/) Latine Voices ( voices) International Voice ( LGBTQ+ Voices ( voices) Listen to Stories of Survivors ( stories-of-survivors) Media ( Podcasts ( Videos ( Galleries ( Tools (/tools) About (/about) Alumni ( Ad Rates (/adrates) Contact (/contact Feed ( Absence of Light ( of-light/) Syracuse Community ( community/) E-mail Newsletter E-Mail address Submit The Daily Orange is Syracuse University\u2019s independent student news organization. Donating today will help ensure that the paper stays run by its student staff. ( 230 Euclid Avenue, Syracuse 13244 ( 315 443 2315 (tel:315-443-2315) \u00a9 2025 The Daily Orange Corporation"} |
8,077 | John Searle | University of California – Berkeley | [
"8077_101.pdf",
"8077_102.pdf",
"8077_103.pdf",
"8077_104.pdf",
"8077_105.pdf",
"8077_106.pdf",
"8077_107.pdf",
"8077_108.pdf"
] | {"8077_101.pdf": "\u00bb Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) By Justin Weinberg. June 21, 2019 at 8:14 am Well-known philosopher John Searle, who began teaching at the University of California, Berkeley in 1959, has been stripped of his emeritus status there owing to the finding that he violated the university\u2019s sexual harassment policies. 86 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 1/54 John Searle Searle was sued for sexual harassment in 2017, and the university had received prior complaints about him of sexual harassment recent email to graduate students in Berkeley\u2019s Department of Philosophy states: [A]s of June 19th 2019, John Searle is no longer affiliated with Berkeley. Following a determination that he violated university policies against sexual harassment, President Napolitano has ended his emeritus status. This means, among other things, that he is no longer eligible to teach or advise students, nor will he have access to the campus beyond what is afforded to any member of the general public. It is not clear whether this determination is related to the 2017 lawsuit or some other instance(s) of sexual harassment. [Added: see the update, below, according to which: \u201cCampus disciplinary proceedings determined that Searle engaged in sexual harassment and retaliation against a former student and employee who worked with him in his campus office after graduating. These violations occurred between July and September of 2016 and were reported to the campus Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD)\u2014the Title office\u2014in November 2016.\u201d So it appears to be about this case.] 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 2/54 (via Jackson Kernion (6/21/19, 2:00 spokesperson for Berkeley sent along the following statement: John Searle, formerly a professor emeritus in Berkeley\u2019s Department of Philosophy, has had his emeritus status revoked, along with all the privileges of that title, following a determination that he violated university policies against sexual harassment and retaliation. This action permanently removes him from the university community. He will not be eligible to teach, work with graduate students, maintain office space or have special access to campus libraries, parking, etc. His access to the campus will be no different than those of any member of the general public. Campus disciplinary proceedings determined that Searle engaged in sexual harassment and retaliation against a former student and employee who worked with him in his campus office after graduating. These violations occurred between July and September of 2016 and were reported to the campus Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD)\u2014the Title office\u2014in November 2016. Only the president of the University of California can approve the removal of a faculty member\u2019s emeritus title and privileges following the full disciplinary process Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ made the recommendation for removal and President Janet Napolitano approved the recommendation, which was effective June 19. The action follows a finding by the campus Title Office that Searle violated university policy. Ultimately the case proceeded to a confidential evidentiary hearing before the Privilege & Tenure Committee of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. The Chancellor reviewed the committee\u2019s findings and documents pertinent to the case in making her recommendation to the President. During the investigation and disciplinary process, a number of interim steps were taken in light of the disturbing nature of the allegations at the time and the seriousness of those allegations. Throughout the disciplinary proceedings, Searle was not teaching, or advising Berkeley students. He did not engage in recruiting or hiring university employees, was 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 3/54 barred from participating in departmental activities while the case was pending, and did not maintain an office on campus. None of these interim measures implied any judgment about the ultimate outcome of the investigation but were taken as precautionary measures. The disciplinary decision announced today means that Searle permanently loses the title and all privileges that may come with emeritus status. Under University policy, the only disciplinary action that may be taken against an emeritus professor (i.e., a retired professor), is temporary or permanent removal of the emeritus title and corresponding privileges. Emeritus status is automatically conferred on tenured Senate faculty members upon retirement and can include numerous privileges, including that the title itself carries the prestige of continued association with the university. Emeritus faculty also are sometimes recalled to teach and, depending on the department, may be involved in department matters. More information on those privileges is available here: welfare/retirement/privileges-and-benefits-conferred-upon-all-emeriti. Sexual harassment and retaliation have no place in the Berkeley Community. We understand that such actions have the potential to cause great harm and are fundamentally detrimental to our educational mission. Over the past several years, the university has intensified and reformed its response to sexual misconduct, improved educational efforts aimed at faculty, staff and students; expanded its investigative capacity, and clarified the responsibilities of faculty and employees to forward reports of sexual violence to that are disclosed to them. Once is made aware of sexual harassment or sexual violence (SVSH) allegations, it reviews the matter to determine if the conduct could violate our policy also reaches out to all identified parties to provide information on their rights and campus resources for support. The campus works diligently to enhance support and services for those who have experienced harm. We encourage survivors to contact the campus\u2019s to Care Center, which offers affirming and confidential support including guidance regarding other campus and community support services and reporting options. 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 4/54 If any member of our campus community has been directly or indirectly harmed by sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, stalking, or sexual violence, confidential support is available at the to Care Center 24-Hour Crisis/Care Line: 510-643-2005 | Office appointments: 510-642-1988 | care.berkeley.edu). Please see berkeley.edu/get-help for more information about campus resources (6/24/19): Kristin Gehrman (Tennesee, Knoxville), writes don\u2019t regret sticking my neck out back in 2004, and definitely don\u2019t regret doing it in public again now. But did it for a very specific reason, which is that firmly believe that professors, administrators, and others in positions of power in academia are responsible for creating barriers to the kinds of predatory, undermining, and alienating behavior that John Searle\u2019s undergraduate research assistants have been subjected to for years and years.\u201d See her full comments at Soup. \uf0e0Subscribe \uf0d7 Login 86 Join the discussion \uf03e \uf0e7 \uf06d Oldest \uf0dd Leigh M. Johnson \uf017 5 years ago Time to reset the SINCE\u2026\u201d shop sign for professional Philosophy. We\u2019re back at zero days. 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 5/54 Again. 2 Reply Cheyney Ryan \uf017 5 years ago What does the Searle case tell us? Searle\u2019s behavior has been common knowledge in the profession for decades, but only recently\u2013perhaps due to the #MeToo movement\u2013has he been held accountable. Example: My first year as a professor (1975\u2013i.e. when Gerald Ford was president!) Searle came to lecture (on the \u201cassertion fallacy\u201d) at my school, he after his talk he made a bee-line for one of our women grad students. He\u2019s apparently picked her out in the crowd, during his discussion of \u201cWhat does it mean to call a cabbage \u2018good\u2019?\u201d The graduate student later told me that he asked her for a ride back to his motel room (in the middle of the afternoon). He disappeared into the bathroom for a few minutes and then reappeared\u2013fully naked. He then proceeded to grab her until she could push him away long enough to get out of the room told this story some years later to a colleague of Searle\u2019s who said, \u201cOh yes, that\u2019s John reasonable assumption is that this sort of behavior has continued until recently\u2013i.e. 40+ years. How do we explain the fact that no one spoke up until recently? 3 Reply Kristina Gehrman \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago One way to explain it is to come to terms with the fact that people did speak up \u2014 myself included \u2014 but institutions and individuals in positions of authority either did not listen, or silenced and intimidated those who spoke. 5 Reply Cheyney Ryan metoo \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Kristina Gehrman 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 6/54 spoke up about a creepy and abusive, very famous male professor, one with a decades long (pretty well known) career of creepiness and abuse. It was not Searle, and this man is still very active in the profession. My department didn\u2019t do anything. My university didn\u2019t do anything. Because spoke up lost a lot of professional friends. As far as can tell, the profession has just shrugged and will continue to shrug and say \u201cthat\u2019s just so- and-so.\u201d Let\u2019s get clear about something: the problem is not women failing to speak up. 6 Reply stargaze \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago recently had dinner with a female philosophy professor in her 70s, and we discussed the Searle case. She said that she still vividly recalled the night she was invited to his house for dinner, around 40 years ago. It was Searle, his wife, and a young female graduate student. She remembers trying to find an excuse to leave early, as the interaction between the graduate student and Searle made the behind the scenes situation more than obvious, and the entire situation more than uncomfortable for her. Meanwhile, she recounted, his wife looked on, with an irritated and knowing expression myself am a female assistant professor. And can recall at least 2 occasions in the last two years where had dinner with a group of male professors, and one of the conversations that came up was about a male professor who was known for sleeping with his students. The general vibe was that these are funny stories about *how* everyone knew it, and yet pretended they didn\u2019t. There was lots of ironic laughing and eye rolls at the supposed surprise people show when these things come out. While those recounting the stories didn\u2019t exactly express approval for any of this, they certainly didn\u2019t express disapproval either. Rather than shock or anger remember thinking just how strange and disappointing were the conversation\u2019s familiarity to literal high school gossip. Just very weird and immature. It made me wonder if one of the reasons these things can go on so long is that people enjoy watching the show. 8 Reply metoo 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 7/54 Jackson Kernion \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago One of the lessons I\u2019ve taken away from this situation is that academic institutions, and the individual academics that make them up, do not behave in the kind of principled ways you might expect. 3 Reply Kristina Gehrman \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago You have to be incredibly naive to expect institutions like universities and those in positions of power within them to be guided by moral principles. When the department releases some statement saying the university is deeply committed to X, it is either because they have just been caught violating or are about to do so. 3 Reply Jackson Kernion Loci.Cantos \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago I\u2019m going to agree with Jackson K., here read his words as spot-on. You know, there\u2019s an old phrase attributed to P.T. Barnum that reads like this: \u201cThere\u2019s a sucker born every minute.\u201d I\u2019ve always maintained that this is incorrect. Rather, what is born every minute is someone who is willing to take advantage of an honest and unsuspecting person. Upsetting the background is often what makes for some of the best humor. What is done in this Barnum attributed quote is, it takes the common transactional background of expected honesty, a social regulation in law and everyday dealing, then flips it on its head by arguing the practice is actually an opportunity for illicit profit. Of course it is intended as humor and it\u2019s very funny. But no one, not even Barnum (if he actually said it), meant it as an actual practice, but rather as a joke 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 8/54 It\u2019s all too easy to become cynical (common social use) and adopt negative attitudes such as that intended by the Barnum quote (or misquote), if we\u2019re not careful. In such moments we\u2019re all laughing and the audacious nature of the assertion is tantalizingly enticing in it\u2019s potential. But, it\u2019s still a joke. And, in our present circumstances involving predatory behavior directed at others, it\u2019s important that each of us compel ourselves to be present in the moment and guard against loose tendencies such as allowing cynicism (again common use) to creep in. Effective humor is juxtaposed against a background of common everyday practice for a reason: this is what makes it funny. But adopting these witticisms as functional life maxims is obviously a misread, and it\u2019s a mistake. 1 Reply Joseph \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago L.C, that is a very nice restatement of the supposed P.T. Barnum saw. What should be obviously understood to be how the original statement is to be interpreted is not so obvious after all, but there you have done it. Beautifully. 0 Reply Loci.Cantos Loci.Cantos \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago By the way agree with what you\u2019ve said, too. The \u201cmarketing one\u2019s weakness as a strength\u201d ploy is pervasive in our society. And, this is because it is so effective at misleading people. But want us to remember that its efficacy doesn\u2019t mean those deceived are at fault any more than someone who falls victim to a sneak-attack is at fault. It\u2019s right for us to expect better, but when we couch it in terms such as naive, we actually lend credibility to the attacker just want to be careful not to do that. 0 Reply 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 9/54 cheyney ryan \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Kristina \u2013 You are absolutely right, and my apologies for misspeaking am sure people spoke up as you did. And metoo did not mean to suggest that the problem was not women speaking up. But still remain astounded that so many people\u2013 including most in Searle\u2019s own dept, apparently, especially those who voices might have put an end to it\u2013did nothing about this. And for 40 years! 2 Reply Kristina Gehrman Slick Rick \uf017 5 years ago @Leigh M. Johnson did not know that sexual harassment was such a prevalent problem among philosophers in academia\u2026 Bummer :/ 0 Reply Leigh M. Johnson \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago This site (Daily Nous) literally has an archive of instances. It\u2019s prevalent. 2 Reply Slick Rick More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Hi, Leigh. That isn\u2019t an archive of instances: it\u2019s an article of stories about alleged instances and, sometimes, findings. How many cases are discussed there: five? Pogge, Searle, Ludlow, McGinn (all of which have been discussed endlessly), plus Dougherty believe. There are 10,000 philosophy professors in the United States alone. Let\u2019s say there are ten cases here, since some cases are not reported. That\u2019s one alleged case for Leigh M. Johnson 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 10/54 every thousand people, if we limit people to the US. Or we could double or triple that. It still hardly seems \u201cprevalent\u201d. You say above that we have to reset the days since a sexual harassment finding\u2019 clock. That\u2019s right: The number of sexual harassment cases is nonzero. So is the number of murders, thefts, muggings, beatings of innocent people, etc. And so it will always be. We will never reach social perfection, and the fact that we have not reached it does not mean that these problems are \u2018prevalent\u2019. The question is, are the plausible allegations taken seriously? If Searle has indeed been up to these tricks for decades, and they were duly reported, then it seems there was a long period during which they were not, and that\u2019s very regrettable. However, clearly someone has taken them seriously now, since he has been permanently stripped of his emeritus status by a legitimate disciplinary committee. Rather than try to freak everyone out, especially female students, by constantly telling them (and ourselves) that harassment is \u2018prevalent\u2019 in the profession, even though there is absolutely no credible evidence that it\u2019s worse in philosophy than anywhere else, wouldn\u2019t it be better to see whether there\u2019s any reason, today, to think that legitimate complaints are being ignored, and try to do something when they can? That\u2019s something we can all work on. But hoping that nobody who is apt to commit harassment will ever make it into the profession is an impossible ideal. 8 Reply jj \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Well, most (like 80%) women in philosophy/academy know have a sexual/gender harassment story don\u2019t have statistics, but that always seemed to me like too many don\u2019t know if it\u2019s worse or better elsewhere, but that seems beside the point. 6 Reply More optimistic Nicole \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago don\u2019t think we should be tossing made-up numbers like \u201c80%\u201d around without any evidence to back them up. jj 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 11/54 believe that sexual harassment is far too prevalent everywhere, including academia, and that a good ol\u2019 boy mentality exists in the minds of many who would have otherwise had the power to take charges seriously heretofore. But we should be aware that it only takes a few bad apples to affect many people, which calls into question what we mean by \u201cprevalent in the profession.\u201d It\u2019s, in my opinion, not a prevalent behavior among professors, in that most professors are professionals. But it may seem prevalent among the student population simply because one perp can affect sooo many students. 4 Reply jj \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago cannot see what is wrong wit saying that about 80perc of women know experienced harrasment am not reporting some \u201cmade up\u201d number but my estimate about how many of the people know told me something. That is neither saying that 80perc of women in academia in general experienced harrasment nor that 80perc of men engage in harrasment. It is just saying that it is a very high number given the seriousness of the issue and the number of women know. 3 Reply Nicole Nicole \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago think trying to make up numbers to attach to our personal experiences is an attempt to give an unearned air of authority and legitimacy to our claims. And the fact that you seem to be attaching too much credence to this \u201cestimate\u201d of yours is further evinced by your last sentence, where you specifically refer to the height of this unverified number. It\u2019s question begging really think it\u2019s more accurate to just say \u201cmost\u201d or \u201cmany\u201d or something to that effect. jj 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 12/54 In any case, this is neither here nor there think we agree on the important things here\u2013there is too much harassment happening in academia no matter what the exact percentage is until it is 0%. 5 Reply More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago I\u2019m not sure why it\u2019s beside the point, jj. Over and over again, certain people within the discipline have claimed that this, that and the other thing absolutely must be put in place immediately because of a supposed \u2018culture of harassment\u2019 within the discipline that has never been substantiated. In fact, nobody has even tried to substantiate the claim, as far as have been able to find out: for all the APA\u2019s efforts, it never seems to have tried to determine how extensive the problem is or compare it with any other discipline. We have been told that more room must be made for feminist philosophy (though the causal connection has never been clarified), and so on. Few dare oppose any of these moves because to do so is seen to be a sign of denial about a problem whose extent has never been determined. Meanwhile, female students are routinely told horror stories about the discipline, which has the effect of either radicalizing them or else driving them away. These horror stories are told with an air of authority, as though the tellers of those stories have good grounds for thinking that philosophy has a particularly bad problem and that nobody\u2019s doing anything about it. But again, look at how many times the stories of McGinn, Ludlow, etc. have been told, and how swiftly they were driven from the profession, and how quickly even their works have ceased to be cited. Is that what one would expect from a discipline that winks at harassment? Hardly. If these allegations about philosophy are to continue to be told to newcomers, especially new female students, and if those allegations are to be the basis of policies and practices, then whether they are true (both absolutely and comparatively) really seems relevant. jj 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 13/54 You provide an anecdote in support of your contention, jj. You say that, as far as you can recall, something like 80% of women have some story of gender or sexual harassment. There are many other women who have been in the profession for a long time with no such stories. Even if your recollection is correct, some questions seem pertinent. Here are a few. 1. Most of the people we meet in philosophy, we meet only in passing. Do you mean to say that 80% of _all_ women you have met, even in passing, have told you of sexual harassment that they experienced? That seems very unlikely presume that you mean that about 80% of the women you know fairly well have told you stories of harassment. But then one must wonder: might that sample be biased somehow? Those who feel strongly that philosophy, and society more broadly, has a sexual harassment problem are apt to find several things in common, as do those who feel the opposite way. This seems to explain why some circles of online friends estimate such high numbers while others estimate much lower ones. When one limits oneself to one\u2019s department, the numbers are likely to be even more skewed, since local subcultures can be so different. 2. What exactly is to be counted as \u2018sexual harassment\u2019? If John Searle pressures you to let him into his hotel room, then strips naked without your consent and tries to grab you until you push him away, then hell, yeah, that\u2019s clear-cut sexual harassment. But some people say they\u2019ve been harassed when some professor compliments them on their new hairstyle, or makes a non- suggestive comment unrelated to their sex or appearance that they somehow take to be offensive for reasons they can\u2019t justify, and then tell us (implausibly) that such a thing would never be said to a man. If we include things like that, then sure, we can probably get up to 80% or higher. But the concept is so broad and ill-defined now that the claim doesn\u2019t really tell us anything. To be clear, though: if 80% of professors got naked and chased unwilling students around hotel rooms, there would be a massive problem. But I\u2019ve never heard anything that suggests the numbers are remotely that high. Also, people are apt to interpret otherwise innocuous things as harassment merely because they\u2019ve been repeatedly told that there\u2019s a culture of harassment all around them. 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 14/54 3. How does one rule out, while remembering casual conversations, the effect of people re-interpreting events to jump on the bandwagon, or tell others\u2019 stories as their own, or embellish in various ways? Whenever a group of people discusses something they all see as a problem, they are likely to try to come up with good and shocking stories to tell so that they can fit in. Such occasions do not find us at our best. Moreover, when there is something political at stake that we care about, that, too, shapes our stories. Those who are opposed to immigration can always supposedly remember clear cases of immigrants wronging them in some way, and so on. The phenomena of motivated reasoning and motivated remembering have been studied quite extensively, and these effects are common. 4. How can one distinguish between accurate reports and reports by someone who is deceived or deceiving? At best, these anecdotal reports give one side of the story. 5. Suppose for the sake of argument that there were exactly 100 women in philosophy and that 80 of them alleged that they were either chased around a room by a naked professor or else went one time to a conference, or belonged to a department, in which they lived in terror because of credible reports that someone had a tendency to act that way with female students or colleagues. Suppose also that all those stories were completely accurate. Would it follow from this that the discipline is saturated with sexual harassers? No. Actually, all that would be consistent with there being just a single chronic harasser who tried to harassed everyone he set eyes on. If that were the case, then the profession should definitely work to stop the harasser\u2019s activities at once. But it wouldn\u2019t mean that philosophers tended to be harassers. In your case, even if it were true that 80% of the women you have ever met had stories (always their own?) of harassment, and even if that were a good cross section of the profession (for the sake of argument), nothing would follow about how many in the profession would ever engage in harassment. 4 Reply obviouslyanonymous \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago More optimistic 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 15/54 Tell you what did my PhD in a department with ~30 grad students, and know for a fact that a single person sexually harassed *at least* 8 of them, myself included. Since leaving keep hearing from new people who have been harassed by this person. I\u2019ll tell you a second thing. We reported this person a number of times, including on departmental climate surveys. Not only was nothing done, but members of the climate committee were informed that nothing bad had been disclosed in the surveys. 2 Reply More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago obviouslyanonymous, I\u2019m very sorry to hear that you were sexually harassed by this person. But don\u2019t understand why your story ends there. The profession, and academia more broadly, is filled with thousands of people who are keen to join in any crusade against an alleged harasser, and few people will dare to question even merely testimonial evidence in today\u2019s climate. Look at what happened, for instance, in the Ludlow case: he faced a hearing in which he was not even permitted to present exonerating evidence (the videotapes from the elevator\u2019s security camera which apparently established that his accuser\u2019s story was false), etc., because these investigations are designed to favor accusers over the accused. The allegations against him were hardly something severe like chasing someone around a hotel room naked. But despite this, a popular movement against him prevented his students from even attending class with him, and anti- harassment networks within philosophy flew into action against him, hounding him out of his job. Meanwhile, his university was publicly attacked in the mass media, etc. You say that you and several of your fellow grad students were harassed by someone in your program. According to obviouslyanonymous 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 16/54 your story, you all tried to draw attention to this person\u2019s behavior by filling out a climate survey about it, but, you say, members of that climate committee were told something they knew to be false \u2014 that there was nothing bad reported in the survey. What happened next? If your story is correct, it should be very clear where things got derailed and who was responsible: the person who interpreted the survey is to blame, and you should be able to show this. What happened when you tried to show it? If the department really is circling its wagons and lying about the results about a survey to protect someone, then you could simply send an email indicating this fact to the chair of that department. If he or she rationalizes the behavior or fails to respond to you, you could use that as evidence of a cover- up and threaten to take it to the dean. If that doesn\u2019t motivate the department chair to take action, you take it to the dean. If the dean fails to act upon it, you bring it to the attention of the Title coordinator and/or supply the evidence to any of the well-known anti-harassment crusaders in the profession or at the school. They should have a public campaign together within a day or two against any at the school who dragged their feet on this. Have you gone through that process? Has anyone? If so, what happened? If not, why not? 4 Reply drdr \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Similar story here. We had several students mention that a professor had been sexually harassing them. This even showed up on climate surveys, with the professor\u2019s name struck out. Nothing happened. Then, we had an external review of the department coming. All of a sudden our chair was \u201cshocked to find out\u201d that this professor had harassed students, and took action against it. obviouslyanonymous 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 17/54 think this is how it feels in a lot of places: there needs to be a risk to the reputation of the department before anything gets done about sexual harassment. 2 Reply More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago drdr, what happened then? Did someone produce copies of the survey the Chair had already seen, demonstrating that the Chair had already been told about this? If not, why not? 1 Reply obviouslyanonymous metoo \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago went through that process, more optimistic, and produce evidence of a cover-up. University shrugged. Supposed \u201canti harassment crusaders\u201d also pretty much shrugged. Honestly think you\u2019re pretty off base in your understanding of the way the vast, vast majority of harassment allegations are treated, and it\u2019s frustrating to me that you\u2019re responding with such skepticism to people who are trying to tell you the way these cases are often handled also am not sure that you\u2019ve got an accurate picture of what really happened in the Ludlow and McGinn cases- those blew up primarily because of legal action, not because some feminist philosophers went on a crusade. Just look at Pogge, who is still a normal member of the department at Yale, among other reasons, because a full lawsuit against him never really worked its way through the courts. 1 Reply obviouslyanonymous metoo \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago obviouslyanonymous 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 18/54 ps. Why would any grad student want to make a big show of producing the documents catching the chair in a lie? Do you know what often happens to female grad students and junior faculty who so openly defy their chairs like this? 3 Reply obviouslyanonymous \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago More optimistic: My story doesn\u2019t end there. I\u2019m just not interested in sharing too much more of it here at present reported my harasser higher up the admin food chain, and was told it was a mental health issue (i.e. his mental health, not mine), and that they couldn\u2019t really help me. So gave up for a while. He eventually left, and my (our!) nightmare ended graduated, and a couple years later came out publicly to the department about what happened to me. They expressed shock, said nobody reported anything on the climate surveys, and grilled me for a couple hours (with no warning that was what the meeting was about) on the precise details of my harassment (all of which I\u2019d already disclosed in a letter). They probably meant well in this meeting, but it was a very negative experience for me don\u2019t have the energy or security to stir the pot too much more. I\u2019m also not in the US, so the institutional protections and procedures are different should add that most of his victims are men. And that presents an additional obstacle, because people are less willing to believe that we were harassed, assaulted, stalked, etc. in these ways. 2 Reply obviouslyanonymous More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago metoo, I\u2019m definitely sympathetic to the issue of harassment and want to help resist it, but still can\u2019t see how things could obviouslyanonymous 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 19/54 be the way you say they are. You say that you produced evidence of a cover-up, and that the people you revealed the evidence to did nothing. That could be for a couple of reasons. Maybe the evidence didn\u2019t show the serious thing you thought it showed. But if it really was the smoking gun you feel it was and the university, when presented with that smoking gun, did absolutely nothing about it, then there seem to be many other options. For you would then have strong evidence of the university\u2019s own guilt. The emails you sent that were never replied to, or were replied to with indifference or false promises, would make a very strong case against the university. You could use those as the basis for a Title lawsuit and bring the university to its knees. You could leak them to the media and it would make headlines. Universities know this, and that\u2019s why they tend to make sure not to be caught doing this sort of thing. If you feel that presenting that evidence would open you up to retaliation, you could pass it along to other people have no stake in the matter, but would be glad to take the evidence further on your behalf. But so would all sorts of other people, and not just feminist philosophers (though it\u2019s hard to imagine any who wouldn\u2019t jump at the chance). I\u2019m pretty sure Justin Weinberg would be glad to start and circulate a petition against the university if it were clearly caught in such a cover-up can\u2019t imagine that you\u2019d get fewer than a thousand or so names. You say that the McGinn and Ludlow cases blew up because of lawsuits, implying that nothing would have happened if there had been no lawsuit. But here\u2019s what McGinn\u2019s former colleague Edward Erwin says on the matter: \u201cBefore the case was brought, McGinn, like Peter Ludlow, was blacklisted from academic philosophy. He was denied a one year Visiting Position at East Carolina University; he has been asked to withdraw his contribution to an anthology on Shakespeare and Philosophy because other authors threatened to pull theirs (Peter Ludlow has suffered the same fate), and more recently, he has had a contract for a Shakespeare book cancelled specifically because of the allegations in the case; he has had speaking engagements cancelled, and, although 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 20/54 he has applied to several other academic positions, he has failed to make the short list for any of them.\u201d Do you deny all this? As for Pogge, there was indeed an internal investigation after a graduate student made a complaint about him a few years ago, and the internal investigation did not find the charges against him well-supported (though they found that he had wrongly used his office to help secure employment for someone). Is that evidence of a cover-up on Yale\u2019s part? Or is it merely a sign of the fact that not all accusations of sexual harassment are all they\u2019re cracked up to be? In fact, even after Pogge was exonerated on the sexual harassment allegation, hundreds of academics signed letters and petitions protesting the verdict. Presumably, many (and likely most) of these people had not bothered to investigate the matter before signing; they simply presumed, as we see so often, that where there\u2019s smoke, there\u2019s fire. Pogge himself replied to all the complaints against him here, giving his side of the story and rebutting the lines of argument that were used against him: ds/2014/06/Response-to-the-Allegations-by-Fernanda-Lopez- Aguilar.pdf Had the hundreds of signatories had evidence that he was lying in this account, they could have presented it and shown that his story was false. Meanwhile, Pogge\u2019s star has certainly fallen. He was considered one of the greatest living philosophers just months before the story broke; now he is a pariah. This really doesn\u2019t seem to be consistent with the hypothesis that the philosophical community doesn\u2019t take harassment very seriously. 1 Reply More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago I\u2019m sorry to hear about that, Obviously Anonymous. It\u2019s certainly true that protections and sympathy for male victims of sexual harassment are practically nonexistent in most cases. I\u2019m puzzled by some things in your account, though. You say you think those at the meeting might have been well- obviouslyanonymous 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 21/54 intentioned, but you also say that they falsely claimed that there was nothing in the results of the climate survey to warn them about this mentally ill harasser. But thought you said that many people had reported in that survey that the person had harassed them, so how could the people who claimed to be surprised by your report after they had already read the survey results be well intentioned don\u2019t understand, but don\u2019t want to push you to say more if you aren\u2019t keen to discuss it any longer. 2 Reply David Wallace \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago I\u2019m not sure why it would matter, in the hypothetical you describe, that the same person is doing the harassing. What matters for someone is how likely they are to be harassed. If that number is unacceptably high, it\u2019s cold comfort if the reason is that all the harassment is coming from one person who\u2019s out of control and not being dealt with. 0 Reply More optimistic More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago think it matters for a number of reasons, David. For one thing, many female (and male) students are being given the impression that the discipline is filled with harassers. If the harassment saturation hypothesis were true, one would expect there to be nowhere safe to turn to in the profession, since anyone you talk to is liable to be another threat or, at best, do little about the problem in order to preserve a harassment-friendly environment. But if (as seems rather more likely) there are just a few harassers targeting large numbers of people, then the solution is much easier and the hope is much greater. David Wallace 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 22/54 Also, a female student is much less likely to trust her fortunes to the discipline if she feels that many of her potential supervisors, colleagues, etc. are harassers than if it\u2019s clear that the number of harassers is very low and the odds that anyone she selects is a harasser are not very high. 1 Reply jj \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago think you guys are intentionally misunderstanding what am saying or simply really like the state of affairs in regard to women as it is. First, Obviously do not mean 80 percent of all women happened to pass by! That\u2019s as stupid inference as it gets. The charitable reading is \u2013 80percent of women with whom became sufficiently close in profession to talk about this issue am not sure how many that is overall, but maybe 10-15, small number enough to estimate roughly the percentage. Second, Nicole is completely beside the point. If become well acquainted with about 10 women in academy to consider them friends and be able to talk about certain things and 7-8 of them tell me that, say, they were raped at some point in their life do not need to know overall country, city, or university statistics to tell me that either am incredibly \u201clucky\u201d to meet so mane women who were raped, or there is some pervasive problem going in the country. Similarly with cases of sexual and gender harrassment. Third do claim authority over my memory about this, yes. And do not care a bit if Nicole think it\u2019s unverified number do not even know what that means. Do you ask people for verification if they tell you, say, that they half the people they are friends with are single? Fourth, obviously make no claim whatsoever about whether it was one person respnsibke for all the cases (unlikely, since not the same institutions) or anything else. But am saying that given the high percentage of harrasment among the random sample of women happen to know enough, only a intentionally not giveing a shit person would ignore it or try to argue that that does not mean anything. Lastly do not know much about academy culture of More optimistic 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 23/54 harrasment overall am not even sure how you would go about substantiating it one way or another just choose to believe the women know. Because they are human beings. 0 Reply Nicole \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago think you guys are intentionally misunderstanding what am saying or simply really like the state of affairs in regard to women as it is. \u201d jj, I\u2019m sorry you\u2019re taking such offense at our critique, but honestly did try and point out that we\u2019re on the same side here. Please don\u2019t strawperson me as a bad guy just because you don\u2019t appreciate our arguments. It\u2019s a great example of irony that you would complain that we are intentionally misunderstanding you, and then try and attribute to us actually enjoying the status quo. In any case, this in-fighting is useless and hope you can move on, because certainly am doing so right now. 1 Reply jj Ex-philosopher \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago \u201cThere are 10,000 philosophy professors in the United States alone. Let\u2019s say there are ten cases here, since some cases are not reported. That\u2019s one alleged case for every thousand people, if we limit people to the US. Or we could double or triple that. It still hardly seems \u201cprevalent\u201d.\u201d It\u2019s funny that you can use this completely bogus statistic \u2014 arrived at through pulling a number out of thin air \u2014 and then go on to discredit someone making an honest estimate from their own conversations. Every single male professor in my former department had some case or another shoved under the table. We could double or triple the number. Or we could multiply it by the hundreds, as the experience of women and gender minorities tells us we should. Spare me your rhetorical tricks. More optimistic 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 24/54 2 Reply Philodemus \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago I\u2019m not sure it\u2019s fair to characterize those numbers as \u201cbogus\u201d and pulled \u201cout of thin air.\u201d The 10,000 number is a pretty standard estimate of how many phil profs work in the (though the number should be lowered if we want to focus on male profs). And the 10 number comes from doubling the number of cases discussed in the link that Leigh Johnson provided as evidence that harassment is prevalent in the profession: . Anyway, I\u2019m sorry that every single male prof in your department was a harasser. That\u2019s obscene. But can we agree that your department was an extreme case (to say the least)? Or do you think your department was roughly representative of male phil profs in the entire profession? 2 Reply Ex-philosopher Ex-philosopher \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago wrote every single male professor has some case hidden under the table. From this you concluded, \u201cevery male was a harasser\u201d. Perhaps should be more clear. While this is technically true wish to avoid the use of the word harasser, because it associates the cases I\u2019m talking about (a professor repeatedly making comments about a women\u2019s appearance/ singling her out in a class as a woman) with the cases of Searle. If we\u2019re talking about cases of serial harasser like Searle, the number is certainly closer to the number MoreOptimistic provided, although I\u2019d gander it would still be much higher. When said bogus numbers was obviously not referring to the number of male professors, but the choice of multiplier for accounting for unreported cases mentioned my former Philodemus 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 25/54 department to explain why believed this was a substantially low estimate. The above paragraph should make it clear why don\u2019t think this is an extreme example. And before anyone tries to correct my language here, let me be clear do mean it when say these cases have been hidden under the table. My experience with making a report to my universities gender and sexuality centre clearly let me know these sorts of cases rarely leave the safe spaces for women and gender minorities. Many people only tell trusted friends. Just because these cases never receive an official report does not mean they don\u2019t happen. What I\u2019m asking is for people to trust the information women have from their personal networks, because such networks are often the only way such information is disseminated. It is through these networks that know for a fact that it was pervasive in my former department, and it is these networks which give me a pretty good idea that it was no exception. Finally know someone\u2019s going to say this, so may as well address it now. No, this is not an overly expansive definition of sexual harassment. Few people are saying that every single person who has committed sexual harassment should be punished in the same way as Searle etc. Rather, we\u2019re saying that the issue of sexual harassment is one which deserves more open attention to the problem in our institutions. This does not mean that every person who commits sexual harassment should be ousted. It is saying that people should be accountable for actions which contribute to a hostile work environment personally think one of the biggest reasons me too has received such a backlash is because there are countless men (and women) who can think of something they did (maybe you can think of something you\u2019ve done on the list provided above certainly can think of things I\u2019ve done) and are afraid that they will be unjustly punished think a better approach is to realise that we all make mistakes, and that we can all make resolution to do better in the future. In short don\u2019t want your fake sympathy. If you\u2019re truly sorry, you\u2019d work toward making a philosophy a safer place for women (and men) by seriously examining your 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 26/54 actions and the actions of those around you, and giving an honest effort to improve both. 1 Reply Ex-philosopher \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago wrote a longer comment but it seems to have not appeared. In short hope we can agree it would be pretty silly of me to have mentioned this detail if did not mean the later. Perhaps shouldn\u2019t have specified male, because female professors too participate in and enable benign harassment. Certainly not everyone is a harraser in the sense of the word the Searles and the Weinsteins of the world, but there are cases which while not ultimately reported in official offices, are shared in safe environments (e.g. campus support centers) and with trusted peers. Perhaps hidden under the table was the wrong turn of phrase to express this more plainly meant \u2018unreported\u2019 (although can think of several instances in which the reason for it being unreported is by the council of someone in a position of authority). My point in saying this is not to cast stones, but only to defend the information being given that the problem is prevalent. Please trust the information women are giving you. 0 Reply Philodemus More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Ex-philosopher, when you say \u201cPlease trust the information women are giving you\u201d, do you mean that we should assume that any accusation a woman makes is correct, unless it can be demonstrated that it is not correct hope not. If it is what you mean, please note that it does not, on any plausible epistemic model, follow from the fact that instances of have occurred and not been reported that we ought to trust all reports of X, nor does it follow that is prevalent. Ex-philosopher 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 27/54 In case it\u2019s needed, here\u2019s a clear counterexample: Some murders take place. Some murders that take place are unreported. However, it does not follow from these unsurprising facts that every accusation of murder ought to be trusted and treated as \u2018information\u2019, and the two facts just mentioned are consistent with the murder rate being 100% or 0.0001%. 3 Reply Jennifer Frey \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Hi more optimistic, Your comments betray an ignorance that feel compelled to address. Let me tell you, personally, as in, from my fifteen years of experience within it, that this discipline has sexual harassers and predators hope that helps you. 1 Reply More optimistic More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Once again, we are given anecdotal evidence and insistent assertion. That is no rational basis for your assessment that am ignorant. It does nothing to support the notion that philosophy is worse than anywhere else, nor does it provide any good basis for estimating the frequency of harassment have never denied that harassment occurs. This does not help move the conversation forward. 4 Reply Jennifer Frey AIPoA \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago more optimistic: There\u2019s nothing anecdotal about direct first person testimony. You are specifically ignoring the account of metoo More optimistic 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 28/54 and the first person account of her(?) experience. Then you go on to completely fail to address her(?) experience. If you\u2019re just going to ignore the facts as presented, then no one has an obligation to take you seriously. And ask what your true purpose for being here is. Are you here to speak honestly to the issues? Because when you dismissing others, you\u2019re not doing that. Why are you dismissing direct first person testimony while acting as an apologist for wayward philosophy departments and sexual predators within them? What is your true goal here? 1 Reply Walter Horn \uf017 5 years ago Shows once again that you can be a good philosopher without being a good philosopher. 1 Reply \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Geach must be spinning in his grave. 1 Reply Walter Horn Vida Yao \uf017 5 years ago Ding Dong the Witch is Dead. ~~Long live Kristina Gehrman.~~ Now \u2014 all you who looked me in the eye every single day while clung to my student visa and did nothing as ducked and weaved? An apology would be a good start. 1 Reply 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 29/54 Kristina Gehrman \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Vida am sorry for your yucky yucky yucky experience. And am glad you stayed in the discipline! One good thing about this whole mess is that the more people talk about their experiences the more the can find one another, and quit wasting their breath arguing with those who won\u2019t see reason. I\u2019m glad we found each other! 1 Reply Vida Yao Hey Nonny Mouse \uf017 5 years ago It\u2019s good to see Berkeley taking sexual harassment seriously don\u2019t think publically naming and shaming perpetrators is constructive, though. 0 Reply 200 \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago why would you think that?! 1 Reply Hey Nonny Mouse Hey Nonny Mouse \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Public shaming is generaly not constructive, including as a response to crimes. 1 Reply 200 Devin \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Searle is an extremely prominent philosopher, who furthermore exploited his professional reputation in order to engage in this behavior. It\u2019s a matter which is of relevance for the profession at large. Hey Nonny Mouse 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 30/54 1 Reply Hey Nonny Mouse \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Sexual harassment is of relevance for the profession at large. It\u2019s a lot less important to publicize the actions of individuals. It seems to get people focussing on punishment more than changing things (or assumng, as conservaties are more famous for doing, that harsh punishment must be the best way to change things. How important do you think that public shaming is as a response to crime in general? 1 Reply Devin Michel \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Actually think it *is* important in this case, and in similar ones. And that\u2019s because these people enjoy substantial reputations in the field, including abroad (Searle, for instance, has some very close ties to departments in Italy). Keeping their behaviour a secret\u2013especially keeping it a secret that the claims against them were found sufficiently credible to warrant action\u2013 helps them to victimize others, especially in countries which aren\u2019t privy to the American rumour mill. 1 Reply Hey Nonny Mouse Nicole \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago What do you mean by \u201cconstructive\u201d? 0 Reply Hey Nonny Mouse Hey Nonny Mouse \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Generally speaking don\u2019t think that public shaming improves things. You probably think that for most crimes, there are limits to how much public shaming we should do. Punishment is a pretty weak tool in general. That doesn\u2019t mean that Nicole 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 31/54 it should never be done, of course. But harsh punishments as a deterent are generally not very useful. 1 Reply Nicole \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago think publicly exposing and publicly shaming are two different things think publicizing crimes and the prosecution of criminals, especially in these metoo cases, helps other victims. They realize that people are taking these things increasingly seriously, and that they needn\u2019t suffer alone or in silence. As much as agree that the general punishment system for crimes doesn\u2019t seem to stop crime the way we would hope it would, I\u2019m not sure what your proposed solution would be? 1 Reply Hey Nonny Mouse \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Or you can just view punishment as an intrinsic good. Utilitarianism is a horror-show once you have sophisticated enough technology see no reason to let it guide our approach to punishment. 0 Reply Hey Nonny Mouse David Mathers \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago You don\u2019t have to be a utilitarian to reject retributism, right? Probably most philosophers reject both, no? 0 Reply Dale Miller \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago If a certain level of information were not shared publicly then faculty who have sexually harassed graduate students would continue to receive invitations to speak at other Hey Nonny Mouse 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 32/54 campuses, putting new students at risk. So there\u2019s more at stake here than shaming and punishment. 1 Reply Female former graduate student at Berkeley \uf017 5 years ago I\u2019m very glad that the university has officially severed its ties with John Searle almost didn\u2019t finish my philosophy PhD at Berkeley \u2014 in part because of the way he treated me personally and many other women graduate students there, but also because of the absolutely incredible amount of willful ignorance and gaslighting that faculty members in that department engaged in whenever women (and men) raised concerns about his behavior (and believe me, it was frequent). To this day, the department has yet to issue a full-throated apology to those of us whom he harassed and sexualized, privately and publicly, sometimes on a daily basis. The faculty at Berkeley cannot claim that they didn\u2019t know what was going on. People should know that absolutely nothing would have ever happened to Searle\u2019s status at Berkeley had it not been for the incredible courage of Joanna Ong and Kristina Gehrman, among others, who took this public. 1 Reply Kristina Gehrman \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Thank you. Also, I\u2019m sorry you almost didn\u2019t finish \u2014 and glad you did! 1 Reply Female former graduate student at Berkeley Ludwig \uf017 5 years ago What worries me is that we have started to use vague terms to describe happenings. From what know about the case, it does seem that Searle\u2019s behavior is beyond the pale and the university\u2019s action is the right one. 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 33/54 At the same time, the vague term \u201csexual harassment\u201d can be applied to behavior which is totally innocent as long as feels that it is not OK. Vague terms can be dangerous. If a drone invading Iranian air space is shot down by Iran then it becomes \u201caggression against the US\u201d which is actually thousands of miles from the location of the drone. For instance, in a conversation on Facebook had said that the great logicians of the XXth century were men. The people had in mind were Russell, Turing, Hilbert and Goedel. For saying this was investigated by my university and there was an implicit threat that would not be allowed to teach. That threat is now gone, but the atmosphere of intimidation remains. Here is another example. Some years ago wrote a paper for a philosophy volume in which had three examples. The three characters were referred to as \u201cshe\u201d, \u201che\u201d and then \u201cshe\u201d again. When the proofs came to me saw that the two \u201cshe\u201ds were left as they were but the middle \u201che\u201d, actually a minority, had been turned into \u201che or she protested to the editor and she restored my original. Are males not allowed to be mentioned in philosophy papers? We need to be aware that there is a certain aggressiveness coming from people who consider themselves to be victims (and many are indeed victims). But the atmosphere being created can be dangerous, both for free speech and for the protection of innocent men. 1 Reply David Wallace \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago This is an odd lesson to draw from this story, which seems to involve clear-cut wrong- doing over a sustained period with at least highly credible claims that this was too-widely known with nothing done about it. If you\u2019re worried about \u2018atmosphere\u2019 and about an over-broad conception of harassment, you should be all the more concerned that the profession manages to deal properly, with due process but also due speed, with genuine predation widespread feeling that it does *not* so deal, with non-trivial evidence behind it, is as much responsible for the \u2018atmosphere\u2019 issues you raise as anything else is. Ludwig 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 34/54 1 Reply Professor Apricot \uf017 5 years ago The man should be locked in a room by himself and only allowed to communicate by pushing out a piece of paper with writing on it\u2026 5 Reply Sigrid \uf017 5 years ago Has the student\u2019s lawsuit against Searle and Berkeley been settled? Is this action independent of the lawsuit? 0 Reply J. Bogart \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago There is no formal connection between the two, although there are inevitable practical entanglements between them. The University process has no preclusive effect for a civil suit, and the decision itself is unlikely to be part of any civil trial because of differences in evidentiary rules and processes suspect you care about the practical effects than the legal realtionship. 0 Reply Sigrid cheyney ryan \uf017 5 years ago Can make a positive suggestion to faculty about something you can do to address sexual harassment? My experience is that most undergrads dont know anything about their rights under Title or their school\u2019s policies on faculty-student \u201cromantic\u201d/sexual relations [these are not the same issue]. It\u2019s easy to find out what students know\u2013just ask for a show of 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 35/54 hands of how many of your students have been fully informed about these policies suspect you will find hardly anyway survey did when at Oregon showed 7% knew about them would urge you to set aside 15-20 minutes in your classes and just go over what the laws/policies are. The basics can probably found on the website of your Title office. When taught in the offered to talk with them myself if they have a problem, but am legally trained and have 25 years dealing with this issue. If you dont feel comfortable doing this, tell them a specific person they can contact\u2013someone you know will actually listen/do something. . Many students really dont know what constitutes sexual harassment. This starts with the fact many are young and just out of high school. The case that caused a conflict at Oregon a few years back involved a freshman woman during orientation week, just past her 18th birthday. Also, you may be able to help students who the system has ignored [send them to an atty, for example]. Here is the story a student of mine wrote whose rape was ignored by the university for almost a year: y.com/2015/05/28/dragged-through-the-mud am happy to touch bases with anyone who might want to talk about this suggestion. Best to email me at [email protected] 1 Reply cheyney ryan \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago should add that schools have a strong disincentive to inform students of their rights, for a number of reasons. For example, certain types of violations. Clery Act violations, need to publicly reported, and no administration wants to be known as a school where this sort of thing goes on. So they ensure there are no complaints by not telling students what they can complain about. This is why faculty have some responsibility for this as well. 0 Reply cheyney ryan Kristina Gehrman \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago cheyney ryan 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 36/54 think this is a great idea. also, i think institutions could do more to train visiting faculty, especially international faculty, who may not know the ins and it\u2019s of mandated reporting. 0 Reply Alexa Jordan \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Great point think on top of training, they need to include some sort of system (like http s://talktospot.com/) where employees can report harassment of any kind, anonymously if they choose. It is good for employers too to follow up and manage their company culture. But definitely start with education for all. 0 Reply cheyney ryan Sam \uf017 5 years ago It is shameful that once upon a time, it was seen as more unethical to report harassment than to commit it. People were pressured, blamed or criticized for reporting the abuse, instead of the abuser. It is also shameful that a tradition that started with people like Socrates, Confucius and others asking what justice and virtue was ended up at a place like this by the time of the 20th century. 1 Reply David Mathers \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Like we have any idea how well the philosophers of antiquity behaved. Socrates was an upper-class man belonging to a culture that owned slaves! That\u2019s about the single cultural background most likely to produce sexual violence that can think of. Historically, most philosophers before the 20th century in the Western (and suspect also the Chinese) tradition believed that women were inherently and naturally inferior to men. The idea that this is some kind of distinctively modern fall from a previous state of grace and moral seriousness amongst male philosophers is ludicrous. Not to mention that whilst Searle is not an ethicist the same philosopher can both behave badly personally and write intellectually serious stuff on justice and virtue. After all, another of Sam 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 37/54 the famous harassment cases of recent years involved Pogge, who seems to have been a serious critic of injustice from the developed world towards the developing. 1 Reply \uf017 5 years ago This is good news, and am deeply grateful to Kristina and others for their work on this. But, as many others here have suggested, this is, unfortunately, merely the tip of an iceberg. There are, right now, several more \u201copen secrets\u201d, philosophers with a history of sexual harassment who nevertheless remain in their jobs, where they exert enormous power over their undergrads and grads. The problem isn\u2019t just that these people are still employed. It\u2019s that they still receive outside invitations for special lectures, keynotes, contributions to volumes, and so on. Our profession has never had a true #MeToo moment. We need a reckoning, and it cannot just be junior women who carry it out. We need senior people of all genders to step up, to ask questions, to listen, to consider who they\u2019re inviting to their colloquia and conferences, who they\u2019re hiring, what kinds of policies they have in their own departments, and so on. 1 Reply More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago JSNMKL, writes \u201cOur profession has never had a true #MeToo moment. We need a reckoning.\u201d What more, exactly, would it take for our profession to have a #MeToo moment? Accusations have been made very publicly, people have been fired and ostracized, the has started a Site Visit program that put at least one department in receivership after it broke its pledge of confidentiality and dumped a report on the desk of outside administrators, our division meetings often include special sessions on the issue of sexual harassment, the topic is ubiquitously discussed, with practically everyone lining up on the side of doing more to bring wrongdoers to justice, case after case is discussed on the prominent blogs long after the dust has settled. But this, to you, has not yet been a 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 38/54 true #MeToo moment, and you call for a reckoning beyond anything we have seen before. Could you please describe what you would like this \u2018reckoning\u2019 to involve? 1 Reply Dirty Secrets \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Here\u2019s a really basic thing a lot of faculty in these departments can do. Stop lying to female prospective students. Stop doing it. Cut it out right now. Vow not to do it again. If you can\u2019t tell the truth about your colleague, at least stop knowingly saying false things about him (\u201cWomen work fine with him!\u201d). At least consider telling the full truth (\u201cSome women over the years have reported problems\u201d). Based on my many and extensive discussions with folks on this topic, a lot of faculty think that the grad students can be counted on to \u201ctell the truth\u201d to the prospective students, and so the faculty can \u201ckeep their hands clean.\u201d But in the worst departments, the grad students lie too. Why deep seated, faculty driven culture of silence, even around well known open secrets. Faculty, especially male faculty, especially the male tenured faculty: stop passing the buck to the female graduate students in your department! 2 Reply Ben \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago think these \u201copen secrets\u201d are often not as open as you might think. I\u2019m an assistant professor myself and know lots of people in the profession all over the world, but really don\u2019t know who these famous people are who you might be talking about didn\u2019t know about (for example) Searle, Pogge, or McGinn until those cases were posted about on Leiter/Daily Nous either. And don\u2019t know any people in my current or previous departments who may have been harassers, nor do know about anyone in any of my friends\u2019 departments. That doesn\u2019t mean there aren\u2019t any, but think this type of information may often be quite local. That or I\u2019m totally out of the loop. But if so don\u2019t think I\u2019m the only one 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 39/54 0 Reply anonymous in protest to anonymity \uf017 5 years ago find it difficult to give much weight to or take anyone here seriously who refuses to disclose their identity when discussing such an important topic, except in the case of a direct target or victim of sexual harassment. Beyond this single exception find the practice suspect. One may claim he or she needs anonymity for some reason or another, and it may even be the case that such anonymity is warranted; but if that be the case, then he or she ought to self-censor. If such anonymity is appropriate, then the person ought to recognize that his or her posts are immediately suspect and the person ought to minimally disclose his or her position(s) up front -overtly, not inferentially. Otherwise, no one can be certain of that person\u2019s motivations. He or she might be a former or active predator, or just as well an adjudicator, or an observer. We have no idea of the motivations of those who speak here without disclosing their identity am especially concerned about those contributors who vociferously stake-out positions of a general nature, then make moves that attempt to assign their general statements as applicable to specific instances cited by others, and who then go on to attempt to require those others to address their specific circumstances to the general terms laid out by said contributor. It\u2019s an absurd expectation. I\u2019m signing anonymously in protest to the practice of claiming anonymity beyond that rightfully belonging to targets and victims of sexual abuse and harassment. 1 Reply Caligula's Goat \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago don\u2019t understand your protest and am glad that anonymous and semi-anonymous outlets have always been a way of registering protest against de-facto or common norms. Daily Nous isn\u2019t reddit, it isn\u2019t 4chan. It\u2019s a fairly civil space where people are, thanks mostly to Justin\u2019s efforts at tone-setting, free to share thoughtful, if controversial, views on the profession. Views that, were they not semi-anonymous, might subject them to sanction by one political or ideological faction or another within the discipline. You, oh protester, are free to articulate your moral arguments against this sort of anonymity (or not), but I, for one, believe that honest discourse often requires a degree of pseudo- anonymous in protest to anonymity 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 40/54 anonymity and that philosophy is best done under conditions which allow for honest discourse. 1 Reply More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago That\u2019s the thing with arguments: they stand or fall on their own merits. As philosophers, we have all learned to pay attention to the arguments and not the source of those arguments (i.e. we\u2019ve learned not to commit the ad hominem fallacy). Unless someone is claiming to have experienced something directly and that experience is essential to his or her argument, the source of the argument is irrelevant at best. 1 Reply anonymous in protest to anonymity Anonymous Again in Protest \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago \u201cUnless someone is claiming to have experienced something directly and that experience is essential to his or her argument\u2026\u201d Well, more optimistic, Do you mean like the human beings above, philosophers, who asserted their first person experiences of harassment and/or assault? Those to whom you first said you were sorry for their troubles, but whom you also immediately began to interrogate in long-winded diatribes? And asked them why they, the victims and targets of sexual abuse and harassment, didn\u2019t do more after the fact? Rather than asking the more important question which is: why aren\u2019t we expecting more from the systems that exposed them to the abuse in the forest place, by allowing abusers and harassers to continue in their positions in those respective departments? Hey, I\u2019m just asking because, your position seems, well, disingenuous at best. 1 Reply More optimistic More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Anonymous Again in Protest, Anonymous Again in Protest 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 41/54 Your question is a non sequitur said, in the clause you quoted, that, unless a premise in one\u2019s argument cannot be verified without relying on the testimony of the arguer, then one does not need to know the identity of the arguer to assess the argument never said, nor would it be reasonable to say, that one should never ask any questions of people providing testimony. Why would anyone think that? Your charge that I\u2019ve \u201cinterrogated\u201d people in \u201cdiatribes\u201d is also way off- base diatribe is a harsh, bitter attack on someone or something. What have been bitterly attacking have merely been trying to point out the obvious fact that the evidence as presented here and elsewhere doesn\u2019t seem to establish the conclusions so many people draw from it: namely, that sexual harassment is extensive in the profession and that nobody is currently willing to do about it have suggested that it would be better, in the absence of clearer evidence that there is a worse problem than elsewhere, to focus our attention on ensuring that we deal with the problems that exist while taking care not to overstate the case and drive women away from the discipline with horror stories have asked questions to help get a better understanding of what is going on in case I\u2019m missing something. That\u2019s not a \u2018diagribe have said, when asked a question, that understand if the person who made the statement didn\u2019t want to discuss the question further. That\u2019s not what one does in an \u2018interrogation\u2019. It does not add credibility to your case for you to use words to mean what they do not mean. What tried to learn through asking questions was quite simple. My view is think, the normal one: that one should report people who act wrongfully: if the body to whom one reports the harassment does not investigate and pursue the matter, and it\u2019s a clearly serious one, then one should report the lack of action to the body that oversees the original body; that if an entire institution fails to do anything, covering up a case in which there is clear evidence of significant wrongdoing, then there is good evidence of internal corruption and it is likely that others are being harmed by it, and it is right to bring the matter to the attention to those outside of the institution to help correct the problem know that there are generally extensive resources in place to deal with even problems that get to that level, not the least of which is Title IX, under which entire universities can lose their status (and vast sums of money) if they are not sufficiently zealous in their war against harassment. If those measures are not working somehow, then it seems relevant to try to ascertain where the process is breaking down, doesn\u2019t it? Why shouldn\u2019t one ask where along the road 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 42/54 that didn\u2019t work? But even that was not the main point of what I\u2019ve been writing here, which is that several anecdotal reports of in cannot tell us the extent of in Y, nor can it give us any basis for comparing the incidents of in as opposed to non-Y. And yet, here and elsewhere, we are told repeatedly that must be pervasive in Y, and much worse than in non-Y, because of a handful of cases of in a far larger and some additional, vague anecdotes about in Y. This is not rocket science here. We are all philosophers, and should have no problem with such a simple question of whether the pervasiveness hypothesis follows from the premises at hand. You ask in a previous comment why people like me need anonymity on this forum. Your response to me provides the answer to that question. It is because, when it comes to matters like this one, many members of the profession seem to forget all the philosophical training they have undergone since freshman year, jettison the principle of charity, and insist that everyone stand in formation and chant the correct platitudes loudly and clearly. Those who fail to do so in any way, or who ask for clarification or point out that we might know this but we don\u2019t yet know that, is read as the enemy, even if nothing they have said or asked remotely implies that. Would you like us to take off our masks and speak in our own names? So would I. But we cannot do that until we can be safe making fairly anodyne points without thereby risking professional ostracism at the hands of people who suddenly can\u2019t hear anything we\u2019re actually saying. 2 Reply Againinprotestofanonymity \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago My question isn\u2019t a non sequitur, nor did misread what you said. And don\u2019t read you as some enemy never used or implied that word or idea and this is clear to anyone who has read my words. If you want to talk about charity, then please don\u2019t try to couch my very important argument in terms of fallacy merely because you are caught out by it: the answers to your posed questions specifically require the testimony of the arguer, because it is the arguer who was been attacked or harassed. We\u2019re not playing some game of philosophical chess here, these are not merely thought experiments; these testimonies involving human beings who have been harmed. They deserve our utmost respect and our best More optimistic 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 43/54 thinking, not our defensive moves in protection of our semi-public reputations. It ain\u2019t about we who haven\u2019t been harassed or attacked in these departments, neither is it about our social or professional egos; it\u2019s about those who have been wronged and harmed in these departments. So, let\u2019s don\u2019t pretend we\u2019re arguing past one another because, we\u2019re most definitely not. You claim you want to adhere to philosophical principles of charity, yet you assigned motives to me that do not hold. If you want to know how see your argument, simply ask me how see your argument. I\u2019ll tell you. I\u2019ve been telling you, and you can see there is no mystery. For the record read your argument as possibly well-intentioned but definitely poorly situated and tone deaf think it is based on the assumption of powers from an authority that does not exist read this as an imagined authority in which one person attempts to hold that he or she has power over injured protesters seeking redress, as long as he or she adheres to the party line while interrogating the person(s) seeking redress. It is an argument that appeals to your own imagined authority and some extended institutional authority: the very authority in question. But, this is a public forum, disconnected from those institutional hierarchies and only loosely affiliated with them. Other than those simple few rules proposed here, this not a regulated medium. As such you have no more authority than any other speaker. You talked about ad hominem, let\u2019s not use its contraposition to assume you\u2019re in some position of authority that does not exist. To me, practically, your argument comes off as heavy-handed, especially given that you are in no such position of authority with respect to this medium and the people here. Also tell you now that such an idea that the will of institutional authority will prevail always has a shelf life in particular instances, and especially in those where there is harm being done to innocent persons. Subscribing to inappropriate institutional authority is a mistake; this is because such authority will only hold as long as those seeking redress cannot break through. Even on the institutional view, the idea that power cannot be taken is bursting at its seams; it is cracking. It\u2019s the very reason for the emergence of Title remedies. The moment those who\u2019ve been harmed collectively push to shatter that paradigm -and they are gaining remarkable momentum- the whole eminence-front illusion collapses. Shouting them down will not abate their growing surge. 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 44/54 Ergo, I\u2019m just saying this particular hook may be a poor strategic choice when considering where to hang one\u2019s philosophical compassion hat. Let me just say further that think your argument assumes the processes and people necessary to address these issues are already properly in place; it appears to assume that none of the process itself is corrupt to any truly damaging extent, and that the systems will function correctly if only one will simply and properly avail oneself of those systems -as if many haven\u2019t tried this already read your argument, throughout this thread, to be an argument that assumes this process, over the years and contrary to historical facts, has been functional from the outset, has not had to evolve, and that it is not still evolving. Such an argument misreads the present state of affairs as 1) the state of affairs that has always existed, and 2) that this state of affairs is workable. If this is not your argument, then why would you assign the responsibility for addressing the shortcomings of the system, throughout this system\u2019s existence, to those who suffered abuse and harassment decades ago and even to the present day? By offering questions to ensure they\u2019ve checked some series of imagined boxes that are \u201ccorrect\u201d by your reasoning and interpretation, you offer a straw man through which you completely misdirect and dismiss their factual experiences. It is an argument that assumes the people assigned to positions who process and who adjudicate these issues always act with integrity if one will only \u201ctry harder.\u201d And, it appears to assume that it cannot be possible that the people or the processes fail to any significant extent. Else, why would you keep putting the responsibility for the failing system on the backs of those already victimized? Yet, such an argument is clearly not true, based on those people\u2019s experiences who have given personal testimony to the contrary - directly to you in these comment threads- that the system has performed perfectly -or even well. The opposite is true according to them. This system has failed them. And, it continues to fail. We have consistent, repeated, and well-documented evidence of the failures. Those harmed have gotten little help and continue to get little help and little support. In some cases they\u2019ve gotten no help and been pushed aside. The process is purposefully convoluted and confounding; it lends aid and comfort to the harassers and abusers and it specifically advantages the harassers and abusers while 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 45/54 disadvantaging the targets and victims. This is because of the perception that there is a need to protect the reputations of the persons and institutions involved. And, let us make no mistake: the administrative and staff players have skin in the game and they know where their bread is buttered. They don\u2019t receive paychecks from the victims of abuse and harassment, they receive paychecks from the institutions, which by definition makes them beholden to those institutions. The people above are saying their cases were not properly heard. Will we too refuse to hear them now, even where there is no institution to protect? Will we assert the institutions\u2019 corrupted arguments here? Why would any group of decent people do such a thing? Now ask: how many times and to how many people ought these persons who have been harmed be required to recount attacks on their person to, in order to satisfy yet another person\u2019s skepticism before they will get relief? Just you? Ten more? One hundred more? One thousand more? What we already know is that relief is not coming for them. We have absolutely failed some. So also ask you, when do we as a community resolve to treat them with respect and not batter them further? Why do your questions matter at all? Are your questions designed to effect some change in philosophy departments across the country and around the world? Do you have a plan? Are you going to do something with the answers? Are you working with others to fix this problem? Or, are you merely interrogating these people in order to enjoy the philosophical process of questioning in order to improve your skill while peeling back the layers of their vulnerability? What is your purpose ask because several have stepped up and shared their experiences to the degree they are willing in this semi-public forum, but you just keep asking more questions in what appears to be a seemingly endless interrogation. To what end? What\u2019s your plan? Where do we go from here? Why do you keep trying to place responsibility on those who\u2019ve already endured the offense, followed by enduring a too often corrupted process, to great personal pain and anguish, some of whom have not received justice? What is your goal? In what specific ways do you propose to help these and other people suffering this ongoing corrupted process? After all, lending assistance and trying to fix the problem must be the basis for your questions. Right? Share the plan with us. 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 46/54 What am suggesting to you that when people begin to listen with the intention of helping those who have been harmed, and not merely as a means to check some list of boxes that fail to account for the scope of the reality of people\u2019s experiences and serve only to protect principals and institutions, only then will we make progress. 2 Reply More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Ugh. You write: > \u201cMy question isn\u2019t a non sequitur, nor did misread what you said _attempted to show_ that your question was a non sequitur. You are _asserting_ that it is not don\u2019t read you as some enemy never used or implied that word or idea and this is clear to anyone who has read my words.\u201d You don\u2019t see me as some enemy of the forces that will bring justice to the profession? Okay, if you say so. But I\u2019ll revise that if you continue to speak as if am. > \u201c\u2026please don\u2019t try to couch my very important argument in terms of fallacy merely because you are caught out by it: the answers to your posed questions specifically require the testimony of the arguer, because it is the arguer who was been attacked or harassed am not calling your reasoning fallacious because I\u2019ve been \u201ccaught out\u201d by your \u201cvery important argument\u201d. I\u2019m calling it fallacious because it\u2019s a blatant fallacy said that, unless an argument involves a premise that can only be assessed if one knows who the speaker is (most commonly, when the premise involves testimony that would be credible if presented by some speakers but not others), one should assess an argument without reference to the person making that argument. This is a straightforward matter that will be understood by anyone who understands the ad hominem Againinprotestofanonymity 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 47/54 fallacy. You seemed to think you had \u201ccaught me out\u201d because you imagined it followed from this principle that needed to accept the testimony of anyone who claimed that sexual harassment is extensive in the profession. But there are two problems with that reply. First, it doesn\u2019t follow from the claim that is only legitimate to consider the source of an argument when it provides testimony that anyone who provides testimony should not be questioned. Second, The testimony a victim of harassment can provide does not address the question at hand, which is how extensive that harassment is. Again, these are non sequiturs. If you think they are not, then please show _how_ you derive the conclusions from the premises, rather than just _asserting_ that your conclusions follow. > \u201cWe\u2019re not playing some game of philosophical chess here, these are not merely thought experiments; these testimonies involving human beings who have been harmed. They deserve our utmost respect and our best thinking agree, it\u2019s not some game of philosophical chess. There are big issues involved, and policies will be put in place and people will be warned off philosophy on the basis of this conversation. People can suffer injustice by being harassed without redress, and they can suffer injustice by being unjustly attacked. What we need to do is think things through reasonably and carefully. If that\u2019s what you mean by giving the matter our best thinking, I\u2019m all for it. > \u201cFor the record read your argument as possibly well- intentioned but definitely poorly situated and tone deaf think it is based on the assumption of powers from an authority that does not exist read this as an imagined authority in which one person attempts to hold that he or she has power over injured protesters seeking redress\u2026\u201d You\u2019ve lost me here don\u2019t know what you mean by an assumption of powers from an authority that does not exist. > \u201cLet me just say further that think your argument assumes the processes and people necessary to address these issues are already properly in place; it appears to assume that none of the process itself is corrupt to any truly damaging extent\u2026\u201d 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 48/54 Again, you mention my \u2018argument don\u2019t know what argument you\u2019re referring to have at no point assumed that there is no corruption in the process whose purpose is to address issues of harassment just explained this to you so that you wouldn\u2019t make this error, but you seem to have ignored what said. Again: my view is that if one doesn\u2019t get a satisfactory response to a complaint of injustice at one level, then one should bring a complaint to a higher level; and if it\u2019s corruption all the way to the top, then one should take action to expose the corruption in that institution and then work for change know there are many systems in place now to avoid the possibility of corruption want to know where, if at all, those systems failed. And to find that out had to ask a question about what happened. That is all. > \u201c\u2026how many times and to how many people ought these persons who have been harmed be required to recount attacks on their person to, in order to satisfy yet another person\u2019s skepticism before they will get relief?\u201d Well, if had been unjustly harmed, or knew of someone who had, and if also discovered that an institution was involved in a cover-up while doing nothing to remedy the problem would make clear the basis for the complaint and try to bring others on board or at least to show others that the cause for complaint was real. Of course that doesn\u2019t mean that would recount the evidence personally to everyone who needed to be involved. But if it seemed best to report the matter to some officer would tell him or her all the relevant facts. And if the only way forward seemed to require bringing in the general public would write up a clear account of what had gone wrong in the process so far and make that publicly available. In this case, all we have are some anonymous people presenting anecdotal evidence. Neither nor anyone else has tried to figure out who those people are or otherwise compromise their privacy. We are simply asking questions about what allegedly happened so that we can better understand the issue. It\u2019s really hard to see why you find that so objectionable. 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 49/54 2 Reply Againinprotestofanonymity \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Since you already know that you aren\u2019t going to get any substantive answers to your questions, you must also know there is no value to be gained by your questions. And, you aren\u2019t going to do anything productive with the answers because, none of the answers will be will be substantive enough for productive use. So, what is the point of you grilling victims of sexual harassment and sexual abuse think everyone here will draw their own conclusions. 1 Reply More optimistic More optimistic \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago By \u2018grilling\u2019, do you mean \u2018asking questions\u2019? That\u2019s not the same thing. I\u2019m aware that there are many processes and protocols at all universities in the and in many other countries that seek to prevent cover-ups of the sort described here. I\u2019m aware of many administrators, lawyers, etc. at most schools whose job is to prevent these sorts of things. There are many departments and universities that have landed in hot water precisely because they were not sufficiently sanguine in persecuting alleged harassers. Meanwhile, due process has famously gone out the window in many of the fact-finding procedures. All that is well-known. On the other hand hear reports of ongoing harassment: from the allegations heard above, John Searle had been a notorious and blatant harasser for decades. This makes me wonder where the weak link is in the chain, and how such a thing can still be possible. If the weak link in that case is lower down within the Berkeley structure, then why wouldn\u2019t someone higher up have got a report and done something about it? If the answer is that the entire institution was complicit in a cover-up, why wasn\u2019t there a Title action Againinprotestofanonymity 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 50/54 against the school, etc.? It\u2019s natural to wonder that, and getting a sense of the kind of answer one can get is useful in making sense of the phenomenon more generally. Then, someone else, anonymously, told a story about a his or her old university. In that story, there was a harasser in the department; people complained about the harasser in a climate survey, but this was ignored; more evidence came to light that made the department realize that there was indeed a harasser; the former student was called in and re-told the story he or she had previously reported with others in the survey, and the faculty gave the impression of surprise about all this and said they had never heard such a thing before. It\u2019s an interesting story, and it was clearly intended to cast light on how these things work. But how had this happened, and what lesson should one draw? One would think that giving students a chance to fill out a survey like that would be an effective way of getting warning signs. But in this case, apparently, the students reported the harasser in the survey, but either the survey was never read by the appropriate people or else they did read it and then they pretended that they hadn\u2019t. But presumably, in the latter case, there would be an electronic or paper trail of the original survey, and that could be given to someone higher up as evidence that the department had sat on information about the harasser. Etc. Whatever it was, it\u2019s useful to get a sense of how these things can go wrong. You asked me yesterday, \u201cRather than asking the more important question which is: why aren\u2019t we expecting more from the systems that exposed them to the abuse in the forest place, by allowing abusers and harassers to continue in their positions in those respective departments?\u201d Now you have your answer. I\u2019m asking because want to understand what is going wrong with the systems that exposed them to the abuse in the first place. 1 Reply Loci.Cantos \uf017 5 years ago 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 51/54 Public Notice: Name Change Henceforth \u201cAgaininprotestofanonymity\u201d and anyname x-\u201cprotestofanonymity\u201d will be posting as \u201cLoci.Cantos\u201d. Thank you 0 Reply David Wallace \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago I\u2019m a bit confused. Your original post here was a criticism of people posting anonymously: with the exception of testimony from abuse survivors, you said, there is no good reason to post anonymously, and anonymous posts should be discounted have at least some sympathy with the view, though think there\u2019s also a place for stable pseudonymy.) You posted anonymously, which thought was a bit strange, but your pseudonym was \u2018anonymous in protest of anonymity\u2019 or somesuch, so thought maybe it was just a way of making a point and you\u2019d shortly be posting under your real name. (You weren\u2019t offering abuse testimony, so your narrow exemption doesn\u2019t seem to apply). But you\u2019ve now abandoned that name in favor of a different pseudonym. If took your original advice, shouldn\u2019t now ignore you? 1 Reply Loci.Cantos Loci.Cantos \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Yes. You should ignore me if in your estimation my claim vs. my action is inconsistent and you believe this contradiction is sufficient evidence that am not to be trusted. But I\u2019ll argue that reading my protest of anonymity as merely a blanket protest against anonymity, without purpose, is not a coherent reading of my intentions as stated. My argument is an argument against those who may attempt to use anonymity as a rampart to hide behind for the purposes badgering or otherwise treating others rudely or unfairly, or of attempting to induce others to meet unreasonable expectations that go well beyond the scope of this medium. For example, some people who may have been victimized by a predator and who are involved in legal proceedings, are not going to answer legal or overly personal David Wallace 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 52/54 questions about their experiences respective cases here which could unduly expose material facts, nor should they. And, they should not be attacked or badgered because of this by anonymous persons who lay in wait for them think I\u2019ve made this quite clear. If not, then do so here. For example, one out-take from that original post you cite is quoted here am especially concerned about those [anonymous] contributors who vociferously stake-out positions of a general nature, then make moves that attempt to assign their general statements as applicable to specific instances cited by others, and who then go on to attempt to require those others to address their specific circumstances to the general terms laid out by said contributor. It\u2019s an absurd expectation.\u201d Now, you can read my words on this thread in any way you choose. And, you are free to make your own estimate of my sincerity or lack of sincerity based on my words, as can everyone who visits this thread. But you can\u2019t read my protest as merely a blanket protest against anonymity generally, my objections are specific, they reject any attempt by a anonymous persons to badger or re-victimize those who\u2019ve already suffered. Beyond this, there are There are several issues here that are in conflict. One is the problem of anonymity when discussing important issues. Another is the problem of targeting by choosing anonymity either temporarily or permanently. Another is the issue of \u201csockpuppeting\u201d as identified in the Comments Policy section for Daily Nous. Finally there is the apparent common name functioning as a pseudonym (e.g., is \u201cDavid Jones\u201d a real person\u2019s name in a given case, or might it merely be a real sounding name?). Each of these has contributed to my decision to choose a pseudonym. 0 Reply David Wallace \uf086Reply to \uf017 5 years ago Look agree with the view that people shouldn\u2019t use anonymity to badger survivors think people shouldn\u2019t do it non-anonymously either!) But your original post was making a much broader point: you said find it difficult to give much weight to or take anyone here seriously who refuses to disclose their identity when discussing such an important topic, except in the case of a direct target or victim of sexual harassment. Beyond this single exception find the practice suspect. One may claim he or she Loci.Cantos 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 53/54 needs anonymity for some reason or another, and it may even be the case that such anonymity is warranted; but if that be the case, then he or she ought to self-censor.\u201d That isn\u2019t a case that certain people in this conversation are abusing anonymity; it\u2019s a statement that *no-one* should be anonymous, except in one narrow category, and that you (and, by implication, others) shouldn\u2019t take anonymous people seriously. Hence my assumption that your own instructions were to ignore you. (But, this is scarcely an important point. If your current position is as stated here, that\u2019s fine. People are allowed to rephrase and add nuance to things they say followed it up more out of curiosity about the apparent performative contradiction than for any deeper reason.) 0 Reply 86 2/16/25, 9:45 Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies (Updated with further details and statement from Berkeley) - Daily Nous 54/54", "8077_102.pdf": "View Comments Former Student Says Berkeley\u2019s Star Philosophy Professor Groped Her And Watched Porn At Work lawsuit alleges Berkeley professor John R. Searle sexually harassed, assaulted, and retaliated against a former student and employee \u2014 and that the university did nothing to stop him. Katie J.M. Baker Senior National Reporter Posted on March 23, 2017 at 1:05 pm Subscribe to BuzzFeed Daily Newsletter 2/16/25, 9:46 Former Student Says Berkeley\u2019s Star Philosophy Professor Groped Her And Watched Porn At Work 1/8 John R. Searle Basso Cannarsa / Redux renowned philosopher and longtime University of California, Berkeley, professor groped a former student who worked for him, according to a lawsuit filed in Alameda County Superior Court, which also claims the student was fired after she declined his advances. The professor, John R. Searle, abruptly stepped down from teaching his undergraduate philosophy course in March but still enjoys emeritus status at the university, which has been rocked by professor\u2013student sexual misconduct scandals since 2015. In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, Joanna Ong, 24, is seeking damages for sexual harassment and assault as well as for wrongful termination and creation of a hostile work environment. \u201cAs a philosopher, Searle should be familiar with the concept of coercion,\u201d Ong told BuzzFeed News. Instead, she said, he and the university have \u201cused their power and platform to abuse others.\u201d 2/16/25, 9:46 Former Student Says Berkeley\u2019s Star Philosophy Professor Groped Her And Watched Porn At Work 2/8 The lawsuit, which lists Searle and the Regents of the University of California as defendants, claims Searle groped Ong in his office after he told her \u201cthey were going to be lovers.\u201d He also said he had an \u201cemotional commitment to making her a public intellectual,\u201d the complaint states, and that he was \u201cgoing to love her for a long time.\u201d Ong turned Searle down and reported him to other Berkeley employees, but they did nothing, the complaint states. Instead, Searle cut Ong\u2019s salary and she was eventually fired, according to the complaint, which also claims Searle watched pornography at work and made sexist comments. Searle, 84, is famous for his work in the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind and has taught at Berkeley since 1959. In 2016, the university unveiled the John Searle Center for Social Ontology, which says it is the first center of its kind in the country. That\u2019s where Ong, a 2014 Berkeley graduate and a former student of Searle\u2019s, was offered a job, according to the lawsuit. The offer was unorthodox: Ong would make just $1,000 a month as a consultant for the center, but her salary would be supplemented by Searle, who would pay her $3,000 extra per month to be his assistant, the complaint states. Since the center\u2019s director, Jennifer Hudin, was a \u201ctrusted advisor\u201d of Ong\u2019s from her undergraduate years, and because Ong wanted a chance to work for Searle, one of Berkeley\u2019s most esteemed philosophers, she took the job in July 2016. The first few days went well, the complaint states. As Ong transcribed notes and composed emails for Searle, she shared her concerns about pursuing a career in academia while also making ends meet. Searle reassured Ong \u201cthat her living costs and other needs would be taken care of, and that they should have a relationship of \u2018total trust\u2019 between each other,\u201d the complaint states. \u201cAmerican imperialism? Oh boy, that sounds great, honey! Let\u2019s go to bed and do that right now!\u201d 2/16/25, 9:46 Former Student Says Berkeley\u2019s Star Philosophy Professor Groped Her And Watched Porn At Work 3/8 After a week of working together, Searle locked his office door and \"went directly to Ong to grope her,\" according to the complaint, telling her they were \u201cgoing to be lovers.\u201d She rejected his proposal, and Searle apologized, paying her the promised $3,000. When he left for vacation the following month, Ong reported the assault to Hudin, the complaint states. Instead of reporting her allegations to upper management, \u201cHudin told Ong that she would protect her from Searle\u2019s advances\u201d and said Searle \u201chas had sexual relationships with his students and others in the past in exchange for academic, monetary, or other benefits,\u201d the complaint states. When Searle returned from vacation, the workplace became \u201cincreasingly hostile and awkward,\u201d the complaint states, as he pretended nothing had happened. Searle cut Ong\u2019s salary in about half without explanation and continued to act inappropriately, according to the complaint. He openly watched pornography in front of her, the complaint states, and asked her to log into a \u201cSugar Baby, Sugar Daddy\u201d website for him. The complaint says Searle also asked Ong to read and respond to his university emails, such as \u201cflirtatious\u201d correspondence with young women, \u201cincluding Berkeley students and foreign students from Europe\u201d who wanted to be his research assistant -- the position Ong held. When Ong, who is Asian-American, brought up the topic of American imperialism, Searle responded \u201cAmerican imperialism? Oh boy, that sounds great, honey! Let\u2019s go to bed and do that right now!\u201d the complaint states. When Ong reported this to Hudin, Hudin said she would address the issue with Searle and other department heads, but later admitted she didn\u2019t \u201cout of respect and loyalty to Professor Searle because she needed to \u2018protect him,\u2019\u201d the complaint states. 2/16/25, 9:46 Former Student Says Berkeley\u2019s Star Philosophy Professor Groped Her And Watched Porn At Work 4/8 Overall, Ong felt that Searle was untouchable due to his stature. \u201cHe's the department's biggest star,\u201d she told BuzzFeed News. On Sept. 23, 2016, Hudin told Ong she was no longer needed at the center, according to the complaint. The lawsuit, filed by Los Angeles-based law firm Kristensen Weisberg, LLP, claims Hudin and other upper management at Berkeley should have known about Searle\u2019s misconduct with Ong and others, \u201cincluding his history of exchanging sexual conduct for monetary and/or educational advancements or other benefits\u201d while employed by the school, due in part to \u201cemails, prior complaints and other such documents.\u201d Searle's 2013 Talk, \"Our shared condition \u2014 consciousness,\" has been viewed over 1.3 million times / Via ted.com 2/16/25, 9:46 Former Student Says Berkeley\u2019s Star Philosophy Professor Groped Her And Watched Porn At Work 5/8 university spokeswoman said the school's policy was to not comment on individual cases. In an earlier statement, before it had seen the complaint said that \"campus leaders are dedicated to fostering a community where sexual harassment and sexual assault\" are not tolerated. An attorney for Searle said she had not seen the complaint and was not in a position to comment. Hudin did not respond to a request for comment. In September 2016, BuzzFeed News requested information from Berkeley on sexual misconduct claims against Searle after receiving multiple tips claiming the university knew Searle had been repeatedly accused of improper behavior Berkeley rejected two BuzzFeed News public records requests, writing that it could not \u201cconfirm or deny\u201d that any complaints against Searle had been made, but that it was not in the public interest to turn over records because \u201csuch disclosure, where there has been no finding of employee misconduct, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.\u201d In early March, Searle\u2019s students learned he would no longer be teaching his undergraduate \u201cPhilosophy of Mind\u201d course. Beyond citing \u201cpersonal reasons,\u201d university officials provided no explanation for Searle's departure, according to a department source who asked to remain anonymous. The lawsuit comes at a time when both the international philosophy community and the University of California system are grappling with widespread sexual misconduct scandals. Earlier this month, the University of California released records showing it disciplined more than 100 employees across 10 campuses for sexual misconduct from 2013 to April 2016, about a quarter of them faculty members. In August 2016 Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks resigned after facing backlash over his administration\u2019s handling of sexual harassment cases involving prominent Berkeley faculty. Last week, the Board of Regents voted to strengthen its Faculty Code of Conduct \u2014 among other changes, sexual misconduct is now a clear violation. 2/16/25, 9:46 Former Student Says Berkeley\u2019s Star Philosophy Professor Groped Her And Watched Porn At Work 6/8 Katie J.M. Baker Senior National Reporter Comments Share your thoughts! Joanna Ong vs. The Regents of the University of California contributed by Katie Baker (BuzzFeed) p. 1 File Search Sections Fit width Page 1 of 14 2/16/25, 9:46 Former Student Says Berkeley\u2019s Star Philosophy Professor Groped Her And Watched Porn At Work 7/8 a brand. \u00a9 2025 BuzzFeed, Inc Press Privacy Consent Preferences User Terms Accessibility Statement Ad Choices Help Contact Sitemap Be One of the First to Comment 2/16/25, 9:46 Former Student Says Berkeley\u2019s Star Philosophy Professor Groped Her And Watched Porn At Work 8/8", "8077_103.pdf": "John Searle Searle at Christ Church, Oxford, 2005 Born John Rogers Searle July 31, 1932 Denver, Colorado, U.S. Alma mater University of Wisconsin\u2013 Madison Christ Church, Oxford Spouse Dagmar Searle[3] Era Contemporary philosophy Region Western philosophy School Analytic Direct realism[1] Thesis Problems arising in the theory of meaning out of the notions of sense and reference (http s://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.d o?did=2&uin=uk.bl.ethos.6716 91) (1959) Academic advisors Peter Strawson, Peter Geach, J.L. Austin John Searle John Rogers Searle (American English pronunciation: /s\u025c\u02d0rl/; born July 31, 1932)[4] is an American philosopher widely noted for contributions to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, and social philosophy. He began teaching at Berkeley in 1959, and was Willis S. and Marion Slusser Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Language and Professor of the Graduate School at the University of California, Berkeley, until June 2019, when his status as professor emeritus was revoked because he was found to have violated the university's sexual harassment policies.[5] As an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin\u2013 Madison, Searle was secretary of \"Students against Joseph McCarthy\". He received all his university degrees, BA, MA, and DPhil, from the University of Oxford, where he held his first faculty positions. Later, at Berkeley, he became the first tenured professor to join the 1964\u20131965 Free Speech Movement. In the late 1980s, Searle challenged the restrictions of Berkeley's 1980 rent stabilization ordinance. Following what came to be known as the California Supreme Court's \"Searle Decision\" of 1990, Berkeley changed its rent control policy, leading to large rent increases between 1991 and 1994. In 2000, Searle received the Jean Nicod Prize;[6] in 2004, the National Humanities Medal;[7] and in 2006, the Mind & Brain Prize. In 2010 he was elected to the American Philosophical Society.[8] Searle's early work on speech acts, influenced by J. L. Austin and Ludwig Wittgenstein, helped establish his reputation. His notable concepts include the \"Chinese room\" argument against \"strong\" artificial intelligence. 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his empl\u2026 1/16 Doctoral students Bence Nanay[2] Other notable students William Hirstein Main interests Philosophy of language Philosophy of mind Intentionality \u00b7 Social reality Notable ideas Indirect speech acts Chinese room Biological naturalism Direction of fit Signature John Searle speaking at Google, 2015 Searle's father, G.W. Searle, an electrical engineer, was employed by Corporation; his mother, Hester Beck Searle, was a physician.[4] Searle began his college education at the University of Wisconsin\u2013Madison. In his junior year, he became a Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford, where he obtained all his university degrees, BA, MA, and DPhil.[4][9] Searle was the Willis S. and Marion Slusser Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Language and Professor of the Graduate School at the University of California, Berkeley; even though he retired in 2014, he continued teaching until 2016. In June 2019, the emeritus title was revoked.[5] While an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin\u2013Madison, Searle became the secretary of \"Students against Joseph McCarthy\".[10] McCarthy at that time served as the junior senator from Wisconsin. In 1959, Searle began teaching at Berkeley, and he was the first tenured professor to join the 1964\u201365 Free Speech Movement.[11] In 1969, while serving as chairman of the Academic Freedom Committee of the Academic Senate of the University of California,[12] he supported the university in its dispute with students over the People's Park. In The Campus War Sympathetic Look at the University in Agony (1971),[13] Searle investigates the causes behind the campus protests of the era. In it he declares have been attacked by both the House Un-American Activities Committee and...several radical polemicists... Stylistically, the attacks are interestingly similar. Both rely heavily on insinuation and innuendo, and both display a hatred -- one might almost say terror-- of close analysis and dissection of argument.\" He asserts that \"My wife was threatened that (and other members of the administration) would be assassinated or violently attacked.\"[10] In the late 1980s, Searle, along with other landlords, petitioned Berkeley's rental board to raise the limits on how much he could charge tenants under the city's 1980 rent-stabilization ordinance.[14] The rental board refused to consider Searle's petition and Searle filed suit, charging a violation of due process. In 1990, in what came to be known as the \"Searle Decision\", the California Supreme Court upheld Searle's argument in part and Berkeley changed its rent-control policy, leading to large rent- increases between 1991 and 1994. Searle was reported to see the issue as one of fundamental rights, being quoted as saying \"The treatment of landlords in Berkeley is comparable to the treatment of Biography Politics 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his empl\u2026 2/16 blacks in the South... our rights have been massively violated and we are here to correct that injustice.\"[15] The court described the debate as a \"morass of political invective, ad hominem attack, and policy argument\".[16] Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Searle wrote an article arguing that the attacks were a particular event in a long-term struggle against forces that are intractably opposed to the United States, and signaled support for a more aggressive neoconservative interventionist foreign policy. He called for the realization that the United States is in a more-or-less permanent state of war with these forces. Moreover, a probable course of action would be to deny terrorists the use of foreign territory from which to stage their attacks. Finally, he alluded to the long-term nature of the conflict and blamed the attacks on the lack of American resolve to deal forcefully with America's enemies over the past several decades.[17] In March 2017, Searle became the subject of sexual assault allegations. The Los Angeles Times reported new lawsuit alleges that university officials failed to properly respond to complaints that John Searle ... sexually assaulted his ... research associate last July and cut her pay when she rejected his advances.\"[18][19] The case brought to light several earlier complaints against Searle, on which Berkeley allegedly had failed to act.[20][21] The lawsuit, filed in a California court on March 21, 2017, alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination and assault and battery and sought damages both from Searle and from the Regents of the University of California as his employers.[22] It also claims that Jennifer Hudin, the director of the John Searle Center for Social Ontology, where the complainant had been employed as an assistant to Searle, has stated that Searle \"has had sexual relationships with his students and others in the past in exchange for academic, monetary or other benefits\".[22] After news of the lawsuit became public, several previous allegations of sexual harassment and assault by Searle were also revealed.[23] On June 19, 2019, following campus disciplinary proceedings by Berkeley's Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD), University of California President Janet Napolitano approved a recommendation that Searle have his emeritus status revoked, after a determination that he had violated university policies against sexual harassment and retaliation between July and September 2016.[5] Searle has five honorary-doctorate degrees from four countries and is an honorary visiting professor at Tsing Hua University and at East China Normal University. In 2000, Searle received the Jean Nicod Prize;[6] in 2004, the National Humanities Medal;[7] and in 2006, the Mind & Brain Prize. Sexual assault allegations Awards and recognitions 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his empl\u2026 3/16 Searle's early work, which did much to establish his reputation, was on speech acts. He attempted to synthesize ideas from many colleagues \u2013 including J.L. Austin (the \"illocutionary act\", from How To Do Things with Words), Ludwig Wittgenstein and G.C.J. Midgley (the distinction between regulative and constitutive rules) \u2013 with his own thesis that such acts are constituted by the rules of language. He also drew on the work of Paul Grice (the analysis of meaning as an attempt at being understood), Hare and Stenius (the distinction, concerning meaning, between illocutionary force and propositional content), P.F. Strawson, John Rawls and William Alston, who maintained that sentence meaning consists in sets of regulative rules requiring the speaker to perform the illocutionary act indicated by the sentence and that such acts involve the utterance of a sentence which (a) indicates that one performs the act; (b) means what one says; and (c) addresses an audience in the vicinity. In his 1969 book Speech Acts, Searle sets out to combine all these elements to give his account of illocutionary acts. There he provides an analysis of what he considers the prototypical illocutionary act of promising and offers sets of semantical rules intended to represent the linguistic meaning of devices indicating further illocutionary act types. Among concepts presented in the book is the distinction between the \"illocutionary force\" and the \"propositional content\" of an utterance. Searle does not precisely define the former as such, but rather introduces several possible illocutionary forces by example. According to Searle, the sentences... 1. Sam smokes habitually. 2. Does Sam smoke habitually? 3. Sam, smoke habitually! 4. Would that Sam smoked habitually! ... each indicate the same propositional content (Sam smoking habitually) but differ in the illocutionary force indicated (respectively, a statement, a question, a command and an expression of desire).[24] According to a later account, which Searle presents in Intentionality (1983) and which differs in important ways from the one suggested in Speech Acts, illocutionary acts are characterised by having \"conditions of satisfaction\", an idea adopted from Strawson's 1971 paper \"Meaning and Truth\", and a \"direction of fit\", an idea adopted from Austin and Elizabeth Anscombe. For example, the statement \"John bought two candy bars\" is satisfied if and only if it is true, i.e., John did buy two candy bars. By contrast, the command \"John, buy two candy bars!\" is satisfied if and only if John carries out the action of purchasing two candy bars. Searle refers to the first as having the \"word-to-world\" direction of fit, since the words are supposed to change to accurately represent the world, and the second as having the \"world-to-word\" direction of fit, since the world is supposed to change to match the words. There is also the double direction of fit, in which the relationship goes both ways, and the null or zero direction of fit, in which it goes neither way because the propositional content is presupposed, as in am sorry ate John's candy bars.\" Philosophical work Speech acts 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his empl\u2026 4/16 In Foundations of Illocutionary Logic[25] (1985, with Daniel Vanderveken), Searle prominently uses the notion of the \"illocutionary point\".[26] Searle's speech-act theory has been challenged by several thinkers in various ways. Collections of articles referring to Searle's account are found in Burkhardt 1990[27] and Lepore / van Gulick 1991.[28] In Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind (1983), Searle applies the principles of his account(s) of illocutionary acts to the investigation of intentionality, which is central to Searle's \"Philosophy of Mind\". (Searle is at pains to emphasize that 'intentionality', the capacity of mental states to be about worldly objects, is not to be confused with 'intensionality', the referential opacity of contexts that fail tests for 'extensionality'.[29]) For Searle, intentionality is exclusively mental, being the power of minds to represent or symbolize over, things, properties and states of affairs in the external world.[30] Causal covariance, about-ness and the like are not enough: maps, for instance, only have a 'derived' intentionality, a mere after- image of the real thing. Searle also introduces a technical term the Background,[31] which, according to him, has been the source of much philosophical discussion (\"though have been arguing for this thesis for almost twenty years,\" Searle writes,[32] \"many people whose opinions respect still disagree with me about it\"). He calls Background the set of abilities, capacities, tendencies, and dispositions that humans have that are not themselves intentional states but that generate appropriate such states on demand. Thus, when someone is asked to \"cut the cake,\" they know to use a knife and when someone is asked to \"cut the grass,\" they know to use a lawnmower (and not vice versa), even though the request did not mention this. Beginning with the possibility of reversing these two, an endless series of sceptical, anti- real or science-fiction interpretations could be imagined wish to say that there is a radical underdetermination of what is said by the literal meaning...\" emphasizes Searle.[33] The Background fills the gap, being the capacity always to have a suitable interpretation to hand just take a huge metaphysics for granted,\" he says.[34] Searle sometimes supplements his reference to the Background with the concept of the Network, one's network of other beliefs, desires, and other intentional states necessary for any particular intentional state to make sense. To give an example, two chess players might be engaged in a bitter struggle at the board, but they share all sorts of Background presuppositions: that they will take turns to move, that no one else will intervene, that they are both playing to the same rules, that the fire alarm will not go off, that the board will not suddenly disintegrate, that their opponent will not magically turn into a grapefruit, and so on indefinitely. As most of these possibilities will not have occurred to either player, Searle thinks the Background is itself unconscious as well as nonintentional.[35] To have a Background is to have a set of brain structures that generate appropriate intentional states (if the fire alarm does go off, say). \"Those brain structures enable me to activate the system of intentionality and to make it function, but the capacities realized in the brain structures do not themselves consist in intentional states.\"[36] Intentionality and the background 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his empl\u2026 5/16 It seems to Searle that Hume and Nietzsche were probably the first philosophers to appreciate, respectively, the centrality and radical contingency of the Background. \"Nietzsche saw, with anxiety, that the Background does not have to be the way it is.\"[37] Searle also thinks that a Background appears in the ideas of other modern thinkers: as the river-bed/substratum of Wittgenstein's On Certainty[38] (\"the work of the later Wittgenstein is in large part about the Background, especially On Certainty\"[39]) and Pierre Bourdieu's habitus. In his debate with Jacques Derrida, Searle argued against Derrida's purported view that a statement can be disjoined from the original intentionality of its author, for example when no longer connected to the original author, while still being able to produce meaning. Searle maintained that even if one was to see a written statement with no knowledge of authorship it would still be impossible to escape the question of intentionality, because \"a meaningful sentence is just a standing possibility of the (intentional) speech act\". For Searle, ascribing intentionality to a statement was a basic requirement for attributing it any meaning at all.[40][41] In 2023 Pierre Jacob described Searle's view as \"anti-intentionalist\".[42] Building upon his views about intentionality, Searle presents a view concerning consciousness in his book The Rediscovery of the Mind (1992). He argues that, starting with behaviorism, an early but influential scientific view, succeeded by many later accounts that Searle also dismisses, much of modern philosophy has tried to deny the existence of consciousness, with little success. In Intentionality, he parodies several alternative theories of consciousness by replacing their accounts of intentionality with comparable accounts of the hand: No one would think of saying, for example, \"Having a hand is just being disposed to certain sorts of behavior such as grasping\" (manual behaviorism), or \"Hands can be defined entirely in terms of their causes and effects\" (manual functionalism), or \"For a system to have a hand is just for it to be in a certain computer state with the right sorts of inputs and outputs\" (manual Turing machine functionalism), or \"Saying that a system has hands is just adopting a certain stance toward it\" (the manual stance) (p. 263). Searle argues that philosophy has been trapped by a false dichotomy: that, on one hand, the world consists of nothing but objective particles in fields of force, but that yet, on the other hand, consciousness is clearly a subjective first-person experience. Searle says simply that both are true: consciousness is a real subjective experience, caused by the physical processes of the brain view which he suggests might be called biological naturalism.) Searle has argued[43] that critics like Daniel Dennett,[44] who he claims insist that discussing subjectivity is unscientific because science presupposes objectivity, are making a category error. Perhaps the goal of science is to establish and validate statements which are epistemically objective, i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party, but are not necessarily ontologically objective. Consciousness Ontological subjectivity 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his empl\u2026 6/16 Searle calls any value judgment epistemically subjective. Thus, \"McKinley is prettier than Everest\" is \"epistemically subjective\", whereas \"McKinley is higher than Everest\" is \"epistemically objective\". In other words, the latter statement is evaluable, in fact, falsifiable, by an understood ('background') criterion for mountain height, like \"the summit is so many meters above sea level\". No such criteria exist for prettiness. Beyond this distinction, Searle thinks there are certain phenomena, including all conscious experiences, that are ontologically subjective, i.e., can only exist as subjective experience. For example, although it might be subjective or objective in the epistemic sense, a doctor's note that a patient suffers from back pain is an epistemically objective claim: it counts as a medical diagnosis only because the existence of back pain is \"an objective fact of medical science\".[45] The pain itself, however, is ontologically subjective: it is only experienced by the person having it. Searle goes on to affirm that \"where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality\".[46] His view that the epistemic and ontological senses of objective/subjective are cleanly separable is crucial to his self-proclaimed biological naturalism, because it allows epistemically objective judgments like \"That object is a pocket calculator\" to pick out agent-relative features of objects, and such features are, on his terms, ontologically subjective, unlike, say, \"That object is made mostly of plastic\". Biological naturalism implies that if humans want to create a conscious being, they will have to duplicate whatever physical processes the brain goes through to cause consciousness. Searle thereby means to contradict what he calls \"Strong AI\", defined by the assumption that \"the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states.\"[47] In 1980, Searle presented the \"Chinese room\" argument, which purports to prove the falsity of strong AI.[47 person is in a room with two slits, and they have a book and some scratch paper. This person does not know any Chinese. Someone outside the room slides some Chinese characters in through the first slit; the person in the room follows the instructions in the book, transcribing the characters as instructed onto the scratch paper, and slides the resulting sheet out by the second slit. To people outside the room, it appears that the room speaks Chinese \u2013 they have slid Chinese statements into one slit and got valid responses in English \u2013 yet the 'room' does not understand a word of Chinese. This suggests, according to Searle, that no computer can ever understand Chinese or English, because, as the thought experiment suggests, being able to 'translate' Chinese into English does not entail 'understanding' either Chinese or English: all that the person in the thought experiment, and hence a computer, is able to do is to execute certain syntactic manipulations.[48][49] Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett in their book The Mind's criticize Searle's view of AI, particularly the Chinese room argument.[50] Stevan Harnad argues that Searle's \"Strong AI\" is really just another name for functionalism and computationalism, and that these positions are the real targets of his critique.[51] Functionalists argue that consciousness can be defined as a set of informational processes inside the brain. It follows that anything that carries out the same informational processes as a human is also conscious. Thus, if Artificial intelligence 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his empl\u2026 7/16 humans wrote a computer program that was conscious, they could run that computer program on, say, a system of ping-pong balls and beer cups and the system would be equally conscious, because it was running the same information processes. Searle argues that this is impossible, contending that consciousness is a physical property, like digestion or fire. No matter how good a simulation of digestion is built on the computer, it will not digest anything; no matter how well it simulates fire, nothing will get burnt. By contrast, informational processes are observer-relative: observers pick out certain patterns in the world and consider them information processes, but information processes are not things-in-the-world themselves. Since they do not exist at a physical level, Searle argues, they cannot have causal efficacy and thus cannot cause consciousness. There is no physical law, Searle insists, that can see the equivalence between a personal computer, a series of ping-pong balls and beer cans, and a pipe-and- water system all implementing the same program.[52] Searle extended his inquiries into observer-relative phenomena by trying to understand social reality. Searle begins by arguing collective intentionality (e.g., \"we are going for a walk\") is a distinct form of intentionality, not simply reducible to individual intentionality (e.g am going for a walk with him and think he thinks he is going for a walk with me and he thinks think am going for a walk with him and...\") In The Construction of Social Reality (1995), Searle addresses the mystery of how social constructs like \"baseball\" or \"money\" can exist in a world consisting only of physical particles in fields of force. Adapting an idea by Elizabeth Anscombe in \"On Brute Facts\", Searle distinguishes between brute facts, like the height of a mountain, and institutional facts, like the score of a baseball game. Aiming at an explanation of social phenomena in terms of Anscombe's notion, he argues that society can be explained in terms of institutional facts, and institutional facts arise out of collective intentionality through constitutive rules with the logical form counts as in C\". Thus, for instance, filling out a ballot counts as a vote in a polling place, getting so many votes counts as a victory in an election, getting a victory counts as being elected president in the presidential race, etc. Many sociologists, however, do not see Searle's contributions to social theory as very significant. Neil Gross, for example, argues that Searle's views on society are more or less a reconstitution of the sociologist \u00c9mile Durkheim's theories of social facts, social institutions, collective representations, and the like. Searle's ideas are thus open to the same criticisms as Durkheim's.[53] Searle responded that Durkheim's work was worse than he had originally believed and, admitting he had not read much of Durkheim's work, said: \"Because Durkheim's account seemed so impoverished did not read any further in his work.\"[54] Steven Lukes, however, responded to Searle's response to Gross and argued point by point against the allegations that Searle makes against Durkheim, essentially upholding Gross's argument that Searle's work bears a great resemblance to Durkheim's. Lukes attributes Searle's miscomprehension of Durkheim's work to the fact that Searle had never read Durkheim.[55] Social reality 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his empl\u2026 8/16 In recent years, Searle's main interlocutor on issues of social ontology has been Tony Lawson. Although their accounts of social reality are similar, there are important differences. Lawson emphasizes the notion of social totality whereas Searle prefers to refer to institutional facts. Furthermore, Searle believes that emergence implies causal reduction whereas Lawson argues that social totalities cannot be completely explained by the causal powers of their components. Searle also places language at the foundation of the construction of social reality, while Lawson believes that community formation necessarily precedes the development of language and, therefore, there must be the possibility for non-linguistic social structure formation.[56][57][58] The debate is ongoing and takes place additionally through regular meetings of the Centre for Social Ontology at the University of California, Berkeley and the Cambridge Social Ontology Group at the University of Cambridge.[59] In Rationality in Action (2001), Searle argues that standard notions of rationality are badly flawed. According to what he calls the Classical Model, rationality is seen as something like a train track: a person moves onto it at one point with their beliefs and desires, and then the rules of rationality compel them all the way to a conclusion. Searle doubts that this picture of rationality holds generally. Searle briefly critiques one particular set of these rules: those of mathematical decision theory. He points out that its axioms require that anyone who valued a quarter and their life would, at some odds, bet their life for a quarter. Searle insists he would never take such a bet and believes that this stance is perfectly rational. Most of his attack is directed against the common conception of rationality, which he believes is badly flawed. First, he argues that reason does not cause an individual to do anything, because having sufficient reason wills, but does not force, them to do that thing. Therefore, in any decision situation, people experience a gap between reasons and actions. For example, when a person decides to vote, they may determine that they care most about economic policy and that they prefer candidate Jones's economic policy, but they must also make an effort to actually cast a vote. Similarly, every time a smoker who feels guilty about their action lights a cigarette, they are aware that they are succumbing to their craving, and not merely acting automatically as they do when they exhale. This gap makes people think they have freedom of the will. Searle thinks that whether one really has free will or not is an open question, but considers its absence highly unappealing because it makes the feeling of freedom of will an epiphenomenon, which is highly unlikely from the evolutionary point of view given its biological cost. He also says, \"All rational activity presupposes free will\".[60] Second, Searle believes that people can rationally do things that do not result from their own desires. It is widely believed that one cannot derive an \"ought\" from an \"is\", i.e., that facts about how the world is can never tell a person what they should do (Hume's Law). By contrast, insofar as a fact is understood to relate to an institution (marriage, promises, commitments, etc.), which is to be understood as a system of constitutive rules, then what one should do can be understood as following from the institutional fact of what one has done; institutional fact, then, can be understood as opposed to the \"brute facts\" related to Hume's Law. For example, Searle believes that the promise of doing something means that one must do it, because by making the promise one participates in the constitutive rules that arrange the system of promise-making itself; a \"shouldness\" is implicit in the Searle\u2013Lawson debate Rationality 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his empl\u2026 9/16 mere factual action of promising. Furthermore, he believes that this provides a desire-independent reason for an action \u2013 if one orders a drink at a bar, there is an obligation to pay for it even if one has no desire to do so. This argument, which he first made in his paper, \"How to Derive 'Ought' from 'Is'\" (1964),[61] remains highly controversial, but Searle maintained that \"the traditional metaphysical distinction between fact and value cannot be captured by the linguistic distinction between 'evaluative' and 'descriptive' because all such speech act notions are already normative\".[62] Third, Searle argues that much of rational deliberation involves adjusting patterns of desires, which are often inconsistent, to decide between outcomes, not the other way around. While in the Classical Model one would start from viewing a desire to go to Paris as a greater factor than saving money, which would lead to calculating the cheapest way to get there, Searle would argue that people balance the desire of Paris against the desire to save money to determine which one they value more. Hence, he believes that rationality is not a system of rules, but more of an adverb. Certain behaviors are seen as rational, no matter what their source, and a system of rules derives from finding patterns in what is considered rational. After Jacques Derrida, in his 1972 paper \"Signature Event Context,\" responded to J. L. Austin's theory of the illocutionary act, Searle argued, in his 1977 essay \"Reiterating the Differences Reply to Derrida,\" that Derrida's apparent rejection of Austin was unwarranted. Searle later refused to let his 1977 reply to be printed along with Derrida's papers in the 1988 collection Limited Inc \u2014 in which a new text by Derrida attacked Searle's positions on the topic. In the 1990s, Searle elaborated on why he did not consider Derrida's approach to be legitimate philosophy. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language ( hfknvF0C) (1969), Cambridge University Press 978-0521096263 The Campus War Sympathetic Look at the University in Agony (political commentary; 1971) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (essay collection; 1979) Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind (1983) Minds, Brains and Science: The 1984 Reith Lectures (lecture collection; 1984) Foundations of Illocutionary Logic (John Searle & Daniel Vanderveken 1985) The Rediscovery of the Mind (1992) The Construction of Social Reality (1995) The Mystery of Consciousness (review collection; 1997) Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World (summary of earlier work; 1998) Rationality in Action (2001) Consciousness and Language (essay collection; 2002) Freedom and Neurobiology (lecture collection; 2004) Mind Brief Introduction (summary of work in philosophy of mind; 2004) Philosophy in a New Century: Selected Essays ( -EC&q=searle+Philosophy+in+a+New+Century:+Selected+Essays+() (2008) Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization (2010) Searle\u2013Derrida debate Bibliography 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his emp\u2026 10/16 Philosophy portal Biography portal \"What Your Computer Can't Know\" (review of Luciano Floridi, The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality, Oxford University Press, 2014; and Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, Oxford University Press, 2014), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXI, no. 15 (October 9, 2014), pp. 52\u201355. Seeing Things As They Are Theory of Perception (2015) American philosophy Collective intentionality Consciousness Language/action perspective List of American philosophers List of Jean Nicod Prize laureates Performative turn Practical reason Pragmatics Unconscious mind 1. John R. Searle, Seeing Things as They Are Theory of Perception, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 15. 2. \"Humboldt Research Award\" ( html.en). 3. \"Introduction: John Searle in Czech Context\" ( y/2012/2/3-8.pdf) (PDF). Sav.sk. 2012. Retrieved April 21, 2017. 4. Shook, John R. (January 1, 2005). Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers ( ogle.com/books?id=Ijpj1tB3Qr0C Black. p. 2175 978-1-84371-037-0. 5. Weinberg, Justin (June 21, 2019). \"Searle Found to Have Violated Sexual Harassment Policies\" ( Daily Nous. Archived ( und-violated-sexual-harassment-policies/) from the original on June 21, 2019. Retrieved June 21, 2019. 6. \"Jean-Nicod 2000 Prize\" ( omi/prix/nicod2000.html). Archived from the original ( html) on September 23, 2015. Retrieved June 11, 2015. 7. \"President Bush Awards 2004 National Humanities Medals\" ( se/2004-11-17). NEH.gov. Retrieved April 21, 2017. 8 Member History\" ( le=&subject=&subdiv=&mem=&year=&year-max=&dead=&keyword=&smode=advanced). search.amphilsoc.org. Retrieved April 21, 2021. 9. \"John Searle | Biography, Philosophy, & Facts\" ( e). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved October 14, 2021. 10. Searle, John R. (1971). \"The Anatomy of Student Revolts\" ( 1.html). The Campus War. Archived ( xt.com/searle/campus/1.html) from the original on May 27, 2023. Retrieved November 14, 2024 \u2013 via Digital Text International. See also References 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his empl\u2026 11/16 11. \"Socrates and Berkeley Scholars Web Hosting Services Have Been Retired \u2013 Web Platform Services\" ( socrates.berkeley.edu. 12. Searle, John R. (1971). \"The Faculty\" ( The Campus War. Archived ( s/4.html) from the original on April 4, 2023. Retrieved November 14, 2024 \u2013 via Digital Text International. 13. \"The Campus War\" ( Retrieved March 24, 2012. 14. See Searle v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Bd. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1253 [243 Cal.Rptr. 449] 15. \"Letters to the Editor. Category: Features from The Berkeley Daily Planet\" ( yplanet.com/issue/2004-12-14/article/20296?headline=Letters-to-the-Editor). Berkeley Daily Planet. December 14, 2004. Retrieved April 21, 2017. 16. Korngold, Gerald (January 1, 1998). \"Whatever Happened to Landlord-Tenant Law?\" ( lcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol77/iss4/5). Nebraska Law Review. 77 (4). 17. \"Terror.doc\" ( e/pdf/terrorism.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original ( errorism.pdf) (PDF) on May 15, 2008. Retrieved January 1, 2009. 18. Watanabe, Tessa (March 23, 2017). \"Lawsuit alleges that a Berkeley professor sexually assaulted his researcher and cut her pay when she rejected him\" ( ucation/la-essential-education-updates-southern-lawuit-alleges-a-uc-berkeley-philosophy-149029 9535-htmlstory.html). Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 28, 2017. 19. Fraley, Malaika (March 23, 2017). \"Berkeley: Renowned philosopher John Searle accused of sexual assault and harassment at Berkeley\" ( ey-renowned-philosopher-john-searle-accused-of-sexual-assault-and-harassment-by-former-cal-ai de). East Bay Times. Retrieved March 28, 2017. 20. Baker, Katie J.M. (April 7, 2017 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit\" ( nts-uc-berkeley). BuzzFeedNews. Retrieved April 8, 2017. 21. \"Berkeley: Renowned philosopher John Searle accused of sexual assault and harassment at Berkeley\" ( -accused-of-sexual-assault-and-harassment-by-former-cal-aide/). East Bay Times. March 23, 2017. Retrieved February 24, 2022. 22. Baker, Katie J.M. (March 23, 2017 Former Student Says Berkeley's Star Philosophy Professor Groped Her And Watched Porn At Work\" ( us-philosophy-professor-accused-sexual-harassment). BuzzFeedNews. Retrieved March 28, 2017. Contains facsimile of the suit. 23. Tate, Emily (April 10, 2017). \"Earlier Complaints on Professor Accused of Harassment\" ( w.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/04/10/earlier-complaints-professor-accused-harassment). Inside Higher Ed. 24. John R. Searle (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press 9780521096263. 25. John R. Searle, Daniel Vanderveken (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic ( gle.com/books?id=M_c8AAAAIAAJ). Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-26324-5. 26. Although Searle does not mention earlier uses of the concept, it originates from Alexander Sesonske's article \"Performatives\" ( 27. Burkhardt, Armin (ed.), Speech Acts, Meaning and Intentions: Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle. Berlin / New York 1990. 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his emp\u2026 12/16 28. Lepore, Ernest / van Gulick, Robert (eds): John Searle and his Critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1991. 29. Searle, \"Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization\" (2010) p. 48-62 30. Searle, Intentionality (1983) 31. Searle, Intentionality (1983); The Rediscovery of the Mind (1992) ch. 8 32. \"Literary Theory and Its Discontents\", New Literary History, 640 33. Searle, John (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. p. 131 978-0-14-023590-6. 34. Searle, John (1999). Mind, Language and Society. London: Orion Books Ltd. p. 108 978-0- 75380-921-1. 35. Searle, John (1992). The Rediscovery of the Mind ( 0sear). Mass Press. p. 185 ( 85 978-0-262-19321-4. 36. Searle, John (2001). Rationality in Action. Mass Press. p. 58 978-0-262-19463-1. 37. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality (1995), p.132 38. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1969). On Certainty. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 39. Searle, The Rediscovery of the Mind (1992), p.177 and endnote 40. John Searle, Reiterating the Diff\u00e9rences Reply to Derrida, Glyph 2 (Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977 p. 202 41. Gerald Graff. 1988. Summary of Reiterating the differences. in Derrida, Jacques. Limited Inc. p. 26. 42. Jacob, Pierre (2019). \"Intentionality\" ( The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 43. Searle R: The Mystery of Consciousness (1997) p. 95-131 44. The Myth of the Computer: An Exchange ( of-the-computer-an-exchange/) by Daniel C. Dennett, reply by John R. Searle, The New York Review of Books, June 24, 1982 Issue 45. Searle, J.R.: The Mystery of Consciousness (1997) p.122 46. Searle, J.R.: The Mystery of Consciousness (1997) p.112 47. \"Minds, Brains and Programs\" ( Archived ( chive/bbs.searle2.html) 2001-02-21 at the Wayback Machine, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences.3, pp. 417\u2013424. (1980) 48. \"Conversation with John Searle, p.4 of 6\" ( n4.html). globetrotter.berkeley.edu. 49. Roberts, Jacob (2016). \"Thinking Machines: The Search for Artificial Intelligence\" ( ive.org/web/20180819152455/ nes-the-search-for-artificial-intelligence). Distillations. 2 (2): 14\u201323. Archived from the original (http s:// ence) on August 19, 2018. Retrieved March 22, 2018. 50. Hofstadter, D., 1981, 'Reflections on Searle', in Hofstadter and Dennett (eds.), The Mind's I, New York: Basic Books, pp. 373\u2013382. 51. Harnad, Stevan (2001) ( \"What's Wrong and Right About Searle's Chinese Room Argument\", in M.; Preston, J., Essays on Searle's Chinese Room Argument, Oxford University Press. 52. Searle 1980 53. \"Gross \u2013 Comment On Searle | \u00c9mile Durkheim | Sociology\" ( ment/22379828/Gross-Comment-on-Searle). Scribd. 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his emp\u2026 13/16 54. \"Searle \u2013 Reply To Gross | \u00c9mile Durkheim | Mind\" ( 9838/Searle-Reply-to-Gross). Scribd. 55. Lukes, Steven (2007), Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.), \"Searle versus Durkheim\" ( 07/978-1-4020-6104-2_9), Intentional Acts and Institutional Facts: Essays on John Searle's Social Ontology, Theory and Decision Library, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 191\u2013202, doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6104-2_9 ( 978- 1-4020-6104-2, retrieved December 5, 2020 56. Lawson, Tony (December 1, 2016). \"Comparing Conceptions of Social Ontology: Emergent Social Entities and/or Institutional Facts?\" ( Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 46 (4): 359\u2013399. doi:10.1111/jtsb.12126 ( g/10.1111%2Fjtsb.12126 1468-5914 ( 57. Searle, John R. (December 1, 2016). \"The Limits of Emergence: Reply to Tony Lawson\". Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 46 (4): 400\u2013412. doi:10.1111/jtsb.12125 ( 1%2Fjtsb.12125 1468-5914 ( 58. Lawson, Tony (December 1, 2016). \"Some Critical Issues in Social Ontology: Reply to John Searle\" ( Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 46 (4): 426\u2013437. doi:10.1111/jtsb.12129 ( 1468-5914 ( 59. \"Workshop on Critical Issues in Social Ontology.\u2014The Cambridge Social Ontology Group\" (http s:// September 19, 2014. Retrieved October 11, 2017. 60. Rationality in Action by John R. Searle (2003) 61. John Searle, \"How to Derive 'Ought' from 'Is' ( The Philosophical Review, 73:1 (January 1964), 43\u201358 62. John Searle in Thomas Mautner, Dictionary of Philosophy (Penguin 1996 0-14-051250-0 John Searle and His Critics (Ernest Lepore and Robert Van Gulick, eds.; 1991) John Searle (Barry Smith, ed.; 2003) John Searle and the Construction of Social Reality (Joshua Rust; 2006) Intentional Acts and Institutional Facts (Savas Tsohatzidis, ed.; 2007) Searle's Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy: Constructive Engagement (Bo Mou, ed.; 2008) John Searle (Joshua Rust; 2009) The issue of free will in John R. Searle: a contrast of biological naturalism to physicalism and to functionalism ( \u2013 Cescon, E., & Nunes, D. P. (2015 quest\u00e3o do livre-arb\u00edtrio em John R. Searle: uma contraposi\u00e7\u00e3o do naturalismo biol\u00f3gico ao fisicalismo e ao funcionalismo. Cognitio-Estudos: revista eletr\u00f4nica de filosofia, 12(2), 179\u2013190. Papers on the History of Speech Act Theory by Barry Smith ( h_speech_acts.htm) \"Minds, Brains and Programs\" ( e.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.html), The Behavioral and Brain Sciences.3, pp. 417\u2013424. (1980) Sources Further reading 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his emp\u2026 14/16 \"Is the Brain a Digital Computer?\" ( oton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.comp.html) (1990) Presidential Address to the American Philosophical Association \"Collective Intentions and Actions\" (1990) in Intentions in Communication J.M.P.R. Cohen, & M. and E. Pollack. Cambridge, Mass Press: pp. 401\u2013416. The Problem of Consciousness ( on.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.prob.html), Social Research, Vol. 60, No.1, Spring 1993. Consciousness ( =Abstract&list_uids=10845075) Annu. Rev. Neurosci. (2000) 23:557\u201378. Review. D. Koepsell (ed.) and L. Moss (ed.) \"Searle and Smith Dialogue\" in John Searle's Ideas About Social Reality: Extensions, Criticisms, and Reconstructions (2003), Blackwell 978-1-4051- 1258-1 Dualism revisited ( tem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSu m Physiol Paris. 2007 Jul\u2013Nov;101(4\u20136):169\u201378. Epub 2008 Jan 19. M. Bennett, D. Dennett, P. Hacker, J. Searle, Neuroscience and Philosophy: Brain, Mind and Language (2007), Columbia University Press 0-231-14044-4 The Storm Over the University ( Interview with L\u00e9o Peruzzo J\u00fanior ( Doerge (2006), Friedrich Christoph: Illocutionary Acts\u2014Austin's Account and What Searle Made Out of It. Tuebingen: Tuebingen University. ( bias-lib.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2006/2273/pdf/Dissertation_Doerge.pdf) Koblizek (2012), Tomas: How to Make the Concepts Clear: Searle's Discussion with Derrida. Organon F, Suppl. Issue 2, pp.157\u2013165. (Searle's reply to Koblizek: ibid., pp.217\u2013220.). ( w.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/organon/prilohy/2012/2/161-169.pdf) Gary Marcus, \"Am Human?: Researchers need new ways to distinguish artificial intelligence from the natural kind\", Scientific American, vol. 316, no. 3 (March 2017), pp. 58\u201363. Multiple tests of artificial-intelligence efficacy are needed because, \"just as there is no single test of athletic prowess, there cannot be one ultimate test of intelligence.\" One such test, a \"Construction Challenge\", would test perception and physical action -\u2014\"two important elements of intelligent behavior that were entirely absent from the original Turing test.\" Another proposal has been to give machines the same standardized tests of science and other disciplines that schoolchildren take so far insuperable stumbling block to artificial intelligence is an incapacity for reliable disambiguation. \"[V]irtually every sentence [that people generate] is ambiguous, often in multiple ways prominent example is known as the \"pronoun disambiguation problem\": a machine has no way of determining to whom or what a pronoun in a sentence\u2014such as \"he\", \"she\" or \"it\"\u2014 refers. John Searle ( at IMDb John Searle on mind, matter, consciousness and his theory of perception ( com/post/117460013340/philosopher-john-searle-perception-mind-matter-conscious) Conversations with Searle ( Interview in Conversations with History ( Archived ( October 12, 2009, at the Wayback Machine series. Available in webcast ( eb/20051027101434/ and podcast (http s://web.archive.org/web/20060221165501/ External links 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his emp\u2026 15/16 Video ( or transcript ( ofthecode.org/interviews/searle.htm) of an interview with John Searle on language, writing, mind, and consciousness Video: Searle on the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley ( 3182_008_pt4) Archived ( om/clip/13182_008_pt4) February 24, 2022, at the Wayback Machine (1982) Video: \"Our shared condition\u2014consciousness\" ( _condition_consciousness.html), Searle's May 2013 talk Webcast of Philosophy of Society lectures ( eriesid=2009-D-67309&semesterid=2009-D) The Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies video interview with John Searle ( ive.org/web/20160523162506/ 2011-06-13 1984 audio ( gq1fk) Figure/Ground interview with John Searle. November 19th, 2012. ( w-with-john-searle/) Retrieved from \" 2/16/25, 9:46 John Searle - Wikipedia assault allegations,-In March 2017&text=The lawsuit%2C filed in a,of California as his emp\u2026 16/16", "8077_104.pdf": "Top Berkeley Professor Accused Of Sexual Harassment March 23, 2017 / 7:21 San Francisco recent University of California at Berkeley graduate has filed a lawsuit against well-known philosophy professor John Searle alleging that he sexually assaulted her and harassed her while she was working for him last summer. In her suit, which was filed in Alameda County Superior Court on Tuesday and also names regents as defendants, Joanna Ong, 24, said she started working with Searle, 84, last July as a research assistant but he sexually assaulted her on July 22 by groping her and sliding his hands down her spine to her buttocks Faculty Involved In 28 Sexual Misconduct Cases In Three Years System Creates Post To Deal With Sexual Violence Berkeley Frat Row Parties Suspended After Sexual Assault Reports Ong alleged that Searle told her \"they were going to be lovers\" and said he had an \"emotional commitment to making her a public intellectual\" and was \"going to love her for a long time.\" Ong said Searle's touch placed her \"in immediate shock, fear confusion and horror and she did not know what to think or do News Weather Sports Video 53\u00b0 Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/16/25, 9:46 Top Berkeley Professor Accused Of Sexual Harassment San Francisco 1/4 The suit said Searle took his hands off of Ong and he apologized, told her to \"forget about it\" and went on vacation in early August. Ong said she reported the assault to Jennifer Hudin, the director of the John Searle Center for Social Ontology, where Ong worked, but instead of reporting her allegations to upper management Hudin told Ong that she would protect her from Searle's advances.\" The suit, which was filed by the Los Angeles-based law firm Kristensen Weisberg LLP, said Hudin also admitted that Searle \"has had sexual relationships with his students and others in the past in exchange for academic, monetary, or other benefits.\" Ong said that when Searle returned from vacation, the workplace became \"increasingly hostile and awkward,\" he pretended nothing had happened, cut her salary in about half without explanation and continued to act inappropriately. Ong said when she reported those issues to Hudin in September Hudin said she would address the issue with Searle and other department heads but later admitted she didn't \"out of respect and loyalty to Professor Searle because she needed to 'protect him.'\" On Sept. 23, 2016, Hudin told Ong she was no longer needed at the center, according to the complaint. The suit accuses Searle and regents of sexual harassment, having a hostile work environment, retaliation, wrongful termination and assault and battery. It seeks unspecified general and special damages and lost wages. Ong's sexual assault allegation is one of many that have been made against Berkeley professors and officials in recent years Berkeley spokeswoman Janet Gilmore said in a statement that the university hasn't yet seen the complaint and can't comment due to privacy laws and university policy. Watch News Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/16/25, 9:46 Top Berkeley Professor Accused Of Sexual Harassment San Francisco 2/4 Gilmore said, \"Campus leaders are dedicated to fostering a community where sexual harassment and sexual assault\" are not tolerated. Asked to clarify Searle's current status at Berkeley, Gilmore said he is an emeritus faculty member with offices on campus but is not currently teaching. Searle has taught at Berkeley since 1959 and Ong's lawsuit describes him as \"a world-renowned professor of philosophy.\" Ong said in her lawsuit that she got a degree in interdisciplinary studies with honors in 2014 and while she was an undergraduate she took a philosophy class with Searle. Ong said Hudin was the graduate student instructor for the class and became something of a trusted advisor to her. Ong said she had a well-paying job in San Francisco but left it last summer because she wanted to get work experience in the academic world before beginning graduate school in the fall of 2017. The suit said Searle told Ong that she would make just $1,000 a month as a consultant for the John Searle Center for Social Ontology but he would supplement it by paying her an additional $3,000 extra per month to be his assistant and \u00a9 Copyright 2017 Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries and Logo and Copyright 2017 Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Bay City News Service contributed to this report. More from News Alameda County Sheriff seeks help locating missing San Leandro woman officials say safety is top priority during All-Star Weekend, Chinese New Year Parade Watch News Be the first to know Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting. 2/16/25, 9:46 Top Berkeley Professor Accused Of Sexual Harassment San Francisco 3/4 \u00a92025 Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Cookie Details Contact News Sports Weather Program Guide Sitemap About Us Advertise Television Jobs Public File for / CBS5 Public File for / KPIX+ Public Inspection File Help Applications Report \u00a9 2017 Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. In: Sexual Misconduct Missing elderly man in Monterey County found dead in Carmel River Classic inspires Oakland point guard to follow his passions Watch News 2/16/25, 9:46 Top Berkeley Professor Accused Of Sexual Harassment San Francisco 4/4", "8077_105.pdf": "harassment-retaliation-policies/ Former professor John Searle loses emeritus status over violation of sexual harassment, retaliation policies By Sasha Langholz Jul 3, 2019 Former Berkeley professor of philosophy John Searle was stripped of his emeritus status June 19 for violating university policies regarding sexual harassment and retaliation, according to campus spokesperson Janet Gilmore. Searle is known as \u201cone of the most prominent philosophy scholars in the world,\u201d according to the California Civil Rights Law Group President Janet Napolitano revoked Searle\u2019s title of emeritus professor, a status that confers \u201cthe prestige of continued association with the university\u201d among other privileges, according to Gilmore. Revoking this title is, according to Gilmore, the most extreme disciplinary action the campus can take against an emeritus professor. The removal of Searle\u2019s title occurred in the wake of allegations regarding a series of incidents involving Berkeley alumna Joanna Ong during her time at the John Searle Center for Social Ontology, according to a lawsuit filed by the firm Kristensen Weisberg against the Board of Regents and Searle on May 21, 2017. Ong worked as a research assistant to Searle and as a consultant for the center from July to September 2016, when she was dismissed from her position by her adviser Jennifer Hudin, according to the lawsuit. \u201cWhile Ong was employed at U.C. Berkeley, Searle sexually assaulted Ong and then continued to harass her as her employment continued,\u201d the lawsuit stated. Ong\u2019s lawyers listed five causes of action in the lawsuit, including sexual assault, assault and battery, wrongful termination and retaliation. According to the lawsuit, Ong\u2019s pay was docked and her work environment became hostile after she rejected Searle\u2019s sexual advances. According to the lawsuit, Ong initially reported the incidents of sexual assault and harassment to Hudin and another research assistant, but no action was taken at the time to address Ong\u2019s concerns. In early September, Ong reported these issues once more to Hudin, who said she would help report the violations to upper management but later admitted she had no intention to do so, according to the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that \u201cU.C. Berkeley was well aware of Searle\u2019s prior similar behavior with other young women including \u2026 his students and research assistants.\u201d The incidents were formally reported in November 2016 to the campus Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination, according to Gilmore. The Committee on Privilege and Tenure within the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate heard the case, after which Chancellor Carol Christ made a recommendation for the removal of Searle\u2019s emeritus status to the president. Gilmore said in an email that while the 2/16/25, 9:46 Former professor John Searle loses emeritus status over violation of sexual harassment, retaliation policies | Archives | dailycal.org 1/2 administration was investigating Searle, because of the \u201cdisturbing nature\u201d of the allegations, he was deprived of the right to participate in departmental activities and hiring processes, and he was not allowed an office on campus. According to Gilmore, the administration had to undergo the full disciplinary process before taking action against Searle. \u201cSexual harassment and retaliation have no place in the Berkeley Community,\u201d Gilmore said in an email. \u201cWe understand that such actions have the potential to cause great harm and are fundamentally detrimental to our educational mission.\u201d 2/16/25, 9:46 Former professor John Searle loses emeritus status over violation of sexual harassment, retaliation policies | Archives | dailycal.org 2/2", "8077_106.pdf": "Blew The Whistle On John Searle In September 2016 sent this email to BuzzFeed News. It amounted to a request for an independent investigation into John Searle\u2019s behavior around students provided some specific examples of misconduct, but knew had an incomplete picture of things: As a grad student in the department, I\u2019ve always heard whispers of his creepy behavior: lectures that include racial slurs and hints of misogyny, his weird penchant for hiring young asian women as assistants, and not-entirely-confirmed cases of sexual harrasment [sic] and unwanted sexual advances. For years, grad students have voiced concerns about Searle through official channels, hoping for some official response left that [Phil Forum event with undergrads] with a sense of urgency that hadn\u2019t felt before. \u2026can\u2019t something else be done? And if didn\u2019t do anything about this, what kind of advocate for inclusion am I? Perhaps any drastic actions would negatively affect the philosophy department and my own reputation, but if this were to play any significant role in deciding what to do, wouldn\u2019t be a coward? 2/16/25, 9:47 Blew The Whistle On John Searle \u2014 Jackson Kernion 1/7 It\u2019s clear to me that the university won\u2019t ever voluntarily take away the privileges it grants Searle in terms of institutional support and the opportunity to teach undergraduates. It\u2019s equally clear to me that the university won\u2019t, without outside pressure, make public their own investigations into Searle\u2019s behavior. And, in my view, once someone has been identified as a serial harraser [sic], they ought to be named and shamed. The public conversation that ensues is often the only mechanism by which the public can force institutions to change in meaningful ways. Maybe there\u2019s less there than expect. But the possibility of there being \u201conly minor\u201d transgressions here doesn\u2019t absolve any of us from the reponsibility (sic) to do something when we think there might be something \u201cmajor\u201d going on reached out to another grad student who suggested to me, in the past, that he had been involved in bringing a complaint against Searle. In short, one of his undergrad students had told him that Searle had made a sexual advance on her. \u2026An excerpt from her email to this grad student is copied below. \u201cAt the end of our meeting, [Searle] asked me to go to another room, saying that there are more books that he could give me was perfectly innocent, following him without any doubts. Upon opening the door, he sprang at me, putting every effort to kiss me.\u201d Around the same time met with my department chair and had a phone call with Berkeley\u2019s Office for the Prevention Harassment and Discrimination, to similarly express my concerns. At a follow-up meeting was told that the student at whom Searle \u2018sprung\u2019 was, to paraphrase, \u2018not actually a Berkeley undergrad\u2019. This was meant to explain why no action had been taken against Searle in this case? That didn\u2019t really make sense to me. 2/16/25, 9:47 Blew The Whistle On John Searle \u2014 Jackson Kernion 2/7 In these meetings, and in other meetings I\u2019ve had over the years, it was stressed that needed to follow Berkeley\u2019s confidentiality policy, and that should err on the side of privacy was also told avoid conducting my own ad hoc investigation. Indeed, it was a because felt a need for an external, independent investigation that reached out to BuzzFeed in the first place. What was important to me at the time was this: that did what could to ensure that Searle\u2019s seeming-at-the-time-to-me-to-be-active sexual harassment of undergrads wasn\u2019t passively accepted by Berkeley first sent that email to Azeen Gohrayshi, who had previously reported on sexual harassment allegations against another Berkeley professor. She put me in touch with Katie Baker, who had more experience reporting on misconduct in academic philosophy. And so she was the one who took on the task of reporting out the Searle story. After initially not finding much of anything, Katie emailed me on Jan 19, 2017 to say that she had gotten \u201canother tip\u201d that was \u201cvery promising\u201d. Over the next few months helped out in the ways that could. We exchanged a bunch of emails, chatted on Signal, and had a number of phone calls wasn\u2019t privy to the specifics of what she was finding, but she told me about the sorts of things she was looking into. My role was to provide the of someone within the philosophy department, to better direct her attention now suspect Katie Baker was working more closely with Joanna Ong\u2019s lawyers than had known at the time. But this is pure speculation on my part. It remains unclear to me exactly what sort of relationship they had.) The first article came out on March 23, 2017, which is when first heard of Joanna Ong\u2019s lawsuit against Searle. This was followed, on April 7, 2017, by a second article, which included more information about how the university responded to past complaints against Searle\u2013including the complaint resulting from the student email had passed on to BuzzFeed. 2/16/25, 9:47 Blew The Whistle On John Searle \u2014 Jackson Kernion 3/7 The grad students in the philosophy department responded by holding a meeting, and then writing a letter to the faculty based upon discussion at that meeting. In that letter, we requested to meet with the faculty, so that they could address some important questions. But at that meeting, and at subsequent meetings, our questions went largely unanswered. Instead, in prepared remarks, our department chair focused on: 1) how the faculty never violated university policies requiring them to report complaints of sexual harassment, and 2) how confidentiality policies limited how much additional information they were allowed to share. This was inadequate. That they themselves didn\u2019t violate university policies was beside the point. What took the grad students to be asking for was some kind of reassurance that the faculty were committed to acting in a morally responsible way\u2013that they took their obligations as leaders of our community seriously. But no such reassurance was provided. They instead wanted to shift focus from ethical responsibilities to employment responsibilities. And when pressed the faculty, in that meeting, to give a more precise characterization of what they were/weren\u2019t allowed to share under the university\u2019s confidentiality policies, they weren\u2019t able to give me a clear answer told them that, as understood the policy\u2013after carefully reading it\u2013it required us to not disclose information communicated to us \u2018from above\u2019 (i.e. information collected by the university and then provided to an employee, so that they could do their job), but it did not preclude us from swapping stories and sharing our own first-person knowledge of Searle\u2019s misconduct. The key idea being: it seemed to me like we had been misled into thinking we couldn\u2019t talk about this stuff more openly. 2/16/25, 9:47 Blew The Whistle On John Searle \u2014 Jackson Kernion 4/7 That the professors themselves didn\u2019t seem to have a firm grip on the confidentiality policy was revealing to me: they\u2019d never gotten as far in their own contemplation of how to respond to rumors of Searle\u2019s misconduct as did felt that had to send that email to BuzzFeed, to uphold my responsibilities could only presume that they did not feel similarly. So found the faculty\u2019s position hard to understand. Weren\u2019t they afraid of damaging their relationship with the grad students? Did they not see how, in the absence of transparency, we\u2019d jump to an unflattering-to-the-faculty interpretation of events? Why were they showing such deference to the administration? Did they not worry about how this lame response would hurt the department\u2019s reputation? On narrow self-interest grounds, shouldn\u2019t they have taken a different stance? What exactly were their motivations? In the days and weeks that followed, the sense of urgency in the community dissipated. An effort to compose a public letter from the grad students lost steam. The faculty effectively enforced a de facto norm of silence around the issue. We waited to hear back about the lawsuit, and about a rebooted university investigation into Searle\u2019s misconduct. Maybe then thought, we\u2019d get the sort of public accountability that was after That the faculty didn\u2019t voluntarily provide more information was not especially surprising to me. But was surprised when my efforts to push for more information were met with hostility was made to feel like some kind of weirdo, for thinking we needed to talk about what had happened and have more transparency. That faculty members thought was being unreasonable angered me more than anything else. This was disorienting had to update my understanding of \u2018how the world works started to find it difficult to develop and sustain trusting professional relationships. If academic philosophers passively accepted Searle\u2019s abusive behavior, what else were they passively accepting? 2/16/25, 9:47 Blew The Whistle On John Searle \u2014 Jackson Kernion 5/7 thought it prudent to remain mostly silent about my involvement in the BuzzFeed stories had told just a few close confidants.) But, in retrospect think this just made it more difficult to work through my feelings and come to stable understanding of my relationship with academic philosophy felt more and more lonely and isolated told my dissertation advisors about my involvement with the BuzzFeed stories at an end-of-year meeting in Spring 2018, before leaving to visit for a year. And after getting my degree in January 2020 shared some documents with younger grad students in the department, to make sure there was some institutional knowledge of what had occurred. Only recently have felt able to fully process things had some false memories of what had occurred, and blamed myself for being unable to effectively cope with the situation.) My own secretiveness had become an ongoing source of pain and stress felt like couldn\u2019t be honest about who was got used to pretending everything was fine, while quietly panicking on the inside. This is what informed my decision to write this piece In September 2018, the lawsuit against Searle was resolved via a confidential settlement. In June 2019, it was announced that Searle \u201chad his emeritus status revoked, along with all the privileges of that title, following a determination that he violated university policies against sexual harassment and retaliation\u201d. But no attempt was made to provide a characterization of the facts that informed this determination. What was after, all along, was a more substantive public accounting of the history of sexual harassment allegations against Searle. The BuzzFeed articles were a step in that direction, but continue to be disappointed that no one in a position of power at Berkeley pushed for the kind of public accountability was after. What exactly was after? Let me make this super concrete: 2/16/25, 9:47 Blew The Whistle On John Searle \u2014 Jackson Kernion 6/7 \u201cOver the course of John Searle\u2019s 60 years at Berkeley, the administration received w formal complaints against Searle that were treated as sexual harassment complaints, and x formal complaints about other kinds of inappropriate behavior. Of those w sexual harassment complaints, y proceeded through some portion of the formal adjudication process, and z reached the end of that process without an informal resolution interrupting that process have some informed guesses about what w, x, y, and z are, and whether Searle interfered with the formal adjudication process. But they are, ultimately, still just guesses. As best as can tell Berkeley is legally allowed to share such information. The fact that they haven\u2019t suggests to me that they\u2019d rather not bring attention to numbers w, x, y, and z. By evading public accountability, they\u2019ve shown that they don\u2019t deserve public trust. \u00a9 2023 Jackson Kernion \u30fb Built with Jekyll and GitHub Pages 2/16/25, 9:47 Blew The Whistle On John Searle \u2014 Jackson Kernion 7/7", "8077_107.pdf": "View Comments Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Documents obtained by BuzzFeed News show that multiple students complained to the University of California, Berkeley, about professor John R. Searle \u2014 years before he was accused of sexually harassing a former student and employee in a March 2017 lawsuit. Katie J.M. Baker Senior National Reporter Posted on April 7, 2017 at 1:00 pm Subscribe to BuzzFeed Daily Newsletter 2/16/25, 9:47 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 1/10 John Searle Franksvalli / Wikimedia Commons / Via commons.wikimedia.org Top Berkeley officials knew that at least three students had made sexual misconduct claims against renowned philosophy professor John R. Searle before he was sued for harassing a young woman in March. The philosophy department had also fielded complaints that Searle made inappropriate comments in his undergraduate classes. Documents obtained by BuzzFeed News show that Joanna Ong, 24, who filed suit against Searle and the University of California Regents last month, was not the first woman to report the 84-year-old professor to the university. Ong\u2019s suit alleges that she was fired from her job as Searle\u2019s research assistant after rejecting his advances. In 2014, an undergraduate student said Searle told her she couldn\u2019t be his research assistant because she was married and thus wouldn\u2019t be as dedicated to the job. In 2013, a foreign exchange student said Searle lunged at her and tried to kiss her in his office. 2/16/25, 9:47 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 2/10 In 2004, a graduate student was so shocked by Searle\u2019s behavior at a dinner event for prospective students that she wrote to the chair of the philosophy department condemning Searle\u2019s \u201chighly inappropriate\u201d actions, which included Searle trying to play footsie with her under the table. In recent years, students also complained to the philosophy department about inappropriate remarks Searle made in class. Since university sexual misconduct investigations are confidential, it\u2019s unclear how many complaints Berkeley has received about Searle overall and whether any resulted in disciplinary action. But, documentation shows, the three misconduct claims uncovered by BuzzFeed News were all reviewed by Berkeley\u2019s Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD), which is tasked with promptly responding to complaints of sex discrimination and harassment. Searle denied Ong's claims, according to a statement provided by his attorney, which said he \u201cquestions the plaintiff's motives for bringing her complaint.\u201d The statement also said Berkeley had responded \u201cappropriately\u201d to \u201cany and all\u201d past allegations and that Searle was grateful for Berkeley\u2019s care and perseverance in this matter Berkeley said confidentiality concerns precluded the university from commenting on the allegations, as well as the response to them, but that the was \u201cengaged in a rigorous investigation\u201d of Ong\u2019s complaint, which she filed shortly before her lawsuit. As part of the investigation, the university will look into any past alleged incidents, spokesperson Janet Gilmore said. As those allegations kept surfacing, Searle continued hiring young women as his personal assistants and teaching large undergraduate philosophy classes. He technically retired in 2014 and entered into a three-year teaching contract that expires this June. Searle abruptly stopped teaching shortly before Ong sued him, but he remains on the Berkeley faculty as a professor emeritus Berkeley said Searle was removed from teaching as an interim measure following Ong\u2019s complaint.) Before 2014, Searle didn\u2019t feel like my complaint was taken very seriously.\" 2/16/25, 9:47 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 3/10 was making over $200,000 a year, records show. In September 2016 Berkeley opened an ontology center named after him. Some of Searle\u2019s inappropriate behavior was an open secret among the philosophy students and faculty at the flagship University of California campus, which has been grappling with professor\u2013student sexual misconduct scandals since 2015. His rotating stable of young, female assistants were known around campus as \u201cSearle\u2019s Girls.\u201d Before Ong filed her lawsuit, which also alleges Searle watched porn in front of her and made sexist comments, philosophy graduate students struggled with how to address concerns about their department\u2019s star philosopher. Those who did report him said their claims seemed to go nowhere didn\u2019t feel like my complaint was taken very seriously,\u201d said V., the married student who reported Searle in 2014 don\u2019t even know if it ever went anywhere Berkeley Tadabeauty / Flickr / Via Flickr: 96459418@N07 2/16/25, 9:47 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 4/10 Philosophy has a pervasive gender gap, and female philosophers have long said sexual harassment is one major factor that makes it difficult for women to succeed in the field. That\u2019s why Kristina Gehrman wrote a letter to the then-chair of Berkeley\u2019s philosophy department after what she called a \u201cdegrading\u201d experience with Searle in 2004 am concerned with the need to raise awareness among the faculty about gender- related issues in general within our community, and with the need to develop some concrete department level practices to prevent and/or respond to specific experiences like mine in the future,\u201d Gehrman wrote in the letter, which was signed by eight other female philosophy graduate students. Gehrman, then a graduate student in her twenties, met Searle at a department dinner for prospective students, she wrote in the letter, which was obtained by BuzzFeed News. Searle never asked her name, instead calling her \u201chis girl,\u201d she wrote. He invited her skiing in Tahoe and said he had taken an undergraduate female research assistant there before. He rubbed her foot with his under the table, she wrote, and when it was time for dessert, Searle insisted Gehrman share his plate. In the letter she sent to the chair a few weeks later, Gehrman called Searle\u2019s actions \u201coverly attentive and sexually suggestive in a way that was highly inappropriate.\u201d \u201cIt seemed likely that if showed offense, or refused to comply with Professor Searle\u2019s overtures would risk hurting the department\u2019s attempt to recruit prospective graduate students,\u201d Gehrman wrote was also concerned about the possible consequences of offending Professor Searle.\u201d Afterward, Gehrman told BuzzFeed News, she met with three administrators, including one who still works for the OPHD. They told her Searle would undergo training but never followed up, she said. Eventually, Gehrman transferred to UCLA, in part because of the way Berkeley had treated her complaint. She even considered leaving philosophy completely. \u201cIt was so alienating that no one at Berkeley did anything to stop him.\" 2/16/25, 9:47 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 5/10 \u201cIt was so alienating that no one at Berkeley did anything to stop him,\u201d said Gehrman, now a philosophy professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Searle\u2019s attorney said the \u201cfootsie\u201d accusation was \u201cthoroughly investigated\u201d and \u201crejected by the university,\u201d although Berkeley declined to comment on the allegation or its response to it. Nine years later, a foreign exchange student who knew nothing about Gehrman\u2019s letter told a graduate student about an unsettling experience she had with Searle. She was flattered when the legendary philosopher asked her to stop by his office shortly after meeting her for the first time, she wrote in an email to the graduate student. But instead of showing her his books, as he had offered, Searle \u201csprang\u201d at her and tried to kiss her, she said. The graduate student reported the incident to the department on the woman\u2019s behalf. In October 2013, the reached out to the woman, emails show. She told BuzzFeed News she wasn\u2019t sure how the matter was resolved. Months later, in spring 2014, a former undergraduate student of Searle\u2019s met with a philosophy professor who was the department\u2019s \u201cequity advisor,\u201d a faculty member tasked with maintaining an inclusive environment. V. \u2014 referred to by an initial to protect her privacy \u2014 had twice applied to be Searle\u2019s research assistant. On both occasions, she said, he focused on how her marital status could affect her job performance. The first time she applied, Searle asked if she had planned to have children soon. The second time, Searle again expressed concerns about hiring a married assistant, V. wrote in a document labeled \u201crecord of incident of grievance.\u201d \u201cWhen you\u2019re a woman in an academically rigorous discipline, you don\u2019t want to make waves.\" 2/16/25, 9:47 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 6/10 just worry that you won\u2019t be as dedicated to the job,\u201d she said Searle told her, even though she had received an A- in his class. V. insisted that she was a focused student who planned on going to graduate school for philosophy. But Searle dismissed her, she wrote, telling her he had to finish his lunch. The equity advisor told V. he would pass her anonymous statement on to the \u2014 emails from the time confirm the received it \u2014 and that she could make a formal complaint, with her name attached, if she wished. She didn\u2019t hear anything after that, she said, and didn\u2019t pursue the matter because she feared retaliation. \u201cWhen you\u2019re a woman in an academically rigorous discipline, you don\u2019t want to make waves,\u201d V. said knew would have suffered more harm than Searle ever would have Berkeley houses the John Searle Center for Social Ontology. John Martinez Pavigla / Flickr / Via Flickr: virtualsugar Both graduate and undergraduate students in the philosophy department said Searle made inappropriate comments in class and during meetings. 2/16/25, 9:47 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 7/10 \u201cPeople thought of Searle as someone who says problematic things, but they didn\u2019t take it seriously enough,\u201d said Tulaja Thigale, who took his Philosophy of Mind class in 2014. She said when she went to Searle\u2019s office hours, he mimicked an Indian accent. In 2016, an external review conducted by philosophy professors from other universities found that Berkeley\u2019s top-ranked philosophy department was thriving, but it noted \u201cconcern about a small number of faculty members who tend to make insensitive remarks, particularly in undergraduate classes.\u201d This concern included Searle, according to one graduate student who participated in the review. Once, for example, while teaching the concept of \"visual attention,\" Searle said he liked to let his eyes wander around the room and settle on attractive young women. The department chair assured the review board that the faculty members in question had been confronted about their behavior. But graduate students told BuzzFeed News they felt brushed off whenever they reported Searle. \u201cThere was always this sense that the department was doing what they could, but were really hoping Searle would just retire and it would all go away,\u201d said one who asked to remain anonymous, citing the precarity of her position graduate student who passed on V.\u2019s complaint about Searle to the philosophy department in 2014 said she never heard from the until this week, when the department emailed to say it heard she \u201cmight have information regarding potential behavior that may be in violation of university policy.\u201d \u201cAt the time assumed was handling the situation,\u201d the graduate student said. \u201cNow that know about similar complaints, it's clear that they should have done more.\" Jackson Kernion, a graduate student in the philosophy department, said he understood the faculty was limited in scope and had incomplete information about Searle\u2019s behavior. Still, he said, he felt \u201cthere could have been a more vigorous response, given the serious concerns raised by grad students\" at both formal and informal meetings number of Berkeley students had their first contact with academic philosophy by taking one of Searle's classes,\" Kernion said. \"It shouldn't come as a surprise that women 2/16/25, 9:47 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 8/10 and minorities sitting in his classes came away with the impression that they were less than fully welcomed in the field.\u201d Universities have many reasons to keep sexual misconduct investigations under wraps, including some state laws that ban the disclosure of confidential information Berkeley has rejected two BuzzFeed News public records requests for misconduct complaints against Searle, writing that it could not \u201cconfirm or deny\u201d whether any complaints against Searle had been made, but that it was not in the \u201cpublic interest\u201d to turn over records since there has never been a finding of employee misconduct. But a spate of national scandals involving high-profile faculty accused of abusing their power \u2014 and findings that the University of California disciplined more than 100 employees across 10 campuses for sexual misconduct from 2013 to April 2016 \u2014 has led to calls for more transparency. Last month, the Board of Regents voted to strengthen its faculty code of conduct. Among other changes, sexual misconduct is now a clear violation, and campus chancellors must be told about alleged violations that are reported to department chairs or other administrators Berkeley revised its own policies in 2016. It's now clear the campus does not believe a complaint of misconduct could ever be \u201cinformal,\u201d and that all complaints reported to employees are treated as formal complaints by the OPHD. Still, universities have long been obligated under the federal gender equity law Title to investigate hostile environments, said Northwestern University professor Laura Beth Nielsen, an expert in sexual harassment law. \u201cIf there\u2019s a situation where there\u2019s gender inequality at a university, they can\u2019t recklessly disregard it,\u201d she said. \u201cThey can\u2019t just say, \u2018Oh, well maybe next year he\u2019ll retire,\u2019 and continue to put employees and students at risk.\u201d \u201cThey can\u2019t just say, \u2018Oh, well maybe next year he\u2019ll retire,\u2019 and continue to put employees and students at risk.\u201d 2/16/25, 9:47 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 9/10 a brand. \u00a9 2025 BuzzFeed, Inc Press Privacy Consent Preferences User Terms Accessibility Statement Ad Choices Help Contact Sitemap Katie J.M. Baker Senior National Reporter Comments Share your thoughts Be One of the First to Comment 2/16/25, 9:47 Berkeley Was Warned About Its Star Professor Years Before Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 10/10", "8077_108.pdf": "\u00bb Blowing the Whistle on John Searle By Justin Weinberg. July 19, 2021 at 9:20 am \u201cI\u2019m writing to you in the hope that you can shine a public light on the behavior of John Searle, a renowned academic in Berkeley\u2019s philosophy department.\u201d 8 8 2/16/25, 9:47 Blowing the Whistle on John Searle - Daily Nous 1/10 [film still of \u201cTattooed Skeleton\u201d by Suzanne Lacy] So begins a September 2016 email from then Berkeley philosophy graduate student Jackson Kernion to Buzzfeed. He notes that he had heard several concerns about Searle\u2019s behavior, but that the university did not appear to be taking such concerns seriously: For years, grad students have voiced concerns about Searle through official channels, hoping for some official response. While there\u2019s been no publicy-announced sanctions or anything like that, it has been suggested to us that complaints about Searle have lead to\u2026something. Searle is now officially retired but he continues to teach a very large lecture course, give seminars, and the university just this month officially opened the John Searle Center for Social Ontology\u2026 8 2/16/25, 9:47 Blowing the Whistle on John Searle - Daily Nous 2/10 So here\u2019s my motivation for reaching out to you. It\u2019s clear to me that the university won\u2019t ever voluntarily take away the privileges it grants Searle in terms of institutional support and the opportunity to teach undergraduates. It\u2019s equally clear to me that the university won\u2019t, without outside pressure, make public their own investigations into Searle\u2019s behavior. Buzzfeed reported on the story, and eventually, after finding Searle in violation of the Berkeley\u2019s sexual harassment policies, the university removed his emeritus status. In a post at his site, Dr. Kernion recounts what it was like to blow the whistle on Searle, and what Berkeley\u2019s Department of Philosophy was doing at the time. It reveals a lack (probably a fairly common lack) of preparation for how to deal with this kind of situation. After the the Buzzfeed story broke, the graduate students in the department requested a meeting with faculty: But at that meeting, and at subsequent meetings, our questions went largely unanswered. Instead, in prepared remarks, our department chair focused on: 1) how the faculty never violated university policies requiring them to report complaints of sexual harassment, and 2) how confidentiality policies limited how much additional information they were allowed to share. This was inadequate. That they themselves didn\u2019t violate university policies was beside the point. What took the grad students to be asking for was some kind of reassurance that the faculty were committed to acting in a morally responsible way\u2013that they took their obligations as leaders of our community seriously. But no such reassurance was provided. They instead wanted to shift focus from ethical responsibilities to employment responsibilities. And when pressed the faculty, in that meeting, to give a more precise characterization of what they were/weren\u2019t allowed to share under the university\u2019s confidentiality policies, they weren\u2019t able to give me a clear answer. 8 2/16/25, 9:47 Blowing the Whistle on John Searle - Daily Nous 3/10 told them that, as understood the policy\u2013after carefully reading it\u2013it required us to not disclose information communicated to us \u2018from above\u2019 (i.e. information collected by the university and then provided to an employee, so that they could do their job), but it did not preclude us from swapping stories and sharing our own first-person knowledge of Searle\u2019s misconduct. The key idea being: it seemed to me like we had been misled into thinking we couldn\u2019t talk about this stuff more openly. That the professors themselves didn\u2019t seem to have a firm grip on the confidentiality policy was revealing to me: they\u2019d never gotten as far in their own contemplation of how to respond to rumors of Searle\u2019s misconduct as did felt that had to send that email to BuzzFeed, to uphold my responsibilities could only presume that they did not feel similarly. So found the faculty\u2019s position hard to understand. Weren\u2019t they afraid of damaging their relationship with the grad students? Did they not see how, in the absence of transparency, we\u2019d jump to an unflattering-to-the-faculty interpretation of events? Why were they showing such deference to the administration? Did they not worry about how this lame response would hurt the department\u2019s reputation? On narrow self-interest grounds, shouldn\u2019t they have taken a different stance? What exactly were their motivations? At the time, Dr. Kernion had only told a few close friends about his connection to the Buzzfeed investigative report, but he had been pushing for more information from the department about the matter was surprised when my efforts to push for more information were met with hostility was made to feel like some kind of weirdo, for thinking we needed to talk about what had happened and have more transparency. That faculty members thought was being unreasonable angered me more than anything else. This was disorienting had to update my understanding of \u2018how the world works started to find it difficult to develop and sustain trusting professional relationships. If academic philosophers passively accepted Searle\u2019s abusive behavior, what else were they passively accepting? You can read Dr. Kernion\u2019s full post here. 8 2/16/25, 9:47 Blowing the Whistle on John Searle - Daily Nous 4/10 \uf0e0Subscribe \uf0d7 Login 8 Join the discussion \uf03e \uf0e7 \uf06d Oldest \uf0dd Jackson Kernion \uf017 3 years ago Thanks, Justin, for posting this. One line from above stuck in my head: \u201cIt reveals a lack (probably a fairly common lack) of preparation for how to deal with this kind of situation.\u201d It\u2019s not my impression that it is common for departments to have senior professors who routinely sexually harass their students, in ways that are, if not common knowledge, sort of an \u2018open secret\u2019. (My impression may be wrong!) And I\u2019m not sure that the behavior of the faculty demonstrated a *lack* of preparation took it that there was a kind of standard playbook at work: obfuscate the 8 2/16/25, 9:47 Blowing the Whistle on John Searle - Daily Nous 5/10 confidentiality policy and stonewall attempts to get more information. Perhaps they might have changed the playbook if they had more time to think things through. But that is far from obvious to me. \uf044Last edited 3 years ago by 13 Reply What about Ong \uf017 3 years ago don\u2019t want to take away from Kernion, but this narrative does a severe disservice to Joanna Ong. Ong filed a suit that formed the backbone of the Buzzfeed reporting. The articles would not have been written had Ong not taken that difficult step, subjecting herself to public scrutiny and all the blow back that public accusers receive. And in this particular case, we know that other alleged victims-many other alleged victims-complained to Berkeley about Searle. They were whistleblowers, albeit internal whistleblowers, too, and they shouldn\u2019t be ignored or slighted. This is not to deny the role Kernion played and the effects that it had on him. But Ong, and the courage she had, should not be relegated to a parenthetical, which doesn\u2019t even make its way into the dailynous post. \uf044Last edited 3 years ago by What about Ong 41 Reply Jackson Kernion \uf086Reply to \uf017 3 years ago This is a fair concern. In sharing my own story don\u2019t mean to erase others\u2019 stories. And don\u2019t include much about Ong\u2019s legal case (besides two references) because that side of things was (and remains) opaque to me. 22 Reply What about Ong Joanna Ong \uf086Reply to \uf017 2 years ago Jackson Kernion 8 2/16/25, 9:47 Blowing the Whistle on John Searle - Daily Nous 6/10 Ong here\u2013it may seem, in part, opaque because had wanted to protect my own privacy as made/make my way back to school. There are other things that want to do, outside of having to navigate this very particular kind of sexual violence. In regards to my desire for privacy had pictures of myself posted on weird forums, and had to politely ask photos of me removed from different webpages and publishers that were posted without my consent was also told had my home address (at the time) shared to/by strangers, which was, at the time, unnerving. It may also be, in part, opaque to you, because other women had different experiences with frameworks of duplicity and fraud, along with different levels of consenting complicity and/or compliance. Like yourself tried not to comment on the experiences of other women unless they directly impacted me, because don\u2019t know the background of their experiences or personal relationship with predatory forms of authority have however developed very strong opinions about certain aspects of complicity and culture am trauma-informed. Because of the historically limited epistemology* around women\u2019s experience in navigating and overcoming certain normatives of power, sometimes women projected their insecurities onto me. This\u2013at times\u2013sucked made a decision to expend only a certain amount of effort beyond the impact had already sought to make, for my physical well-being, and for the entirety of the rest of the life hope to navigate am otherwise happy to be an open book, with that in mind. Thanks! Also, Jackson don\u2019t think you ever reached out to me personally. My personal email address is pretty public. You\u2019re welcome to. *It was Joseph Carlsmith who introduced to me the term \u201cepistemic injustice,\u201d vis- a-vis the works of Miranda Fricker. **For whoever wrote \u201cWhat about Ong see your intention. Your thoughtfulness and attitude can be so supportive of other marginalized peoples who we want to be sure can be heard\u2013whether they are children, civilians suffering from violent occupation or civil rights infringements, or women, girls, and other minorities navigating post-conflict environments. It is all of our jobs to keep each one of us safe. That is how we build culture.^ ^ \u2026for those on the left, nurturance culture : for those on the right, a gentle culture of stewardship\u2026 \uf044Last edited 2 years ago by Joanna Ong 8 2/16/25, 9:47 Blowing the Whistle on John Searle - Daily Nous 7/10 11 Reply Berkeley Philosophy Grad \uf017 3 years ago graduated from the PhD program at Berkeley before Jackson Kernion did find it pretty incredible that his blog post includes no mention of the work that women graduate students made for years to hold the department accountable. Kristina Gehrman is on the record about some of her efforts ( 19/06/kristina-gehrmans-reflections-in-the-wake-of-the-searle-case/). And the commenter, \u201cWhat about Ong,\u201d is absolutely right that there likely wouldn\u2019t have been a Buzzfeed article in the first place without the incredible bravery of Joanna Ong will say that what he says about the department rings true. They allowed Searle to sexually harass his students and to subject students to his racist and sexist invective in the classroom for years. Our concerns about his behavior (which several of us raised in closed meetings with some faculty members) were met with the usual excuses (\u201cHe\u2019s from a different era\u201d) and cowardly advice (\u201cJust keep your head down, he\u2019ll retire soon anyway\u201d). It is difficult to describe just how demoralizing the department\u2019s inaction was, and I\u2019m glad that there is now some public record of their failure to foster a safe and productive working environment for their students just think that it\u2019s a pretty glaring oversight not to include at least some acknowledgement of the work of women and students of color, several of whom were Searle\u2019s direct victims. 28 Reply grad student (not from berkeley) \uf086Reply to \uf017 3 years ago As an outsider, this comment seems unfair to Kernion. As understood his blog post, he was just aiming to relate his personal experiences. The fact that the post doesn\u2019t include information about other people who did important work to hold Searle accountable is just because he didn\u2019t want to make statements about work that he wasn\u2019t personally involved in don\u2019t see anything wrong with this; in fact it seems appropriately cautious also feel the need to say the following. This comment seems to me to be insinuating that Kernion is trying to claim credit that he doesn\u2019t deserve for whatever progress has been made in holding Searle accountable (I\u2019m not saying that\u2019s what you intended, I\u2019m just saying that\u2019s the way it reads find it pretty upsetting that the immediate reaction to Berkeley Philosophy Grad 8 2/16/25, 9:47 Blowing the Whistle on John Searle - Daily Nous 8/10 Kernion sharing publicly the difficult experiences he had as a result of trying to do the right thing is to assume bad faith on his part. It makes me worry about what the priorities of the profession at large are when most the comments on one of the more widely read blogs are critical of Kernion for failing to talk about other people\u2019s work that he had no personal experience with, rather than simply pointing out the work that other people did. (To be fair, the post that am not replying to here was more critical of the Daily Nous post than Kernion\u2019s own post. But still.) 69 Reply Vida Yao \uf017 3 years ago Could any current or recently graduated Berkeley students fill me in a little: Has the department done anything more than boilerplate to assure you that they acknowledge what happened (in terms of their ethical responsibilities to their students, which Dr. Kernion describes)? Are there efforts to address and amend, or is there a continued co- ordinated evasion? Please email me if, understandably, you don\u2019t want to publicly post. This is purely a personal/philosophical interest of mine, given my own experiences at Berkeley as an undergraduate for John Searle from 2008-2010 appreciate any insight you may have, and guarantee you utter confidentiality. 23 Reply Fred \uf017 2 years ago Not to put too sharp a point on it, but if a group of philosophers, including among their number some quite prominent moral philosophers, cannot find the courage to protect vulnerable students from being preyed upon by a colleague, what might we conclude about the value of moral philosophy vis-a-vis leading a moral life? Before reflecting on the complicity (say) of ordinary Germans in the atrocities committed by the Nazi state, we might reflect on the repeated failure of wealthy and highly educated Berkeley philosophy professors to uphold basic standards of morality in a context free of war, violence, disease, economic depression, mass loss of life, the threat of famine, state propaganda, and so on. Arendt was wrong about the banality of Eichmann\u2019s evil, but she aptly characterized this group of philosophers. 8 2/16/25, 9:47 Blowing the Whistle on John Searle - Daily Nous 9/10 10 Reply 8 2/16/25, 9:47 Blowing the Whistle on John Searle - Daily Nous 10/10"} |
7,690 | Jason Lieb | University of Chicago | [
"7690_101.pdf",
"7690_102.pdf",
"7690_103.pdf",
"7690_104.pdf",
"7690_105.pdf",
"7690_106.pdf",
"7690_107.pdf"
] | {"7690_101.pdf": "Home / Article Biologist Resigns Amid Sexual Misconduct Probe University of Chicago molecular biologist Jason Lieb quit just as officials recommended he be fired for violating the school\u2019s sexual misconduct policy. Feb 4, 2016 | 2 min read Bob Grant 2/16/25, 9:48 Biologist Resigns Amid Sexual Misconduct Probe | The Scientist 1/7 Register for free to listen to this article Listen with Speechify 0:00 2:00 Share Molecular biologist Jason Lieb resigned his position at the University of Chicago last month as a university investigation found him guilty of sexually harassing female graduate students at an off-campus retreat for the school\u2019s molecular biosciences division, according to The New York Times. In a letter obtained by the New York Times, university officials recommended that the 43-year-old Lieb be fired for his transgressions, which included engaging in sexual activity with a 2/16/25, 9:48 Biologist Resigns Amid Sexual Misconduct Probe | The Scientist 2/7 student who was, as the officials put it, \u201cincapacitated due to alcohol and therefore could not consent.\u201d \u201cIn light of the severity and pervasiveness of Professor Lieb\u2019s conduct, and the broad, negative impact the conduct has had on the educational and work environment of students, faculty and staff recommend that the university terminate Professor Lieb\u2019s academic appointment,\u201d reads the letter, which was signed by the University of Chicago\u2019s Sarah Wake, assistant provost and director of the Office for Equal Opportunity Programs. These latest allegations of misconduct are not the first that have been made against Lieb graduate student from his laboratory at the University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill\u2014where Lieb held a faculty position for more than a decade\u2014 apparently filed a complaint of unwanted contact against him subsequent university investigation failed to find enough evidence to support that ... Keywords academia, allegations, Research Ethics, resignation, sexual misconduct Meet the Author Bob Grant From 2017 to 2022, Bob Grant was Editor in Chief of The Scientist, where he started in 2007 as a Staff Writer. View full profile Share Interested in reading more? Become a Member of Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more Already a member? Login Here 2/16/25, 9:48 Biologist Resigns Amid Sexual Misconduct Probe | The Scientist 3/7 February 2025, Issue 1 Nanoparticle Delivery System for Gene Therapy reimagined lipid vehicle for nucleic acids could overcome the limitations of current vectors Research Resources | Podcasts | Webinars | Videos | Infographics | eBooks 2/16/25, 9:48 Biologist Resigns Amid Sexual Misconduct Probe | The Scientist 4/7 Products | Product News Enhancing Therapeutic Antibody Discovery with Cross-Platform Workflows Considerations for Cell-Based Assays in Immuno-Oncology Research From Water Bears to Grizzly Bears: Unusual Animal Models Sex Differences in Neurological Research Scaling Lentiviral Vector Manufacturing for Optimal Productivity 2/16/25, 9:48 Biologist Resigns Amid Sexual Misconduct Probe | The Scientist 5/7 Stay Connected with Sign up for the News Alerts newsletter to keep up to date on the latest research news and scientific discoveries. Enter your e-mail Country* Please Select Putting Pathogens to the Test with Wastewater Surveillance Generating High-Quality mRNA for In Vivo Delivery with lipid nanoparticles Tecan introduces Veya: bringing digital, scalable automation to labs worldwide 2/16/25, 9:48 Biologist Resigns Amid Sexual Misconduct Probe | The Scientist 6/7 \u00a9 1986-2025 RESERVED. 2/16/25, 9:48 Biologist Resigns Amid Sexual Misconduct Probe | The Scientist 7/7", "7690_102.pdf": "\uf002 Former Professor Quits Chicago Post Amid Sex- Misconduct Probe Jason Lieb Donn Young By Marilyn H. Marks *86 Published Feb. 18, 2016 2 min read Jason Lieb, who abruptly left a position as director of Princeton\u2019s Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics in 2014, has resigned from his post at the University of Chicago after that university recommended he be fired \u201cfor violating the school\u2019s sexual-misconduct policy,\u201d according to The New York Times. Lieb, a molecular biologist whose work attracted millions of dollars in federal funding, joined Princeton from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, July 1, 2013. The Privacy - Terms 2/16/25, 9:48 Former Professor Quits Chicago Post Amid Sex-Misconduct Probe | Princeton Alumni Weekly 1/7 following February, Princeton announced his resignation, effective July 1, 2014. The Times reported that it had obtained a letter by investigators at Chicago that said Lieb had \u201cengaged in sexual activity with a student who was \u2018incapacitated due to alcohol and therefore could not consent.\u2019\u201d The letter also said that Leib had made unwelcome sexual advances to several female graduate students at an off-campus retreat, according to the Times. Lieb, who was on leave during the investigation, could not be reached for comment statement by the University of Chicago said \u201cthe findings, conclusions, and recommendations [of the investigation] will be part of the faculty member\u2019s employment record.\u201d (The statement did not identify Lieb but was sent in response to a query about him.) According to the Times, faculty members at Chicago had received an anonymous email before Lieb was hired stating that there had been allegations of sexual misconduct or harassment at Princeton and UNC, and that both universities had launched investigations. The article reported that a member of Chicago\u2019s hiring committee said Princeton was contacted and that the University \u201csaid there had been no sexual harassment investigation of Dr. Lieb while he was there. He said efforts to find out more about what prompted Dr. Lieb\u2019s departure proved fruitless.\u201d According to theTimes, Chicago faculty said they were told by Lieb \u201cthat Princeton faulted him for not informing them about a complaint of unwanted contact filed against him\u201d at UNC, but \u201che had seen no reason to do so\u201d because the complaint was not substantiated. Princeton spokesman Daniel Day said he could not respond to questions about Lieb\u2019s departure, whether there were allegations of sexual misconduct while he was on campus, or whether Princeton investigated the professor\u2019s conduct. \u201cOn those questions \u2014 we do not discuss personnel issues. That\u2019s our long-standing policy,\u201d Day said. The University also does not comment on what information may be provided in reference checks, he said. Sexual misconduct has been a growing concern at universities in recent years. In the face of federal pressure to act, Princeton 2/16/25, 9:48 Former Professor Quits Chicago Post Amid Sex-Misconduct Probe | Princeton Alumni Weekly 2/7 \u2014 like other universities \u2014 recently revised its sexual-assault policies and has aimed to clarify what is considered consent. In January, the journal Nature published an editorial referring to several instances of sexual harassment by faculty members at universities, saying it is a \u201cserious problem in science\u201d and concluding that recent incidents \u201care examples of a systemic underlying rot that is driving many young researchers out of science for good.\u201d Published in the March 2, 2016, Issue \uf075 1 Response stevewolock 8 Years Ago For the Record headline in the March 2 issue was unclear about the form of \u201ccharges\u201d of misconduct by former Princeton professor Jason Lieb. According to published reports, Lieb resigned from the University of Chicago during a probe of sexual-misconduct allegations. No criminal charges have been filed Your name Your email - Select 2/16/25, 9:48 Former Professor Quits Chicago Post Amid Sex-Misconduct Probe | Princeton Alumni Weekly 3/7 Princeton Donates Laptops for Incarcerated Students And the Grammy Goes To Wrestlers\u2019 New Path to Nationals Isobel Coleman \u201987 Calls Dismantling \u2018Short-Sighted\u2019 Full name and Princeton affiliation (if applicable) are required for all published comments. For more information, view our commenting policy. Responses are limited to 500 words for online and 250 words for print consideration 2/16/25, 9:48 Former Professor Quits Chicago Post Amid Sex-Misconduct Probe | Princeton Alumni Weekly 4/7 Heather Lynch \u201900 Uses Satellites to Study Penguins Is the Proposed Endowment Tax Another Cash Grab \u2018meteor is about to hit\u2019 higher education as Republicans look to increase the tax on endowments Ryan Quigley \u201920 Returns to New Orleans for Super Bowl After Terror Attack \uf075 1 Response 2/16/25, 9:48 Former Professor Quits Chicago Post Amid Sex-Misconduct Probe | Princeton Alumni Weekly 5/7 Newsletters. Get More From In Your Inbox The former Princeton football player was in the French Quarter when Tiger Bech \u201921 was among 14 people killed on New Year\u2019s Day Nikolche Gjorevski *12 Is Building Organoids for Biomedical Research \u2018We\u2019re interested in using these structures to study human biology and human disease\u2019 Latest News Disciplines Princetonians 2/16/25, 9:48 Former Professor Quits Chicago Post Amid Sex-Misconduct Probe | Princeton Alumni Weekly 6/7 Opinion History Tiger Travels Books PAWcasts Games Classifieds Parents and non-alumni can receive all 11 issues of for $30 a year ($34 for international addresses About Advertising Reader Services FAQs \ue61b \uf09a \uf16d \uf08c Contact Us Alumni Association Accessibility Help Princeton.edu \u00a9 2024 The Trustees of Princeton University 2/16/25, 9:48 Former Professor Quits Chicago Post Amid Sex-Misconduct Probe | Princeton Alumni Weekly 7/7", "7690_103.pdf": "Chicago Maroon \u2022 February 5, 2016 \u2022 after-sexual-misconduct-allegation/ Graduate Students United (GSU) has since condemned the University for hiring Professor Lieb in the first place. \u201cThe University\u2019s condemnable decision to hire Professor Lieb despite the concerns about his past conduct suggests a systemic unwillingness to regard sexual violence seriously. Graduate employees, like everyone on this campus, deserve the right to a workplace and university free of harassment, discrimination, and all forms of violence.'\u201d Professor Resigns After Sexual Misconduct Allegation Lieb had been dogged by allegations of sexual misconduct. By Wendy Lee Jason Lieb, a professor in the Department of Human Genetics, resigned a little over two weeks ago following allegations that he violated the University\u2019s sexual misconduct policies during a retreat organized by the molecular biosciences division. According to a University investigation letter obtained by The New York Times, he engaged in sexual activity with a student who was unable to consent because she was under the influence of alcohol. Lieb went on a leave of absence after the University began an investigation last November. He formally resigned on January 21. In an official statement, the University said that \u201csexual harassment and sexual misconduct are forms of sex discrimination that violate the standards of our community and will not be tolerated by the University of Chicago.\u201d The University also stated that it is in the process of providing increased training on \u201crelated issues\u201d to faculty members, graduate students, undergraduates, and staff members. This is not the first time Lieb has been accused of sexual harassment. From 2002 to 2013, Lieb taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and was the director of the Carolina Center for Genome Sciences, where he was promoted several times and was paid $172,000 as a distinguished professor of biology the year he left full-time employment. While Lieb was at UNC, a complaint was filed against him for unwanted contact. In December 2013, Lieb joined Princeton University faculty as a professor of molecular biology and as the director of the Lewis- Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics. He resigned on July 1, 2014, only seven months after he was first recruited. Yoav Gilad, a molecular biologist on the University of Chicago committee that unanimously voted to hire Lieb, told The New York Times that Princeton told the committee there had been no sexual harassment investigations into Lieb\u2019s conduct while he was at Princeton graduate student who worked with Lieb, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in the interest of her career prospects, said she was shocked and horrified by the events that have come to light. Cortesy of Donn Young. Dr. Jason Lieb, a professor in the Department of Human Genetics, resigned due to allegations of sexual misconduct. \u201cIn retrospect, it is clear that [Lieb] had a problem with drinking\u2026. He was an engaged and exciting scientist who fostered an incredible laboratory full of people doing amazing work never felt personally threatened or uncomfortable while we were talking science [though] his behavior bordered on inappropriate at times\u2014usually after drinking\u2014but those red flags are easy to pinpoint in hindsight.\u201d Almost immediately after his departure from Princeton, Lieb was hired by the University of Chicago in July 2014 following the resignation of two prominent faculty members in the University\u2019s biological sciences department (BSD). Before joining the Department of Human Genetics, faculty members in the molecular biology department at the University received emails from an anonymous address stating that Lieb had faced allegations of sexual misconduct at Princeton University and UNC. Last November, Sarah Wake, assistant provost and Title coordinator for the University, received a student complaint stating that Lieb inappropriately touched and pressured people to drink at an off-campus retreat held at the Eagle Ridge Inn in Galena, IL. Wake recommended Lieb\u2019s termination to Kenneth Polonsky, dean of the Division of Biological Sciences and of the Pritzker School of Medicine, after receiving these complaints, citing the \u201cbroad, negative impact the conduct has had on the educational and work environment of students, faculty, and staff.\u201d In January, Wake concluded that Lieb\u2019s conduct violated the University\u2019s Policy on Harassment, Discrimination and Sexual Misconduct. The University has previously been criticized for its handling of sexual assaults on campus. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Education\u2019s Office of Civil Rights launched a campus-wide investigation into the University\u2019s potential breach of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities. In an email addressed to graduate students, Dr. Victoria Prince, dean of graduate affairs, said she hoped students would be open about the incident while respecting the privacy of those who were directly affected by the events. \u201cWe hope to reinforce the message that sexual harassment and sexual misconduct are forms of sex discrimination that violate the standards of our community, and often the law, and will not be tolerated by the University of Chicago,\u201d Prince wrote. Peggy Mason, professor in the neurobiology department, said that Lieb\u2019s swift departure is indicative of the University\u2019s hardened stance against sexual assault think it\u2019s very noteworthy that Sarah Wake was hired. When the Provost and the President hired her\u2026they knew they were getting somebody who was going to effect change. She is a very effective person, [and think the Administration has spoken with their actions by hiring her. She has already demonstrated in this particular case that she will be an effective advocate for the safety of students in this academic institution today,\u201d Mason said.", "7690_104.pdf": "\uf053Archives Addresses Sexual Harassment Scandals By Emily Conover Sexual harassment scandals have rocked the astronomy community in recent months, as news outlets uncovered a number of university investigations which found that astronomy professors had harassed students. The stories have generated outrage among scientists, politicians, and the public, and spurred calls for harsher punishments for harassers. The incidents have served as a wake-up call for many in the scientific community. Both and the National Science Foundation issued statements that they do not tolerate sexual harassment. And Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) spoke about the issue on the House floor on January 12, saying she would introduce legislation to address sexual harassment in science. The events have also prompted increased action at APS, and reaffirmed the urgency of its efforts already underway. In October, exoplanet researcher Geoff Marcy resigned from the University of California, Berkeley, after BuzzFeed News revealed that the university had investigated him on multiple accusations of sexual harassment and found him in violation of university policy. Soon, more scandals followed. Caltech professor Christian Ott was placed on a year of unpaid leave for inappropriate interactions with graduate students. And a decade-old University of Arizona investigation resurfaced, detailing inappropriate behavior by astronomy educator Timothy Slater (now at the University of Wyoming). The problem is by no means confined to the astronomy community. University of Chicago molecular biologist Jason Lieb resigned in February after he was found to have harassed students think most women in the field would say it\u2019s a serious problem,\u201d says Kate Kirby think most women would say that they\u2019ve experienced harassment, inappropriate comments, and inappropriate behaviors.\u201d Also, the leadership of some divisions has raised concerns about \uf0c9 2/16/25, 9:48 Addresses Sexual Harassment Scandals | American Physical Society 1/5 harassment with senior management efforts to address harassment include a code of conduct for meetings, approved in November 2015. The code states, in part, that all participants \u201cwill conduct themselves in a professional manner that is welcoming to all participants and free from any form of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.\u201d The code lays out consequences for transgressions. \u201cViolations of this code of conduct policy should be reported to meeting organizers staff, or the Director of Meetings. Sanctions may range from verbal warning, to ejection from the meeting without refund, to notifying appropriate authorities.\u201d The full code of conduct is available at the Code of Contact for Meetings page think it\u2019s just incredibly important that we make sure that people are able to practice physics without being bullied, harassed, or made to feel uncomfortable,\u201d Kirby says. \u201cWe have to establish \u2014 especially at our meetings \u2014 an environment where people feel safe and can benefit from participating fully senior management is now getting legal advice on what actions the Society can and should take upon accusations of harassment think needs to be prepared to handle whatever comes,\u201d says Kirby. \u201cI\u2019m very concerned with setting up the appropriate due process because it is really, really important for a society to try to treat people fairly in such situations.\u201d The code of conduct is just the first step in addressing harassment at meetings, says Director of Education and Diversity Ted Hodapp. \u201cThe second step is to provide training for all staff members and all session chairs to know what to do in case they witness or experience unprofessional behavior.\u201d Such behavior is not limited to sexual harassment, and includes other kinds of unprofessional conduct, such as yelling at speakers. Prior to the 2016 March and April meetings, harassment training will be provided to senior management, certain Education and Diversity staff, and all meetings staff. The training instructs employees how to respond if an attendee at a meeting has concerns about harassment or other inappropriate behavior. Additional staff present at the meetings will receive basic information on what to do if an attendee approaches them with a complaint, including directing the person to staff that have received the harassment training. Session chairs at the meetings will receive written instructions. Unfortunately, there\u2019s little data on sexual harassment specific to physics, says Lauren Aycock, a graduate student at Cornell and the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland. To try to get a better handle on how prevalent such issues are in the physics community, Aycock worked 2/16/25, 9:48 Addresses Sexual Harassment Scandals | American Physical Society 2/5 with to include questions about harassment on a survey taken by participants in the Society\u2019s recent Conference for Undergraduate Women in Physics. In preliminary, unpublished results from that survey, shared in an interview with News, Aycock found that about half of the undergraduate women stated they had witnessed inappropriate comments \u201coften\u201d or \u201csometimes.\u201d And about half said that they had personally experienced such conduct. \u201cTo me, this is saying \u2018This is a problem and we should address it,\u2019\u201d Aycock says. The Committee on the Status of Women in Physics (CSWP) has formed a three-person subcommittee tasked with studying harassment issues and considering how should respond to reports of harassment. The subcommittee will formulate recommendations that they will bring to the full in early March, and then to leadership. \u201cWe\u2019re really trying to both understand the scope of the problems and understand what the possible interventions are at this point,\u201d says Patricia Rankin of the University of Colorado, Boulder, the leader of the subcommittee. Providing a supportive, inclusive environment at meetings is a top priority, Rankin says. \u201cWe\u2019ll be looking at what happens in the March and April meetings.\u201d Then, by the time of the next round of meetings, in 2017, \u201cWe would expect to have something which is much more fully developed at that point,\u201d Rankin says. In the long term, the subcommittee will also tackle questions of how to investigate complaints and how to prevent harassment from occurring in the first place just don\u2019t think we can afford to lose people from physics because people are behaving inappropriately,\u201d says Rankin. \u201cThere\u2019s so much that is so exciting about physics that to me it\u2019s a tragedy if people are dissuaded from coming into physics.\u201d Join your Society If you embrace scientific discovery, truth and integrity, partnership, inclusion, and lifelong curiosity, this is your professional home. 2/16/25, 9:48 Addresses Sexual Harassment Scandals | American Physical Society 3/5 Join now \uf061 Get involved Advocate for physics Public engagement Careers in physics Learning resources Inclusive physics International engagement Read and publish Physical Review journals Physics Magazine News Open access Submit research Meet and connect Event calendar Webinars Communities Code of conduct Our Society About us Join or renew membership Newsroom Work at Store Donate Contact us American Physical Society 1 Physics Ellipse College Park 20740 \u00a9 2025 American Physical Society | Privacy policy 2/16/25, 9:48 Addresses Sexual Harassment Scandals | American Physical Society 4/5 \ue61b\uf167\uf39e \uf08c\uf16d\uf1d7\uf143 2/16/25, 9:48 Addresses Sexual Harassment Scandals | American Physical Society 5/5", "7690_105.pdf": "Jason Lieb. LinkedIn University of Chicago professor says her alleged 'sexual predator' colleague never should have been hired Abby Jackson Feb 4, 2016, 10:46 Jason Lieb \u2014 a prominent molecular biologist at the University of Chicago \u2014 recently resigned after the school accused him of sexually preying on female graduate students. One of his colleagues told us he never should have been hired in the first place. Lieb, 43, had faced allegations of sexual misconduct at The University of North Carolina (UNC) and Princeton University, where he previously worked, according to The New York Times. He had also admitted to having an affair with a female graduate student, according to The Times think the question of should he have been hired or not would come down to there were enough warning signs that perhaps he shouldn't have been hired,\" Peggy Mason, a professor in the neurobiology department of the University of Chicago, told Business Insider. 2/16/25, 9:49 Peggy Mason Comments on Jason Lieb Sexual Misconduct Claims - Business Insider 1/3 Mason's position echoes the statements she put forth in a blog post called \"Jason Lieb is now publicly exposed as a sexual predator.\" At the University of Chicago, Lieb was accused of making unwanted sexual advances toward several female graduate students, according to a university investigation letter obtained by the The New York Times. That investigation also noted that Lieb was accused of having sex at an off-campus event with one female graduate student who was \u201cincapacitated due to alcohol and therefore could not consent.\u201d Lieb's resignation is again touching off a debate about the frequency of sexual harassment in higher education \u2014 especially in the science community. In September, an astrophysics professor at Caltech was placed on unpaid leave for \"unambiguous gender-based harassment,\" according to a letter from the university president. It's also raising debate about what colleges must do to prevent these scenarios in the first place. For her part, Mason suggests the university's mistake came when the search committee hired him even though it knew Lieb had admitted to having a romantic relationship with a graduate student in his lab at the University of North Carolina that lasted for several months. Mason calls this admission on the part of Lieb \"an enormous red flag.\" At UNC, an investigation found no evidence to support the claims 2/16/25, 9:49 Peggy Mason Comments on Jason Lieb Sexual Misconduct Claims - Business Insider 2/3 The University of Chicago. Flickr/Quinn Dombrowski of misconduct, according to The Times. Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for Princeton told The Times it does not comment on personnel matters. Although Mason feels the University of Chicago missed the opportunity to make the right decision during the hiring process, she says she's reassured by the university's quick response in investigating the allegations of misconduct at the school. \"I'm very satisfied with the university's response,\" she said. \"It did a service to the rest of the academic community which previous institutions, who appear to have had the chance to do, did not in fact do.\" Business Insider reached out to the University of Chicago and Lieb, and we will update this post if we hear back. 2/16/25, 9:49 Peggy Mason Comments on Jason Lieb Sexual Misconduct Claims - Business Insider 3/3", "7690_106.pdf": "(/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 1/13 When we talk about harassment in the sciences, the focus is often on the most scandalous cases\u2014and there are plenty of recent ones to choose from, such as the one ( that Harassment in Science (/AUTHOR/KATIE_L._BURKE) Recent studies demonstrate an unwelcoming workplace for people of color and women in fields, point to a need to raise awareness among men and leaders, and elicit calls for cultural change 262 DOI: 10.1511/2017.105.5.262 (HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.1511/2017.1 (/NODE/4087 2017 105 5 (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 2/13 induced astronomer Geoffrey Marcy to retire in 2015 from the University of California, Berkeley, amid public outrage, or the incidents that sparked the ( investigation.html) resignations ( resigns-after-investigations-sexual-misconduct) last year of molecular biologist Jason Lieb from University of Chicago and paleoanthropologist Brian Richmond from the American Museum of Natural History slew of scandals and lawsuits over the past several years have demonstrated that scientists guilty of sexual harassment have repeatedly been allowed to continue their careers, enabling them to find new victims. But focusing on headline-making cases may avert attention from the underlying issues: institutional tolerance for patterns of behavior, legal or illegal, that create an unwelcoming environment for women and underrepresented minorities\u2014 and an incentive structure in academic science that resists changing this atmosphere survey ( 474 astronomers that Kathryn Clancy and others published recently in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets indicates that 40 percent of women astronomers of color and 27 percent of white women astronomers reported feeling unsafe in the workplace because of their gender or sex, and 28 percent of women of color reported feeling unsafe as a result of their race. However, most white male respondents were unaware of their colleagues\u2019 experiences, a result that points to a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed. For example, 40 percent of the women astronomers reported hearing sexist remarks \u201csometimes or often\u201d from their peers, in comparison with 23 percent of the men. And 21 percent of women reported hearing such remarks \u201csometimes or often\u201d from their supervisors, whereas only 5 percent of men reported observing such behavior. \"By focusing on the most egregious harassment, we miss the areas where there is lots of opportunity to change.\" (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 3/13 The gap between astronomers of color and white astronomers was similarly large with regard to racist remarks: Twenty-eight percent of astronomers of color reported witnessing racist remarks by peers, but only 9 percent of white astronomers reported it. Katharine Lee, one of the survey\u2019s coauthors and a graduate student in Clancy\u2019s laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, notes that white men, \u201ceven though they are the majority of the workforce in science\u2026are either not seeing [the harassment of others] or they\u2019re not taking the time to see these problems in their surroundings.\u201d The gaps between the experiences of people of color and whites in the science workplace, and between experiences of women and men, indicate a need for building awareness and providing training lot of places [in academia] don\u2019t even have diversity and cultural awareness training,\u201d Lee says. \u201cThey just have general harassment training, and it doesn\u2019t address a lot of issues around cultural stereotyping that can be problematic in the sciences.\u201d One can at the very least start building awareness, she says, by first considering a few questions: \u201cDoes everybody look the same where you work? Have you ever had people stop to think about why that is? Is it on purpose, or is it accidental? Are the tasks in your workplace being distributed fairly? Do you know if there are policies in your workplace [for reporting harassment]? If you don\u2019t know, do you even know whom to ask? Would you feel comfortable in your workplace reporting a problematic behavior?\u201d She asks these questions, she says, because \u201ceven if they don\u2019t know of scandals or haven\u2019t seen them in their own workplace, these smaller things lead up to an environment that makes a scandal more likely or makes it more likely that the scandal will be swept under the rug.\u201d Following standard methodology in the social sciences for studying underrepresented groups, the researchers note that the results from the survey are not necessarily representative of the prevalence of these behaviors, but do indicate their widespread presence. They also note that the survey numbers are probably low, given that these behaviors are often underreported. The workplace experiences of scientists of other gender identities need to be explored too; a small number of nonbinary gender and transgender people responded to the survey, but not enough to include in statistical comparisons. (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 4/13 Differences in workplace experience have noticeable effects. Clancy\u2019s team found that negative experiences affected women\u2019s career opportunities: Eighteen percent of women of color and 12 percent of white women in the survey said that they skipped professional events because they did not feel they would be safe at them. The number of women of color on science faculties has recently decreased ( edu.s3.amazonaws.com/psycd/1/documents/Armstrong%20and%20Jovanovic- Starting%20at%20the%20Crossroads-JWMSE-June%202015.pdf), even as the number of white women faculty members has increased. Other studies ( Farr%20and%20Cortina.pdf ) have shown that both women and people of color experience more workplace incivilities than their white male colleagues, even when these incivilities are not explicitly based on gender or race. Although this phenomenon isn\u2019t confined to the research community, there are aspects of a science career that can exacerbate the problem. \u201cHarassment is not a unique problem,\u201d says Lee. But she points out that lab culture has more \u201cgray areas between when it\u2019s work or not, as opposed to standard office work\u201d and that the way power dynamics are structured makes it difficult for victims to feel safe calling out problematic behavior. For example, the person an early- career researcher works for, their advisor, will also be the person who evaluates whether or not they get a job. (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 5/13 Photo/Jeff Chiu The problems Clancy highlighted among astronomers are found in many fields of science. Her 2014 survey ( women doing scientific fieldwork found that 64 percent had experienced harassment and 22 percent had experienced sexual assault while in the field. Remote work often means that it is unclear which institution is responsible, and colleagues work in close conditions. The problem is further complicated by a power dynamic characteristic of these kinds of mistreatment: Women were mostly harassed or assaulted by superiors. Other ( studies ( ) have also shown that people who are more junior in hierarchy are more likely to experience incivility, discrimination, and harassment\u2014especially if they are women. Lee adds that managers are chosen differently in academic science than in many other workplaces. She says lot of people [in academia] get promoted because they\u2019re good at a topic or skill, and they\u2019ve never been given the management training that people in other fields (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 6/13 might have gotten.\u201d The funding incentives in academic science also deter institutions from addressing harassment if a perpetrator is bringing in money. \u201cThere are people who feel like they can\u2019t afford to fire somebody who has brought in a big grant, because they need that money to fund their other operations,\u201d Lee explains. \u201cWe need to think more about how to fund good science and good scientists in a way that doesn\u2019t place departments in this financial constraint.\u201d Revamping Legal Processes Funding seems to have been a factor in the initial handling of the Marcy case; at first, Marcy was allowed to continue working at the university, even though four women had come forward alleging his inappropriate behavior and an investigation found that he had violated ( Geoffrey-Marcy.pdf) the university\u2019s sexual harassment policy. These high-profile cases and research publications such as Clancy\u2019s have brought renewed attention from the scientific community to this issue meeting of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) ad hoc committee ( studying the effects of sexual harassment in academia met for the third time on June 20\u201321 in Irvine, California, to discuss the approaches that organizations and individuals can take to address sexual harassment in the scientific workplace. Committee members are compiling a report to guide leaders in science, and will meet again in October. At the June meeting, several leaders from the University of California (UC) system discussed their efforts to change the legal framework and workplace culture following the high-profile Marcy case. After media stories about Marcy broke in 2015 and several other Berkeley faculty resigned ( violence-harassment-cases-scandal ) after sexual harassment charges in 2016, the university\u2019s faculty, outraged at the lack of discipline in the Marcy case and their lack of say in the matter, (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 7/13 called for change. The system has dealt with this criticism head-on, putting new policies ( ) in place that address past problems, such as a lack of consistency, transparency, and faculty involvement. Enobong (Anna) Branch, the chancellor\u2019s faculty advisor for diversity and inclusive excellence at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a social science expert on diversity issues in the workplace, observes that the system\u2019s new legal framework \u201chas clear authority lines, along with time lines and feedback loops, and they revised their process to allow for faculty feedback.\u201d At the June meeting, she noted ( width=640&height=360&enableInfoAndActivity=true&defaultDrawer=&autoPlay=true&mute=false)tha the system has been engaged in a four- to five-year project concerning campus climate. \u201cIt started with a survey of all the systems, followed with reports, and then the establishment of equity officers who have formalized processes,\u201d explained Branch. \u201cOn campuses across the country, these processes are not always that clear.\u201d These changes stand in clear contrast with the way things once were at Berkeley\u2014and the way things still are at many other academic institutions around the country. Engineer Alice Agogino of Berkeley said during the June meeting that these policy changes have greatly affected the way such cases are handled was chair of our academic senate about a decade ago. The process then was that the provost and the chancellor had the authority to make decisions themselves, without involving any faculty. There was no transparency; nobody would hear about it; and it never made it to a faculty committee. Some of the high-profile cases like the Marcy case never went to the faculty senate either, because of fear [that members would stand up for accused colleagues]\u2014unjustifiably so, because at Berkeley it was the faculty that pushed back and said, \u2018You should have been more aggressive.\u2019\u201d (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 8/13 Cultivating Inclusivity Although improving the legal framework is imperative, that alone will not be enough to fully cultivate a workplace environment that feels safe and welcoming to diverse scientists, Branch points out. At the meeting, she noted that \u201cthere are real limitations in terms of faculty and department dynamics that the legal framework around harassment doesn\u2019t cover well.\u201d \"If the leader tolerates sexual harassment, more men will do it.\" To address the broader environment, in her first year in her current position Branch undertook a survey of the campus climate, the results of which will be published later this year. Campus climate surveys help academic institutions get a sense of how different people experience their campus\u2014and what gaps need to be addressed. Branch says these surveys help institutions decide what an inclusive environment means to their community. Many problematic behaviors on the spectrum of gender harassment would not be dispelled by legal consequences alone. She explains, \u201cGender harassment is behavior that\u2019s not necessarily sexual\u2014it\u2019s not intending to lead toward a relationship\u2014but it [encompasses] broader things like objectification of or disdain for women. That [type of] gender harassment in and of itself is not illegal, but it can create a hostile environment. The most egregious harassment is a fraction of what most women experience on a daily basis. By focusing on the most egregious, we miss the areas where there is a lot of opportunity to change.\u201d (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 9/13 Grassroots Efforts to Reduce Risks Some victims of harassment have not waited for academic leaders to come around. Astronomer Heather Flewelling, now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Hawai'i, learned of the difficulty victims of harassment encounter, she said, when she was stalked by a colleague. When the stalker showed up at her new apartment soon after she\u2019d begun graduate school, she reported the episode to the police, who responded that they could not do anything without more proof. Later, at a professional meeting, the stalker showed up repeatedly. \u201cIt was terrifying,\u201d she said, simply, as she explained ( her story ( at the meeting. The professional society sponsoring the meeting at which Flewelling was stalked, the American Astronomical Society (AAS), had a code of conduct that prohibited sexual harassment. To report it, however, she had to seek out a senior colleague, tell them her story, and wait for the reporting process to play out. In the meantime, Flewelling had to either leave the conference for the sake of her safety or persevere under conditions of threat. Spurred by this experience, Flewelling colaunched a grassroots organization called Astronomy Allies, which offers astronomers who have experienced harassment a safe space to be listened to and, if they choose, a place to officially report their harassment or to be supported in other ways. Allies in the program are vetted as first responders to victims of gender harassment. The Allies also began to offer safe walks in groups back to hotel rooms from an unofficial party that many astronomers attend for networking while at the meeting. Astronomy Allies continues to grow and look for ways to improve its support. In addition to cofounding Astronomy Allies, Flewelling gave feedback that they have since used to improve their reporting and response procedures ( ). (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 10/13 Need for Real Leadership Although the ingenuity and determination driving grassroots efforts such as Astronomy Allies is worthy of praise, the need for such organizations suggests a lack of leadership on this issue. Paula Johnson, president of Wellesley College and one of the cochairs of the committee, made this observation during a panel discussion at the June meeting: \u201cSome of these issues are taken up by the most junior people, who have the most at risk. If this is going on at the meetings and senior people know, then why is it, in fact, that the majority of the burden is on relatively junior people?\u201d Involving men in instituting change is essential. If men see sexual harassment as strictly a women\u2019s issue or don\u2019t consider it a problem, reforms will stall. Lee says, \u201cYou would be hard pressed to find a woman who would say that she hasn\u2019t experienced this in her career. People who refuse to see this as a problem are the people that others won\u2019t report incidents to. They help contribute to a workplace that feels hostile and where people don\u2019t feel safe.\u201d Indeed, research by psychologist John Pryor of Illinois State University, who is on the committee, shows that men who hold sexist beliefs are more likely to harass in certain contexts. \u201cIf the leader tolerates sexual harassment, more men will do it,\u201d Pryor said at the June meeting. One of the panelists at the June meeting, Jackson Katz of the Mentors in Violence Prevention, put it bluntly: \u201cThe missing piece has been men\u2019s leadership.\u201d Katz educates men about preventing harassment in a variety of contexts. He says that men have very few opportunities to open up about the ways that gender violence has affected their lives. He elaborated, \u201cOne of the key predictors of whether a man will challenge another man or interrupt another man\u2019s abuse is if he thinks that other men agree it\u2019s a problem and that he\u2019s speaking for others who might be agreeing.\u201d Katz said he would like to see science institutions demand that leaders be knowledgeable about these issues. Researchers of and advocates for diversity and inclusion are in agreement that bridging differences of experience in the science workplace, as well as the knowledge gaps about these differences, will require new policies, training, vision, incentives, and hiring practices. It is no (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 11/13 small task, but the good news is that there are clear steps institutions and individuals can take to move forward. American Scientist Comments and Discussion To discuss our articles or comment on them, please share them and tag American Scientist on social media platforms. Here are links to our profiles on Twitter ( Facebook ( and LinkedIn ( scientist/). If we re-share your post, we will moderate comments/discussion following our comments policy ( First Person: John G. Hildebrand (/Article/First-Person-John-G- Hildebrand (/TOPICS- NAMES/ALL) (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 12/13 (/TOPICS-NAMES/ALL?FIELD_MEDIA_TID=338 (/TOPICS-NAMES/ALL?FIELD_MEDIA_TID=103 (/TOPICS-NAMES/ALL?FIELD_MEDIA_TID=102 (/USER?DESTINATION=NODE/4095 Publication of ( \u00a9 2025 Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Honor Society (/magazine/issues/2025/january-february (HTTPS://WWW.SIGMAXI.ORG/ABOUT/DONATE) Few things in life are more satisfying yet... (/) 2/16/25, 9:49 Harassment in Science | American Scientist 13/13", "7690_107.pdf": "University of Chicago professor resigns following sexual harassment allegations Wednesday, February 3, 2016 (WLS) -- University of Chicago professor Jason Lieb, a prominent molecular biologist, has resigned as he was being investigated for sexual harassment. The university claims Lieb violated the school's misconduct policy. He's accused of making unwelcome sexual advances to several female students at an off-campus retreat. images 24/7 Live 14\u00b0 2/16/25, 9:49 Jason Lieb, University of Chicago professor, resigns following sexual harassment allegations - ABC7 Chicago 1/3 After an investigation, the university recommended Lieb be fired from his job, but he resigned before then. Copyright \u00a9 2025 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved. Related Topics Topics Home Weather Traffic Watch Photos Apps Regions Chicago & Suburban Cook Co. North Suburbs West Suburbs South Suburbs Indiana More Content Local News U.S. & World I-Team 2/16/25, 9:49 Jason Lieb, University of Chicago professor, resigns following sexual harassment allegations - ABC7 Chicago 2/3 Privacy Policy Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Children's Privacy Policy Your State Privacy Rights Terms of Use Interest-Based Ads Public Inspection File Applications Copyright \u00a9 2025 ABC, Inc Chicago. All Rights Reserved. Politics Entertainment Consumer & Business Company About ABC7 Chicago ABC7 Newsteam Bios Community Journalism Listings ABC7 Jobs - Internships Contests, Promotions & Rules Community 2/16/25, 9:49 Jason Lieb, University of Chicago professor, resigns following sexual harassment allegations - ABC7 Chicago 3/3"} |
8,693 | Joshua Katz | Princeton University | [
"8693_101.pdf",
"8693_102.pdf",
"8693_103.pdf",
"8693_104.pdf",
"8693_105.pdf",
"8693_106.pdf",
"8693_107.pdf"
] | {"8693_101.pdf": "By Chantal Da Silva May 24, 2022, 9:56 Princeton fires tenured professor over sexual misconduct probe The decision came after an investigation found that the professor, Joshua Katz, had not fully cooperated with the inquiry into a past consensual relationship with a student Blair Hall at Princeton University tenured professor at the school was fired Monday after an investigation found he had not fully cooperated with a probe into a past consensual relationship with a student. Loop Images / Universal Images Group via Getty Images 2/16/25, 9:50 Princeton fires Joshua Katz, a tenured professor, over sexual misconduct probe 1/3 tenured professor at Princeton University was fired \"effective immediately\" on Monday after an investigation found he had not been fully honest or cooperative in a probe into a past sexual relationship with an undergraduate student. In a statement, Princeton said Joshua Katz, a classics professor, had been dismissed based on a \"detailed written complaint from an alumna who had a consensual relationship with Dr. Katz while she was an undergraduate under his academic supervision.\" The former student filed a complaint in 2021 over the relationship, which took place in 2006 and 2007. The decision to move forward with firing Katz came days after the university's president, Christopher Eisgruber, recommended that the school's board of trustees terminate Katz's employment in a letter, according to The Wall Street Journal, which reviewed the document. The letter, dated May 10, was based on a report written last November and signed by faculty dean Gene Jarrett, according to the newspaper. The report said Katz had failed in 2018 to fully cooperate with investigators looking into the consensual sexual relationship he had with the student starting in 2006, after her junior year, and continuing until her graduation, The Wall Street Journal reported. The 2018 probe found that Katz had violated school policy by entering into a sexual relationship with a student. Princeton suspended him for a year without pay. The new investigation, prompted by the student's letter, found multiple instances where Katz had \"misrepresented facts or failed to be straightforward\" during the 2018 probe, \"including a successful effort to discourage the alumna from participating and cooperating after she expressed the intent to do so,\" Princeton said in its statement. The school added Katz had exposed the student to harm by discouraging her from seeking mental health care, despite her being in distress in what it described as \"an effort to conceal a relationship he knew was prohibited.\" \"These actions were not only egregious violations of University policy, but also entirely inconsistent with his obligations as a member of the Faculty,\" it said. Still, supporters of Katz called the push to fire him a political move, with some accusing Princeton of punishing him for speaking out against some of the school's efforts to address its racist history in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd. 2/16/25, 9:50 Princeton fires Joshua Katz, a tenured professor, over sexual misconduct probe 2/3 Katz had written an online essay in July 2020 criticizing an open letter signed by students and faculty calling for a review into racism at Princeton. In his essay, he said he was \"embarrassed\" for colleagues who signed the letter, saying its demands could pose a potential threat to free speech. The professor also called the student Black Justice League at Princeton a \"small terrorist organization,\" drawing condemnation from Eisgruber, who, in an editorial published days later, branded Katz's comments \u201cirresponsible and offensive.\u201d In its statement on Monday, Princeton did not make any mention of Katz's comments. The professor told The New York Times that he was \"angry and heartbroken\" over his firing. He said Princeton had treated him with \"gross unfairness\" after he had given his \"entire career\" to the school. Katz's attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Chantal Da Silva Chantal Da Silva reports on world news for News Digital and is based in London. 2/16/25, 9:50 Princeton fires Joshua Katz, a tenured professor, over sexual misconduct probe 3/3", "8693_102.pdf": "\uf002 Trustees Fire Tenured Professor, Citing Investigation of Misconduct Classics professor Joshua Katz was fired in May By Elisabeth H. Daugherty Published June 23, 2022 3 min read There are two schools of thought on why Princeton fired tenured classics professor Joshua Katz in May. One, from the University\u2019s statement, says that new information emerged about a consensual relationship Katz had with one of his students about 15 years ago. The other headlines articles like one Katz penned in The Wall Street Journal the evening he was let go: \u201cPrinceton Fed Me to the Cancel Culture Mob.\u201d \u201cWhoever you are and whatever your beliefs,\u201d he wrote, \u201cthis should terrify you.\u201d The University says Katz\u2019s firing wasn\u2019t about free speech. Rather, its statement says that the woman Katz was involved with came forward in 2021, after declining to participate in a 2018 investigation that led to Katz\u2019s yearlong suspension. Her decision to speak in 2021 prompted a new investigation that showed Katz \u201cmisrepresented facts or failed to be straightforward\u201d in the initial investigation and had discouraged the woman from speaking and from \u201cseeking mental health care although he knew her to be in distress, all in an effort to conceal a relationship he knew was prohibited by University rules,\u201d according to the statement. Privacy - Terms 2/16/25, 9:50 Trustees Fire Tenured Professor, Citing Investigation of Misconduct | Princeton Alumni Weekly 1/9 But Katz\u2019s supporters trace his firing to 2020, when he wrote an opinion piece on the website Quillette arguing that Princeton faculty members were going too far in their push for anti-racism changes on campus. He was particularly criticized \u2014 including by President Eisgruber \u201983 \u2014 for calling the student-run Black Justice League \u201ca small local terrorist organization that made life miserable for the many (including the many black students) who did not agree with its members\u2019 demands.\u201d Katz says that because he dared to cross the \u201cmob,\u201d The Daily Princetonian began its own investigation. In February 2021, the newspaper published a story citing alumni who accused Katz of inappropriate conduct with female students. Katz has rejected the assertions that he had discouraged the woman from seeking care and coming forward, writing that she refused \u201cof her own volition.\u201d \u201cThe University\u2019s decision will have a powerful chilling effect on free speech,\u201d Katz\u2019s attorney, Samantha Harris \u201999, told The New York Times, \u201cbecause anyone who might wish to express a controversial opinion knows that they must first ask themselves if their personal life can stand up to the kind of relentless scrutiny that Dr. Katz\u2019s life was subjected to.\u201d Neither Katz nor Harris responded to PAW\u2019s requests for comment. In an essay published online after Katz\u2019s firing, his wife, Solveig Gold \u201917, a senior research assistant in Princeton\u2019s James Madison Program and a classics doctoral candidate at the University of Cambridge, said the University has subjected him to double jeopardy, punishing him twice for one relationship with a student. She said many have turned on him, but am proud to be married to a man who owned up to his one big mistake and repented for it.\u201d Katz was hired by Princeton in 1998. He was a faculty representative to PAW\u2019s advisory board, with a term set to expire in June 2022. Eisgruber brought up Katz\u2019s case during his Reunions forum May 21, two days before Katz\u2019s dismissal, saying he couldn\u2019t comment on pending personnel matters but defending Princeton\u2019s approach to free speech. He noted that Princeton has adopted the Chicago Principles, a commitment to free 2/16/25, 9:50 Trustees Fire Tenured Professor, Citing Investigation of Misconduct | Princeton Alumni Weekly 2/9 expression, and said he has enforced them \u201cin a number of circumstances involving very uncomfortable speech,\u201d including in a case where a faculty member used the N-word and in conversations about the rights of transgender people. Eisgruber added that the University has rules for faculty that place restrictions on sexual misconduct. \u201cWe take those rules very seriously here, and we believe that a faculty member is bound by those obligations, regardless of how distinguished they may be, and regardless of what their political views may be,\u201d he said. Published in the July 2022 Issue \uf075 2 Responses Harlan Tonie Wright \u201963 2 Years Ago PAW\u2019s Report on Dismissal of Professor Katz The Princeton Alumni Weekly (PAW) has finally reported on the case of professor of classics Joshua Katz and the success of Princeton University in defenestrating him. The brief article posed two different cases, one for his dismissal made by the University and one by Professor Katz in his defense, both suffering from a paucity of facts and information in PAW\u2019s article. The University\u2019s case originated in a consensual relationship that Katz had with a student in 2006-07, for which he had been reprimanded and disciplined after a 2018 investigation for breaking University rules governing faculty-student relationships. The alumna (former student) did not participate in that investigation. In 2021 the investigation was reopened with participation of the alumna and in light of putative new revelations. Katz was accused of misrepresentation of facts and lack of straightforwardness in the 2018 investigation \u201cin an effort to conceal a relationship he knew was prohibited by university rules,\u201d according to the University\u2019s statement. One wonders why this contravention of University rules, to which Katz admitted in 2018, was not sufficient for his dismissal in 2018 but is in 2021. (For details based on more thorough journalistic inquiry see coverage in the Washington Free Beacon on May 17 and June 24.) Only a malignantly biased reading of the reported email history between Katz and the alumna could lead to the inference that he had no regard for her well-being and was not genuinely sorry for the pain he had caused her. The fact that this correspondence continued for 15 years is testimony to his continuing concern. 2/16/25, 9:50 Trustees Fire Tenured Professor, Citing Investigation of Misconduct | Princeton Alumni Weekly 3/9 What had happened between 2018 and 2021 to change the University\u2019s posture and lead it to inflict this double jeopardy? Katz\u2019s case claimed that the reopening of the earlier misconduct investigation was a pretext for punishing him because of a statement he made in a Quillette article criticizing the Black Justice League as a \u201csmall local terrorist organization omits to mention, in support of Katz\u2019s case, that the University doctored his statement from that article to make him into a poster boy for systemic racism in a freshman orientation video. This was a clear case of slander and character assassination as well as a dismissal of the Chicago Principles to which President Eisgruber with a straight face vigorously claimed the University adhered. Eisgruber contorted the Chicago Principles by intoning that Katz had some obligation under those principles to exercise his free speech \u201cresponsibly.\u201d Princeton has earned its last place standing in the Ivy League for free speech and 135th in the rankings. PAW\u2019s report on page 16 of its latest issue is an unremarkable professional obituary of an eminent Princeton scholar and teacher. But take heart and read on to page 24 where there is cause for celebration at the filling of four new positions related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, more than making up for the loss of one eminent faculty member. Perhaps should remove its masthead claim to be \u201cAn editorially independent magazine by alumni for alumni Ana Samuel \u201900 2 Years Ago More Voices on the Katz Firing noticed your very circumspect reporting of Professor Joshua Katz\u2019s firing (On the Campus, July/August issue wish you would report more thoroughly on what\u2019s going on, letting both sides speak. The vox populi of Princeton is complex. It\u2019s really quite a riveting drama unfolding and think alumni should know, as it matters whether Princeton is being led with integrity. For additional views recommend: mathematics professor Sergiu Klainerman\u2019s essay for Tablet, \u201cAt Princeton, One Small Step for Free Speech, One Giant Leap for Censorship\u201d; politics professor Robert P. George\u2019s essay in Quillette, \u201cThe Case of Joshua Katz\u201d; another Tablet essay by former Scheide Librarian Paul Needham, \u201cPrinceton\u2019s Buried Bodies\u201d; University of Chicago professor Clifford Ando \u201990\u2019s piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education \u201cPrinceton Betrays Its Principles\u201d; and the group Princetonians for Free Speech 2/16/25, 9:50 Trustees Fire Tenured Professor, Citing Investigation of Misconduct | Princeton Alumni Weekly 4/9 Princeton Donates Laptops for Incarcerated Students Your name Your email - Select Full name and Princeton affiliation (if applicable) are required for all published comments. For more information, view our commenting policy. Responses are limited to 500 words for online and 250 words for print consideration 2/16/25, 9:50 Trustees Fire Tenured Professor, Citing Investigation of Misconduct | Princeton Alumni Weekly 5/9 And the Grammy Goes To Wrestlers\u2019 New Path to Nationals Isobel Coleman \u201987 Calls Dismantling \u2018Short-Sighted Heather Lynch \u201900 Uses Satellites to Study Penguins Is the Proposed Endowment Tax Another Cash Grab \u2018meteor is about to hit\u2019 higher education as Republicans look to increase the tax on endowments \uf075 1 Response 2/16/25, 9:50 Trustees Fire Tenured Professor, Citing Investigation of Misconduct | Princeton Alumni Weekly 6/9 Ryan Quigley \u201920 Returns to New Orleans for Super Bowl After Terror Attack The former Princeton football player was in the French Quarter when Tiger Bech \u201921 was among 14 people killed on New Year\u2019s Day Nikolche Gjorevski *12 Is Building Organoids for Biomedical Research \u2018We\u2019re interested in using these structures to study human biology and human disease\u2019 2/16/25, 9:50 Trustees Fire Tenured Professor, Citing Investigation of Misconduct | Princeton Alumni Weekly 7/9 Newsletters. Get More From In Your Inbox Latest News Disciplines Princetonians Opinion History Tiger Travels Books PAWcasts Games Classifieds Parents and non-alumni can receive all 11 issues of for $30 a year ($34 for international addresses). About Advertising Reader Services FAQs \ue61b \uf09a \uf16d \uf08c 2/16/25, 9:50 Trustees Fire Tenured Professor, Citing Investigation of Misconduct | Princeton Alumni Weekly 8/9 Contact Us Alumni Association Accessibility Help Princeton.edu \u00a9 2024 The Trustees of Princeton University 2/16/25, 9:50 Trustees Fire Tenured Professor, Citing Investigation of Misconduct | Princeton Alumni Weekly 9/9", "8693_103.pdf": "This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit Follow Princeton Board Fires Tenured Professor Joshua Katz, Citing Sexual Misconduct Investigation University officials cite dishonesty in misconduct probe; academic\u2019s allies criticized decision as pretext to silence politically unpopular views By Melissa Korn Follow and Douglas Belkin Follow Updated May 23, 2022 8:14 pm Princeton University\u2019s campus in central New Jersey Princeton University\u2019s board of trustees voted Monday to fire longtime classics professor Joshua Katz, adopting the president\u2019s recommendation and finding that the faculty member failed to cooperate fully in a sexual-misconduct investigation. The board based its vote on the recommendations of Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber and Gene Jarrett, the dean of faculty, as well as \u201ca review of the extensive record by an ad hoc committee of the Board appointed to 2/16/25, 9:50 Princeton Board Fires Tenured Professor Joshua Katz, Citing Sexual Misconduct Investigation 1/3 Already a subscriber? Sign In Further Reading One Student\u2019s Quest to Save $350,000 and Go to for Free Was Fired From Old Dominion for Asking Questions About Donald Trump and the End of consider the matter,\u201d according to a university statement. The dismissal of a tenured professor at Princeton is rare but not unprecedented. Continue reading your article with a subscription Subscribe Now 2/16/25, 9:50 Princeton Board Fires Tenured Professor Joshua Katz, Citing Sexual Misconduct Investigation 2/3 U.S. to Probe Reports of Antisemitic Incidents at Top Medical Schools University of California Schools Illegally Used Racial Preferences in Admissions, Lawsuit Alleges 2/16/25, 9:50 Princeton Board Fires Tenured Professor Joshua Katz, Citing Sexual Misconduct Investigation 3/3", "8693_104.pdf": "Linguist fired by Princeton claims he is a victim of political persecution ( is-a-victim-of-political-persecution/) inguist Joshua Katz was fired by Princeton University, USA, after being part of its faculty since 1998. The institution\u2019s board of directors stated that he was dismissed due to a consensual sexual relationship he had with a student in 2005, which is a violation of the university\u2019s conduct. Having already been investigated and punished with a year\u2019s unpaid leave for the same case in 2018, the scientist accused the university of hiding the real motivation for his dismissal. In 2020, he publicly opposed an antiracist letter issued by colleagues that demanded more investment by the university in black students, faculty, and staff. At the time, Katz suggested that if implemented, the measures \u201cwould lead to civil war on campus and erode even further public confidence in how elite institutions of higher education operate.\u201d In a column he wrote for The Wall Street Journal after his dismissal, Katz said he was a victim of \u201ccancel culture.\u201d Princeton president Christopher Eisgruber insisted that Katz was fired as the result of a second investigation into his 2005 misconduct, after flaws were identified in the first. Eisgruber told a group of students that the university is committed to freedom of expression, but also to rules that protect students from misconduct by professors. Katz now works as a consultant at the newly created University of Austin in Texas, founded by conservative intellectuals and donors.", "8693_105.pdf": "Let's Talk About Josh Katz 24, 2022 63 1 Share At this summer\u2019s John Locke Institute\u2019s Princeton Summer School, my colleagues included two involuntary celebrities: Joshua Katz and his wife, Solveig Gold. Princeton infamously revoked Katz\u2019s tenure a few months ago. The sequence of key events: 1. 15 years ago, Katz had an affair with one of his students. 2. In 2018, Princeton found out. After an investigation, he was suspended for a year without pay. As usual, both sides kept the investigation and punishment secret. 3. After the 2020 George Floyd protests and riots, some Princeton professors wrote a list of demands for combatting \u201csystemic racism\u201d at Princeton. 4. Katz wrote a critical response to these demands, entitled Declaration of Independence by a Princeton Professor.\u201d 5. Many people at Princeton, including President Eisgruber, got angry at Katz\u2019s response. But Eisgruber initially affirmed Katz\u2019s academic freedom. 6. Someone leaked key info about the secret 2018 investigation. Which led to a second investigation. 7. Princeton claimed to find new details that put the affair in a far worse light, justifying the revocation of Katz\u2019s tenure. 8. Katz was fired. 9. Solveig publicly stood by her man. 10. John Locke Institute head Martin Cox interviewed the duo in front of the summer school students; then they took questions. Part of my John Locke schedule was talking to the students in small groups. The day after the Katz-Gold interview, all six groups were burning to discuss the issue. One main reaction, strangely, was: \u201cWhat was the point of hearing that was tempted to just self-referentially reply, \u201cThe very fact that you\u2019re so eager to talk about it shows it was worthwhile,\u201d but held off in favor of a fun and frank discussion. Here are my thoughts on the interview and subsequent conversations. 1. The students generally disliked Katz, and thought he failed to take responsibility for his misbehavior. When pressed, Katz did accept that his initial punishment was 54 2/16/25, 9:51 Let's Talk About Josh Katz - by Bryan Caplan - Bet On It 1/5 fair, but he focused on the unfairness of the second punishment. 2. Still, as far as recall, zero students believed Princeton\u2019s claim that Katz\u2019s firing was not caused by his \u201cDeclaration of Independence.\u201d Needless to say don\u2019t believe Princeton either. 3 asked students, \u201cIf you thoroughly investigated every Princeton professor, what share would look as bad or worse than Katz?\u201d The median answer was around 20%. My Twitter agrees: 4. Abraham Lincoln didn\u2019t actually say, \u201cThe best way \u200cto get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.\u201d While I\u2019ve never been of a fan of Lincoln\u2019s claim do wonder if an across-the-board investigation of the entire faculty would bring Princeton back to sanity. 5 was surprised that neither Katz nor Gold related their predicament to the classics. What would Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero have thought about all of this, and would they have been right? 6. In the gave Katz the following hypothetical: Princeton\u2019s Board of Trustees comes to you and says, \u201cYou were completely right and we were completely wrong. We want to fix Princeton. Tell us exactly what to do, and we\u2019ll do exactly as you say.\u201d What do you tell them? Getting Katz to respond was quite difficult tried leading the witness, asking, \u201cWell, would you start by firing current Princeton President Eisgruber?,\u201d but he was reluctant to assent. After much prodding, Katz agreed that Eisgruber should be demoted back to being an ordinary professor. 7. The strange thing about the Katz-Gold interview, to my mind, was the narrowness of their complaints. They mostly focused on the specific unfair treatment that Katz Discover more from Bet On It Caplan and Candor Over 15,000 subscribers Type your email... By subscribing agree to Substack's Terms of Use, and acknowledge its Information Collection Notice and Privacy Policy. Continue reading Sign in Subscribe 2/16/25, 9:51 Let's Talk About Josh Katz - by Bryan Caplan - Bet On It 2/5 endured, not the general evils of the Orwellian uniformity and exclusion movement. If Princeton\u2019s Board of Trustees told me, \u201cTell us exactly what to do, and we\u2019ll do exactly as you say,\u201d I\u2019d start with mass firings of the administration, the elimination of all employees, the elimination of all the grievance studies departments, and the end of not only affirmative action, but holistic admissions itself. Admission by standardized test scores alone isn\u2019t a perfect system, but it\u2019s the best system we\u2019ve got - though would place much heavier weight on APs than SATs. There was no sign that Katz or Gold would be on board with any of that. 8. Katz and Gold said that almost all of their Princeton friends continue to ostracize them. These \u201cfriends\u201d didn\u2019t just publicly distance themselves; they won\u2019t even talk to them anymore. This did not, however, lead Katz or Gold to criticize academic elites as morally deficient people you should avoid. 9. Katz and Gold did mention that Princeton\u2019s sexual harassment policies have become ridiculously expansive. According to them, a physics professor is officially forbidden to date a secretary in the politics department. It\u2019s hard to find this rule in Princeton\u2019s posted sexual misconduct policies, so perhaps this is just an unwritten policy. 10. Katz longed for the good old days when being a professor was fun and exciting, and the administration\u2019s role was to support professors rather than dominate them. Now, in his view, the whole system is \u201cbureaucratized\u201d and \u201ccorporatized.\u201d 11 agree that universities are \u201cbureaucratized,\u201d but \u201ccorporatized\u201d? Other than the government itself, it is hard to think of any other large organization where profit- and-loss matter less than elite universities. The real problem is that they\u2019re fabulously rich non-profits run by leftist fanatics (and intimidated pragmatists). 12. Overall, Katz\u2019s criticism of the academic status quo was mild. While he thought that universities used to be better, he didn\u2019t decry the fall of academic meritocracy. He didn\u2019t attack affirmative action in admissions or hiring. He didn\u2019t denounce the arbitrary puritanism of the modern workplace. 13. Unsurprisingly, he did not suggest that discrimination and sexual harassment laws put us on the slippery slope to the fall of meritocracy and the rise of arbitrary puritanism. 14. Many students were creeped out not just by Katz\u2019s affair, but by his current marriage. While they\u2019re ultra-tolerant of unconventional sexual orientations and gender identities, a twenty-year age gap grossed them out. 15 had fun challenging these attitudes. When they gasped, \u201cThere\u2019s a twenty-year age gap replied, \u201cMaybe some people like a twenty-year age gap.\u201d When they earnestly observed, \u201cThere\u2019s a power imbalance here replied, \u201cMaybe some people like a power imbalance.\u201d 2/16/25, 9:51 Let's Talk About Josh Katz - by Bryan Caplan - Bet On It 3/5 16. My favorite hypothetical, though, was: \u201cWhat if it\u2019s true love?\u201d To my mind, this is one of the strongest objections we have to any rule of the form and should never date.\u201d One common reply was, \u201cWell, they can just wait a few years had to provocatively respond few years? If it\u2019s true love, it\u2019s agony to wait a few hours couldn\u2019t tell if I\u2019d stumped my students, or if they just thought was crazy. Overall, the rise of Katz as a hero of the anti-woke movement reveals a remarkable asymmetry. As far as can tell, he\u2019s a moderate leftist who was victimized by the far left. His plight has not inspired him to rethink his overall political philosophy. The right, however, seems happy to take what it can get. There\u2019s a lot of sociological truth in this oft-shared comic strip: 54 Likes \u22191 Restack Discussion about this post Comments Restacks 2/16/25, 9:51 Let's Talk About Josh Katz - by Bryan Caplan - Bet On It 4/5 61 more comments... Write a comment... Aug 24, 2022 4 replies [email protected] \"As far as can tell, he\u2019s a moderate leftist who was victimized by the far left. His plight has not inspired him to rethink his overall political philosophy.\" They are all basically useless. In general, they don't know why things ended up this way, don't know how to fix it, wouldn't have the courage to fix it if they knew, and more or less are just hoping that something, they are not sure what, will allow them *personally* to go back to the way things were think you need to regard this kind of liberal as hopeless. This is true even if they were say nominally Republican or whatever. If Woke gets defeated, these people won't contribute much to its defeat (6 Aug 24, 2022 Jesse Zuck Maybe Dr. Katz can get hired at University of Austin or Ralston College, two places where his freedom of speech would certainly be honored. Thank you, Bryan for exposing this corruption. Sadly, it is not surprising. Add this the the list of points you make in The Case Against Education (4 \u00a9 2025 Bryan Caplan \u2219 Privacy \u2219 Terms \u2219 Collection notice Substack is the home for great culture 2/16/25, 9:51 Let's Talk About Josh Katz - by Bryan Caplan - Bet On It 5/5", "8693_106.pdf": "Princeton fires tenured professor, citing inappropriate relationship with student By Anna O'Neill-Dietel 05/31/22 6:45pm Joshua Katz (Photo from Princeton University). Princeton University fired a tenured professor earlier this week, citing uncooperativeness with an investigation in his past sexual relationship with an undergraduate student that took place about 15 years ago. The classics professor, Joshua Katz, was voted by Princeton\u2019s board of trustees to be removed, despite his position as a tenured faculty member. The decision came after recent controversy surrounding his denouncement of anti- racist proposals by Princeton faculty, students, and staff \u2014 sparking debate on whether he was removed due to his politics. 2/16/25, 9:51 Princeton fires tenured professor, citing inappropriate relationship with student | The Daily Pennsylvanian 1/4 The retaliation against Katz mirrors recent controversy on Penn's campus surrounding tenured Penn Law professo Amy Wax, whose previous statements have been widely denounced as xenophobic and racist. While Penn Law Dean Ted Ruger announced in January he was in the process of initiating sanctions against Wax, i remains unclear what consequences Wax will face after the sanctions process. In an email to The Daily Pennsylvanian, Ruger wrote that \"as required by the University Handbook, and to preserve the integrity of the process, we will not make any further public statements until the proceedings have been completed.\" In 2018, Ruger had barred Wax from teaching mandatory first-year law courses after she received criticism for saying she has never seen a Black Penn Law student graduate in the top quarter of their class \u2014 which Ruger said was false. \"The Law School has previously made clear on multiple occasions that Professor Wax\u2019s views do not reflect our values or practices,\" wrote Ruger in an email to the DP. Late last year, Wax again came under widesprea scrutiny after reiterating racist remarks against Asian and Black Americans. Katz's dismissal was announced in a statement released by Princeton on May 23, in which the university said the longtime professor was removed after it received a complaint in 2021 from an alumna who had a consensual relationship with Katz \u2014 while under his academic supervision \u2014 as an undergraduate. The relationship with the alumna, which was prohibited by internal university policy, spanned from 2006 to 2007. Upon his removal, Katz told the New York Times that Princeton had treated him with \"gross unfairness,\" and that h was \"both angry and heartbroken, which is a dreadful combination.\" Katz also recently wrote a guest column published in the Wall Street Journal, titled \"Princeton Fed Me to the Cancel Culture Mob,\" in which he implied that his termination is not a result of his past relationship, but instead of his criticism of Princeton's proposed anti-rac proposals and other related comments. \"In the summer of George Floyd, certain opinions about the state of America that would have been considered normal only a few months earlier suddenly became anathema,\" Katz wrote in his column. The university launched an investigation in 2018 and uncovered multiple instances where Katz was dishonest and unforthcoming about the relationship. These instances included discouraging the alumna from corroborating with the investigation and seeking mental health resources in an effort to keep the relationship a secret. Katz, who was at Princeton for nearly 25, was suspended for one year following the investigation. The Daily Princetonian reported in 2021 that Katz had \"crossed professional boundaries with three of his female students,\" and made two other women uncomfortable by taking them out to expensive dinners \u2014 in one case, by commenting on one woman\u2019s appearance and giving her gifts. According to the article, Katz\u2019s lawyer said there wa no pattern of sexual misconduct and that Katz had asked numerous students, both male and female, to dinner. 2/16/25, 9:51 Princeton fires tenured professor, citing inappropriate relationship with student | The Daily Pennsylvanian 2/4 In July 2020, Katz had stirred discourse on Princeton's campus after publishing an essay that criticized recommendations to address the university's racist history. He argued in the essay that committing to anti-racist iconography and creating a faculty committee to investigate racist behaviors and publication would limit free speech and foster campus-wide division. In his article, Katz claimed that Princeton's Black Justice League, an active student organization on campus from 2014 until 2016, was a \u201csmall local terrorist organization\u201d that negatively impacted the students around it. Although the university's statement announcing Katz's dismissal did not mention the issue of free speech, the New York Times reported that Katz's lawyer, Samantha Harris, said: \u201cThe university\u2019s decision will have a powerful chilling effect on free speech, because anyone who might wish to express a controversial opinion knows that they must first ask themselves if their personal life can stand up to the kind of relentless scrutiny that Dr. Katz\u2019s life was subjected to beginning just days after the publication of his Quillette article.\u201d Christopher Eisgruber, president of Princeton, spoke about Katz's removal last week to alumni who were on camp for reunions, the New York Times reported. The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn PennConnects 2/16/25, 9:51 Princeton fires tenured professor, citing inappropriate relationship with student | The Daily Pennsylvanian 3/4 Most Read Next Previous \ue804 Penn to introduce changes to University discrimination policies, remove term \u2018diversity funding indirect cost cuts leave Penn researchers, faculty in state of \u2018uncertainty and chaos\u2019 Wharton remove websites as Penn revises diversity initiatives and policies 2/16/25, 9:51 Princeton fires tenured professor, citing inappropriate relationship with student | The Daily Pennsylvanian 4/4", "8693_107.pdf": "Did a Princeton Professor Get Fired for Pissing off Campus Activists? Not all \u201ccancel culture\u201d claims hold water. But Princeton\u2019s cynical dredging of an old misconduct case to punish Joshua Katz for wrongthink sure does 25, 2022 By Cathy Young This article appeared in The Daily Beast on May 25, 2022 rinceton University\u2019s Board of Trustees has voted to fire humanities professor Joshua Katz, revoking his tenure, ostensibly over charges related to a sexual misconduct investigation. But Katz\u2019s defenders say he\u2019s the latest victim of \u201ccancel culture,\u201d punished for criticizing anti- racist initiatives on campus in a July 2020 essay for the online magazine Quillette. The faculty member whose report led to the unusual move against the tenured professor says his conclusions were unrelated to Katz\u2019s controversial statements. But is this simply spin? Or is there a legitimate 2/16/25, 9:51 Did a Princeton Professor Get Fired for Pissing off Campus Activists? | Cato Institute 1/5 case to be made that Katz is being hounded out of a job on trumped-up charges meant to punish him for wrongthink? Obviously, not every \u201ccancel culture\u201d claim is worthy, and some misconduct reckonings take years to materialize. But here, the case for \u201cwitch hunt\u201d is pretty strong. Yes, Katz engaged in sexual and professional impropriety by having a consensual relationship with an undergraduate student under his academic supervision about 15 years ago. The problem is, the university had already dealt with that infraction through official channels in 2018\u2014 ultimately suspending him without pay for a year, requiring him to undergo counseling, and placing him on probation for three years. The new investigation, and Katz\u2019s subsequent firing, are technically based on new charges: that Katz did not fully cooperate with the 2018 investigation, and that he discouraged the student from seeking mental health counseling at the time of the relationship. But there remain strong overtones of double jeopardy, i.e. punishing someone twice for the same offense. What\u2019s more, there is very little doubt that the new investigation was triggered by the political controversy surrounding Katz and his unpopular views. On July 4, 2020, at the height of the racial \u201creckoning\u201d that followed the police murder of George Floyd, an open letter to Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber and the administration demanding a massive initiative to combat racism at the school was posted online with some 300 faculty signatures. The list of 48 demands included a grab bag of items from the social justice wishlist: extensive \u201canti-bias training,\u201d Not all \u201ccancel culture\u201d claims hold water. But Princeton\u2019s cynical dredging of an old misconduct case to punish Joshua Katz for wrongthink sure does. 2/16/25, 9:51 Did a Princeton Professor Get Fired for Pissing off Campus Activists? | Cato Institute 2/5 support for anti-racist student activism, reconsidering the use of standardized testing in admissions, and much more. Several days later, Katz published his response. While he agreed with some of the letter\u2019s proposals\u2014such as the expansion of a fellowship program encouraging underrepresented minorities to pursue academic careers\u2014he was scathingly critical of its overall thrust. In particular, he felt that many of the demands would not only impose a new academic orthodoxy but penalize dissent. He was particularly dismayed by an item calling for a new faculty committee to \u201coversee the investigation and discipline of racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication on the part of faculty\u201d (based on committee-devised guidelines defining such offenses). While stressing that racial slurs and discrimination should be subject to discipline, Katz argued that policing scholarship was an unacceptable violation of academic freedom. The article sparked an intense backlash from faculty, students, and alumni. There was particular outrage at Katz\u2019s reference to a no longer active student group, the Black Justice League\u2014approvingly mentioned in the faculty letter\u2014as \u201ca small local terrorist organization.\u201d (Katz argued that this description was based on the group\u2019s alleged history of bullying students, including Black students, who disagreed with its agenda.) University President Eisgruber condemned this comment as irresponsible, but also emphasized that \u201cfree speech permits students and faculty to make arguments that are bold, provocative, or even offensive.\u201d Four months later, the student newspaper, The Daily Princetonian\u2014which had extensively covered the controversy\u2014ran an editorial that urged Princeton to take a tougher stance against \u201cracist speech\u201d and slammed Eisgruber for adhering to a \u201chardline free-speech policy\u201d that prioritized \u201can abstract principle\u201d over community members\u2019 well-being. One of the editorial\u2019s two examples of speech that should have been sanctioned was Katz\u2019s article. That was in November 2020 few months later, in February 2021, the Princetonian published a lengthy investigative piece, based on interviews with 18 alumni and faculty members, alleging a \u201chistory of inappropriate conduct with female students\u201d by Katz. The piece not only disclosed the confidential case 2/16/25, 9:51 Did a Princeton Professor Get Fired for Pissing off Campus Activists? | Cato Institute 3/5 involving his relationship with the female student, but discussed allegations by two other alumnae who said he had committed \u201crepeated boundary violations\u201d as their mentor\u2014involving one-on-one dinners, gifts such as \u201cchocolates and tea from his travels abroad,\u201d overly personal conversations, and sharing of faculty gossip. One of the women had mentioned her discomfort with Katz\u2019s behavior to another professor and to an administrator after graduating, and Katz was apparently counseled on \u201cappropriate boundaries of faculty-student friendships.\u201d Neither woman alleged sexual harassment or romantic overtures; yet the Princetonian article strongly implied that Katz was a serial sex pest. After the article appeared, the woman who had been sexually involved with Katz\u2014and who had not cooperated with the 2018 investigation\u2014came forward with a complaint, and the investigation was reopened. Without knowing all the details, it is impossible to say for certain how substantive the new charges were. (Katz\u2019s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.) It is worth noting that while the complaint included accusations of sexual harassment, Princeton\u2019s Title coordinator rejected this claim and found that both Katz and the student had been \u201cwilling and active participants.\u201d One may agree or disagree with Katz\u2019s critique of the Princeton faculty letter think it was mostly on target). One can also certainly feel that his \u201cterrorist group\u201d comment was needlessly inflammatory think it went too far). Most people would agree that he showed poor judgment in his past romantic relationship with an undergraduate. It is also possible that his openly acknowledged close relationships with students he mentored sometimes crossed the lines of appropriate behavior. But two things seem glaringly obvious. One, the reopening of an already settled case was the result of events set in motion by the backlash against Katz\u2019s essay. Two, the university had pilloried Katz even prior to his firing by spotlighting him in a presentation on racism at Princeton as part of mandatory freshman orientation last August. (The presentation quoted Katz\u2019s intemperate remark about the Black Justice League while omitting his comments about the bullying of Black students.) 2/16/25, 9:51 Did a Princeton Professor Get Fired for Pissing off Campus Activists? | Cato Institute 4/5 When New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt commented on Katz\u2019s firing on Twitter by voicing dismay at Princeton\u2019s persecution of \u201cdissidents,\u201d some snarky responses suggested that he was confusing sexual shenanigans with dissent. (One of Haidt\u2019s critics, University of Kansas Law school professor Corey Rayburn Yung, wrongly alleged that Katz was being terminated for \u201csexually harassing\u201d undergraduates.) But Haidt is right, and the idea that Katz\u2019s dismissal was unrelated to the controversy about his opinions does not pass the laugh test. There is no question that Katz\u2019s criticism of the faculty letter made him a thorn in Princeton\u2019s side. Penalizing him for his views or even for his occasionally hyperbolic language would have invited credible accusations that Princeton was \u201ccanceling\u201d the professor to appease a left-wing mob. But Eisgruber, who has been trying to walk a fine line balancing commitment to free speech and the championing of social justice, was still under pressure to show that racism was being taken seriously. When a chance presented itself to dredge up a misconduct case in which Katz had already been disciplined, the university pounced. This isn\u2019t a win for justice and accountability, or a lesson to professors on responsible interaction with students under their authority. The real message that if you offend campus activist orthodoxy, you can and will be punished\u2014even if it takes double jeopardy Cathy Young Former Cultural Studies Fellow and Adjunct Scholar 2/16/25, 9:51 Did a Princeton Professor Get Fired for Pissing off Campus Activists? | Cato Institute 5/5"} |
7,224 | William Allman | Baldwin Wallace University | [
"7224_101.pdf",
"7224_102.pdf",
"7224_103.pdf"
] | {"7224_101.pdf": "Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations Ideastream Public Media News Published July 30, 2018 at 4:53 \u2022 1:06 The legacies of a Baldwin Wallace University theater professor and a Northeast Ohio playwright are now in question following accusations of sexual misconduct. Baldwin Wallace announced Monday that it received what it called \"credible information\" about sexual misconduct allegations against William Allman and John Patrick, both now deceased. As such, a statement from the University, said the names of Allman and Patrick will be removed from campus theater buildings. Allman had deep roots in the regional theater scene and he founded the Berea Summer Theater. He was on the faculty from 1957 until he retired in in 1998, when a theater Donate World Service 89.7 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations Public Media 1/7 was named in his honor. He died six years later. John Patrick was a Pulitzer Prize winner theater in his name was dedicated in 1981, and he died in 1995. The statement gave no further details about the allegations against the men, but said: \"We are deeply sorry for any harm that may have been caused by this misconduct. No matter how much time has passed, the correct choice is to remove their names from the theaters now.\" Copyright 2021 90.3 ideastream. To see more, visit 90.3 ideastream. Tags sexual misconduct Baldwin Wallace University theater arts Related Content World Service 89.7 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations Public Media 2/7 Former Ohio State Wrestler Alleges Pattern Of 'Humiliating Abuse' By Trainer Steve Brown, April 6, 2018 The Ohio State University is investigating sexual misconduct allegations against a Dr. Richard Strauss, a former wrestling trainer who died 13 years \u2022 5:20 Ohio State University Wrestling / Facebook Ohio State Expands Sexual Misconduct Investigation Of Former Sports Doctor Adora Namigadde, May 3, 2018 The Ohio State University announced Thursday that a former wrestling physician being investigated for sexual misconduct also treated student athletes\u2026 Ohio State University Wrestling / Facebook World Service 89.7 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations Public Media 3/7 Northeast Ohio Angling For Piece Of Multibillion-Dollar Film Industry Adrian Ma, February 19, 2018 Thyra Chaney loves movies. Like, really loves them love the dialogue love the production,\u201d she says love every single thing about it.\u201dAsk \u2022 4:07 Tri Television and Video Services World Service 89.7 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations Public Media 4/7 Stay Connected \u00a9 2025 Public Media Donate News Classical 101 Classroom Productions About Editorial Integrity Careers Contact Closed Captioning Passport Help Ohio's New Laureate Hopes to Promote Literacy and an Appreciation of Poetry Phil DeOliveira, January 15, 2018 How does someone become Ohio\u2019s poet laureate? \u201cOne is anointed by the gods,\u201d quips Ohio\u2019s newest poet laureate, Dave Lucas. At the beginning of the year \u2022 7:25 World Service 89.7 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations Public Media 5/7 Online File Online File Online File If you have a disability and experience difficulty accessing this content request an accommodation World Service 89.7 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations Public Media 6/7 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations Public Media 7/7", "7224_102.pdf": "All Access + The Plain Dealer online newspaper \u2013 Start today for $1 Baldwin Wallace University strips theaters of names amid sexual misconduct allegations Published: Jul. 30, 2018, 9:50 p.m. By Mary Kilpatrick, cleveland.com MERLIN-CLE1X00185_9 The university in a statement said it received credible allegations of sexual misconduct against William Allman, a long-time Baldwin Wallace theater professor who died in 2005. (Submitted photo) Subscribe John Patrick BEREA, Ohio -- Baldwin Wallace University on Monday stripped two campus theaters of their names after decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct emerged against their long-dead namesakes. The university in a statement said that it received credible allegations against William Allman, a long-time Baldwin Wallace theater professor, and Pulitzer-Prize winning playwright John Patrick who visited campus during Allman's time there. The information triggered the university to remove their names from the Allman Theatre and the John Patrick Theatre in the Kleist Center for Performing Arts. Allman died more than a decade ago, while Patrick died in 1995. \"We are deeply sorry for any harm that may have been caused by this misconduct. No matter how much time has passed, the correct choice is to remove their names from the theatres now,\" the university said in a news release. The specific allegations against the men are unclear. The university said \"the conduct in question occurred decades ago.\" Allman, was Baldwin-Wallace College drama professor who began teaching at the school in 1957. He founded the Berea Summer Theatre and managed it for 40 years. He also was instrumental in the design and development of the school's Kleist Center for Art & Drama, which was completed in 1972. Many of his students went on to successful careers as actors, directors and technicians, including John-Michael Tebelak, who created \"Godspell.\" Allman was friends with Patrick who won drama Pulitzer Prize in 1954 for \"The Teahouse of the August Moon.\" Rick Heileman, a News Sun columnist, met Allman in 1960. He described him as a very friendly guy, who was always trying to get young people interested in theater Baldwin Wallace football team tackles hunger and homelessness in Cleveland Feb. 13, 2025, 8:00 a.m. 3 Reasons to see Filter at House of Blues Friday Feb. 21 Feb. 13, 2025, 6:00 a.m. \"Having known Bill Allman since was 18 years old up until he died in 2005 was in a number of plays he directed at Berea Summer Theater -- I'm stunned. I'm shocked. I'm saddened,\" Heileman said in an interview Monday. He also knew Patrick, who he met in 1973 when he was cast in one of his plays mean liked both of them a lot don't know what else to say can't imagine that either one of them would have done anything like that but don't know.\" If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy. About Us Advertise with us About Cleveland.com About Advance Ohio Contact Us Career Opportunities Delivery Opportunities Audience Accessibility Statement Subscriptions cleveland.com The Plain Dealer Newsletters Sun News Already a Subscriber Make a Payment Manage your Subscription Place a Vacation Hold Delivery Feedback Cleveland.com Sections News Sports Entertainment Politics Opinion Living Betting Rentals Obituaries Jobs Deals in Your Area Classifieds Autos Real Estate Mobile Mobile Apps Your Regional News Pages Lakewood Beachwood Brunswick Strongsville Parma & Parma Heights More Communities More on Cleveland.com Sponsor Content Sell your car Post a job Sitemap & search Post a classified ad Sell/rent your home Videos Archives Follow Us Twitter Pinterest Facebook Instagram | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Ad Choices Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement, (updated 8/1/2024) and acknowledgement of our Privacy Policy, and Your Privacy Choices and Rights (updated 1/1/2025). \u00a9 2025 Advance Local Media LLC. All rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local. Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site. YouTube's privacy policy is available here and YouTube's terms of service is available here. Ad Choices", "7224_103.pdf": "News To contact us with news tips, story ideas or other related information, e-mail [email protected]. Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations By David C. Barnett Published July 30, 2018 at 9:53 The legacies of a Baldwin Wallace University theater professor and a Northeast Ohio playwright are now in question following accusations of sexual misconduct. Baldwin Wallace announced Monday that it received what it called \"credible information\" about sexual misconduct allegations against William Allman and John Patrick, both now Donate Living on Earth HD1 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations | Ideastream Public Media 1/6 deceased. As such, a statement from the University, said the names of Allman and Patrick will be removed from campus theater buildings. Allman had deep roots in the regional theater scene and he founded the Berea Summer Theater. He was on the faculty from 1957 until he retired in in 1998, when a theater was named in his honor. He died six years later. John Patrick was a Pulitzer Prize winner theater in his name was dedicated in 1981, and he died in 1995. The statement gave no further details about the allegations against the men, but said: \"We are deeply sorry for any harm that may have been caused by this misconduct. No matter how much time has passed, the correct choice is to remove their names from the theaters now.\" Tags Arts & Culture News Feature David C. Barnett David C. Barnett was a senior arts & culture reporter for Ideastream Public Media. He retired in October 2022. See stories by David C. Barnett Brian Bigley honors Irish heritage making and playing uilleann pipes March 15, 2023 Dolly Parton, Eminem and Lionel Richie among Rock Hall's 2022 inductees May 4, 2022 More By This Reporter Living on Earth HD1 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations | Ideastream Public Media 2/6 Rock Hall says Dolly Parton will stay on the induction ballot March 17, 2022 Evolution of moCa includes making space for Cleveland artists to decide what's on the walls February 18, 2022 Ohio is expanding its gun ballistics testing program March 31, 2022 Confusion over Ohio's primary election has officials worried about staffing the polls March 31, 2022 Defense rests case in William Husel murder trial March 31, 2022 Morning Headlines: Federal judges set an April deadline for Ohio redistricting... and more stories March 31, 2022 Related Stories Living on Earth HD1 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations | Ideastream Public Media 3/6 Stay Connected \u00a9 2025 Ideastream Public Media 1375 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115 (216) 916-6100 | (877) 399-3307 is a public media service licensed to Kent State University and operated by Ideastream Public Media About Ideastream Public Media About Idea Center Leadership Comm nit Ad isor Board Living for We: Season 2 now available What can be done to end cycles of gun violence when the shooters value their reputation over their own lives and see innocent bystanders as collateral damage? Subscribe Living on Earth HD1 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations | Ideastream Public Media 4/6 Community Advisory Board Board of Trustees Sign Up For Our Email Newsletters Coverage Area Terms of Use Privacy Policy Become a Member Membership F.A.Q.s Sustaining Memberships Donate Your Vehicle Make a Matching Gift Become an IdeaLeader Make a Planned Gift Making a Gift of Stock/Securities Sponsor Our Programs End of Year Gift Information Real Estate Donation Program Donor Bill of Rights Donation Refund Policy Contact Us Careers Internships Public Files Boards, Financials & Reports Directions to the Idea Center Closed Captioning Quality Certification Press Room Official Sweepstakes Rules Applications Copyright Infringement Claim Policy Playbook Living on Earth HD1 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations | Ideastream Public Media 5/6 2/16/25, 9:54 Names of Professor, Playwright Removed from Baldwin Wallace Theaters After Misconduct Allegations | Ideastream Public Media 6/6"} |
8,861 | Milton Lang | California State University - Chico | [
"8861_101.pdf",
"8861_102.pdf",
"8861_103.pdf",
"8861_104.pdf",
"8861_105.pdf"
] | {"8861_101.pdf": "More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public North State Public Radio | By Thomas Peele, Ashley A. Smith, Daniel J. Willis, EdSource Published May 8, 2022 at 10:00 California State University Former Chancellor Joseph I. Castro (left) and former Cal State Fresno administrator Frank Lamas (right). Avice president at California State University, Bakersfield, was fired for viewing pornography on his work computer; a dean at Monterey Bay harassed and demeaned female employees, and an administrator at Sonoma State University \u201casserted his dominance\u201d over a female co-worker and became violent when she rebuffed his advances, records of harassment cases the California State University system released Friday show. Those revelations come as CSU, the country\u2019s biggest public university system, grapples with the aftermath of the resignation of Chancellor Joseph I. Castro in February amid outcry over his failure to handle sexual harassment complaints against an administrator while Castro was president of Fresno State University between 2013 and 2020. Donate City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 1/16 The system released records naming seven managers across six campuses in what was described as a first round of summaries. The summaries included allegations of sexual harassment against Frank Lamas, Fresno State\u2019s former vice president of student affairs. Castro\u2019s mishandling of his case led to Castro\u2019s resignation as chancellor. EdSource and two other news organizations agreed to receive summary information on sexual harassment and misconduct cases involving management employees across the nearly 500,000-student, 23-campus system. EdSource filed public records requests for all cases involving managers decided between 2017 and February of this year released the first round of summaries Friday afternoon, showing five previously unreported cases at four campuses. Records show: At Bakersfield, Vice President for University Advancement David Melendez was found, after an investigation, that in 2016 he viewed \u201cinappropriate websites of (a) sexual nature at work news release announcing his hiring in Bakersfield stated that Melendez had previously worked at Northridge and Chapman University in Orange County. He could not be reached late Friday. He was paid $130,333 in salary and benefits in 2017, records show. At Chico State, Milton Lang, vice president of student affairs, was found to have sexually harassed a female employee \u201cwhile attending a professional development retreat\u201d in 2019. His discipline was listed only as \u201cviolation officials did not respond to a request for additional information Friday. According to the website Transparent California, Lang was paid more than $335,000 in salary and benefits in 2019 by the university. He is the former associate vice chancellor for student affairs at Davis. Lang did not immediately respond to a message left with his staff on Friday afternoon at a Seattle company. At Monterey Bay, Timothy Angle, then dean of the college of extended education and international programs, was found to have yelled at, berated and demeaned female employees in 2016 and 2017 in ways he did not treat male employees. He retired before City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 2/16 discipline in the matter was imposed. He was last paid nearly $220,000 in salary and benefits in 2016. He could not be reached. Also at Monterey Bay, Angeles Fuentes, the campus\u2019s financial aid director, was found to have made inappropriate comments to staff \u201cbased on race and in violation of disability and retaliation standards\u201d in 2015 and 2016. She was suspended without pay for 10 days. Fuentes did not immediately return a telephone call Friday afternoon. Salary data for her could not be found. At Sonoma State, Colin Perry, an administrator, was placed on administrative leave for making inappropriate comments in 2019 about a woman\u2019s physical appearance and expressing his desire to date her. Perry allegedly made frequent inappropriate comments about female employees\u2019 appearances and shared provocative and explicit photos, the summary stated. According to the summary of his case, Perry knocked \u201cover a recycling bin and (made) a statement about asserting his dominance\u201d to an employee he was trying to date. He also tried to get an employee to go to a strip club. It\u2019s unclear how long Perry was on administrative leave, if he continued to receive pay during the leave, or if he is still employed by the university request for additional information was not immediately answered. Perry was paid 126,000 in salary and benefits in 2019, records show, In a statement Friday spokesman Mike Uhlenkamp said the university is committed to maintaining a safe environment across the sprawling system. \u201cThe safety of students, employees and guests on the California State University campuses is always a top priority. The has committed to strengthening the Title practices and policies across all 23 campuses and the chancellor\u2019s office,\u201d Uhlenkamp told EdSource Board Chair Lillian Kimbell did not respond to a request for comment. But in March, CSU\u2019s board of trustees unanimously approved a statewide review of Title practices across the system, a review of sexual harassment complaints at Fresno State, and launched a task force to examine separation agreements with executives. The review of Title complaints and reports was expected to be completed within 90 to 120 days, or City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 3/16 less, and include interviews with students, faculty, staff, Title coordinators and administrators. It is not clear how many other harassment cases remain undisclosed at other campuses. It can take years for a case to move from the complaint phase to determination of facts and the meting out of discipline, the trigger for making the matter public. The information released Friday follows the resignation of Castro on Feb. 17 after revelations, first reported by Today, that while serving as president of Fresno State, he repeatedly failed to take action against Lamas. Lamas\u2019 case summary released on Friday said that it was found he told a staff member she was \u201chired because she was pretty,\u201d touched her \u201cafter repeatedly being asked not to touch her,\u201d and screamed profanity at her. According to the summary: \u201cHarassing and bullying behaviors, leading to a hostile working environment; Harassing comments based on Gender/Sex to a staff member, and have raised your voice and shouted obscenities to staff members. Some specific examples provided include telling a staff member she was hired because she was pretty, placing your hand on a staff member\u2019s lower back, knee and thigh, after repeatedly being asked not to touch her, and yelling at a staff member to \u201cf- ing get your act together\u201d and that she had \u201cruined [your] career, go fix it.\u201d Fresno State received at least 12 complaints of sexual harassment involving Lamas over a six-year period Today reported. Federal law known as Title prohibits sexual discrimination in an education program that receives federal financial assistance. In 2020, six months before Castro was named systemwide chancellor, he approved a $260,000 settlement agreement with Lamas, which included retirement benefits and a promise of a glowing letter of recommendation for Lamas to retire after an investigation of complaints made by a woman who worked for Lamas found a pattern of harassment, according to a detailed report first obtained by Inside Higher Ed. The victim left the university after Lamas repeatedly harassed her, an investigator found. His behavior included \u201cadjusting her bra strap,\u201d attempting to \u201cmeet (her) behind City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 4/16 closed doors and closed blinds\u201d and making comments \u201cof a sexual nature\u201d to the woman Today later reported that in 2018 Castro recommended Lamas to become chancellor of San Marcos, a job he didn\u2019t get. Castro resigned as chancellor but remains employed by the university trustees have hired an outside law firm to investigate his actions. But issues of sexual harassment and questions about how the matters were handled have arisen elsewhere in the sprawling system this year. Some of those cases are already publicly known. The Mercury News reported in February that when now-former San Jose State President Mary Papazian arrived on campus in 2016, she ignored a memo warning her \u201cthere was inappropriate handling, touching of female athletes by the director of sports medicine, who is still here!\u201d That person, Scott Shaw, is now facing federal criminal charges that he violated the civil rights of four female athletes by engaging in sexual misconduct under the guise of treating injuries. San Jose State has paid nearly $5 million in legal settlements in the matter and was sued in March by 15 athletes in a case that may become a class action. At Sonoma State University Rohnert Park, the campus\u2019s former provost was paid $600,000 earlier this year to settle a claim she filed alleging that she had been sexually harassed by Patrick McCallum, a higher education lobbyist and the husband of campus President Judy Sakaki. Although not a university employee, McCallum was an \u201cofficial university volunteer,\u201d the Los Angeles Times reported, accompanying his wife at official functions. Sakaki and McCullum have since separated. And at Cal Poly Humboldt, John Lee, a dean of college and professional studies, was fired in 2016 after an investigation found he groped two female colleagues. He was allowed to \u201cretreat\u201d to a tenured faculty position and remain employed at the maximum salary possible Today reported last month. Lee ended up \u201cin a predominantly female department, as part of the same faculty as the women he was found to have groped,\u201d the newspaper reported. City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 5/16 CSU\u2019s academic rules allow administrators like Lee to return to faculty jobs even after they have been found to have committed wrongdoing. Separately, a settlement agreement released by Fullerton to EdSource on Friday revealed that after complaints were made to Fullerton\u2019s Title office, campus officials agreed to separate with Mitchell Hanlon, a tenured music director. The settlement agreement was made following an arbitration hearing in 2019 and a grievance and appeal to that hearing by Hanlon. The Fullerton campus agreed with Hanlon and the California Faculty Association, which represents professors, not to discipline Hanlon or place him on administrative leave for any additional Title allegations made prior to Jan. 21, 2020. But Hanlon had to resign by Jan. 3, 2021. Hanlon was reassigned as a special assistant to the dean of the College of Arts with the intention to \u201cavoid any future complaints,\u201d through Jan. 3, 2021, according to the separation agreement. Details of the Title allegations were not released. Hanlon couldn\u2019t be reached for comment. To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource\u2019s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education. Tags News California Thomas Peele Thomas Peele is an investigative reporter at EdSource. He is a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter. See stories by Thomas Peele Ashley A. Smith Ashley A. Smith covers higher education and other student success reforms for EdSource. She joined the publication in July 2019 after covering community colleges, for-profit schools and non-traditional students for Inside Higher Ed, in City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 6/16 Washington D.C. Her work has appeared in the Fort Myers News-Press, the Marshfield News-Herald, The Flint Journal Today and the Detroit Free Press. Ashley grew up in Detroit and is a 2008 graduate of Michigan State University. In 2020, Ashley was selected to join the first class of journalists in the Foundation Higher Education Media Fellowship at the Institute for Citizens & Scholars, to report on career and technical education. See stories by Ashley A. Smith Daniel J. Willis Daniel is a data analyst and database designer. He previously spent 10 years at the Oakland Tribune, Contra Costa Times, and San Jose Mercury News in a variety of roles. His work has been honored by the Education Writers of America, Northern California Society of Professional Journalists, California Newspaper Publishers Association, and White House Correspondents Association among others. He is an alumnus of the University of California at Santa Cruz where he studied economics. You can find him on Twitter at @BayAreaData or reach him by email, with keys and Signal available by request. See stories by Daniel J. Willis EdSource EdSource believes that access to a quality education is an important right of all children. We further believe that an informed, involved public is necessary to strengthen California\u2019s schools for the benefit of the state\u2019s children, its civic life, and its economy. See stories by EdSource Battle royal draws hundreds of pro wrestling fans to Oroville More News City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 7/16 Inspire hopes to break ground soon on permanent campus North State schools could lose funding after Republican lawmakers fail to pass rural school bill New Public Health Officer seeks to inform and engage Butte County Shasta Scout reporter on recent death in county jail Sarina Grossi: NSPR\u2019s new Morning Edition anchor Exhibit aims to expand ideas of Asian American art in the North State Bird art exhibit takes over City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 8/16 City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 9/16 City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 10/16 City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 11/16 City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 12/16 City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 13/16 City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 14/16 \u00a9 2021 About Us City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 15/16 Privacy Policy Contact Us: 530-898-5896 Find City Arts and Lectures 2/16/25, 9:55 More sexual harassment and abuse cases made public 16/16", "8861_102.pdf": "Chico State Summary Report p. 1 File Text Pages Notes Search Sections Fit width Page 1 of 1 Doc... Chico State Su... Sign in \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 Feedback Download File Share & Embed View in Legacy DocumentCloud contributed by Daniel Willis (EdSource) created on 5/6/2022 last updated on 5/6/2022 language English 2/16/25, 9:55 Chico State Summary Report | DocumentCloud 1/1", "8861_103.pdf": "Date: May 23 2022 To: Members of Board of Trustees Subject Trustees Need to Take Action Trustees of the system \u2013 At CFA, we have observed that at the highest levels of the California State University system, impunity and incompetency are the standards. Over the last three months, an unprecedented wave of reporting describes how the system and campus administrations have failed survivors of sexual harassment and violence. The reporting reveals how the Title process was circumvented, overlooked, and misused, leading to a culture of leadership that lacks accountability. In February, a investigation revealed that then-Chancellor Joseph Castro authorized a lucrative settlement for Frank Lamas, Fresno State\u2019s then-vice president of student affairs, in the days leading up to Castro\u2019s promotion to chancellor. Castro did this despite an internal investigation that found Lamas responsible for sexually harassing a subordinate and engaging in abusive workplace behavior over a period of years. On February 3, the article was published. By February 17, Castro resigned. The emerging reporting is damning and unequivocal. Administrators entrusted with the supervision and safety of students employees, and community members have been operating without oversight, out of incompetence and neglect. Let us not overlook that survivors and whistleblowers broke the code of silence at the CSU. Without them, we would have never known the full extent of the harm being caused by our institutions and its leaders. We are grateful for their courage and strength. They should be appropriately supported in order to heal. Incompetence and impunity are not the only pandemics plaguing the CSU. Anti-Black racism is enduring, unabated, and ignored. The explicitly white supremacist and anti-Black murders at Tops grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y. remind us of the everyday dangers Black people face. We know such egregious crimes are a direct result of structural racism and the systemic mistreatment of Black people at the CSU. We only need to look back to May 1 when esteemed colleague, campus and community leader Dr. Melina Abdullah was targeted and brutally removed from a event by armed university police officers. In response, on May 11, faculty voted no confidence in William Covino, calling for his removal from the presidency of the Southern California campus. Now, it\u2019s on the Board of Trustees to take action \u2013 fire him. Systemwide, Black faculty have repeatedly demanded redress for the systemic violence we experience, and we are ignored. We have observed the continual resurgence of white supremacist groups seeking a home on our campuses. These groups are organizing against historically marginalized groups, LGBTQIA+, and all faculty, staff, and students of color. In an increasingly hostile climate, we have noted the sharp increase in racism and violence against Asian and Pacific Islander communities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the centuries of anti hate and racism in the U.S. Inaction by leaders is part in parcel with anti-Black and white supremacist culture on campus administrators have a responsibility to hold these groups and themselves accountable leadership must dismantle systemic racism on our campuses and in our system. We charge the leadership to meet these enduring challenges. In our advocacy, we purposefully center and extend our anti-racism social justice work to address the structural racism that shapes our society and the CSU. We believe that systemic change is the only way to confront systemic harm. The claims they are dealing with these issues, but we know that the system needs deep structural changes in consultation with the broader campus community. At CFA, we believe that we must connect for co-liberation and end the oppressiveness of white supremacy and cisheteropatriarchy in our institutions for a more just system. We know that collective healing can begin when we all acknowledge the harm Administrative Title investigations (or lack thereof) have done to victims of sexual harassment and violence. We need an external investigation and an end to impunity for administrators who mishandle these cases and take no action to hold perpetrators accountable. As the Trustees of this system, we call on you again to take action. We want to know what are your plans to deal with the mountain of harassment allegations that are emerging? What are your plans to deal with anti-Black racism and the very real tangible threats to life, safety, and joy by white supremacy and white supremacy culture on campus? Will you submit to your worst instincts and continue to enable abuse, denial, and anti- Blackness on our campuses? There is an alternative. You can stand with us and co-create the best possible. We call on you to engage the demands in Our Way Forward, our vision to combat anti-Black racism, anti-Asian hate, sexual harassment and violence, and other forms of systemic oppression. We, the California Faculty Association, demand the following: \u2022 Open Searches for all administrative positions at the \u2022 Cessation of Retreat Rights for executive managers \u2022 An overhaul of Title process and enforcement to become a system that respects survivor agency and healing dedicated funding stream to create and sustain womxn's resource centers on campus to foster a place of healing and empowerment for survivors \u2022 Urgency and action to seat the taskforce for alternatives to campus police \u2022 Come to the table, work with us on our demands in Our Way Forward to address anti-Black racism, anti-Asian hate, and systemic oppressions Timeline of Key Recent Events: Reporting reveals that in the last three years alone, the has paid almost $7 million to settle sexual misconduct and abuse cases significant portion of the available reporting is the result of three news organizations filing a records request for \u201call cases involving managers decided between 2017 and February of this year.\u201d \u2022 February 2022: Mercury News reported that when now-former San Jose State President Mary Papazian arrived on campus in 2016, she ignored a memo warning her \u201cthere was inappropriate handling, touching of female athletes by the director of sports medicine [Scott Shaw], who is still here!\u201d \u2022 February 2022 group of presidents met with a top aide from the Assembly speaker\u2019s office to say they had lost confidence in the system chancellor over his handling of a sexual harassment case. \u2022 February 2022: Chancellor Joseph I. Castro resigns over his failure to handle sexual harassment complaints against administrator Lamas while Castro was president of Fresno State University between 2013 and 2020. Castro resigned February 17. \u2022 March 2022: CSU\u2019s Board of Trustees unanimously approved a statewide review of Title practices across the system, a review of sexual harassment complaints at Fresno State, and launched a task force to examine separation agreements with executives. \u2022 March 2022: Scott Shaw, former director of sports medicine at San Jose State, is facing federal criminal charges that he violated the civil rights of four female athletes by engaging in sexual misconduct. San Jose State has paid nearly $5 million in legal settlements. The school was sued by 15 athletes in a case that may become a class action. \u2022 April 2022 Times reports that Sonoma State President Judy Sakaki helped cover up allegations of misconduct by her then husband Patrick McCallum. Examples of Impunity Bakersfield: After an investigation, David Melendez, vice president for university advancement, was found that in 2016 he viewed \u201cinappropriate websites of (a) sexual nature at work.\u201d \u2022 Chico State: Milton Lang, vice president of student affairs, was found to have sexually harassed a female employee \u201cwhile attending a professional development retreat\u201d in 2019. \u2022 Cal Poly Humboldt: John Lee, a dean of college and professional studies, was fired in 2016 after an investigation found he groped two female colleagues. He was allowed to \u201cretreat\u201d to a tenured faculty position and remain employed at the maximum salary possible reported that Lee ended up \u201cin a predominantly female department, as part of the same faculty as the women he was found to have groped.\u201d \u2022 Fresno State: From 2013-2020, while campus president Castro reportedly took no action against Lamas reporting revealed that Fresno State received at least 12 complaints of sexual harassment involving Lamas over a six- year period Fullerton: After complaints were made to the Title office, campus officials agreed to separate with Mitchell Hanlon, a tenured music director. The settlement agreement was made following an arbitration hearing in 2019 and a grievance and appeal to that hearing by Hanlon. \u2022 California Maritime Academy: What began as an attempt to include gender- neutral language in the Student Handbook has erupted into years of activism and advocacy. In response there has been an alarming increase in language demonstrating bias and violence against the LGBTQIA+ members of campus. Incidents of hate are increasing. Cal Maritime management have reportedly attempted to dissuade assault and discrimination survivors from reporting their abuse, making harassment statistics woefully undercounted Monterey Bay: Timothy Angle, then dean of the college of extended education and international programs, was found to have yelled at, berated and demeaned female employees in 2016 and 2017 in ways he did not treat male employee. \u2022 San Jose State: Former director of sports medicine Shaw, is facing federal criminal charges that he violated the civil rights of four female athletes by engaging in sexual misconduct. San Jose State has paid nearly $5 million in legal settlements. The school was sued in March by 15 athletes in a case that may become a class action. \u2022 Sonoma State: Colin Perry, an administrator, was placed on administrative leave for making inappropriate comments in 2019 about a woman\u2019s physical appearance and expressing his desire to date her. Perry allegedly made frequent inappropriate comments about female employees\u2019 appearances and regularly shared provocative and explicit photos. \u2022 Sonoma State: the campus\u2019s former provost was paid $600,000 earlier this year to settle a claim she filed alleging that she had been sexually harassed by Patrick McCallum, a higher education lobbyist and the husband of campus President Judy Sakaki. Although not a university employee, McCallum was an \u201cofficial university volunteer,\u201d the Los Angeles Times reported, accompanying his wife at official functions. Sakaki and McCullum have since separated. In union, California Faculty Association", "8861_104.pdf": "Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer Milton Lang, along with Lamar Andrews, Admissions Counselor, had the opportunity to visit Ramona High School, Riverside High School and the Love & Unity Christian Fellowship Church in Compton, California during the system-wide Super Sunday Event coordinated through the Chancellor\u2019s Office. Super Sunday provides campuses an opportunity to connect local communities with university outreach programs while increasing awareness among students from historically undeserved communities about college readiness, financial aid and admission requirements. It is an important touch point for engaging African American communities across the state Super Sunday Event | | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California State University, Chico \u2022 400 West First Street \u2022 Chico 95929 Copyright \u00a9 2025 All Rights Reserved", "8861_105.pdf": "1 Chico Speaks Survey Report Based on the April 2018 Campus Sexual Violence Climate Survey 2 Data Analysis provided by: Dr. Lindsay Briggs, Ph.D., MPH, Department of Public Health & Health Services Administration, California State University, Chico Dr. Christine E. Leistner, PhD, MA, Department of Public Health & Health Services Administration, California State University, Chico Survey and Report Coordination by: Title Office, California State University, Chico Dylan Saake, Title Coordinator Denise M. Hardy, Title Investigator Published to Chico State Community: October 2019 3 Sexual misconduct and assault, and other forms of interpersonal violence continue to present a significant concern for college campuses. The evolving awareness about the effects of such violence on students\u2019 mental health and academic success makes it vital to gain information about Chico State students\u2019 experiences and knowledge in the areas of interpersonal violence. By gathering more specific data from Chico State\u2019s student community, we can then use this critical information to improve our campus\u2019s responses and resources to further support our students In April 2018, Chico State conducted a survey of its students through the Campus Climate Survey. Chico State was part of a survey cohort that included 42 institutions in the United States and Canada all taking a similar survey during spring 2018. Chico State\u2019s goals for implementing the survey were to gather information about the prevalence of sexual violence and other forms of interpersonal violence on the University\u2019s campus, determine students\u2019 knowledge about reporting policies and student resources, and assess attitudes toward sexual violence. Another goal was to provide a benchmark to measure improvement/decline of students\u2019 experiences and knowledge. Chico State surveyed sexual assault/violence experiences, including domestic violence; knowledge about resources and policies; and experiences on campus related to climate and attitudes relating to bystander assistance. All students were contacted through their University email with a link to the anonymous survey. The survey was also available through a link directly on the Chico State website and could also be accessed through social media platforms. At Chico State, the survey time period was open for approximately three weeks during the month of April 2018. In total, 4,138 Chico State students started the survey, which was a response rate of 23% of the total student body. The cohort\u2019s average response rate was 17%. 4 Experiences with Sexual Violence: \u2022 Nearly a quarter of the Chico Speaks survey responders reported unwanted sexual contact prior to coming to college. Of those students, 44% of transgender/gender nonconforming (\u201cGNC\u201d) individuals responding to the survey experienced unwanted sexual contact before coming to college versus 31% of female respondents who had such an unwanted experience. 11% of male respondents experienced unwanted sexual contact prior to college. \u2022 12% of respondents experienced at least one incident of sexual violence since the beginning of the school year (2017\u201318) and the most common location where such incidents occurred was at an off-campus residence. This is a higher percentage than the survey cohort\u2019s experience of 7%. Training and Perceptions of Campus Reporting Options for Sexual Violence Incidents: \u2022 90% of survey respondents received prevention training in sexual violence, versus a 60% average for the survey cohorts. 80% of the survey respondents agreed that if someone makes a report of a sexual violence incident, the University would take it seriously. While these figures indicate high training and report rates, the survey also highlighted a very low formal reporting rate (only 5% of respondents used the University\u2019s formal procedures to report incidents). Experiences with Potential Sexual Harassment type Behavior: \u2022 Nearly 55% of surveyed students experienced at least one act of negative sexual/gender based behaviors or comments toward them since the beginning of the school year 2017\u201318. \u2022 The two most common behaviors and comments were sexist remarks or jokes in the student\u2019s presence followed by inappropriate comments about the student\u2019s or someone else\u2019s body or appearance in the student\u2019s presence. Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence Dynamics: \u2022 29% of surveyed students experienced some form of non-physical negative behavior or harassment from an intimate partner. \u2022 5% of surveyed students experienced some form of physical violence from an intimate partner. Experiences with Stalking and/or Similar Unwanted Behaviors: \u2022 Nearly 36% of surveyed students had been frightened, concerned, angered, or annoyed by someone who engaged in unwanted behavior toward the surveyed student since the beginning of the school year 2017\u201318. \u2022 The two most common unwanted behavior experiences student respondents had was receiving unwanted phone calls and being repeatedly asked out. 5 Perceptions, Bystander Intervention, and Community Attitudes: \u2022 15% of survey respondents observed a situation they believed was either a sexual assault or could have become one. 87% of those student respondents took action, an additional 9% assessed the situation to determine whether they could safely take action to address it, meaning that nearly 96% of the student respondents either did or were prepared to take action high percentage of survey respondents (93%) would decide not to have sex with someone if that person was drunk. That same percentage of respondents would also confront a friend who said they had sex with someone who was passed out or did not give consent. \u2022 However, respondents thought their peers would be less likely to decide not to have sex with someone if they were drunk (65%) and would also be less likely to confront a friend who said they had sex with someone who was passed out or did not give consent (75%). \u2022 More female than male respondents (68% to 53%) indicated that sexual misconduct is somewhat or definitely a problem at Chico State. \u2022 Rape myths still prevail among a relatively high percentage of respondents\u2019 views, particularly with males. 6 Contents ...............................................................................................................................................3 ....................................................................................................................................................4 ..................................................................................................................................................6 PARTICIPATION........................................................................................................7 ..........................................................................................................9 ......................................................................................... 12 VIOLENCE.............................................................................................................................................. 13 A. Sexual Violence: What Do We Mean? ....................................................................................................... 13 B. Sexual Violence: Who is Affected? ............................................................................................................. 15 C. Circumstances of Sexual Violence Incident................................................................................................ 22 and to WHOM? ................................................................................. 25 A. Knowledge about confidential resources .................................................................................................. 25 B. Reporting or Sharing Information about the Sexual Violence Incident? .................................................. 26 ............................................................................................... 28 ....................................................................................................................... 31 A. Potential Sexual Harassing Behavior .......................................................................................................... 31 B. Interpersonal Violence Dynamics ............................................................................................................... 32 C. Potential Stalking and other related unwanted behavior ......................................................................... 34 ............................................................................ 36 A. Self and Peer Behavior Assessment ........................................................................................................... 36 B. Bystander Intervention ............................................................................................................................... 40 C. Acceptance of Rape Myths ......................................................................................................................... 41 ................................................................................................................................................................ 43 7 In 2014, the first report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (\u201cNot Alone\u201d) noted that one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college (citing Krebs, C.P., et.al., (2007) The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study.) The White House Task Force recommended that all colleges perform a campus climate survey to identify the extent of the problem of sexual assault on campuses. Thus, the Chico Speaks climate survey relating to sexual violence, campus climate, and issues relating to intimate partner violence and bystander intervention was developed through EAB\u2019s Campus Climate Survey is a technology, research, and consulting firm located in Washington, DC, with a focus on serving student affairs professionals. The Campus Climate Survey is an anonymous online instrument to assess students\u2019 experiences, behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions about sexual violence on campus. In spring 2018, Chico State was one of 42 college institutions in the United States and Canada that participated in the survey. Chico State was a mid-sized institution defined as having between 10,000 and 19,999 students. There were 11 of those institutions out of the 42 participating institutions. Participating institutions (sometimes called \u201cthe cohort\u201d) were instructed to conduct the survey over a three-week period sometime between January 1 and May 1, 2018. Chico State conducted its survey from April 9\u201329, 2018 and named the survey Chico Speaks. The survey opened with warnings concerning the sensitive nature of the subject matter, and survey respondents were offered resource information at the conclusion of the survey. To solicit participation, all Chico State students were contacted through their University-provided email address and given a link to the anonymous Chico Speaks survey. FAQs about the Chico Speaks survey was accessible through Chico State\u2019s Title website and posters and stickers were dispersed throughout the campus. The survey was also advertised through various social media platforms. Prize opportunities were offered as a way to incentivize students to participate. After completing the survey, students had the option of clicking on a hyperlink to exit the survey and be redirected to the Chico Speaks prize entry webpage. The prize webpage was housed outside the survey site to protect the anonymity of survey takers. Student contact information could not be connected to any of the Chico Speaks survey answers, and students were informed of that. On that prize webpage, identifying information was entered by the student and submitted, similar to a raffle. Prizes included a $5 coffee credit, iPad Minis, bicycle store gift certificate, textbook credits, and other prizes. The assumption was that by offering prizes throughout the three-week survey period, students would be more likely to complete the survey prize was also given to the student club that had the highest ratio of participation. Both social media and the more traditional media campaigns were used by the Title office, and these efforts were supplemented by messages encouraging participation from University faculty and administration and through student groups, including the Associated Students. 8 total of 4,138 students responded by at least starting the survey, representing a 23% response rate out of an estimated population of 18,000 (the average response rate for the cohort was 17%). Of those who started it, 69% (2,863) fully completed it. This is indicated in the survey report by a varying number of responses for each question. Data in this report is compared against the number of people who actually answered each specific question (as opposed to assuming that 4,138 answered each question). An \u201cn\u201d is reported for each question to contextualize the data for the reader. Students who answered a survey question are referred to as \u201crespondents.\u201d 9 total of 4,138 students started the survey. Of those who started it, 69% (2,863) fully completed it. Each question reflects the data for how many respondents answered the question. Gender 3,820 students answered this question: \u2022 67.8% identified as female, \u2022 30.8% identified as male, and \u2022 1.4% identified as trans/gender non-conforming (\u201cGNC\u201d). Class Standing 3,931 students answered this question: \u2022 14.2% were first year, \u2022 14.8% were second year, \u2022 28.9% were third year, \u2022 22.9% were fourth year, \u2022 12.7% were fifth year or higher, and \u2022 6.6% were graduate students. Living Situation 3,951 students answered this question: \u2022 68% lived in off-campus housing, \u2022 16.6% lived with family, \u2022 9.7% lived in residence halls, \u2022 3.2% lived in on-campus housing, and \u2022 1.8% lived in fraternity or sorority (\u201cGreek\u201d) housing. \u2022 Less than one percent of students (0.7%) reported their living situation as \u201cother.\u201d Student Group Participation For the student group participation question, students were able to select multiple options: \u2022 83 students were on an intercollegiate sports team, \u2022 209 participated in club sports, and 287 in intramurals, \u2022 109 in performing arts, \u2022 110 in student government, \u2022 411 in a cultural, religious or spiritual group, \u2022 718 in fraternities or sororities, \u2022 797 participated in other groups that were not listed, and \u2022 1,896 students reported that they did not participate in any student group. 10 Race For the question about race, students were able to select multiple options. 4,057 students indicated the following in response: \u2022 62.5% identified as White, \u2022 20.2% identified as other, \u2022 8.5% identified as Asian, \u2022 3.9% identified as Black/African American, \u2022 3.1% identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, and \u2022 1.8% identified as Native Hawaiian or other Asian and Pacific Islander. Hispanic/Latinx Ethnicity 3,832 students responded to this question: 36.2% reported that they were of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin, while 63.8% reported that they were not. Citizenship or Residence Status 3,843 students responded to the question about citizenship/residence status: \u2022 95.6% reported that they were citizens, \u2022 1.7% reported that they were a permanent resident, non-citizen, \u2022 1.3% reported that they were foreign national on a student visa, \u2022 1% reported that they were not a citizen or legal resident, and \u2022 0.4% reported as other. First Generation 3,842 students responded to this question: 38.9% reported that they were first-generation college students, 60% were not and 1.1% were not sure. Religious Affiliation 4,057 students responded to the question about religious affiliation: \u2022 42.6% of student reported having no religious affiliation, \u2022 25.1% reported that they were Roman Catholic, \u2022 11% reported that they were Protestant, \u2022 7.5% reported that they were Orthodox Christian and 3.2% other Christian, \u2022 6.7% reported being \u201cother,\u201d and \u2022 1.5% were Buddhist, 1% Jewish, 0.9% Muslim, and 0.4% Hindu. 11 Sexual Orientation 3,821 students responded to the question about sexual orientation: \u2022 82.3% reported that they were heterosexual, \u2022 8.6% reported that they were bisexual, \u2022 3.5% reported that they were gay or lesbian, \u2022 2.4% identified as \u201cother,\u201d and \u2022 1.9% identified as questioning and 1.4% reported they were asexual. Physical Disability or Long-Term Physical Health Condition 3,814 students responded to this question: 90.7% reported that they did not have a physical disability or long-term physical health condition, and 9.3% reported that they did. Mental Disability or Long-Term Mental Health Condition 3,841 students responded to this question: 77.3% reported that they did not have a mental disability or long-term mental health condition, and 22.7% reported that they did. 12 The survey found that nearly 25% of the respondents experienced unwanted sexual contact prior to coming to college. Trans students have the highest rate of unwanted sexual contact prior to coming to Chico State (almost 44%). Females are next\u2014with almost 31%\u2014and the rate is lowest for males, at just under 11%. This information reinforces the need for faculty and staff to be trauma informed when working with students. The rates of individuals who experienced unwanted sexual contact prior to coming to college was highest for transgender and/or students (almost 44%), followed by females (almost 31%), and lowest for males (11%). 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% % 43.90% 10.81% 30.72% Experienced Unwanted Sexual Contact Prior to College Female Male Trans 13 The term \u201csexual violence\u201d was the term used in the 2018 Chico Speaks survey to describe certain specific sexual acts. In total, 12% of the Chico State survey respondents indicated that they had experienced at least one such incident of sexual violence between the beginning of the 2017\u201318 school year and the time the survey was administered in April 2018. This percentage was higher than the prevalence rate of the other universities and colleges in the cohort, which was 7%. The survey shows the frequency of sexual violence and which students are affected, looking at characteristics that include gender, sexual orientation, class standing, membership in groups including social groups, and sports. A. Sexual Violence: What Do We Mean? The following specific descriptions of certain sexual activities were used to survey respondents about whether they had experienced any of those unwanted activities since the 2017\u201318 school year started. Specifically, respondents were asked to answer the following question: Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you had of the following experiences? \u2022 Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body or removed some of my clothes even though didn\u2019t want to. \u2022 Someone to sexually penetrate me (i.e. someone tried to put a penis or insert fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to. \u2022 Someone sexually penetrated me (i.e. someone put a penis or inserted fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to. \u2022 Someone to perform oral sex on me or make me give them oral sex even though didn't want to. \u2022 Someone performed oral sex on me or made me give them oral sex even though didn't want to. 3,119 respondents answered the question about whether they had any of the specific experiences described above. 358 indicated that they had at least one of these experiences. An additional 85 indicated they were \u201cunsure.\u201d These numbers present a valuable insight into the number of unreported incidents when compared to the 74 reports of sexual misconduct, dating or domestic violence, or stalking shared in Chico State\u2019s annual Statistical Review of Title Reporting Activity in 2017\u20132018. Below, the \u201cn\u201d indicates the number of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d to experiencing the specific type of sexual violence detailed: 14 \u2022 Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body or removed some of my clothes even though didn\u2019t want to: o 80% (n=336) of the people who answered \u201cyes\u201d or said they were \u201cunsure\u201d experienced this type of conduct. This means 10.77% of students participating in this section of the survey experienced this. \u2022 Someone to sexually penetrate me (i.e., someone tried to put a penis or insert fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to: o 36% (n=157) of the people who answered \u201cyes\u201d or said they were \u201cunsure\u201d experienced this type of conduct. This means 5.03% of students participating in this section of the survey experienced this. \u2022 Someone sexually penetrated me (i.e., someone put a penis or inserted fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to: o 28% (n=122) of the people who answered \u201cyes\u201d or said they were \u201cunsure\u201d experienced this type of conduct. This means 3.91% of students participating in this section of the survey experienced this. \u2022 Someone to perform oral sex on me or make me give them oral sex even though didn\u2019t want to: o 26% (n=115) of the people who answered \u201cyes\u201d or said they were \u201cunsure\u201d experienced this type of conduct. This means 3.69% of students participating in this section of the survey experienced this. \u2022 Someone performed oral sex on me or made me give them oral sex even though didn\u2019t want to: o 22% (n=94) of the people who answered \u201cyes\u201d or said they were \u201cunsure\u201d experienced this type of conduct. This means 3.01% of students participating in this section of the survey experienced this. 15 B. Sexual Violence: Who is Affected? Campus sexual violence affects all student demographics, including all genders, all races and ethnicities, all sexual orientations, and all years and levels of school. However, based on the survey results, some groups of students are at a higher risk to have acts of sexual violence committed against them. The following tables and/or graphics represent prevalence rates among some of the different student demographics. The graphs below depict prevalence rates of sexual violence occurring between the start of the school year 2017\u201318 and the survey in April 2018. We highlighted instances where the differences between the groups were statistically significant. 1. By Gender Trans students and female respondents had very similar rates of experiencing sexual violence (over 16%) since the start of fall 2017 until the survey in April 2018, and both had a statistically significant higher rate than males. 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% % 16.28% 9.66% 16.01% Experienced Sexual Violence Since Start of Fall 2017 Female Male Trans 16 2. By Sexual Orientation The LGTBQ+ community had a significantly higher rate of sexual violence incidents than straight/heterosexual student respondents for the time period surveyed. 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 12.61% 20.97% Experienced Sexual Violence Since Start of Fall 2017 LGBTQ+ Community Straight/Heterosexual 17 3. Class Standing of Students Who Experienced Sexual Violence 4. By Living Situation: Where do the students who experienced sexual violence most commonly live? Approximately 37% of the respondents who experienced sexual violence indicated they live in either on-campus housing or a residence hall.1 29% of respondent live in fraternities or sororities (\u201cGreek\u201d) housing. 1 portion of those indicating they live in a \u201cresidence hall\u201d may include privately owned residence halls unaffiliated with the University. Information to clarify this point was not collected. 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00% 1st Year Student 2nd Year Student 3rd Year Student 4th Year Student 5th Year or Higher Student Graduate or Professional Student 18.20% 19.02% 11.65% 15.64% 11.97% 7.37% Experienced Sexual Violence Since Start of Fall 2017 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% Residence Hall On-campus apartment or house Off-campus apartment or house At home with family Greek Life Housing Other 19.93% 17.17% 15.21% 5.08% 29.09% 10.00% Experienced Sexual Violence Since Start of Fall 2017 18 5. Rates of Sexual Violence for those who participate in Greek Life 718 students responding to the survey participated in fraternities or sororities and nearly 24% of them reported experiencing sexual violence between the start of the school year in fall 2017 and the survey dates in April 2018. This is nearly twice the rate for those who do not participate in fraternities and sororities. 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% % 23.91% 12.12% Experienced Sexual Violence Since Start of Fall 2017 No do not participate in Greek Life Yes participate in Greek Life 19 6. By Sports Participation Students who responded to the survey and participated in intercollegiate or intramural sports did not experience sexual violence at statistically higher rates than non-intercollegiate or intramural sports participants. However, students who participated in club sports, which are competitive team sports organized with the support of the University, reported statistically significant higher rates of sexual violence than those who do not participate in club sports. 209 students responding to the survey participated in club sports and 23.4% of them reported experiencing sexual violence between the start of the school year in fall 2017 and the survey dates in April 2018. 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% % 23.43% 13.65% Experienced Sexual Violence Since Start of Fall 2017 No do not participate in Club Sports Yes participate in Club Sports 20 7. By Citizenship Students who identified as something other than a citizen such as permanent residents, foreign nationals, on a student visa, or undocumented reported statistically significant higher rates of sexual violence than those who are citizens. 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% % 14.14% 17.09% Experienced Sexual Violence Since Start of Fall 2017 Non-Citizen Citizen 21 8. By Mental Disability Student respondents who reported physical disabilities did not have an increased amount of sexually violent experiences than those without physical disabilities. However, student respondents who reported having a mental disability or long-term mental health condition, which could include conditions such as dyslexia, long-term depression, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), experienced sexual violence at significantly statistical higher rates than those who did not report a mental disability. 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% % 19.49% 12.67% Experienced Sexual Violence Since Start of Fall 2017 No do not have a mental disability Yes do have a mental disability 22 C. Circumstances of Sexual Violence Incident 1. Use of alcohol or drugs just prior to the incident of sexual violence Respondents who experienced sexual violence were asked whether the person/perpetrator had been drinking alcohol or using drugs just prior to the incident of sexual violence. Approximately 78% of the perpetrators had consumed alcohol, whether the victim was GNC, male, or female. No % Yes % Unsure % Been drinking alcohol, but wasn\u2019t drunk n=155 37.35% n=165 39.76% n=95 22.89% Been drinking alcohol and was drunk n=162 39.23% n=157 38.01% n=94 22.76% Been taking or using marijuana n=185 44.79% n=75 18.16% n=153 37.05% Been taking or using drugs other than alcohol and marijuana n=198 47.94% n=45 10.90% n=170 41.16% Tried to get you drunk n=197 47.93% n=146 35.52% n=68 16.55% Given you a drug without your knowledge or consent n=311 75.67% n=20 4.87% n=80 19.46% 23 2. Relationship with the Person Who Conducted the Unwanted Sexual Behavior The respondents who indicated they had experienced an incident of sexual violence were asked to classify their relationship with the person who conducted the unwanted behavior. More than 60% of the respondents indicated that there was some relationship prior to the incident. However, it is unclear how respondents answered the question for someone they had met on the day that the incident occurred. Additionally, this question allowed respondents to select more than one answer. 36.85% 26.29% 8.22% 7.28% 1.17% 39.20% 4.46% Acquaintance or peer Friend Current romantic partner or spouse Ex-romantic partner or spouse Faculty or staff member No prior relationship Other 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% What was your relationship to the perpetrator 24 3. Where Did the Incident Occur? Students who indicated they had experienced unwanted sexual activity were asked where the incident occurred variety of locations were reported, with the most common location at an off-campus residence. 7.92% 55.20% 6.44% 0.74% 12.62% 4.95% 1.98% 10.15% Where did the incident of sexual violence occur? On-campus residence Off-campus residence Fraternity Sorority Bar, Night Club, or Dance Club Outdoors Other on-campus location Other off-campus location 25 WHOM? Reporting sexual violence incidents can be done formally or informally. With limited exceptions, if a student reports an incident to campus personnel, that person will report the information to the Title Coordinator. Once the Title office receives such a report, it will reach out to the student and will provide resources and information about options available student can also choose to report directly to the Title office. Students may also elect to tell a confidential source at the University, such as Safe Place or the counseling center, about their experience. Those entities will not share that information with anyone without the student\u2019s permission and request to do so. A. Knowledge about confidential resources One of the things we wanted to measure was students\u2019 understanding of confidentiality as it relates to the reporting of sexual violence. Students generally seem to understand that some entities on campus such as Safe Place and the counseling center do not have an obligation to report information to the Title coordinator. However, the survey uncovered some respondents\u2019 misunderstandings about who else has that special designation. The survey asked which of the individuals (identified below) \u201ccan you contact about a sexual assault and be assured that they report what you tell them to others TYPE2 Number who believe this employee will not report to others Professor or Instructor 938 29.93 Student Conduct, Rights, and Responsibilities Staff Member 954 30.44 Safe Place Advocate* 2,244 71.60 Student Health Services Clinician/Staff Member* 1,467 46.81 Student Affairs Member 644 20.55% An Academic Advisor 637 20.33 Counseling and Wellness Center Counselor* 2,018 64.39 Student Employee 403 12.86% While the majority of students responding understood who at the University is considered a confidential resource, the data shows there is some uncertainty or confusion about who that actually is. For example, almost 30% of the respondents believe that professors/faculty are confidential resources. 2 The employees who are considered a confidential resource are noted with an asterisk. 26 B. Reporting or Sharing Information about the Sexual Violence Incident? 95% of students who responded to the survey and experienced a sexual violence incident did not use the school\u2019s formal procedures to report the incident(s). Student respondents most commonly told a roommate, friend, or classmate about the sexual violence incident. 1. Who did you tell about the incident % Total % Women % Men % Trans Roommate, friend, or classmate 54.23% 61.16% 33.33% 16.67% (n=231) (n=200) (n= 29) (n=1) Romantic partner 15.26% 17.13% 8.05% 33.33% (n=65) (n=56) (n=7) (n=2) Family member 11.50% 12.54% 5.75% 16.67% (n=49) (n= 41) (n=5) (n=1) Campus sexual violence advocate/counselor 5.16% 6.42% 0.00% 16.67% (n=22) (n=21) (n=0) (n=1) Campus security or police 2.58% 3.06% 0.00% 0.00% (n=11) (n=10) (n=0) (n= 0) Faculty or staff member 2.35% 2.45% 1.15% 0.00% (n=10) (n=8) (n=1) (n= 0) Residence hall staff 1.17% 0.92% 1.15% 0.00% (n=5) (n=3) (n=1) (n=0) No one 31.92% 27.52% 45.98% 50.00% (n=136) (n=90) (n=40) (n=3) Other 3.05% 3.06% 3.45% 0.00% (n=13) (n=10) (n=3) (n=0) \u2022 Trans respondents were most likely to tell their romantic partners about the incident. \u2022 Men and respondents were the least likely to report to campus personnel about a sexual violence incident they experienced relatively high percentage of male and respondents told no one about the incident. 27 2. What concerns about reporting did survey Respondents have when considering whether or not to share or report the incident of Sexual Violence? 3 % Total % Women % Men % Trans Didn't think it was serious enough to report 62.65% (n=260) 68.65% (n=319) 41.67% (n= 84) 50% (n=6) Did not need assistance 38.55% (n=160) 39.18% (n=319) 38.10% (n=84) 0 (n=6) Wasn't clear the person intended harm 28.92% (n=120) 31.03% (n=319) 20.24% (n=84) 33.33% (n=6) Wanted to forget it happened 36.14% (n=150) 40.75% (n=319) 19.05% (n=84) 33.33% (n=6) Felt ashamed or embarrassed, didn't want anyone to know what happened 28.19% (n=117) 31.97% (n=319) 14.29% (n=84) 33.33% (n=6) Lack of proof the incident happened 30.12% (n=125) 35.42% (n=319) 10.71% (n=84) 33.33% (n=6) Didn't know who should tell 14.70% (n=61) 15.36% (n=319) 9.52% (n=84) 50% (n=6) Feared that would not be believed or taken seriously 19.04% (n=79) 21.63% (n=319) 9.52% (n=84) 0 (n=6) Didn't want to get the person in trouble (e.g. disciplinary action, legal charge, arrest) 23.86% (n=99) 27.59% (n=319) 9.52% (n=84) 33.33% (n=6) Feared others would harass me or react negatively 16.8% (n=70) 19.12% (n=319) 8.33% (n=84) 0 (n=6) Didn't want anyone to know the other things was doing at the time (e.g. drinking, using drugs) 11.57% (n=48) 13.79% (n=319) 4.76% (n=84) 0 (n=6) Other 8.92% (n=37) 7.84% (n=319) 14.29% (n=84) 0 (n=6) The most common concern for all genders was thinking the incident was not serious enough to report. 3 This question allowed for more than one response. 28 The survey sought to gather information about how the University\u2019s Title student training is working. Most training at the University is provided through an online training program called \u201cNot Anymore,\u201d which incoming students must complete in order to register for classes. Refresher training is also done each year for current students. Some groups of students, such as student-athletes and resident housing advisors, take supplemental training. The goal is that all students receive training on the matter each year. 91% of the respondents indicated they had received training. Students most commonly received their training and information through the new student orientation, which is presumed to include the \u201cNot Anymore\u201d first-year program. 187 2893 142 No Yes do not recall New student orientation Fraternity or sorority life participation Athletics participation Residence life programs Class presentations or projects Campus-wide events Student Leadership training do not recall Other 39.41% 15.42% 3.32% 16.52% 15.42% 25.20% 9.06% 8.92% 14.34% Did you receive sexual violence information or training as part of: (select all that apply) 29 1. Usefulness of that training in increasing knowledge in specific areas: Very Useful % Useful % Total (n) The definition of sexual violence: 1,027 35.61% 1472 51.04% 2,884 Reporting an incident of sexual violence: 1,000 34.72% 1446 50.21% 2,880 The school's procedures for investigating an incident of sexual violence: 754 26.17% 1321 45.85% 2,881 Sexual violence resources: 978 33.97% 1539 53.46% 2,879 Sexual violence prevention strategies (e.g. asking for consent, responsible alcohol use): 1,046 36.33% 1465 50.89% 2,879 Bystander intervention skills: 1,021 35.55% 1467 51.08% 2,872 For most areas, roughly 85% of student respondents reported that they found the training to be useful or very useful in increasing their knowledge in the areas surveyed. However, education about the University\u2019s procedures for investigating an incident of sexual violence needs to be improved. 86.65% 84.93% 72.02% 87.43% 87.22% 86.63% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The definition of sexual violence Reporting an incident of sexual violence The school's procedures for investigating an incident of sexual violence Sexual violence resources Sexual violence prevention strategies (e.g. asking for consent, responsible alcohol use) Bystander intervention skills Very Useful or Useful 30 2. Reporting to the campus and knowledge of resources While it is reassuring that nearly 80% of respondents either agree or strongly agree that the school will take reports seriously, a too large percentage (42.5%) believe that the person reporting would be retaliated against. Ensuring people are aware of the prohibitions against retaliation could help reduce this concern. The chart below shows the number of respondents who either agree or strongly agree with the following statements concerning if someone reported an incident of sexual violence to a campus authority: Student respondents generally agree that they know what assistance is available if a sexual violence incident occurs and they also generally agree that the process is fair. 79.91% 72.64% 42.48% 38.48% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The school would take the report seriously The school would take steps to protect the person making the report from retaliation The accused or their friends would retaliate against the person making the report The educational acheivement/career of the person making the report would suffer Percent of Students That Rated as Strongly Agree or Agree 86.86% 71.32% 83.21% 87.61% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% If a friend or experienced sexual violence would know where to go to get help understand my school's formal procedures to address complaints of sexual violence am confident my school would administer the formal procedures to fairly address reports of sexual violence know what confidential resources (e.g., victim advocacy, counseling) are available to me to report an incident of sexual violence Rating the Level of Agreement with Statements Associated with Understanding Available Resources (Strongly Agree or Agree) 31 While much of the survey focused on sexual violence, it also surveyed respondents\u2019 experiences with potential sexual harassing behavior, interpersonal violence, and potential stalking and other related unwanted behaviors. Some of those survey results are set forth below. A. Potential Sexual Harassing Behavior Sexual harassing behavior includes a wide spectrum of conduct, not all of which amounts to a violation of campus policies, but which may contribute to a potentially hostile environment. Rape is the extreme example of sexual harassment behavior on one end of a spectrum with sexual or sexist comments on the other end. Recognizing potential sexual harassment in its many variations assists students to respond to its various forms. Student respondents were asked whether anyone had done one or more of the items listed below to the respondent at school since the start of the school year. 54.8% of the student respondents (n=1,793) experienced at least one of the following behaviors at school as described below since fall 2017: \u2022 Made sexist remarks or jokes in your presence 45.2 % (n=1,479; women = 1,033, men = 403 = 31, gender not disclosed = 12) \u2022 Made inappropriate comments about your or someone else\u2019s body or appearance in your presence 43.9% (n=1,435; women = 998, men = 400 = 26, gender not disclosed = 11) \u2022 Said crude sexual things to you, or tried to get you to talk about sexual matters when you didn\u2019t want to 19.6% (n=641; women = 431, men = 186 = 17, gender not disclosed = 7) \u2022 E-mailed, texted, or used social media to send offensive sexual jokes, stories, or pictures to you 13.5% (n= 440; women = 275, men = 149 = 11, gender not disclosed = 5) \u2022 Seemed to be bribing you with some sort of reward if you agreed to engage in a romantic or sexual relationship with that person 7.6% (n= 250; women = 157, men = 80 = 8, gender not disclosed = 5) 32 B. Interpersonal Violence Dynamics Domestic and dating violence affect Chico State students, and while female-identified respondents were affected at a higher percentage and male students were impacted by this type of violence as well. 1. Student respondents were asked whether, since the beginning of the school year in fall 2017, a casual, steady, or serious dating or intimate partner including a spouse did any of the following to the respondent: \u2022 Accused you of paying too much attention to someone or something else o Total yes n = 298 (15.4% of respondents who answered the question; n = 1,935) o Women yes n = 171 (57.4% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes n = 121 (40.6% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes n = 4 (1.3% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Called you a name or criticized you o Total yes n = 318 (16.4% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 1,935) o Women yes n = 210 (66% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes n= 98 (30.8% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes n = 6 (1.2% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Put down your family and friends o Total yes n = 175 (9% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 1,935) o Women yes n = 126 (72% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes n = 46 (26.3% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes n = 2 (1.1% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Said things to scare you o Total yes n = 100 (5.2% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 1,935) o Women yes n = 73 (73% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes n = 23 (23% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes n = 3 (3% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Pressured or forced you to sext or take naked photos o Total yes n = 64 (3.3% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 1,935) o Women yes n = 53 (82.8% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes n = 10 (15.6% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes n =1 (1.6% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) 33 \u2022 Checked up on you o Total yes n = 136 (7% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 1,935) o Women yes n = 88 (64.7% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes n = 45 (33% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes n = 2 (1.5% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Kept you or tried to keep you from doing something you wanted to do o Total yes = 224 (11.6% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 1,935) o Women yes = 148 (66.1% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes = 70 (31.2% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes = 3 (1.3% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Stopped you or tried to stop you from going to work or school o Total yes = 82 (4.2% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 1,935) o Women yes = 40 (48.8% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes = 37 (45.1% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes = 3 (3.6% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Made you do something humiliating or degrading o Total yes = 70 (3.6% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 1,935) o Women yes = 51 (72.8% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes = 18 (25.7% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes =1 (1.4% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) The two most common experiences for all genders was: o Having an intimate partner call the student a name or criticize them and o Accusing the student of paying too much attention to someone or something else 2. Student respondents were also asked whether, since the beginning of the school year (fall 2017), a casual, steady, or serious dating or intimate partner (including a spouse) did any of the following to the student: \u2022 Slapped you; pushed or shoved you; hit you with a fist or something hard; kicked you; hurt you by pulling your hair; slammed you against something; tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you; beaten you; burned you on purpose; used a knife, gun, or other weapon on you? o Yes = 89 (4.6% of the respondents who answered the question; n =1,915) o Women yes = 56 (62.9% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes = 31 (34.8% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes = 2 (2.2% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) 34 C. Potential Stalking and Other Related Unwanted Behavior Student respondents were asked \u201csince the beginning of the school year (fall 2017) has anyone frightened, concerned, angered, or annoyed you by. . .\u201d \u2022 Making unwanted phone calls to you or leaving messages o Total yes: n=289 (10.1% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 2,868) o Women yes: n= 211 (73% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes: n= 72 (24.9% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes: n= 4 (1.4% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Sending unwanted emails or other forms of written correspondence or communication o Total yes: n= 150 (5.2% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 2,868) o Women yes: n= 109 (72.7% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes: n= 33 (22% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes: n= 4 (2.7% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Posting offensive or abusive comments on your social media profiles, blog, or other online space o Total yes: n= 82(2.9% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 2,868) o Women yes: n= 51 (62.2% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes: n= 28 (34.1% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes: n= 3 (3.6% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Showing up at places where you were even though he or she had no business being there o Total yes: n= 132 (4.6% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 2,868) o Women yes: n= 99 (75% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes: n= 28 (21.2% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes: n= 4 (3% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Exposing personal information or spreading rumors about you on the internet, in a public space, or by word of mouth o Total yes: n= 129(4.5% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 2,868) o Women yes: n= 88 (68.2% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes: n= 38 (29.4% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes: n= 3 (2.3% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Repeatedly asking you on dates, to go to dinner, or get a drink even after you\u2019ve said no o Total yes: n= 187(6.5% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 2,868) o Women yes: n= 158 (84.5% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes: n= 24 (12.8% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes: n= 3 (1.6% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) 35 \u2022 Sharing personal photos of you without your permission o Total yes: n= 37 (1.3% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 2,868) o Women yes: n= 27 (73% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes: n= 9 (24.3% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes: n= 1 (2.7% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) \u2022 Threatening in an online environment to physically harm you o Total yes: n= 18 (0.6% of the respondents who answered the question; n = 2,868) o Women yes: n= 11 (61% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o Men yes: n= 6 (33.3% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) o yes: n= 1 (5.5% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) The two most common experiences respondents had were: \u2022 Receiving unwanted phone calls, and \u2022 Being repeatedly asked out. The most common relationship the respondents had with the individual conducting the unwanted behavior was: an acquaintance or peer (32.4%), followed by ex-romantic partner (25.9%) and friend (21.2%). Of the total respondents who answered this question (n = 2,868), the following are percentages of students that answered \u201cyes\u201d and \u201cno\u201d to at least one of the stalking experiences listed above: Yes: n = 528 (18.4%) No: n = 2,340 (81.6%) Of the students who answered \u201cYes,\u201d the following information is broken down by gender: Women: 386 (73.1% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) Men: 128 (24.2% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) GNC: 10 (1.9% of respondents who answered \u201cyes\u201d) 36 A. Self and Peer Behavior Assessment As part of training students to intervene in problematic situations which are often public, it is important to understand how students perceive their own behavior in comparison to what they think their peers would do in a situation. This information, along with the results from assessing common \u201crape myths,\u201d can further assist with targeted training. 1. Students rated themselves about their own behaviors and reactions: \u2022 Express my discomfort if someone makes a sexual joke about a person\u2019s body o Very likely or likely (n = 2,140 (72.4%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 814 (27.6%)) \u2022 Express my discomfort if someone says that sexual assault victims are to blame for being assaulted o Very likely or likely (n = 2,637 (89.3%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 319 (10.8%)) \u2022 Talk to a friend who suspect is in a sexually abusive relationship o Very likely or likely (n = 2,748 (93%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 206 (7%)) \u2022 Ask someone who looks very upset at a party if they are or need help o Very likely or likely (n = 2,636 (89.4%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 313 (10.6%)) \u2022 Confront a friend who tells me that they had sex with someone who was passed out or didn\u2019t give consent o Very likely or likely (n = 2,736 (92.8%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 214 (7.3%)) \u2022 Tell a campus authority about information have that might help in a sexual violence case even if pressured by my peers to stay silent o Very likely or likely (n = 2,533 (85.8%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 420 (14.3%)) \u2022 Ask for verbal consent when am intimate with someone o Very likely or likely (n = 2,727 (92.4%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 224 (7.6%)) \u2022 Report a friend who committed sexual violence o Very likely or likely (n = 2,418 (82.2%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 936 (22.6%)) \u2022 Decide not to have sex with someone if they are drunk o Very likely or likely (n = 2,727 (92.6%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 220 (7.5%)) 37 \u2022 Help a friend report an incident of sexual violence or abuse o Very likely or likely (n = 2,872 (97.4%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 78 (2.7%)) Students were most likely to: Help a friend report an incident of sexual violence or abuse. Students were least likely to: Express discomfort if someone makes a sexual joke about a person\u2019s body or report a friend who committed sexual violence. 38 2. Students rated other students on the same questions about their peers\u2019 behaviors: \u2022 Express my discomfort if someone makes a sexual joke about a person\u2019s body o Very likely or likely (n = 1,996 (68.1%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 936 (22.6%)) \u2022 Express my discomfort if someone says that sexual assault victims are to blame for being assaulted o Very likely or likely (n = 2,424 (82.8%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 502 (17.2%)) \u2022 Talk to a friend who suspect is in a sexually abusive relationship o Very likely or likely (n = 2,446 (83.8%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 473 (16.2%)) \u2022 Ask someone who looks very upset at a party if they are or need help o Very likely or likely (n = 2,223 (76.3%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 692 (23.7%)) \u2022 Confront a friend who tells me that they had sex with someone who was passed out or didn\u2019t give consent o Very likely or likely (n = 2,189 (75.3%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 716 (24.6%)) \u2022 Tell a campus authority about information have that might help in a sexual violence case even if pressured by my peers to stay silent o Very likely or likely (n = 1,935 (66.6%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 967 (33.3%)) \u2022 Ask for verbal consent when am intimate with someone o Very likely or likely (n = 2,128 (73.5%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 769 (26.6%)) \u2022 Report a friend who committed sexual violence o Very likely or likely (n = 1,996 (68.1%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 936 (22.6%)) \u2022 Decide not to have sex with someone if they are drunk o Very likely or likely (n = 1,884 (65.1%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 1,008 (34.8%)) \u2022 Help a friend report an incident of sexual violence or abuse o Very likely or likely (n = 2,580 (89.3%)) o Not very likely or not at all likely (n = 309 (10.7%)) \u2022 Students believed their peers were most likely to: Help a friend report an incident of sexual violence or abuse. \u2022 Students believed their peers were least likely to: Decide not to have sex with someone if they are drunk. 39 3. Comparison of self-evaluation with peer evaluation: In every instance, respondents believed that they were more likely than their peers to take the actions noted above. Each of the actions listed in the survey can help to reduce incidents of sexual violence. Generally, the pressure to conform to the expectations of peers reduces the likelihood that a person will take action consistent with their own beliefs or desires. Our hope is that by showing the reality of how students feel about taking certain actions, the pressure to conform can be diminished. The more our students feel empowered to take actions consistent with their instincts, the safer our community will be. 68.1% 82.8% 83.8% 76.3% 75.3% 66.6% 73.5% 68.1% 65.1% 89.3% 72.4% 89.3% 93.0% 89.4% 92.8% 85.8% 92.4% 82.2% 92.6% 97.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Express my discomfort if someone makes a sexual joke about a person\u2019s body Express my discomfort if someone says that sexual assault victims are to blame for being assaulted Talk to a friend who suspect is in a sexually abusive relationship Ask someone who looks very upset at a party if they are ok or need help Confront a friend who tells me that they had sex with someone who was passed out or didn\u2019t give consent Tell a campus authority about information have that might help in a sexual violence case even if pressured by my peers to stay silent Ask for verbal consent when am intimate with someone Report a friend who committed sexual violence Decide not to have sex with someone if they are drunk Help a friend report an incident of sexual violence or abuse Willingness to Take The Following Actions How likely am How likely are others 40 B. Bystander Intervention Students do receive some training in bystander intervention through the Title \u201cNot Anymore\u201d training; however, it is a limited amount of training. Additional training will assist students to recognize problematic situations and develop tools to more confidently and proactively address such situations that could be changed through effective intervention. 15.4% of the respondents (n=455) observed a situation the student believed was, or could have led to, a sexual assault. The respondents reacted in a variety of the following ways created a distraction to cause one or more of the people to disengage from the situation. o Yes n = 142(31.2%) o No n = 313 (68.8 told someone in a position of authority about the situation. o Yes n = 62(13.6%) o No n = 393 (84.6 asked the person who appeared to be at risk if they need help. o Yes n = 291(64%) o No n = 164 (36 stepped in and separated the people involved in the situation. o Yes n = 174(38.2%) o No n = 281 (61.8 confronted the person who appeared to be causing the situation. o Yes n = 112(24.6%) o No n = 343 (75.4 asked others to step in as a group and diffuse the situation. o Yes n = 133(29.2%) o No n = 322 (70.8 considered intervening in the situation, but could not safely take action. o Yes n = 42(9.2%) o No n = 413 (90.8 decided not to take action o Yes n = 18(4%) o No n = 437 (96%) Of the students who observed a situation that could have been sexual assault, 87% of student respondents took action, and an additional 9% assessed the situation to determine whether they could safely take action to address it\u2014meaning that nearly 96% of our student respondents either did or were prepared to take action. The top two actions respondents took were: \u2022 Asking the person who appeared to be at risk if they needed help, and \u2022 Stepping in and separating the people involved in the situation. Increasing our students\u2019 ability to identify behavior that could lead to sexual assault or other interpersonal violence will help reduce incidents. 41 C. Acceptance of Rape Myths Part of the education related to sexual assault awareness is to help students and others understand the harmful stereotypes and assumptions made about what factors can result in sexual assault. Blaming victims for what happens to them is common, and can further lead to trauma for an individual who has been victimized. Therefore, evaluating what myths persist in students\u2019 understanding helps improve training and education. The survey collected data to evaluate the pervasiveness of commonly held \u201crape myths.\u201d That term was not used in the survey, but rather respondents were asked whether or not they agreed with certain statements which have often served to excuse behavior that is otherwise a violation of the law or policy. The questions in the survey were \u201cintentionally heteronormative and based on sexual situations that occur between men and women,\u201d so that the rape myth it was testing could be explored. In every instance, males were more likely than females to agree or strongly agree with the myth being tested, and at times the views were two or three times more pervasive. The percentage of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the following statements is broken down by total, female, male, and GNC. The number of students responding to this set of questions ranged from 2,834 to 2,841 (e.g., not every student answered every rape myth statement). In this section, the gender breakdown for each question reflects the prevalence of the belief within each gender. Prior sections reported the gender breakdown of the respondents who reported experiencing the particular surveyed behavior person who is sexually assaulted or raped while she or he is drunk is at least somewhat responsible for putting themselves in that position. o Total agree n = 298 (10.5%) o Women agree n= 125 (6.4%) o Men agree n= 166 (19.8%) o agree n= 3 (7.9%) \u2022 If a woman hooks up with a lot of men, eventually she is going to get into trouble. o Total agree n = 668 (23.5%) o Women agree n = 360 (18.6%) o Men agree n = 298 (35.3%) o agree n = 5 (13.2%) \u2022 Sexual violence and rape happen because people put themselves in bad situations. o Total agree n = 270 (9.5%) o Women agree n = 129 (6.7%) o Men agree n = 135 (16%) o agree n = 3 (7.9%) \u2022 Sexual violence and rape happen because men can get carried away in sexual situations once they\u2019ve started. o Total n = 901 (31.7%) o Women agree n = 587 (30.3%) o Men agree n = 298 (35.4%) o agree n = 12 (31.6%) 42 \u2022 When someone is raped or sexually assaulted, it\u2019s often because the way they said \u201cno\u201d was unclear or there was some miscommunication. o Total n = 304 (10.7%) o Women agree n = 174 (9%) o Men agree n = 121 (14.4%) o agree n = 6 (15.8%) \u2022 Rape and sexual violence can happen unintentionally, especially if alcohol is involved. o Total n = 1,171 (41.3%) o Women agree n = 701 (36.2%) o Men agree n = 444 (52.8%) o agree n = 13 (34.2%) \u2022 It is not necessary to get consent before sexual activity if you are in a relationship with that person. o Total n= 179 (6.3%) o Women agree n = 81 (4.2%) o Men agree n = 95 (11.3%) o agree n = 2 (5.4 lot of times, women who say they were raped agreed to have sex and then regretted it afterward. o Total n = 453 (16%) o Women agree n = 224 (11.6%) o Men agree n = 223 (26.5%) o agree n = 4 (10.5%) \u2022 It shouldn\u2019t be considered rape if a man is drunk and didn\u2019t realize what he was doing. o Total n = 127 (4.5%) o Women agree n = 50 (2.6%) o Men agree n = 73 (8.7%) o agree n = 2 (5.3%) These rape myths exist more commonly from a male-identified perspective, although these assumptions or stereotypes persist to some degree amongst all identities. 43 1. Survey questions 2. Email communications sent to campus regarding the Chico Speaks survey Chico Speaks Survey Consent Page exit logic: Page Logic IF: #1 Question \"Do you agree to take the survey?\" is one of the following answers (\"No am not 18 years of age or older and/or decline to participate.\") THEN: Disqualify and display: Thank you for your time. Statement of Anonymity The survey will not ask you to provide any identifying information and your responses are anonymous. In the event of any publication or presentation of the survey results, no personally identifiable information will be shared. Survey responses will be reported in terms of groups of students rather than as individual cases. Risks and Benefits The results of the survey will provide important information about our campus climate and will help us in our efforts to ensure that the environment at this school is safe for students. There are no risks in participating in this survey beyond those experienced in everyday life. Some of the survey questions are personal and you might experience emotional discomfort while answering them. At the end of the survey you will be given information about resources should you wish to talk with someone. Voluntary Participation Participation in this survey is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you can skip questions or stop participating at any time without penalty. Refusal to take part in the survey will not result in any negative consequences. If you have questions about the purpose or content of the survey, or if you have technical difficulties taking the survey, please email [email protected]. 220 Demographics 221 1. Do you agree to take the survey? * Yes am 18 years of age or older and agree to participate. No am not 18 years of age or older and/or decline to participate. Show/hide trigger exists. 8 2. What is your current class standing? First year student Second year student Third year student Fourth year student Fifth year (or higher) student Graduate or professional student Hidden unless: #2 Question \"What is your current class standing?\" is one of the following answers (\"Graduate or professional student\") 339 3. What type of graduate degree are you pursuing? Master's Professional (e.g., MBA, MHA, MPA) Other postgraduate degree 468 4. What is your current student status? Full time Part time 10 5. Where do you live during the current school year? Residence hall On-campus apartment or house Off-campus apartment or house (living alone or with people who are not family members) At home with family (living with partner, spouse, parents, kids, etc.) Fraternity and sorority life housing Other Demographics 11 6. What student group(s) do you participate in? (select all that apply) Intercollegiate sports team Club sports team Intramural sports team Fraternity or sorority Cultural, religious, or spiritual group Student government Performing arts group do not participate in a student group Other 4 7. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? Yes No 5 8. What is your race, as you define it? (select all that apply) American Indian or Alaska native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Other 15 9. What is your citizenship or residence status? U.S. citizen Permanent U.S. resident, not a citizen Foreign national or on a student visa Not a citizen and not a legal resident Other 470 10. Are you the first person in your family to go to college (i.e. neither of your parents/guardians or siblings have attended college)? Yes No I'm not sure 343 11. What term best describes your religious affiliation? Roman Catholic Protestant (e.g. Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist, Presbyterian) Orthodox Christian Other Christian (e.g. Mormon, Jehovah's Witness) Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim No religious affiliation (including atheist or agnostic) Other 471 12. What term best describes your gender identity? Woman Man Transgender Genderqueer/gender non-conforming Other 3 13. What term best describes your sexual orientation? Gay Lesbian Heterosexual Bisexual Asexual Questioning Other 230 14. Do you consider yourself to have a physical disability or long-term physical health condition? These could include for example: diabetes, epilepsy, arthritis, or any physical impairment, some of which may not be readily apparent. Yes No 231 15. Do you consider yourself to have a mental disability or long-term mental health condition? These could include for example: dyslexia, long-term depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), some of which may not be readily apparent. Yes No General Campus Climate Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree feel safe at this school feel close to people at this school. It is easy to find people on campus who understand me think faculty are genuinely concerned about my welfare think faculty pre-judge my abilities based on my identity or background think administrators are genuinely concerned about my welfare. 25 16. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. Very Respectful Respectful Disrespectful Very Disrespectful Unsure Affected by learning disabilities (e.g., ADHD, dyslexia) Affected by mental health issues (e.g., anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression) From non- Christian religions From Christian religions Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender International students Non-native English speakers Physically disabled Politically conservative Politically liberal Socioeconomically disadvantaged 346 17. How would you rate the climate on campus for people who are...? Perceptions of Sexual Violence Show/hide trigger exists. 358 18. Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you seriously considered leaving this school? Yes No Hidden unless: #18 Question \"Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you seriously considered leaving this school? \" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\") 359 19. Why did you consider leaving? (select all that apply experienced financial struggles (e.g couldn't afford tuition and fees needed to work had family concerns had poor academic performance (e.g., bad grades, classes were too hard wanted to transfer to another college or university struggled with mental health challenges (e.g., stress, anxiety, depression struggled with physical health challenges didn't feel welcomed or supported at this school didn't feel close to anyone at this school didn't feel safe at this school Other The following questions ask about sexual violence. Sexual violence refers to a range of sexual behaviors that are unwanted by an individual. These behaviors could be initiated by someone known or unknown to the individual, including someone they are in a relationship with. Sexual Violence Prevention Training 39 Show/hide trigger exists. 72 20. Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you received information or training at your school in any of the following areas? Understanding the definition of sexual violence Reporting an incident of sexual violence Your school's procedures for investigating an incident of sexual violence Accessing sexual violence resources Sexual violence prevention strategies (e.g., asking for consent, responsible alcohol use) Bystander intervention skills Yes No do not recall Hidden unless: #20 Question \"Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you received information or training at your school in any of the following areas? Understanding the definition of sexual violence Reporting an incident of sexual violence Your school's procedures for investigating an incident of sexual violence Accessing sexual violence resources Sexual violence prevention strategies (e.g., asking for consent, responsible alcohol use) Bystander intervention skills \" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\") 74 21. Did you receive sexual violence information or training as part of: (select all that apply) New student orientation Fraternity and sorority life participation Athletics participation Residence life programs Class presentations or projects Campus-wide events Student leadership training do not recall Other Very Useful Useful Not Very Useful Not At All Useful Not Covered The definition of sexual violence Reporting an incident of sexual violence The school's procedures for investigating an incident of sexual violence Sexual violence resources Sexual violence prevention strategies (e.g., asking for consent, responsible alcohol use) Bystander intervention skills Hidden unless: #20 Question \"Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you received information or training at your school in any of the following areas? Understanding the definition of sexual violence Reporting an incident of sexual violence Your school's procedures for investigating an incident of sexual violence Accessing sexual violence resources Sexual violence prevention strategies (e.g., asking for consent, responsible alcohol use) Bystander intervention skills \" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\") 54 22. How useful was the training in increasing your knowledge about: Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure The school would take the report seriously. The school would take steps to protect the person making the report from retaliation. The accused or their friends would retaliate against the person making the report. The educational achievement/career of the person making the report would suffer. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree If a friend or experienced sexual violence would know where to go to get help understand my school's formal procedures to address complaints of sexual violence am confident my school would administer the formal procedures to fairly address reports of sexual violence know what confidential resources (e.g., victim advocacy, counseling) are available to me to report an incident of sexual violence. 40 23. Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements. If someone reported an incident of sexual violence to a campus authority: 59 24. Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements. Yes, in a class, lab, or work setting at my school Yes, in a social setting at my school Yes, in other settings at my school Have not experienced this at my school Made sexist remarks or jokes in your presence Made inappropriate comments about your or someone else\u2019s body or appearance in your presence Said crude sexual things to you, or tried to get you to talk about sexual matters when you didn't want to E\u2010mailed, texted, or used social media to send offensive sexual jokes, stories, or pictures to you Seemed to be bribing you with some sort of reward if you agreed to engage in a romantic or sexual relationship with that person Sexual Violence Experiences 232 25. Has anyone done the following to you since the beginning of the school year (Fall 2017)? (select all that apply) Trigger Warning: The following section uses explicit language, including anatomical names of body parts and specific behaviors to ask about sexual situations, which may be upsetting. Resources for support are available at the end of the survey, should you need them. This section asks about non-consensual or unwanted sexual contact you may have experienced. When you are asked about whether something happened, please think about what has happened since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017). Again, this survey is completely and your responses are ANONYMOUS. Sexual Violence Experiences Sexual Violence Experiences 334 337 26. Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you had of the following experiences? Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body or removed some of my clothes even though didn\u2019t want to Someone to sexually penetrate me (i.e. someone tried to put a penis or insert fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to Someone sexually penetrated me (i.e. someone put a penis or inserted fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to Someone to perform oral sex on me or make me give them oral sex even though didn't want to Someone performed oral sex on me or made me give them oral sex even though didn't want to Yes No Unsure Page entry logic: This page will show when: #26 Question \"Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you had of the following experiences? Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body or removed some of my clothes even though didn\u2019t want to Someone to sexually penetrate me (i.e. someone tried to put a penis or insert fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to Someone sexually penetrated me (i.e. someone put a penis or inserted fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to Someone to perform oral sex on me or make me give them oral sex even though didn't want to Someone performed oral sex on me or made me give them oral sex even though didn't want to \" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\",\"Unsure\") This happened once This happened more than once think this happened, but I'm unsure This did not happen Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body or removed some of my clothes even though didn\u2019t want to Someone to sexually penetrate me (i.e. someone tried to put a penis or insert fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to Someone sexually penetrated me (i.e. someone put a penis or inserted fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to Someone to perform oral sex on me or make me give them oral sex even though didn't want to Someone performed oral sex on me or made me give them oral sex even though didn't want to 325 27. What was the non-consensual or unwanted sexual contact you experienced? Yes No Unsure Catching you off guard, or ignoring non\u2010verbal cues or looks? Telling lies, threatening to end a relationship or to spread rumors about you, or verbally pressuring you? Showing displeasure, criticizing your sexuality or attractiveness, or getting angry? Taking advantage of you when you were incapacitated (e.g., too drunk, high, asleep, or out of it)? Threatening you with being outed? Threatening to physically harm you or someone close to you? Using force or having a weapon? Sexual Violence Experiences Page entry logic: This page will show when: #26 Question \"Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you had of the following experiences? Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body or removed some of my clothes even though didn\u2019t want to Someone to sexually penetrate me (i.e. someone tried to put a penis or insert fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to Someone sexually penetrated me (i.e. someone put a penis or inserted fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to Someone to perform oral sex on me or make me give them oral sex even though didn't want to Someone performed oral sex on me or made me give them oral sex even though didn't want to \" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\",\"Unsure\") 252 28. Did the person(s) who did one or more of the behaviors listed above do them by... For the next set of questions, please pick what you feel is the that has happened to you since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017). If you experienced more than one incident, answer the following questions about the most serious incident. Yes No Unsure Been drinking alcohol, but wasn't drunk Been drinking alcohol and was drunk Been taking or using marijuana Been taking or using drugs other than alcohol and marijuana Tried to get you drunk Given you a drug without your knowledge or consent 95 261 29. Just prior to the incident, had the person: (select all that apply) 96 30. What is or was your relationship with the person who conducted this unwanted behavior? (select all that apply) Acquaintance or peer Friend Current romantic partner or spouse Ex-romantic partner or spouse Faculty or staff member No prior relationship Other 97 31. Was this person affiliated with...? Your college or university Another college or university No college or university Unsure 99 32. What was the sex of the individual? Male Female Unsure 219 33. Where did the incident occur? On-campus residence (e.g., residence hall, apartment, or house) Off-campus residence Fraternity Sorority Bar, night club, or dance club Outdoors Other on-campus location Other off-campus location Show/hide trigger exists. 102 34. Who did you tell about the incident? (select all that apply) Roommate, friend, or classmate Romantic partner Family member Campus sexual violence advocate/counselor Campus security or police Faculty or staff member Residence hall staff No one Other Sexual Violence Experiences Page entry logic: This page will show when: #26 Question \"Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you had of the following experiences? Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body or removed some of my clothes even though didn\u2019t want to Someone to sexually penetrate me (i.e. someone tried to put a penis or insert fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to Someone sexually penetrated me (i.e. someone put a penis or inserted fingers or objects into my vagina or anus) even though didn\u2019t want to Someone to perform oral sex on me or make me give them oral sex even though didn't want to Someone performed oral sex on me or made me give them oral sex even though didn't want to \" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\",\"Unsure\") Hidden unless: #34 Question \"Who did you tell about the incident? (select all that apply)\" is one of the following answers (\"Roommate, friend, or classmate\",\"Romantic partner\",\"Family member\",\"Campus sexual violence advocate/counselor\",\"Campus security or police\",\"Faculty or staff member\",\"Residence hall staff\") 268 35. What kind of responses did you receive from those you told or reported to? (select all that apply) Responded in a way that made you feel supported Doubted you, asked questions to determine if it really happened, or refused to believe you Blamed you for the assault, or said you could have done something to prevent it, or asked why you didn\u2019t do something to prevent it Helped you gather information or find resources or services Made excuses for the person who did this to you Listened sympathetically without criticizing or blaming you Told you to not talk about it, to move on, or to focus on other things Validated and believed your experience Show/hide trigger exists. 104 36. Did you use the school's formal procedures to report the incident(s)? Yes No Hidden unless: #36 Question \"Did you use the school's formal procedures to report the incident(s)?\" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\") 105 37. Did the school\u2019s formal procedures help you resolve the issue? Completely resolved the issue Helped me a lot Helped, but could have helped more Helped me a little Didn\u2019t help me at all I'm currently going through the resolution process Sexual Violence Experiences 103 38. It is common to have mixed feelings when deciding whether or not to share your experience with someone else. Did any of the following thoughts or concerns cross your mind when you were deciding whether or not to share or report your experience? (select all that apply) Didn't think it was serious enough to report Did not need assistance Wasn't clear that the person intended harm Wanted to forget it happened Felt ashamed or embarrassed, didn't want anyone to know what happened Lack of proof that the incident happened Didn't know who should tell Feared that would not be believed or taken seriously Didn't want to get the person in trouble (e.g., disciplinary action, legal charge, arrest) Feared others would harass me or react negatively toward me Didn't want anyone to know the other things was doing at the time (e.g., drinking underage, using drugs) Other Sexual Violence Reporting Community Behaviors 259 39. Has anyone had or attempted to have unwanted sexual contact with you prior to you going to college? Yes No Unsure 521 40. Which of the following resources can you contact about a sexual assault and be assured that they report what you tell them to others (check all that apply professor or instructor Student Conduct, Rights, and Responsibilities staff member Safe Place advocate Student Health Services clinician/staff member Student Affairs staff member An Academic Advisor Counseling and Wellness Center counselor student employee Very Likely Likely Not Very Likely Not At All Likely Express my discomfort if someone makes a sexual joke about a person's body. Express my discomfort if someone says that sexual assault victims are to blame for being assaulted. Talk to a friend who suspect is in a sexually abusive relationship. Ask someone who looks very upset at a party if they are ok or need help. Confront a friend who tells me that they had sex with someone who was passed out or didn't give consent. Tell a campus authority about information have that might help in a sexual violence case even if pressured by my peers to stay silent. Ask for verbal consent when am intimate with someone. Report a friend who committed sexual violence. Decide not to have sex with someone if they are drunk. Help a friend report an incident of sexual violence or abuse. 109 41. How likely are you to engage in the following behaviors? This question asks about your behaviors. Very Likely Likely Not Very Likely Not At All Likely Express discomfort if someone makes a sexual joke about a person's body. Express discomfort if someone says that sexual assault victims are to blame for being assaulted. Talk to a friend who may be in a sexually abusive relationship. Ask someone who looks very upset at a party if they are ok or need help. Confront a friend who says that they had sex with someone who was passed out or didn't give consent. Tell a campus authority about information that might help in a sexual violence case even if pressured to stay silent. Ask for verbal consent when intimate with someone. Report a friend who committed sexual violence. Decide not to have sex with someone if they are drunk. Help a friend report an incident of sexual violence or abuse. Community Behaviors 142 42. Based on the behavior of your peers, how likely are students at your school to: This question asks about your peers' behaviors. 132 43. Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you actively taken part in activities or volunteered your time on projects focused on stopping sexual violence on campus? Yes No 117 44. Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you had a friend or acquaintance tell you that they were the victim of an unwanted sexual experience? Yes No Show/hide trigger exists. 118 45. Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you observed a situation that you believed was, or could have led to, a sexual assault? Yes No Community Attitudes Hidden unless: #45 Question \"Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you observed a situation that you believed was, or could have led to, a sexual assault?\" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\") 119 46. In response to this situation: (select all that apply created a distraction to cause one or more of the people to disengage from the situation told someone in a position of authority about the situation asked the person who appeared to be at risk if they needed help stepped in and separated the people involved in the situation confronted the person who appeared to be causing the situation asked others to step in as a group and diffuse the situation considered intervening in the situation, but could not safely take any action decided not to take action. 166 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure person who is sexually assaulted or raped while she or he is drunk is at least somewhat responsible for putting themselves in that position. If a woman hooks up with a lot of men, eventually she is going to get into trouble. Sexual violence and rape happen because people put themselves in bad situations. Sexual violence and rape happen because men can get carried away in sexual situations once they've started. When someone is raped or sexually assaulted, it\u2019s often because the way they said \"no\" was unclear or there was some miscommunication. An incident can only be sexual assault or rape if the person says \"no.\" Rape and sexual violence can happen unintentionally, especially if alcohol is involved. It is not necessary to get consent before sexual activity if you are in a relationship with that person lot of times, women who say they were raped agreed to have sex and then regretted it afterward. It shouldn\u2019t be considered rape if a man is drunk and didn\u2019t realize what he was doing. 47. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements. The question statements are intentionally heteronormative and based on sexual situations that occur between men and women. Relationship Dynamics Trigger Warning: This section asks about relationship and dating experiences, which may be upsetting. No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree, get annoyed with the other person, want different things from each other, or just have fights because they are in a bad mood, they are tired, or for some other reason. Couples also have many different ways of trying to settle their differences. Resources for support are available at the end of the survey, should you need them. Relationship Dynamics 124 48. In your opinion, how much of a problem is sexual violence at your school? It's not really a problem It's somewhat of a problem It's definitely a problem don't know 185 186 49. Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you had a casual, steady, or serious dating or intimate partner (including a spouse)? Yes No Page entry logic: This page will show when: #49 Question \"Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you had a casual, steady, or serious dating or intimate partner (including a spouse)?\" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\") Relationship Dynamics Page entry logic: This page will show when: #49 Question \"Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017), have you had a casual, steady, or serious dating or intimate partner (including a spouse)?\" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\") 338 50. Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017) has a casual, steady, or serious dating or intimate partner (including a spouse) done any of the following to you? (select all that apply) Accused you of paying too much attention to someone or something else Called you a name and/or criticized you Put down your family and friends Said things to scare you (e.g., told you something \u201cbad\u201d would happen, threatened to commit suicide) Pressured or forced you to sext or take naked photos Checked up on you (e.g., listened to your phone calls, checked the mileage on your car, called you repeatedly during class) Kept you or tried to keep you from doing something you wanted to do (e.g., going out with friends, going to meetings) Stopped you or tried to stop you from going to work or school Made you do something humiliating or degrading (e.g., begging for forgiveness, having to ask permission to do something you want to do) No, none of the above has happened to me since the beginning of the school year Relationship Dynamics Page entry logic: This page will show when: #51 Question \"Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017) has a casual, steady, or serious dating or intimate partner (including a spouse) done any of the following to you? slapped you? pushed or shoved you? hit you with a fist or something hard? kicked you? hurt you by pulling your hair? slammed you against something? tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you? beaten you? burned you on purpose? used a knife, gun, or other weapon on you? \" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\") 274 51. Since the beginning of the current school year (Fall 2017) has a casual, steady, or serious dating or intimate partner (including a spouse) done any of the following to you? slapped you? pushed or shoved you? hit you with a fist or something hard? kicked you? hurt you by pulling your hair? slammed you against something? tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you? beaten you? burned you on purpose? used a knife, gun, or other weapon on you? Yes No Please answer the following questions about what you consider the you indicated that happened during this current school year. 205 206 52. How concerned were you about your safety? Extremely Somewhat Only a little Not at all 207 53. Did you seek services or contact a hotline after the incident? Yes No Show/hide trigger exists. 209 54. Were you physically injured in the incident? Yes No Relationship Dynamics Relationship Dynamics Hidden unless: #54 Question \"Were you physically injured in the incident?\" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\") 210 55. Did you seek medical attention? Yes No 229 56. Since the beginning of the school year (Fall 2017) has anyone frightened, concerned, angered, or annoyed you by... (select all that apply) Making unwanted phone calls to you or leaving messages Sending unwanted e-mails or other forms of written correspondence or communication Posting offensive or abusive comments on your social media profile(s), blog, or other online space Showing up at places where you were even though he or she had no business being there Exposing personal information or spreading rumors about you on the Internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth Repeatedly asking you on dates, to go to dinner, or get a drink even after you've said no Sharing personal photos of you without your permission Threatening in an online environment to physically harm you No, none of the above has happened to me since the beginning of the school year Page entry logic: This page will show when: #56 Question \"Since the beginning of the school year (Fall 2017) has anyone frightened, concerned, angered, or annoyed you by... (select all that apply)\" is one of the following answers (\"Making unwanted phone calls to you or leaving messages\",\"Sending unwanted e-mails or other forms of written correspondence or communication\",\"Posting offensive or abusive comments on your social media profile(s), blog, or other online space\",\"Showing up at places where you were even though he or she had no business being there\",\"Exposing personal information or spreading rumors about you on the Internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth\",\"Repeatedly asking you on dates, to go to dinner, or get a drink even after you've said no\",\"Sharing personal photos of you without your permission\",\"Threatening in an online environment to physically harm you\") Please answer the following questions about what you consider the you indicated that happened during this current school year. 303 283 57. What is/was your relationship with the person who conducted this unwanted behavior? (select all that apply) Acquaintance or peer Friend Current romantic partner or spouse Ex-romantic partner or spouse Faculty or staff member No prior relationship Other 214 58. Was this person affiliated with...? Your college or university Another college or university No college or university Unsure 285 59. Who did you tell about the incident? (select all that apply) Roommate, friend, or classmate Romantic partner Family member Campus sexual assault advocate or counselor Campus security or police Faculty or staff member Residence hall staff No one Other Hidden unless: #34 Question \"Who did you tell about the incident? (select all that apply)\" is one of the following answers (\"Roommate, friend, or classmate\",\"Romantic partner\",\"Family member\",\"Campus sexual violence advocate/counselor\",\"Campus security or police\",\"Faculty or staff member\",\"Residence hall staff\",\"Other\") 324 60. What kind of responses did you receive from those you told or reported to? (select all that apply) Responded in a way that made you feel supported Doubted you, asked questions to determine if it really happened, or refused to believe you Blamed you for the assault, or said you could have done something to prevent it, or asked why you didn\u2019t do something to prevent it Helped you gather information or find resources or services Made excuses for the person who did this to you Listened sympathetically without criticizing or blaming you Told you to not talk about it, to move on, or to focus on other things Validated and believed your experience Show/hide trigger exists. 217 61. Did you use the school's formal procedures to report this incident(s)? Yes No Thank You! Hidden unless: #61 Question \"Did you use the school's formal procedures to report this incident(s)?\" is one of the following answers (\"Yes\") 218 62. Did the school\u2019s formal procedures help you resolve the issue? Completely resolved the issue Helped me a lot Helped, but could have helped more Helped me a little Didn\u2019t help me at all I'm currently going through the resolution process Thank you for your participation! Your responses are important for developing policies and prevention tools to improve the climate for all students on campus. As a reminder, your survey responses are anonymous. If you click on any links on this page you won't be able to return to the survey. Please print or save this page to keep it as a resource. As a thank you for your participation, you can enter to win prizes by clicking the link below. Your entry to win will in no way be connected to your survey responses. Click Here to Enter to Win If you experienced discomfort while taking this survey and would like to talk to someone or learn more about these issues, the resources below can help you. Counseling and Wellness Center (Confidential) (530) 898-6345 If you call after regular business hours (Monday-Friday, 8 am-5 pm), please follow the instructions on the phone message to speak to a live counselor. Safe Place (Confidential) (530) 898-3030 If you call after regular business hours (Monday-Friday, 8 am-5 pm), please follow the instructions on the phone message to speak to a live counselor. Dylan Saake, Title Coordinator (530) 898- 4949 1 4/9/2018 Dear students, As the vice president of Student Affairs am committed to providing platforms to ensure that student voices are heard. As part of that commitment and part of our ongoing effort to make sure you feel welcome and safe at Chico State invite you to take a moment to complete a climate survey called Chico Speaks. The survey is about incidences of certain types of sexual and physical experiences in relationships, as well as some of the community attitudes and behaviors that are seen around campus. Your responses to the survey will be completely anonymous. The information gathered will be used to help plan future programming and resources, and the results will be shared with the campus community widely. The survey is available here: The confidential survey takes about 20-30 minutes to complete, and at the end of the survey you can elect to become eligible for a number of prizes including iPads, a laptop, a bicycle, and more (The first 1,500 students to complete the survey will receive a $5 campus gift card full description of the prizes offered, frequently asked questions about the survey, and available support resources are available here: If you have questions about the survey instrument itself, please email [email protected] want to thank you in advance for your assistance and participation! Milton Lang, EdD Vice President for Student Affairs 4/9/2018 To: All faculty From: Dylan Saake, Title Coordinator Today marks the start of Chico Speaks, a campus climate survey about certain types of sexual and physical experiences in relationships, as well as some of the community attitudes and behaviors that are seen around campus. The survey is only for students, and we\u2019d appreciate your support in encouraging them to participate. Students can find the link to the survey in their campus email or by visiting the Title website, which also has frequently asked questions about the survey and available support resources. The first 1,500 students to complete the survey will receive a $5 campus gift card, and all students who complete the survey are eligible to enter into a drawing for prizes including iPads, a laptop, a bicycle, and more. Thank you in advance for supporting this critical information gathering. I\u2019ve attached a copy of the poster we are using to publicize the survey, if you would like to post one at your office or department bulletin boards. 4/9/2018 Chico Speaks Survey - Earn $500 for your Club! Do you want to win a $500 credit with Conference Services? As hope you know, the campus has launched a brief climate survey called Chico Speaks. Students who complete the survey can enter into a drawing for many great prizes\u2014including a laptop, a bike, and concert tickets. The sooner they take it, the more opportunities they have to win. Additionally, the student organization with the highest ratio of student referrals who complete the survey will win a $500 credit to Conference Services! When students complete the survey, they can note which organization referred them, and final numbers will be compared against organization membership numbers. The ratio means that every student organization has an equal opportunity to win the prize. Check your student email for the survey link or visit Please encourage others to complete the survey as well. Thank you! View News Post Apr 12, 2018 Hello Chico State students! On Monday, we all received an email about the Chico Speaks survey currently being conducted on our campus wanted to congratulate the first two winners who completed the survey: Morgan Prica and Amy Sullivan. Both have won an iPad mini for completing the survey. Thanks for making your voices heard want to remind you that the first 1,500 students to complete the survey will receive a $5 on- campus gift card! Additional drawings and the prizes offered are detailed below, and remember that the sooner you complete the survey, the better chance you have to win one of the prizes. As students, it is important that we take advantage of opportunities to share our perspectives. When we do, we can impact programming and services provided by the University. Chico Speaks is one of those ways, and the survey tackles a critical topic\u2014incidences of certain types of sexual and physical experiences in relationships, as well as community attitudes and behaviors seen around campus. Participation by all students is crucial if we are to truly understand the ways in which these matters affect our University, so it is important to hear from all students\u2014even those who think these experiences do not affect them personally. The survey is anonymous, takes 20 or so minutes to complete, and can be accessed from your email or the Chico Speaks webpage. Join me, as we make our voices heard! Sincerely, Alisha Sharma President Date Prize April 13 Laptop April 17 1 iPad mini April 20 Concert tickets ($250 gift certificate from Ticketmaster) April 24 Cruiser ($300 gift certificate to Pullins Cyclery April 27 Textbook credit ($250 Wildcat Bookstore textbook credit) April 30 Laptop 2 iPad mini Text Book Credit ($250 Wildcat Store textbook credit) Cruiser ($300 gift certificate to Pullins Cyclery Concert tickets ($250 gift certificate from Ticketmaster) 4/18/2018 Dear students am writing to thank the many students who have already completed the climate survey called Chico Speaks, and to encourage everyone who has not yet completed the survey to do so. The survey is about incidences of certain types of sexual and physical experiences in relationships, as well as community attitudes and behaviors seen around campus. The survey will be available here until April 29: also want to congratulate our most recent winner, Vincent Cammarota, who has won a Surface Pro laptop as thanks for completing the survey full description of the prizes offered, frequently asked questions, and available support resources are available here. We still have a lot of great prizes to give away in gratitude for your participation. The next drawing will be Friday morning (April 20), and the sooner you complete the survey, the more chances you will have to win. Survey responses are completely anonymous, and the information gathered will be used to help plan future programming and resources. The results will be shared widely with the campus community. If you have questions about the survey instrument itself, please email [email protected]. Thank you in advance for your assistance and participation! Dylan Saake Title Coordinator 4/23/2018 Dear students am writing to thank the many students who have already completed the climate survey called Chico Speaks and to encourage everyone who has not yet completed the survey to do so. The survey is about incidences of certain types of sexual and physical experiences in relationships, as well as community attitudes and behaviors seen around campus. This is the final week! The survey will be available here until April 29: full description of the prizes offered, frequently asked questions about the survey, and available support resources are available here: The following prizes are still available, and the sooner you complete the survey, the more chances you will have to win: - Cruiser ($300 gift certificate to Pullins Cyclery) x 2 - Text Book Credit ($250 Wildcat Bookstore textbook credit) x 2 - Laptop - iPad mini x 2 - Concert tickets ($250 gift certificate from Ticketmaster) Survey responses are completely anonymous, and the information gathered will be used to help plan future programming and resources. The results will be shared widely with the campus community. If you have questions about the survey instrument itself, please email [email protected] Thank you in advance for your assistance and participation! Sandy Parsons Dean of Students Interim for Student Affairs 4/26/2018 Dear students am writing to thank the many students who have already completed the climate survey called Chico Speaks, and to encourage everyone who has not yet completed the survey to do so. The survey is about incidences of certain types of sexual and physical experiences in relationships, as well as community attitudes and behaviors seen around campus. This is the final weekend! The survey will be available here until April 29: Prizes are available for those interested in entering the drawing, and the following students have already won a prize: \u2022 Moran Prica, Amy Sullivan, and Katelyn Ault each won an iPad Mini \u2022 Vincent Cammarota won a Surface Pro Bundle \u2022 Katelyn Cerepa won a $250 Ticketmaster gift certificate \u2022 Rachel Reynosa won a $300 Pullins Cyclery gift certificate Chico Speaks closes soon, so be sure to complete the survey and enter the drawing to win one of these remaining six great prizes! \u2022 Cruiser ($300 gift certificate to Pullins Cyclery) \u2022 Text Book Credit ($250 Wildcat Bookstore textbook credit) x 2 \u2022 Surface Pro Bundle \u2022 Two iPad Minis \u2022 Concert tickets ($250 gift certificate from Ticketmaster) Survey responses are anonymous, and the information gathered will be used to help plan future programming and resources. The results will be shared widely with the campus community. If you have questions about the survey instrument itself, please email [email protected] Thank you in advance for your assistance and participation! Milton Lang, EdD Vice President for Student Affairs"} |
8,286 | Cleve Bryant | University of Texas – Austin | [
"8286_101.pdf",
"8286_102.pdf",
"8286_103.pdf",
"8286_104.pdf",
"8286_105.pdf",
"8286_106.pdf"
] | {"8286_101.pdf": "Coach Dubbed \u201cOld Freaky Nasty\u201d Fired For Sexual Harassment Written by NewsOne Staff Published on September 16, 2011 Longtime University of Texas associate athletics director for football operations Cleve Bryant was fired after an investigation by university officials concluded Bryant sexually harassed a 24-year-old football department employee. RELATED: More Scandals? Congressman Faces Sexual Harassment Allegations Tales Of Sexual Abuse In Churches Are Bigger Than Eddie Long Rachel Arena filed a sexual harassment complaint after several instances where Bryant crossed the line. Documents show that Arena told investigators: \u2022 That during a July 2010 meeting in Bryant\u2019s office about whether she would receive a raise, Bryant pulled down the top of her dress and bra and fondled her breast. \u2022 That Bryant repeatedly either told her in person or texted her that want to kiss you.\u201d \u2022 That Bryant retaliated after she told him to stop texting by creating a false allegation that she had acted inappropriately at a minor league baseball game 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Football Coach Cleve Bryant Fired For Sexual Harassment 1/8 Read more at Bossip Kendrick Lamar, Uncle Sam, And America\u2019s Next Captain Google Removes Black History Month From Calendar Missouri Sues Starbucks Because Its 'Workforce Has Become More Female And Less White' Trump Selects Proud Boy Who Called Jan. 6 Rioters 'Political Prisoners' To Lead Counterterrorism Office The Surrenderers: Trump's Cadre of Black Supporters Gave Up Everything And Got Nothing in Return Opinion: Absurd White Folks Are Crying 'Reverse Racism' Over Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl Halftime Show Medical Leaders Condemn Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Dangerous' Claims About Black People's Immune Systems Op-Ed: Republicans Appalled After Journalist Calls Them 'White Supremacists'\u2014 But Aren't They? Trending Stories g pp p y g g she attended with some former Texas football players 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Football Coach Cleve Bryant Fired For Sexual Harassment 2/8 Opinion: Absurd White Folks Are Crying \u2018Reverse Racism\u2019 Over Kendrick Lamar\u2019s Super Bowl Halftime Show 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Football Coach Cleve Bryant Fired For Sexual Harassment 3/8 Memphis Police Sergeant Under Fire For Suggesting Descendants Of Slave Owners Are Owed Reparations J.D. Vance Defends Self-Described Racist Who Posted, \u2018Normalize Indian Hate\u2019 Despite His Indian Family 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Football Coach Cleve Bryant Fired For Sexual Harassment 4/8 Surviving Trump: Can Black And White Women Still Be Friends In The Era Of Trump 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Football Coach Cleve Bryant Fired For Sexual Harassment 5/8 What Happened To Allisha Watts? Accused Killer Awaits Murder Trial In Girlfriend\u2019s Death Trump\u2019s Border Czar Wants To Have Arrested For Advising Immigrants Of Their Constitutional Rights 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Football Coach Cleve Bryant Fired For Sexual Harassment 6/8 The 8 Most Infamous U.S. Public Housing Projects Is Trump Ignoring His Promises That Won Him The Election 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Football Coach Cleve Bryant Fired For Sexual Harassment 7/8 Sign Up For The NewsOne Newsletter Enter your email Subscribe We care about your data. See our privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. \uf09a \ue900 \uf16d \uf167 Privacy Policy Terms of Service Ad Choice Careers About Us Subscribe Copyright \u00a9 2025 Interactive One, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Powered by WordPress | An Urban One Brand 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Football Coach Cleve Bryant Fired For Sexual Harassment 8/8", "8286_102.pdf": "Texas football staffer was fired for harassment 13y - Steve Delsohn European soccer review: Bellingham sent off, keeps LaLiga race open 7h LeBron sits out All-Star Game, ending 20-year run 4h - Dave McMenamin Tiger hopeful for more events, tours' reunification 4h - Paolo Uggetti Ravens' Tucker accused by 7 more of misconduct 11h - Jamison Hensley Slot: Nerves in L'pool win fuelled by derby chaos 11h - Beth Lindop Amorim admits Amad likely out for rest of season 11h Flick: Bar\u00e7a must avoid Bellingham 'weakness' 14h - Sam Marsden and Moises Llorens Kelly's dream return as Arsenal hit Spurs for five 12h - Olivia Pagden Irish jockey O'Sullivan, 24, dies after Thurles fall 17h - Reuters Guardiola hopeful Haaland can face Real Madrid 1d - Mark Ogden Plagued by injuries, Amorim is forced to scramble with limited options at Man United 8h - James Olley Liverpool's nervy win vs. Wolves shows h i th i i Sep 16, 2011, 12:38 Share University of Texas football coach Mack Brown's longtime associate athletics director for football operations was dismissed from the university last March because a university investigation determined he made repeated unwanted sexual advances toward a female administrative assistant over a two-year period, \"Outside the Lines\" has learned. Cleve Bryant, who oversaw numerous daily activities for the Longhorns, including game- day-operations, team travel and recruiting weekends, was fired after a university Steve Delsohn Cleve Bryant was fired for harassment 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Longhorns' Cleve Bryant was fired for sexual harassment 1/7 investigator determined \"that Mr. Bryant did sexually harass\" the staffer and that \"the harassment was likely both verbal and physical.\" Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Longhorns' Cleve Bryant was fired for sexual harassment 2/7 Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Longhorns' Cleve Bryant was fired for sexual harassment 3/7 \"Outside the Lines\" obtained documents from the university's investigation that followed a sexual harassment complaint filed by Rachel Arena, a then 24-year-old football department employee who had graduated from Texas in 2008. The documents include Arena's formal complaint, interviews with Bryant and Arena conducted by attorneys and school officials, and an investigator's conclusion and recommendations to university president William Powers. Documents show that Arena told investigators: \u2022 That during a July 2010 meeting in Bryant's office about whether she would receive a raise, Bryant pulled down the top of her dress and bra and fondled her breast. \u2022 That Bryant repeatedly either told her in person or texted her that want to kiss you.\" \u2022 That Bryant retaliated after she told him to stop texting by creating a false allegation that she had acted inappropriately at a minor league baseball game she attended with some former Texas football players. \u2022 That one day while in the break room, getting a bottle of water, Bryant came in, stood in front of the door as she started to leave and said, \"Kiss me.\" Arena said she turned away and Bryant kissed her on the neck before she could leave. \u2022 That two other female office workers alleged that Bryant had inappropriately kissed them in the past. \u2022 That another woman in the athletic department referred to Bryant as \"old-freak-nasty\" and that he once told Arena \"he wanted to touch me, that he wanted to pleasure me, that he could, that he could make me happy, referring to sexually, things like that.\" Bryant, who is married, denied all of the allegations in his interviews. Through his attorney, Tom Nesbitt, he declined an interview request Thursday. Bryant appealed his firing, but it's unclear where that appeal stands because university officials would not discuss any aspects of this story. Cleve Bryant, left, was Texas coach Mack Brown's right-hand man until Bryant's employment abruptly ended last spring Photo/Harry Cabluck Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Longhorns' Cleve Bryant was fired for sexual harassment 4/7 \"The university chooses not to comment at this time,\" said senior associate athletic director for communications Nick Voinis. Mack Brown, before taping his coach's show today, was asked by the Longhorn Network for his reaction. Brown had no comment. Before her graduation, Arena had been a member of the Texas Angels and Gabriels, student body members who acted as hostesses (Angels) and hosts (Gabriels) when high school recruits visited campus. Texas hired Arena after her graduation as an administrative assistant in the football department, where day-to-day operations were supervised by Bryant. The Texas investigator's report to school president Powers states that \"Mr. Bryant suggests that Ms. Arena contrived her story because she had been denied an $11,000 raise ... This investigator does not believe that Ms. Arena was denied a raise for other than legitimate business reasons, but also does not believe that she invented these incidents over a two- year period.\" Regarding Bryant, the report said: \"As a result of ... inconsistencies between Mr. Bryant's testimony and objective facts and the testimony of many witnesses, this investigator does not find Mr. Bryant credible.\" Arena told investigators her problem with Bryant began shortly after she was hired in 2008. She said comments from Bryant started with texts, which soon went from benign to sexually charged. \"It progressed to more personal questions and at all hours, including weekends,\" said Arena. \"He would ask me when was going out, where was going, and what was wearing. He would ask me if went home with anyone and about my sex life.\" She told investigator Linda Millstone, the associate vice president for institutional equity, that in April 2009, she showed some of Bryant's texts to her mother, who urged her to tell Bryant to stop. Taking her mother's advice, Arena said she texted Bryant, \"This is inappropriate. You're my boss.\" School officials, however, noted that Arena still texted Bryant after this time, sometimes after standard business hours. Arena and her attorneys said she only texted Bryant on football matters -- and football is not an 8-to-5 job. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Longhorns' Cleve Bryant was fired for sexual harassment 5/7 Bryant and Brown have been friends and colleagues for years. From 1995 to 1997, Bryant coached under Brown at North Carolina. When Brown moved to Texas in 1998, he brought Bryant with him as the associate athletic director for football operations. They worked so closely together that Bryant was characterized in a New York Times article as Brown's \"buffer, confidant and mind reader.\" The piece ended with the Brown quote: \"I've said many times if Cleve leaves, I'm leaving, too.\" In the documents, Arena said she communicated with Brown in a letter and in person about her request for a raise. But there are no references to her telling Brown that Bryant had been making unwanted sexual advances toward her was upset,\" she said, \"but couldn't bring myself to tell him [Brown] what had happened.\" Arena filed her formal complaint of sexual assault and sexual harassment with the university's Office of Institutional Equity in October 2010, shortly after taking a leave of absence. On that same day, the university learned that Gloria Allred, a prominent Los Angeles attorney, was representing Arena. Allred said Arena's complaint with the university has since been settled, declining to say for how much. She added that Arena is not pursuing a criminal complaint but would not say the reason why. Arena, who declined to be interviewed, no longer works at the university. Asked about the culture in the Texas football program office, Allred said: \"It appears that some female employees of (Texas) athletics may be afraid to come forward because they fear that if they file a complaint, that they may be retaliated against and lose their job. They are concerned that they will be considered troublemakers, rather than persons who are simply exercising their right to work in an environment free of sexual harassment. \"They need their jobs and love athletics, so this places them in a very difficult situation, which is stressful and allows predators to continue their sexual harassment. The only way to stop it is for the university to make it crystal clear to anyone that they should report sexual harassment when it occurs and that victims will be protected from retaliation if they file a complaint.\" In June, ESPN's \"Outside the Lines\" filed public records requests to the university for any records and reports relating to Bryant and possible misconduct. The university sought to withhold those documents under what it said were exceptions to state law. The matter was forwarded by the university to the Texas Office of the Attorney General for review, and a decision is pending. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Longhorns' Cleve Bryant was fired for sexual harassment 6/7 Steve Delsohn is a reporter in ESPN's Enterprise Unit. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Interest-Based Ads Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. 2/16/25, 9:57 Texas Longhorns' Cleve Bryant was fired for sexual harassment 7/7", "8286_103.pdf": "Close Follow Us Search Home About the Firm Our Team Practice Areas FAQs Testimonials Case Results Contact Us Contact Us Call Us Today! Skip to Content Welcome to Schwartz Perry & Heller I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call Email Chat Connect 2/16/25, 9:57 University of Texas Associate Athletics Director for Football Operations Fired for Harassment :: New York Sexual Harassment Lawy 1/6 September 15, 2011 By Schwartz and Perry Cleve Bryant, former associate athletics director for football operations for the University of Texas, was dismissed from the University last March after a university investigation determined that Bryant sexually harassed then 24-year old, Rachel Arena, an administrative assistant who worked in the football department. Documents obtained from the investigation reveal Arena's allegations against Bryant: \u2022 During a July 2010 meeting in Bryant's office about whether she would receive a raise, Bryant pulled University of Texas Associate Athletics Director for Football Operations Fired for Harassment Skip to Content Welcome to Schwartz Perry & Heller I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 9:57 University of Texas Associate Athletics Director for Football Operations Fired for Harassment :: New York Sexual Harassment Lawy 2/6 down the top of Arena's dress and bra and fondled her breast. \u2022 Bryant repeatedly told Arena in person or via text that want to kiss you.\" \u2022 Bryant retaliated against Arena after she told him to stop texting her by creating a false allegation that she acted inappropriately at a minor league baseball game she attended with former football players. \u2022 Bryant, while in the break room with Arena one day, stood in front of her and said, \"Kiss me.\" Arena turned away and Bryant kissed her on the neck. \u2022 Two other female office workers alleged that Bryant had kissed them in the past. Bryant, who is married, has denied all of the allegations. Bryant also appealed his firing, but university officials have not commented on the appeal, nor will they discuss any aspects of this story. The school investigator's report to the school president states that \"Mr. Bryant suggests that Arena contrived her story because she had been denied an $11,000 raise . . . This investigator Skip to Content Welcome to Schwartz Perry & Heller I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 9:57 University of Texas Associate Athletics Director for Football Operations Fired for Harassment :: New York Sexual Harassment Lawy 3/6 does not believe that Ms. Arena was denied a raise for other than legitimate business reasons, but also does not believe that she invented these incidents over a two-year period.\" The report went on to state that \"this investigator does not find Mr. Bryant credible.\" Arena further contends that the harassment began shortly after she was hired in 2008. She started getting sexually charged texts from Bryant allegedly discussing \"where [she] was going, what [she] was wearing... if [she] went home with anyone and about [her] sex life.\" Arena filed a formal complaint of sexual assault and sexual harassment with the university's Office of Institutional Equity in October 2010. Arena has since settled her complaint with the university for an undisclosed amount and will not be pressing criminal charges. Arena's attorney Gloria Allred stated that: \"It appears that some female employees of Texas athletics may be afraid to come forward because they fear that if they file a complaint, that they may be retaliated against and lose their job.\" Skip to Content Welcome to Schwartz Perry & Heller I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 9:57 University of Texas Associate Athletics Director for Football Operations Fired for Harassment :: New York Sexual Harassment Lawy 4/6 More information regarding this case is available at ESPN.com. Categories: Hostile Work Environment, Retaliation in the Workplace Related Posts Contact 646-490- 0221 Prev Post Next Post Feb 11, 2021 Recent Appellate Decision Expanding Emotional Distress Award In a Discriminati on and Retaliation Case Skip to Content Welcome to Schwartz Perry & Heller I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 9:57 University of Texas Associate Athletics Director for Football Operations Fired for Harassment :: New York Sexual Harassment Lawy 5/6 Address 3 Park Avenue Suite 2700 New York 10016 Map & Directions Links Home Our Team Practice Areas Mediation & Arbitration Proceedings Before the Testimonials Case Results Contact Us Follow Us The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney- client relationship. \u00a9 2025 All Rights Reserved. Site Map Privacy Policy Site Search Welcome to Schwartz Perry & Heller I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 9:57 University of Texas Associate Athletics Director for Football Operations Fired for Harassment :: New York Sexual Harassment Lawy 6/6", "8286_104.pdf": "Cleve Bryant, a former assistant under Longhorns football coach Mack Brown, was fired earlier this year after an internal investigation determined he sexually harassed a female co-worker. AUSTIN, Texas Cleve Bryant, Texas associate athletics director for football operations and a former assistant under Longhorns football coach Mack Brown, was fired earlier this year after an internal investigation determined he sexually harassed a female administrative assistant over a two-year period, according to documents obtained by University of Texas investigator determined that Bryant made repeated unwanted sexual advances toward the woman and the harassment was likely both verbal and physical s Outside the Lines program obtained documents from the university s investigation, which was prompted by a sexual harassment complaint filed by a football department staffer who graduated from Texas a few years ago. She told investigators that Bryant pulled down her dress and fondled her breast after she asked about receiving a raise; that he repeatedly told her or sent text messages that he wanted to kiss her; and that he kissed her neck after blocking a doorway once, documents said. Two other women who work in the office allege that Bryant inappropriately kissed them in the past associate Bryant fired after sexually assaulting co-worker Author Staff Published: 8:31 September 15, 2011 Updated: 8:31 September 15, 2011 WHAT?! College Football Analyst Pic 2025 and it is Ohio State! \uf04c \uf0e2 \uf01e 00:01 / 26:44 \uf026 \uf064 \uf20a \uf013 x 2/16/25, 9:58 associate Bryant fired after sexually assaulting co-worker | khou.com 1/2 Bryant, a former head football coach at Ohio University, was on Brown s coaching staff at North Carolina and then went with him to Texas in 1998. Bryant coached wide receivers at Texas under then-coach John Mackovic from 1992-94 before going to North Carolina. Bryant, who is married, denied all of the allegations, according to the documents. He declined to comment Thursday, said his attorney, Tom Nesbitt. Bryant appealed his March firing, but the university declined to comment on the status of the appeal. Bryant also had overseen game-day operations, team travel and recruiting weekends. The woman s complaint filed nearly a year ago against Texas has since been settled, according to her attorney Gloria Allred, who declined to reveal the amount. Allred said her client is not pursuing a criminal complaint against the university and no longer works there ARTICLE... 2/16/25, 9:58 associate Bryant fired after sexually assaulting co-worker | khou.com 2/2", "8286_105.pdf": "a 2/16/25, 9:58 Controversy Brews at over Firing of Cleve Bryant | Sports Litigation Alert 1/4 University of Texas officials would rather have the spotlight on the many positives associated with its athletic department this summer, such as the soon-to-launch Longhorn Network and the upcoming football season. Instead, the Cleve Bryant controversy continues to lurk, forcing those same officials to talk about something that they wish would go away. Bryant was the associate athletics director for football operations and right-hand man to Mack Brown, and was reportedly sued for sexual harassment by a female employee in the athletic department. The employee then hired high-profile attorney Gloria Allred. Bryant, whose base salary was $237,309 a year, was fired last March, according to his attorney Tom Nesbitt. \u201cCleve Bryant appealed that decision pursuant to university policy, [to the school\u2019s provost,]\u201d the attorney added. \u201cOur appeal was filed within 10 days of the decision. We requested an immediate hearing. Because of the scheduling issues for the university and its legal team, we\u2019ve been told that a hearing will not be held until mid-August. Bryant and believe the termination was unjust, and he will fight for his job.\u201d Bryant originally came to Texas in 1991 as an assistant to coach John Mackovic. He left in 1995 to work for Brown at North Carolina, and returned to Austin in 1998 with Brown. His job description, prior to his departure, was working \u201cextensively in handling and supervising all of the administrative operations and responsibilities of the football program. He oversees everything from team travel and event scheduling, to recruiting weekends, housing and game day operations.\u201d Bryant\u2019s wife, Jean Bryant, a life skills counselor for the football team, also took a leave of absence around the same time the lawsuit was filed. \u2190 Previous Next \u2192 Controversy Brews at over Firing of Cleve Bryant Jul 29, 2011 2/16/25, 9:58 Controversy Brews at over Firing of Cleve Bryant | Sports Litigation Alert 2/4 Site Search by Keyword or Category Categories Select Category Articles in Current Issue Football Player\u2019s Weight Room Injury Case Crippled by Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Appeal Dismisses Two Separate Title Complaints Filed Against University System of Georgia Golf Holdings Takes a Shot at Becoming the One and Only L.A. Golf Club Wrestling with Justice: Examining the Legal Complexities in the Connor Calkins Cases Claim that Facility Was Responsible for Hockey Injury in Negligence Case Falls Short The Future of Title as President Trump Returns to the White House Schools Should Not Dismiss The Biden Administration\u2019s Final Title Guidance $1.5 Million Scandal Hits Florida State Basketball Key Issues for Investors to Consider from the New Football Governance Bill Bodycheck in College Hockey Contest Leads to Negligence Lawsuit Negligence Lawsuit Filed Against Rockwall-Heath Coaches for Injuries to Students Announces Keynote Speaker for Annual Conference, As Well As Registration and Hotel Link Venable Names Desir\u00e9e Moore and Ben Stockman as Co-Leaders of Growing Sports Law Team Minnesota Twins Announce Changes in General Counsel\u2019s Office Cracks Down on of Xtreme Fighting Championships, Inc. for Fraudulent Scheme Bowling Green Professor Sungho Cho Shares Story About His Career in Teaching Sports Law Search here... 2/16/25, 9:58 Controversy Brews at over Firing of Cleve Bryant | Sports Litigation Alert 3/4 Privacy Policy Logon Profile Contact Us Subscriber Support Copyright \u00a9 2003-2022 by Hackney Publications. All rights reserved. 2/16/25, 9:58 Controversy Brews at over Firing of Cleve Bryant | Sports Litigation Alert 4/4", "8286_106.pdf": "Bryant's supervisors didn't know of harassment president says Ralph K.M. Haurwitz [email protected] Published 12:01 a.m Sept. 1, 2012 Updated 9:25 p.m Sept. 26, 2018 Officials of the University of Texas didn't know about what they later described as sexual harassment and other inappropriate conduct by the associate athletics director for football operations until a female administrative assistant complained last year President William Powers Jr. said Thursday. The university's investigation of the complaint showed that supervisors in the athletics department, including football coach Mack Brown and athletic directors DeLoss Dodds and Chris Plonsky, had no prior knowledge of any harassment, Powers told the American- Statesman. He added that he had not known of it, either. The dismissal last March of Cleve Bryant, who had been Brown's right-hand man, shows that the university's policies against sexual harassment are effective, even in cases involving high- level people, the president said. \"There was an allegation that he had violated our sexual harassment policies. It was thoroughly investigated. And we took decisive disciplinary action by terminating him,\" Powers said in an interview at his office. University investigators concluded that the woman tolerated inappropriate text messages, a kiss, touching and suggestive comments for about two years because she feared for her job, according to records released last week under the Texas Public Information Act. Need a break? Play the Daily Crossword Puzzle. Colleagues of the woman told investigators that she informed them about the incidents not long after they occurred. But because the woman told the colleagues to keep the information confidential, it never rose to the attention of supervisors, Powers said. 2/16/25, 9:58 Bryant's supervisors didn't know of harassment president says 1/2 \"We'd like people to honor the institutional interests, not just the friendship interests,\" Powers said. \"That's part of our training. But these were friends that the investigation showed she had asked to keep it confidential. This was a small group of people, and they honored that.\" The university agreed last year to pay the woman \u2014 whom the Statesman has chosen not to identify because of the sensitive subject matter \u2014 $400,000 to settle a formal complaint she filed with the school against Bryant in October 2010. Her lawyer, Gloria Allred, told Powers in a letter at the time of the complaint that the university \"knew or should have known\" of Bryant's conduct and did nothing to stop it. In his March 23 letter dismissing Bryant from his $237,309-a-year job, Powers wrote that two other women told investigators that he had kissed them inappropriately. Asked Thursday whether supervisors should have been aware of Bryant's behavior, Powers said no one called it to their attention until August. He noted that Bryant was the woman's direct supervisor admitted no liability or wrongdoing in the settlement with the woman, who no longer works at the university. She agreed never to seek future employment with the campus or the System. Powers also addressed the question of why the university didn't announce that Bryant had been dismissed. That word came instead from Bryant's lawyer in June last year, nearly three months after the dismissal. \"As a general proposition, when we're done investigating something and we think that's over, short of some other case-specific reason for confidentiality, we would announce the results of that,\" Powers said. \"There were a lot of other things ... that make this not the typical case,\" including the attorney general's review of open-records requests, a grievance filed by Bryant and a potential for litigation, he said. Asked why the football coach, as the most prominent figure in the athletics department, has not spoken publicly about the matter, Powers replied: \"He didn't know about it. He does now. He's disappointed with it think he felt this was an issue that he left entirely to the university. He was a witness in it, but other than that he doesn't know the facts about it. So think that's his reason for not commenting.\" 2/16/25, 9:58 Bryant's supervisors didn't know of harassment president says 2/2"} |
9,030 | Leticia Perez | University of California – Los Angeles | [
"9030_101.pdf",
"9030_101.pdf"
] | {"9030_101.pdf": ""} |
7,654 | Rudy Thomas | University of California – San Diego | [
"7654_101.pdf"
] | {"7654_101.pdf": "policy-in-past-3-years/ \u2018It\u2019s rampant\u2019: Documents reveal 124 cases of employees' sex misconduct By Mar 1, 2017 At least 124 cases involving University of California faculty, staff and contractors show the employees were found to have violated sexual violence and harassment policy over the past three years at all campuses. Among them are award-winning scholars, lauded department chairs and highly paid coaches. The Daily Californian obtained hundreds of pages of documents Tuesday through a California Public Records Act request. They detail years of unwanted sexual advances, inappropriate comments and physical assaults, spanning from Jan. 1, 2013, to April 6, 2016. About one-third of those who violated policy are still employed by the system. \u201cIt\u2019s important to note that these cases run from January 2013 to April 2016, so most, if not all, of these cases were investigated and adjudicated under policies and procedures that are no longer in effect,\u201d said spokesperson Claire Doan. \u201cWe\u2019ve made so many drastic and significant improvements over the past two and a half years ... that we are able to provide more clarity (and) more fairness \u2026 when it comes to these investigations.\u201d Among the respondents included in the documents, Title investigations found: Rudy Thomas, the former director of strength and conditioning in athletics at San Diego, was training a female client when he inappropriately touched her breast and genital area. When she said she was uncomfortable and attempted to leave, he hugged and tried to kiss her on the mouth. Gurinder Singh Mann, a professor of Sikh studies at Santa Barbara, invited a student up to his bedroom during a meeting for a research project and asked her to lie down on his bed, putting his hand under her shirt. Eric Gans, a professor of French and Francophone studies at UCLA, sent an email to a graduate student that said, \u201cThere is no doubt an asymmetry in our affection. \u2026 The only girl in all my years cannot think of without tears.\u201d 2/16/25, 9:58 \u2018It\u2019s rampant\u2019: Documents reveal 124 cases of employees' sex misconduct | Archives | dailycal.org 1/3 All three violated sexual misconduct policy, the investigations found. \u201cIt\u2019s rampant,\u201d said Kristen Glasgow, a graduate student who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the university alleging that history professor Gabriel Piterberg had harassed her, in a November interview with the Daily Cal know more women who have gone through it than who haven\u2019t.\u201d Seven percent of all cases released Tuesday involved sexual assault. Twenty-five percent of those who violated policy were faculty. Thirty-five percent of the complaints were made by students. Most of the documents have never been publicly released. The documents shed light on the full scale of sexual misconduct across the system \u2014 a crisis that has led administrators to resign, students to protest and the president to rethink the way the university handles complaints. Many of the documents were heavily redacted. Information was redacted to reflect \"competing public interests,\" according to the Office of General Counsel. The university did not disclose any reports from ongoing investigations, or from investigations prior to Jan. 1, 2013, stating that such reports would not shed \"significant additional light\" on the university's current practices. \u201cThe University recognizes that there is a significant public interest in records that reflect the adequacy of the University\u2019s investigation of and response to complaints of sexual harassment and sexual violence,\u201d the Office of General Counsel said in a statement announcing the release of the documents. \u201cHowever, there are several competing public interests that must also be balanced under the Public Records Act or other relevant statutes.\u201d The university also highlighted recent reforms to the way it handles complaints, including a 2016 update to the sexual misconduct policy and a systemwide peer-review committee to approve any sanctions that involve a \u201csenior university leader.\u201d Doan added that the university is \u201ccommitted to and continuously working towards maintaining an environment in which all members of the community are free from harassment and discrimination.\u201d The Tuesday release comes after reports were disclosed to the Daily Cal in April 2016 that revealed 19 Berkeley employees were found to have violated sexual misconduct policy since 2011. Those in violation included former Berkeley School of Law dean Sujit Choudhry and former vice chancellor for research Graham Fleming . The university has faced criticism in recent years for punishments perceived as too light and for a process seen as cumbersome for victims. The case of Tyann Sorrell, Choudhry\u2019s executive assistant, rocked 2/16/25, 9:58 \u2018It\u2019s rampant\u2019: Documents reveal 124 cases of employees' sex misconduct | Archives | dailycal.org 2/3 the Berkeley campus in 2016 after news broke that Choudhry had violated sexual misconduct policy after repeatedly kissing and hugging Sorrell. As punishment, then-executive vice chancellor and provost Claude Steele docked Choudhry\u2019s pay by 10 percent for one year and required him to attend counseling and write an apology letter to Sorrell. The Daily Cal\u2019s most recent request also revealed a case involving Juan Ramos, a former Berkeley facilities management employee, that was not disclosed in April 2016 Title investigation found that Ramos had committed a sexual battery on the complainant, whose name was redacted. The complainant, unaffiliated with the university, alleged that on April 10, 2014, Ramos approached her from behind and asked her for \u201cdollars\u201d while in the Campus Shared Services building. Ramos began to do a \u201cstrip tease dance\u201d for her and removed his shirt before grabbing her breasts from behind, the investigation found. The complainant both recorded a video and took a photograph of Ramos from her phone as evidence for the incident. Ramos later admitted to investigators that he had consumed \u201cmarijuana chocolate\u201d before the incident and had been sleeping in the building. The complainant also alleged that Ramos made various inappropriate remarks to her, starting roughly in January 2014. Ramos\u2019 employment was terminated, effective Aug. 5, 2014, on the grounds that he had violated sexual harassment policy, according to documents. This is a developing story, and The Daily Californian will provide additional information as it parses through the 124 newly disclosed cases it received Tuesday. Please check back for updates. 2/16/25, 9:58 \u2018It\u2019s rampant\u2019: Documents reveal 124 cases of employees' sex misconduct | Archives | dailycal.org 3/3"} |
7,709 | Arnold Irchai | University of Florida | [
"7709_101.pdf",
"7709_102.pdf"
] | {"7709_101.pdf": "About Board of Directors Contact Classifieds Advertise Issues Store Apartments Near 16, 2025 Music professor fired for kissing student By September 15, 2011 | 8:46pm music professor was fired in January for allegedly forcing a kiss upon a female student during a private lesson, and an arbitrator recently declared the decision to fire him sound after hearing an appeal from the United Faculty of Florida. The union appealed the dismissal on behalf of Arnold Irchai, a world-renowned bassoonist and associate professor of music, arguing that the university did not follow due process when it considered previous claims against him. According to arbitrator Leslie Langbein's report, two other similar claims of sexual harassment had been filed against Irchai since he was hired in 2002. Of the two prior complaints, one was dropped by the student, and the other was investigated but yielded inconclusive evidence spokeswoman Janine Sikes said the reason Irchai was not dismissed for any of those prior incidents is the students did not want to proceed with charges, but \"in each case there was a disciplinary process.\" Irchai was meeting with the third student for a private lesson last September when he allegedly grabbed her face and kissed her, according to the ruling. The student pushed him away and left his office crying. She told a friend what happened, and they reported it to the undergraduate adviser and music school director John Duff. Duff was unavailable to comment at press time. Irchai denied that he kissed or touched the student in their meeting and said that she was simply nervous for an upcoming concert and worried about her performance in class, according to the report. The incident was reported to and investigated by the Office of Institutional Equality and Diversity, and Irchai was fired Jan. 10. Support your local paper The Independent Florida Alligator has been independent of the university since 1971, your donation today could help #SaveStudentNewsrooms. Please consider giving today 2/16/25, 9:59 Music professor fired for kissing student - The Independent Florida Alligator 1/2 \uf111 \uf099 \uf111 \uf39e \uf111 \uf16d \uf111 \uf167 Powered by Solutions by The State News All Content \u00a9 2025 The Independent Florida Alligator and Campus Communications, Inc. 2/16/25, 9:59 Music professor fired for kissing student - The Independent Florida Alligator 2/2", "7709_102.pdf": "Bassoonist ends career on sour note Nathan Crabbe Staff writer Published 3:08 p.m Sept. 14, 2011 An arbitrator has upheld the firing of a University of Florida music professor for allegedly forcing a kiss on a student, finding that the university was justified based on previous accusations of similar incidents. Arnold Irchai, 65, was the principal bassoonist of the Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra and taught at several other schools before being hired to the faculty in 2002. He was awarded tenure and promoted to associate professor in 2007 and was credited with building a bassoon studio that attracted high-caliber students. Need a break? Play the Daily Crossword Puzzle. 2/16/25, 9:59 Bassoonist ends career on sour note 1/1"} |
7,869 | William E. Powell | University of Wisconsin – Whitewater | [
"7869_101.pdf"
] | {"7869_101.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Powell v. Ross United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin Feb 27, 2004 No. 03-C-0610 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 27, 2004) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Delegate legal research to CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free 03-C-0610 February 27, 2004 CRABB, Chief Judge, District This is a civil suit for money damages in which plaintiff William E. Powell, a professor in the Department of Social Work at the University of Wisconsin- Whitewater, contends that defendants Howard Ross, Janet Wright, Charles Zastrow, Karen Kirst-Ashman and Eugene Fujimoto, all administrators or Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/16/25, 9:59 Powell v. Ross, No. 03-C-0610 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/6 professors at the university, conspired to defame him by preparing and submitting to the chancellor a report falsely stating that he had sexually harassed numerous students and coworkers. Plaintiff alleges one federal and four state law claims: (1) deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983; (2) conspiracy; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) tortious interference with a contract; and (5) libel or defamation. Plaintiff brings the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331. *2 2 Before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), 12(b)(6) and 12(c). Defendants contend that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of claim and workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy for plaintiff's conspiracy, emotional distress and defamation claims. Because find plaintiff's complaint insufficient to support a violation of due process will grant defendants' motion to dismiss that claim. Because find no basis on which to exercise diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332 over the remaining state law claims, and decline to invoke supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c will grant defendants' motion to dismiss those claims. When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court must accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.Yeksigian v. Nappi, 900 F.2d 101, 102 (7th Cir. 1990). For the sole purpose of deciding the motion to dismiss find that the well-pleaded allegations of plaintiff's complaint fairly allege the following Plaintiff William E. Powell is a professor in the Department of Social Work at the *3 University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Defendants Howard Ross, Janet Wright, Charles Zastrow, Karen Kirst-Ashman, and Eugene Fujimoto are either administrators or professors at the university. 3 On May 6, 2002, defendant Fujimoto, Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action, issued an eleven-page \"Sexual Harassment Complaint 2/16/25, 9:59 Powell v. Ross, No. 03-C-0610 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/6 Finding\" against plaintiff, alleging that plaintiff made inappropriate and offensive comments and evinced clear lack of judgment expected of a faculty member. The report recommended that the chancellor issue plaintiff a strong letter of reprimand and place the report in plaintiffs personnel file. It further recommended that plaintiff be required to (1) attend sexual harassment training to identify his \"problem areas\"; (2) leave his office door open when meeting with students; and (3) meet with the dean and department chair each semester for five years to be reminded about \"appropriate behavior\" and \"proper professional boundaries\" with students. The report also recommended \"more serious measures\" be taken if additional complaints surfaced, and finally, that the whole department undergo sexual harassment training. On May 22, 2002, in reliance on defendant Fujimoto's report, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Chancellor Jack Miller formally charged plaintiff with a violation of the University Handbook. Defendant Ross, Dean of the Department of Social Work, defendant Wright, Department of Social Work professor and chairperson, and defendants Zastrow and Kirst-Ashman, *4 Department of Social Work professors, made or propagated knowingly false or unsubstantiated statements regarding plaintiffs conduct to defendant Fujimoto to be included in Fujimoto's report. All defendants knew or should have known the statements were false or not credible. Defendants Ross, Wright, Zastrow and Kirst-Ashman conspired to defame plaintiff by fabricating incidents of prior misconduct and inducing a student to falsely accuse him of wrongdoing. 4 As a result of defendants' actions, plaintiff's professional reputation has been damaged, leading to lost earnings and diminished earning capacity. In addition, plaintiff has incurred substantial attorney fees and suffered emotional harm. Plaintiff remains in his position as a professor in the Department of Social Work at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, and has not been transferred, demoted or terminated A. Motion to Dismiss Claim Under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 2/16/25, 9:59 Powell v. Ross, No. 03-C-0610 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/6 Plaintiff alleges that defendants caused him to suffer \"irreparable damage to his reputation and career as a professor and consequential lost earnings and earning capacity.\" 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 states that \"[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen . . . to the deprivation of any rights . . . secured by the Constitution and laws . . . shall be liable to the *5 party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redressf[.]\" Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to relief for deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. 5 The Supreme Court has held that governmental action that injures a person's reputation within the community does not always constitute a deprivation of liberty requiring a hearing. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 708-10 (1976). Generally, the stigma inflicted on the plaintiff must be so severe that he is no longer able to pursue the occupation of his choice. Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305 F.3d 603, 624 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Colaizzi v. Walker, 812 F.2d 304, 307 (7th Cir. 1987) (defendant's actions must have \"the effect of blacklisting the employee from employment in comparable jobs\"). \"Simple charges of professional incompetence do not impose the sort of stigma that actually infringes an employee's liberty to pursue an occupation.\" Head v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 794, 802 (7th Cir. 2000). At minimum, the plaintiff must show that the defamation was coupled with the loss of his job or demotion to a position \"far beneath\" the one he previously held, Klug v. Chicago School Reform Board Trustees, 197 F.3d 853, 860 (7th Cir. 1999), although even this is often insufficient without more, Townsend v. Vallas, 256 F.3d 661, 669 (7th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff does not allege he has become unemployable since defendants made the allegedly false statements or even that he was lost his position at the university. Plaintiff has *6 retained the same position he had before. Townsend, 256 F.3d at 271 (no liberty interest implicated when plaintiff retained same position). Rather, he alleges only that he has incurred attorney fees, suffered emotional harm and lost earnings and earning capacity. Even if he could prove this allegation, such a loss does not amount to a deprivation of liberty. One does not lose his liberty within the meaning 6 2/16/25, 9:59 Powell v. Ross, No. 03-C-0610 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/6 of the due process clause simply because he may have been \"force[d] down a few notches in the professional hierarchy.\" Simpkins v. Sandwich Community Hospital, 854 F.2d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1988 loss of pay could be considered a deprivation of property,Swick v. City of Chicago, 11 F.3d 85, 87 (7th Cir. 1993), but plaintiff does not allege that he had a property interest in his job. Further, plaintiff appears to concede in his brief that he cannot state a claim for a deprivation of property without due process of law. Plaintiff did not refute defendants' argument in their brief- in-chief that he had not alleged a deprivation of a property interest. Therefore, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's due process claim will be granted. B. Motions to Dismiss State Law Claims Generally, a federal court has jurisdiction to hear a case in three instances: (1) when the complaint raises a federal question, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331; (2) when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332; and (3) when a state law claim is part of the same case or controversy as a federal law claim that may be considered under \u00a7 1331, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367. *7 7 Upon dismissal of plaintiff's only claim raising a federal question, the court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331 over the remaining state law claims. Because no inference can be drawn from the complaint that the parties are domiciled in separate states find no basis for exercising diversity jurisdiction over this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332. Finally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c state court would be better suited to decide the issues of state law that plaintiff has raised. Therefore, defendants' motions to dismiss the remaining claims will be granted that Defendants Howard Ross, Janet Wright, Charles Zastrow, Karen Kirst- Ashman and Eugene Fujimoto's motion to dismiss plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 claim is decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 2/16/25, 9:59 Powell v. Ross, No. 03-C-0610 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/6 plaintiff's remaining state law claims. Accordingly, these claimed are DISMISSED. The clerk of court is directed to enter *8 judgment in favor of defendants and close this case. 8 About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 9:59 Powell v. Ross, No. 03-C-0610 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/6"} |
7,890 | John Bassman | Washington State University – Pullman | [
"7890_101.pdf",
"7890_101.pdf"
] | {"7890_101.pdf": "In July 2005, a graduate student complained that a professor tried to establish a romantic relationship and retaliated against her when she rebuffed his advances. The said the professor sought to terminate the student's teaching assistantship and accused her of being a liar, plagiarist and vindictive, and it concluded that he violated university policy on sexual harassment. The professor, John Bassman, \"strenuously\" denied the allegations, criticized the report and broadly asserted his innocence. He retired in August.\" SOURCE: Shawn Vestal Staff writer. (September 3, 2006 Sunday). Assault cases confront tenure suit strains evolving policies. Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA). com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:4KV8- N5B0-TWSR-V35R-00000-00&context=1516831."} |
7,589 | Wade C. Thompson | State University of New York - New Paltz | [] | {} |
8,390 | Jeffrey Parsons | City University of New York - Hunter College | [
"8390_101.pdf",
"8390_102.pdf",
"8390_103.pdf",
"8390_104.pdf",
"8390_105.pdf",
"8390_106.pdf"
] | {"8390_101.pdf": "paid over $1M to settle claims about Hunter College professor\u2019s drug-fueled antics: report By Melissa Klein Published Nov. 20, 2021, 5:25 p.m Hunter College professor Jeffrey Parsons is accused of using and distributing cocaine at staffing events. Hunter College Refusal to crack down on antisemitism made school a \u2018hostile\u2019 workplace: Jewish studies director News Metro Long Island Politics World News 2/16/25, 10:00 paid more than $1M to settle claims about Hunter College professor's 'assault' 1/4 The alcohol- and drug-fueled antics of a star Hunter College professor cost the City University of New York $1.25 million to settle claims by his aggrieved staffers, according to a report and Jeffrey Parsons, a psychology professor and sex and drug researcher, reached the hush-hush settlement with six staffers who worked with Parsons at his Center for Educational Studies & Training, known as CHEST, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported. The Chronicle cited documents from the 2019 agreement showing Parsons, and his husband Christopher Hietikko-Parsons, paid $150,000 of the settlement, which totaled $1.4 million. Five of the staffers cited emotional distress with one also claiming physical assault and the sixth citing unspecified misconduct. The Post broke the news that Parsons stepped down from Hunter in 2019 after an investigation into complaints about the professor\u2019s behavior. Among the allegations: Parsons \u201cengaged in the use, and in the distribution, of illegal drugs (cocaine) at events \u2026 and/or with employees and faculty and students associated with CHEST,\u201d according to a document seen by The Post. The probe was sparked by an annual staff party called CHESTFest that, in 2018, was thrown on the second floor of the Stonewall Inn in the West Village. Attendees told The Post that Parsons, as was typical at such events, encouraged guests to drink. He then, without permission, lifted up the shirt of a staffer to expose the person\u2019s chest. The action ground the party to a halt and infuriated staffers who complained to officials at CUNY. But Parsons\u2019 out-of-bounds behavior went back far longer former staffer at told The Chronicle that he went with Parsons to a gay bar more than a decade ago to help recruit subjects for a research study. The unidentified staffer said he witnessed Parsons openly perform oral sex on a bar patron and then tried to force the employee to do the same on someone else. One colleague said he saw Parsons snort cocaine in his office. \u201cHe operated that office like his fiefdom,\u201d David Bimbi told The Chronicle. \u201cIf he wanted to do lines of cocaine on his desk, this is his office, this is his world.\u201d Parsons\u2019 photographer husband had been paid by for freelance work for years. His Mindful Designs company raked in a total of $656,000 from 2011 to 2018, according to a which said the work was cleared by a conflict of interest panel. Parsons hired top criminal defense lawyer Jeffrey Lichtman, who told The Post, \u201cWe categorically deny the allegations from disgruntled former employees or others about forced sex, illegal drug use and the like spokesman said that since the Parsons settlement it had \u201ctaken substantial measures to prevent similarly toxic situations; to make sure that all members of the community are aware of their rights and how to report sexual misconduct; and to train all those responsible for receiving those complaints how to handle them with speed and sensitivity prof who held machete to Post reporter\u2019s neck chants about \u2018slitting the master\u2019s throat,\u2019 calls \u2018slave patrol\u2019 at anti-Israel rally City funding to fight antisemitism, hate at won\u2019t even \u2018scratch the surface,\u2019 critics say Hunter College professor Jeffrey Parsons allegedly stripped staff members without 2/16/25, 10:00 paid more than $1M to settle claims about Hunter College professor's 'assault' 2/4 , 11/20/21 permission at parties via Getty Images Dozens of Sanitation workers suspended in vax fraud probe 14 People Reacted What's your reaction to this article? Top Notch 0 So-so 0 Next! 0 'White Lotus' Season 3 is finally here \u2014How to watch for free, release time 2/16/25, 10:00 paid more than $1M to settle claims about Hunter College professor's 'assault' 3/4 \u00a9 2025 Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use Membership Terms Privacy Notice Sitemap Your California Privacy Rights 7 Catholic schools announce in past month alone they are closing -- as experts blame skyrocketing tuition, loss of religion 2/16/25, 10:00 paid more than $1M to settle claims about Hunter College professor's 'assault' 4/4", "8390_102.pdf": "614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final .docx Download Helpful Unhelpful Home / Information Systems The Biggest Mess: Leadership Case Analysis Mario Cruz, Diana Hernandez Julian, John Mikey Mejia, Cristina Val Department of Educational Leadership, California State University, Fr Search CliffsNotes 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 1/11 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mario Cruz, Depa Educational Leadership, California State University, Fresno, Education Building N. Maple Ave, Fresno 93740, United States. Email: [email protected] The Biggest Mess: Leadership Case Analysis The City University of New York (CUNY) appeared in the news headline a sexual harassment case came to light implicating one of its campuses' administr comprised numerous complaints on sexual harassment and the use of drugs again program director Dr. Jeffrey T. Parsons. Parsons worked for the City University o a renowned Psychology professor at Hunter College. In 1996, Parsons founded th College research Center for Educational Studies and Training (CHEST). The supported LGBTQ+ individuals and utilized research to understand and reduce th HIV/AIDS. As the Director, Jeffery T. Parsons' research projects were n 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 2/11 drawing lucrative funds through federal grants for the research center. CHEST's accomplishments were traditionally celebrated with an annual event best known a In 2018, a series of sexual harassment events occurred throughout CHESTfest, le formal Department of Education investigation against Parsons. The investigation Jeffrey T. Parsons had violated the City University of New York's (CUNY) drug policy and its rules regarding sexual misconduct. (Stripling, 2021). Investigators sexual harassment, abuse of funds, power, and drug usage claims and complaints against and Parsons. Through the research of this case, our team found a pattern of the lack of o leadership from and Hunter College. Using the Council for the Advancem Standards in Higher Education (CAS) Statement of Shared Ethical Principles, Ko Posner's Five Practices for Becoming an Exemplary Leader, and the Caring Educ Becoming a Student-Ready College New Culture of Leadership for Student Su analyze leaderships decisions around this case. We will also suggest recommenda education leaders and institutions to help prevent these events The Incident Contextual information on this case includes descriptions of CUNY, Hunt 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 3/11 CHEST, and involved stakeholders. The City University of New York was found the nation's first free public institution of higher education, it embraces 25 campu city and serves as the nation's largest urban public university. (The City Universit York, 2021). The university's mission is to provide a first-rate public education to regardless of means or background. (The City University of New York, 2021 one of CUNY's campuses that emphasizes research and encourages students to de education beyond campus. Part of Hunter College's Mission Statement reads as fo embrace our setting at the heart of New York City\u2014we seek to draw on its energ its remarkable resources, weave it into the fabric of our teaching, research and cre expression, and give back to it through our service and citizenship\". (Hunter Coll Hunter College's research center sought to support LGBTQ+ people and health. After the CHESTfest scandal, \"...Hunter College announced a bold new v collaborative research environment that builds on existing strengths and synergiz previously distinct research labs and centers, including much of the work previou conducted at CHEST\". (Center for Educational Studies and Training, 2021). also rebranded its research center to Promoting Resilience, Intersectionality, Dive Equity (PRIDE) Health Research Consortium. Some of the stakeholders involved include CUNY, Hunter College, and presidents, directors, and administrators involved in leadership decisions through of documented complaints. Other stakeholders include the students, alumni, facul community members who may have been affected or involved in the 2018 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 4/11 Students also studied midterm_assesmernt _sinera_sowk360-2.docx Running head Mid Term Assessment Fatoumata Sinera University of Maryland Baltimore County 360: Social Welfare, Social Policy, and Social Work Dr. Marcela Mellinger Oct 24, 2023 1 2 Question #1 The present- University of Maryland, Baltimore County 360 Ch. 15 HW.pdf s Fy 8] R\\Qm%d\ufb01,_wme - CArONSE m/o_hw '_\"10, &, \"? JLTODDP_CEIDS@ %_ :)fz_fI; i _C'EE; '_'(}_f\u00e9\u2014H\ufb01'\ufb02'\"b\ufb02g_\"_'c Nivaey e - Ble i b % Lo . e ! &, onontiomors b. 1dentical Styughuees C:. NAnhomesS . i e o Georgia Gwinnett College 1212 Page 3 of 15 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 5/11 Midterm_Exam.docx n1 n2 1 An oligopoly is characterized by a small number of buyers who collectively set a purchase price. b large number of relatively small firms who collude on supply and price. c small number of relatively large firms, each with substantial contr Montgomery College 103 Assignment 2, Moad.docx Abdul Jalil Moad R-Programming Summer 2023 Assignment 2 July 2nd, 2023 Part 1. lasses 'tbl_df', 'tbl' and 'data.frame': 20293 obs. of 78 variables : int 51624 51625 51626 51627 51628 51629 51630 51631 51632 51633 . $ SurveyYr : Factor w/ 2 levels University of Notre Dame 20215 Lab 2 - Implement DHCPv4.pdf Lab 2 - Implement DHCPv4 Topology Addressing Table Device Interface R1 Address Subnet Mask G0/0/0 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.252 G0/0/1 R1 Default Gateway G0/0/1.100 R1 blank blank blank blank G0/0/1.1000 G0/0/0 10.0.0.2 255.2 University of Southern Queensland 3427 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 6/11 Com WItness 1 all that glitters.docx Mason Malott 2225 2/2/24 Jeffrey Geers Witness 1 For this witness analysis will be analyzing the show called will be doing the episode called All That Glitters part 1. It is season 4, episode 1 of this show. The show is mainly about solving Sinclair Community College 2225 Other related materials Vijay Knowledge Activity.docx CHCDEV002 Analyse impacts of sociological factors on clients in community work and services Learner Workbook Instructions to Learner Assessment instructions Overview Prior to commencing the assessments, your trainer/assessor will explain each assessment University of Tasmania Addressing Accountability Issues at St. Martin de Porres High 9-1 Final Project Michael Smith Southern New Hampshire University Course Number: MGT-510 Professor Mark Wieland 07/14/2024 9-1 Final Project St. Martin de Porres High School is an organization with many opportunities and complications which have contribu Southern New Hampshire University 510 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 7/11 Foundational Leadership Competencies Analysis Guide 5311 Fundamentals Leadership - Week 3 Assignment Course Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Demonstrate a fundamental understanding of leadership approaches and mindsets. (CLO1) Identify personal professional leadership orientation and philosophy. (CLO2) Analy Southern New Hampshire University 5311 Understanding Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: Key Takeaways Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs simplypsychology.org/maslow.html Watch Video At: https:/youtu.be/1Pwa2QGUG9c Key Takeaways Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a fivetier model of human needs, often depicted as hierarc Skills Institute Australia - Adelaide 31 EBSCO-FullText-2024-09-15.pdf Science and Engineering Ethics (2022) 28:33 https:/doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00385-2 Professional and Organizational Leadership Role in Ethics Management: Avoiding Reliance on Ethical Codification\u2026 University Of Arizona 621 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 8/11 Sample Term Project Report - 1.pdf 2 Table of Contents Part 1: Project Overview 3 Part 2: Systems Analysis 4 2.1 - System Requirement Analysis Interactive Method - Surveys and Questionnaires 4 Unobtrusive Method - Competitor Analysis 5 Business Events and Activities 5 2.2 - System Analysis McMaster University M600 You might also like Complaint Acknowledgement Letter Template.docx This document is Complaint Acknowledgement Letter Template. It is part of the supporting assessment resources for Assessment Task 3 of SITXCCS007 . Name and address 123 Customer Lane Citysville 12345 Date: October 15, 2023 Re Receipt of complaint Dear Newton College of Business and Technology SIT40516 procurement assignment 2.docx 5) How will your team streamline the procurement process? 1.Centralize your purchasing process By consolidating all procurement activities into a centralized system or department, we can easily track and manage purchases. This eliminates the need for mult University of Windsor 120 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 9/11 SITXWHS003 Student Assessment Tasks 29-06-20.docx SITXWHS003 Implement and Monitor Work Health and Safety Practices \u00a9 Pakenham Institute Pty Ltd No. 41536 l Code: 03941H Website: Unit 2, 66 - 68, Main Street Pakenham 3810 Australia |Phone: Newton College of Business and Technology SIT40516 week 5.docx 1. You have a virtualization host that has four processors, and each processor has four cores. According to the vendor guidelines, the virtualization solution you've chosen will support up to 18 vCPUs per physical CPU. If you want to keep about 20 percent Georgian College 1099 Slide 25.docx Slide 1: Introduction Welcome to my presentation on Dr. McIver's \"Spectrum of Cybersecurity\" remarks. In this presentation will be examining his arguments and providing my own perspective on the topic. Slide 2: Understanding the \"Spectrum of Cybersecur Westcliff University 500 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 10/11 Customer Service Report Template.docx This document is Customer Service Report Template. It is part of the supporting assessment resources for Assessment Task 4 of SITXCCS007. Aus Biz Coaching Customer service report Introduction This report evaluates feedback and complaints from Aus Biz Coac Newton College of Business and Technology SIT40516 CliffsNotes study guides are written by real teachers and professors, so no matter what you're studying, CliffsNotes can ease your homework headaches and help you score high on exams. Quick Links Literature Notes Study Guides Documents Homework Questions Mindglow Tools for Educators Company About CliffsNotes Contact us Do Not Sell My Personal Information Legal Service Terms Privacy policy Copyright, Community Guidelines & other legal resources Honor Code Disclaimer CliffsNotes, a Learneo, Inc. business \u00a9 Learneo, Inc. 2025 2/16/25, 10:00 614905686-225-leadership-case-analysis-final (docx) - CliffsNotes 11/11", "8390_103.pdf": "(/CATEGORY/NEWSFEED) Scuba Trips Weren\u2019t Part of Professor\u2019s Research, Finds Fraud Lawsuit Jeffrey Parsons-Hietikko, a former Hunter College professor and leader of research, must pay back $375,000. February 2, 2023 By Trent Straube (/author/trenton-straube) Istock 2/16/25, 10:00 Scuba Trips Weren\u2019t Part of Professor\u2019s Research, Finds Fraud Lawsuit 1/6 As an esteemed researcher at Hunter College in New York City, Jeffrey Parsons- Hietikko, PhD, was reimbursed for numerous scuba diving trips (to Cuba, Costa Rica, the Cayman Islands and other locations) that were part of his research, as well as for trips and flights to Denver, Chicago, South Africa and other cities. The research was funded through grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It turns out, though, that the trips and expenses were for personal use, according to a settlement stemming from a civil fraud lawsuit made public ( lawsuit-against-former-hunter-college) this week by Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. According to the settlement, Parsons-Hietikko must pay the U.S. government $375,000 and Hunter College, part of The City University of New York (CUNY), must pay $200,000. File image of Jeffrey Parsons-Hietikko, PhD Courtesy of 2/16/25, 10:00 Scuba Trips Weren\u2019t Part of Professor\u2019s Research, Finds Fraud Lawsuit 2/6 While at Hunter, Parsons-Hietikko oversaw the Center for Educational Studies & Training (CHEST), which conducted research on sexual risk behaviors and recreational drug use among men who have sex with men (MSM). According to previous reporting by the New York Post ( after-allegations-of-cocaine-binges-and-out-of-control-parties/), Parsons drew $37 million in federal grants from 1997 to 2016. He resigned from Hunter in 2019 amid a sexual misconduct scandal. The federal fraud case against him began in 2019 when a whistleblower\u2014now known to be Devin English, who worked under the professor as a researcher\u2014contacted the U.S. attorney\u2019s office and alerted officials about the false claims. As part of the settlement, Parsons-Hietikko and Hunter College admit to fraudulently using federal research funds provides funding to academic institutions for the purpose of furthering important research that impacts communities and improves lives,\u201d said U.S. Attorney Williams in the statement. For years, Jeffrey Parsons-Hietikko obtained these funds under false pretenses, then used them to cover his personal expenses and for other purposes totally unrelated to research. Hunter College improperly used funds to pay undisclosed bonuses to Parsons and for other expenses unrelated to NIH-funded work. When individuals and institutions abuse federal grant money, this Office will hold them accountable.\u201d The U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office lays out the details of the case as such: 2/16/25, 10:00 Scuba Trips Weren\u2019t Part of Professor\u2019s Research, Finds Fraud Lawsuit 3/6 During his time at HUNTER, where he was promoted on multiple occasions and achieved the status of Distinguished Professor in 2012 proved himself to be singularly proficient at obtaining funding to support his and CHEST\u2019s research considered to be one of its most prized faculty members and offered him a number of perks, including discretionary spending accounts financed by funds, a high level of personal control over CHEST\u2019s federal grant funds, and special accommodations in the approval process for obtaining reimbursements from federal funds for his expenses then abused his authority and influence by repeatedly drawing from these discretionary accounts to fund personal expenses. From January 1, 2010, through May 17, 2018 (the \u201cCovered Period and defrauded the United States by materially misusing federal funds obtained from and making false certifications and statements to and HHS. First defrauded the Government by improperly using funds that had certified to would only be used to support the facilities and administrative costs associated with HUNTER\u2019s grants (the \u201cIndirect Cost Funds\u201d) to reimburse himself for his personal travel expenses, including expenses relating to personal scuba diving trips, international flights for his family, and a tropical birthday celebration falsely represented that these reimbursement requests all had an academic or research purpose also improperly used Indirect Cost Funds to double the reimbursement he received for travel relating to his non-NIH-related work as a private consultant to external clients. 2/16/25, 10:00 Scuba Trips Weren\u2019t Part of Professor\u2019s Research, Finds Fraud Lawsuit 4/6 From December 2010 through December 2013 improperly used the Indirect Cost Funds to pay over $90,000 in undisclosed retention bonuses, even though rules and regulations prohibited the Indirect Cost Funds from being used to make such payments never disclosed and, indeed, took steps to hide its use of the Indirect Cost Funds to pay these bonuses to PARSONS. During the Covered Period also misused CHEST\u2019s grant funds to pay staff for time they spent working for CHEST\u2019s private consulting clients, rather than on grant-related projects. In order to obtain funds for this purpose approved timekeeping records representing that those staff spent their time and effort working on NIH-funded research projects. In reality, however staff had also spent time working on unrelated projects commissioned by third parties, which were not properly reimbursable from the grant funds and were not accurately reflected on the documents submitted to obtain reimbursement. Although was on notice that staff performed work on outside projects, it nevertheless sought and received funds to improperly pay staff for this outside work. The third parties that commissioned to work on the outside projects separately paid for the work performed by staff directed those payments into discretionary accounts to benefit and PARSONS, including one account used to reimburse for alcohol expenses. Moreover, even after became aware that NIH-funded staff had been improperly utilized to perform work for PARSONS\u2019s private consulting company never took steps to investigate or report to this misuse of funding. 2/16/25, 10:00 Scuba Trips Weren\u2019t Part of Professor\u2019s Research, Finds Fraud Lawsuit 5/6 In related news, Parsons-Hietikko resigned from his teaching position at Hunter College in 2019 after an investigation found that he violated CUNY\u2019s drug and alcohol policy as well as rules regarding sexual misconduct. You can read more about that here ( scandal). 2/16/25, 10:00 Scuba Trips Weren\u2019t Part of Professor\u2019s Research, Finds Fraud Lawsuit 6/6", "8390_104.pdf": "(/CATEGORY/NEWSFEED) Renowned Researcher Who Led Resigns Amid Scandal Jeffrey Parsons stepped down from his post after complaints of sexual misconduct and cocaine use at parties. July 18, 2019 By Caroline Tien Jeffrey T. Parsons, PhD Courtesy of 2/16/25, 10:00 Renowned Researcher Who Led Resigns Amid Scandal 1/3 Esteemed researcher Jeffrey Parsons, PhD, resigned from his teaching position at The City University of New York (CUNY) after a formal Department of Education investigation found that the distinguished professor violated CUNY\u2019s drug and alcohol policy as well as its rules regarding sexual misconduct, reports the New York Post ( cocaine-binges-and-out-of-control-parties/). At CUNY\u2019s Hunter College, Parsons oversaw the Center for Educational Studies & Training (CHEST), which conducted research on sexual risk behaviors and recreational drug use among men who have sex with men (MSM). According to the Post, Parsons drew $37 million in federal grants from 1997 to 2016. Parsons also taught psychology to undergraduates. In 2012, at age 46, he became the youngest faculty member in history to be named a \u201cdistinguished\u201d professor. Allegations against Parsons stemmed from activities during the annual spring party. At last year\u2019s fest, held at Stonewall in the West Village, he allegedly asked two male employees to take off their shirts for a lip-sync contest and pressured others to drink. \u201cIt felt like a hazing frat party sometimes,\u201d one former employee told the Post of the general atmosphere almost always felt uncomfortable at the office parties by the coaxing to drink.\u201d \u201cIt was as if the host of a dinner party came down and had taken a pee on a pot roast,\u201d a former employee said. \u201cThat\u2019s how shocking it was.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:00 Renowned Researcher Who Led Resigns Amid Scandal 2/3 employees complained to CUNY, which led to the investigation. That probe uncovered allegations of further misconduct, including alleged cocaine use at events. In the wake of Parsons\u2019s departure, Hunter College renamed CHEST. It is now called PRIDE, which stands for Promoting Resilience, Intersectionality, Diversity and Equity. In related news, you can read a 2016 interview with Parsons about titled \u201c20 Years of Promoting Healthy Sexuality ( promoting-healthy-sexuality).\u201d 2/16/25, 10:00 Renowned Researcher Who Led Resigns Amid Scandal 3/3", "8390_105.pdf": "Breaking News Australia Video University Guide Deep Dive China Debate Meghan Markle Prince Harry King Charles Weather Login Home News Royals U.S. Sport Showbiz Femail Health Science Money Travel Podcasts Shopping Renowned researcher who resigned after facing sex assault claims at debauched work party is forced to pay back $375k of grant money he spent on luxury scuba diving trips to Cayman Islands, Fiji and Belize Jeffrey Parsons-Hietikko is forced to pay the federal government back $375,000 after he used grant money to fund luxury scuba diving trips and other expenses He ran the City University of New York's Hunter College's Center for Educational Studies and Training, securing $55million in grant money Hunter College is also forced to pay back $200,000 after school officials failed to disclose they were using funds to pay Parsons-Hietikko retention bonuses By PUBLISHED: 16:06 GMT, 30 January 2023 | UPDATED: 22:03 GMT, 30 January 2023 renowned researcher and former psychology professor is being forced to pay the federal government back $375,000 after he used grant money to fund luxury scuba diving trips and other personal expenses. Jeffrey Parsons-Hietikko ran the City University of New York's Hunter College's Center for Educational Studies and Training for over two decades before he was forced to resign in 2019 over sexual assault claims at a debauched work party. During that time, a federal complaint said, he secured $55million from the National Institutes of Health, while also receiving retention bonuses from the school using the federal research dollars. Federal prosecutors claimed in recent court documents that Hunter College President Jennifer J. Raab knew Parsons-Hietikko was misusing the funds, but 'failed to take any action' or report the fraud to the NIH. View comments Site Web Enter your search England and Wales's most dangerous streets: Map of 37,000 neighbourhoods lays bare hotspots for violent and sexual offences... so how crime-ridden is distr... 'This is the moment for us all to step up': Keir Starmer says it's time to put boots on the ground in Ukraine and send British troops in to enforce a peace deal With 700,000 cases in Britain alone, we find the real reason so many people have autism - like my son David Emotional Warwick Davis fights back tears as he pays tribute to his late wife Samantha and admits he has found love again at the BAFTAs Everyday gadget could be making you go deaf and it's nothing to do with the volume, experts warn Blake Lively watches as Ryan Reynolds jokes about Justin Baldoni scandal as duo returns to spotlight for SNL50 celebration in The secret influencers hierarchy: Our snitch leaks the real to list of the social media elite, from the top entry who's the talk of Hollywood to the freshly... Is this the most brutal death recorded in history? Deep sea divers 'sucked through' tiny hole and 'exploded into pieces' Privacy Policy Feedback Monday, Feb 17th 2025 11AM 28 2PM 30 5-Day Forecas 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 1/39 Jeffrey Parsons-Hietikko, a former psychology professor, has been ordered to pay the government back $375,000 after he used grant money to fund luxury scuba diving trips and other personal expenses At the same time, federal prosecutors say, the school continued to the professor thousands of dollars in retention bonuses with the grant money without disclosing it. Now, as part of a settlement, Parsons-Hietikko is required to pay some $375,000 for his scuba trips to Fiji, Belize and the Cayman Islands \u2014 while Hunter College is slated to repay the government $200,000 Australian bin collection method leaves British man stunned 796 viewing now We find the real reason so many people have autism 48.2k viewing now Keir Starmer says it's time to put boots on the ground in Ukraine 2.7k viewing now The settlement concludes a years-long investigation that began when Devin English, who once worked as a researcher under Parsons-Hietikko, filed a complaint under +7 View gallery JANE: My boyfriend asked to try a wild new bedroom kink on Valentine's Day said no but he insists all his friends do it Heartbroken family of British father, 37, who was 'left to die alone in a Las Vegas' are the hotel he died in and the ambulance company I'm a savings expert and I've tried 40 different platforms - here are my must- read tips to get your tax-free investments rocking Worst dressed stars at 2025 BAFTAs Odudu makes a rare fashion faux pas alongside quirky Gwendoline Christie and Isabella Rossellini Meghan Markle 'wanted to finish what Princess Diana started' but on a 'part-time basis' - and 'hated' staying at Nottingham Cottage How Kate 'put her foot down' and stopped George, Charlotte and Louis taking part in a gory centuries-old tradition for young royals, new book claims Heartbreaking new details of Caroline Flack's desperate final hours... and a shock revelation about her boyfriend reveals The mystery of Meghan's jam... from a sticky issue with the trademark to the Montecito farmers who know nothing about its production Ariana Grande puts on a showstopping display as she joins busty Selena Gomez, Demi Moore and Camila Cabello on the red carpet Selena Gomez suffers awkward blunder on stage while presenting award 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 2/39 seal in 2019. English, who now works as an assistant professor at Rutgers University, told federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York that Parsons-Hietikko and Hunter College violated the False Claims Act, the Washington Post reports. In a statement, Parsons-Hietikko's lawyer, Jeffrey Licthman told the Post: 'There was never any intent by Dr. Parsons to defraud the federal government \u2014 which is why he was never charged with a crime. He's settled this civil matter now and put it behind him.' DailyMail.com has also reached out to Lichtman, Hunter College and English for comment. Jeffrey Parsons-Hietikko, right, ran the City University of New York's Hunter College's Center for Educational Studies and Training for over two decades before he was forced to resign in 2019 over sexual assault claims. He is pictured with his husband, Chris According to the federal complaint, Parsons-Hietikko helped Hunter College secure $55million in grant money from 1996 through 2018. As the director of the Center for Educational Studies and Training (CHEST), he was directly responsible for overseeing the use of grants. At the height of his power at the New York City school, the complaint says had $9million in grants, which constituted about 15 percent of Hunter's total federal grant support. +7 View gallery Multi-millionaire business tycoon blasted by environmentalists after his unauthorised cliff top summer house damages clifftop Bridget Jones called them the 'smug marrieds'. But after another cringe-fest parade of celebrity Valentine's pictures, here's my message to these nauseatingly n... Rosie Huntington- Whiteley joins leggy Alexa Chung and pregnant Poppy Delevingne at British Vogue x afterparty Chantel Jeffries shows off her incredible figure in a colorful bikini for beach day in Miami Where is the 'Hot Felon' now? How Jeremy Meeks overcame heroin- addled childhood, gun crime and addiction to become a philanthropist This stupid law has turned me into a drug mule - and I've been forced to sell my home and racked up \u00a3100,000 debt buying cannabis for my daughter Get fit for the bedroom: These 16 exercises will make you better at sex, reveals expert personal trainer I'm a normal mother in my 40s but I've found a nudist hobby that's changed my life Rise of Apple Cider Vinegar syndrome: Expert reveals what's driving cancer fakers like Belle Gibson to pretend to be gravely ill Kylie Jenner and Timoth\u00e9e Chalamet can't keep their hands off each other at the BAFTAs after she skipped the red carpet 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 3/39 Devin English, who once worked under Parsons-Hietikko, blew the whistle on his misuse of government funds Researchers from other schools would even approach regarding their own research studies, many of which were also funded by federal grants. But Parsons-Hietikko's career came crashing down following a 2018 party at New York's historic Stonewall Inn, where witnesses said he unbuttoned one of his employee's pants and lifted another's shirt during a karaoke competition. The school was then forced to conduct an internal investigation of his behavior, ultimately finding that the professor violated the university's sexual harassment policy and its drug-alcohol policy following investigation by the Chronicle of Higher Education also found that the university had failed to meaningfully investigate numerous complaints about his behavior in the years leading up to the party, which was dubbed CHESTFest. In 2013, one former employee reported their concerns to City University of New York's research foundation's human-resources department in which he described a 'pervasive culture of harassment and a sexually hostile work environment.' In the years that followed, two other former employees also made complaints to the human resources department, but no actions were taken against Parsons-Hietikko. Then, just a few days after the event, it found, Parsons-Hietikko's husband, Christopher Hietikko-Parsons told a employee he had 'blacked out' and remembered nothing of the night. Court documents allege Parsons-Hietikko, right, used grant money to fund scuba diving trips to Fiji, Belize and the Cayman Islands +7 View gallery LIST: The Princess of Wales hasn't put a foot wrong. Until now Michael Hutchence's daughter Tiger Lily, 28, appears to confirm pregnancy as she shows off her bare baby bump in art photos The terrifying Tesco Clubcard plot: Shocking way 'brilliant' criminal demanding \u00a3250,000 used new loyalty scheme 30 years ago to blackmail supermarket - before might be 67 but women still want to sleep with me... because I'm an expert in serial killers, reveals criminologist David Wilson The easiest way to add \u00a325,000 to value of your house revealed...these simple and affordable home security measures can add a whopping premium. Here's our exper ALERT: The White Lotus is back! Death, full frontal nudity and the shock return of a familiar villain lead to an explosive season three launch Amanda Holden shows off her incredible physique as she rings in her 54th birthday with sizzling bikini-clad photoshoot 'More extremists in the than the Middle East': Counter- extremism analyst warns the is becoming a 'global powerbase' for radical Islam due to Keir Starmer took my newborn to the doctor for a minor symptom. The next day, all five of my children were taken into care - and it's happening to thousands of families Fans slam Paul George for sharing sexual vacation pics after horror show in last 76ers game 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 4/39 In one instance, Parsons-Hietikko allegedly used government funds to reimburse a business class ticket to Cape Town, South Africa, which he exchanged for a cheaper ticket with the airline. He then allegedly used the extra funds to bring two family members on the trip As part of the investigation into his behavior at the party, the Chronicle reports, some whistleblowers made 'allegations related to financial improprieties at CHEST, including the improper use of funds provided by and through federal grants.' Documents obtained by The Chronicle by some of these whistleblowers at the time showed that over 10 and a half months in 2012 through 2013, Parsons-Hietikko spent $52,234.62 on 14 trips. Six of those occurred in just the two month span between June and July 2013, when he visited Miami; San Diego; Lisbon, Portugal; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Paris and Honolulu. In July 2017, the documents allegedly showed, Parsons also charged $4,105.50 to a purchasing card. Included in that expense are $1,131.81 for an iPad Pro in gold, $227.43 for transportation around Paris and an $11.99 charge for Hulu \u2014 which he described in an attached receipt as 'videos for research.' In that same month, the Chronicle reports, Parsons bill also included a $944.76 charge for an iPhone 7 in gold. Parsons-Hietikko was ultimately forced to step down from his role at Hunter College, and paid $150,000 in 2019 to settle sexual assault claims, which totaled $1.4million. Five of those claims cited emotional distress, the New York Post reports, with one claiming physical assault and a sixth citing unspecified misconduct. One unidentified staffer even claimed he witnessed Parsons-Hietikko openly perform oral sex on a bar patron, and then tried to force the employee to do the same on someone else. +7 View gallery Gisele Pelicot's attackers are already walking and living ordinary lives just weeks after they were found guilty of sex assault alongside her depraved husb... Celebrity Traitors 'is thrown into chaos as stars pull out weeks before filming commences on the series' The expert guide to the world's luxury holiday super-dupes: they've got the views and the vibes the crowds (and you'll be amazed by how much you can sav... Jacob Elordi doesn't look like this anymore! Actor stuns fans as he reveals shock new look at the 75th Berlinale International Film Festival Watering down of assisted dying Bill could cause it to be voted down by MPs in next Commons vote, Labour ministers believe 'regrets' Super Bowl halftime choice after Kendrick Lamar backlash mistake was made' 'We're sick of Downing Street': Labour ministers lift the lid on the brutal civil war raging in No10 as one whispers 'we're about to commit electoral suicide': ... The purrrfect journey! Meet the adventurous cat who took a train into London alone - leaving its owner baffled Prince Harry and the Canadian Prime Minister pose for selfies while cheering on the final sport match of the Invictus Games 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 5/39 Hunter College President Jennifer Raab allegedly knew about the misuse of funds but failed to disclose it Hunter College is forced to pay $200,000 under the settlement, after federal prosecutors say it paid the professor thousands of dollars in retention bonuses with the grant money without disclosing it new settlement order assigns responsibility to both Parsons-Hietikko and Hunter College for years of ruses that allowed him to travel the world at government expense and host alcohol-fueled and cocaine driven events. It says the college approved the use of federal grant money to pay for his scuba- diving adventures, which he claimed were for research. But according to court documents, 'Parsons did not create any documents, data or records reflecting research he conducted while he was on the scuba trips. 'Moreover, after multiple years of inactivity, Parsons also knew that he had no intention of conducting research relating to his trips... 'Instead, Parsons' \"scuba study\" became known amongst personnel as Parsons' personal boondoggle, a series of all expense-paid vacations that catered to Parsons' desire to scuba in exotic locales.' It also states that the college improperly used funds to pay employees for work on outside projects. According to the court documents, researchers from other institutions would approach regarding their own research studies in an effort to collaborate. Hunter College would then have the institution pay them directly, prosecutors claim, and deposit the funds they received for the outside projects into discretionary accounts to benefit or Parsons. He would then seek reimbursement from the foundation, including for tens of thousands of dollars for alcohol purchases that would not be allowed under rules. +7 View gallery +7 View gallery viewers left 'disgusted' as beloved stars Timothy West, Bernard Hill and Brian Murphy are 'snubbed' from In Memoriam tribute found a lump on my neck, so Googled it - and wasn't worried. But please don't make the same terrible mistake as me... Zoe Ball and Fatboy Slim have been 'gardening, doing puzzles and working in a local cafe' after she quit her six-figure Radio 2 gig Jerry Seinfeld's blunt response to activist who tried to troll him during selfie don't care about Palestine' The real story behind Meghan's 'baby shower': It was used by Meghan and her friends as a 'launch-pad' for their careers Extremely rare animal once believed to be extinct in area caught on camera Ever since Covid keep noticing weird smells that aren't there - as medical experts explain the cause, there's one symptom you must never ignore Meet the former tennis star who quit to become a lingerie model and was accused of fleeing authorities for tax evasion - and has now landed a new role in sport Australian bin collection method leaves British man stunned 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 6/39 In discussing the account with Hunter administrators in an email Parsons-Hietikko apparently discussed using the money for alcohol purchases, writing 'we were told years ago' that the appropriate 'code' to use when billing alcohol was 'support for professional development/networking.' Parsons-Hietikko also allegedly requested reimbursement from the fund for $11,928.46 for a business class ticket to attend a conference in Cape Town, South Africa, only to later buy a ticket on a less expensive flight and receive reimbursement from the airline. He then flew to Cape Town with two family members using the money he saved. And in another instance, he allegedly requested reimbursement for the cost of his accommodations at a resort in Puerto Rico, where he would celebrate his 50th birthday. Parsons-Hietikko even sought duplicate reimbursement for travel, for which he had already been reimbursed by other institutions. The National Institutes of Health provided Parsons-Hietikko and with $55million in grants over more than two decades In order to retain Parsons-Hietikko, the complaint says, university officials would also use the grant money to cover $90,000 in bonuses to the professor. College officials did not disclose this to the NIH, federal prosecutors say, and instead reported that the money had been spent on 'organized research.' The complaint against the former professor even says he had a 'direct line' to Hunter College President Jennifer J. Raab due to the amount he was earning the school, and as a result Hunter 'failed to take any action' or report fraud to the after an internal investigation found he was misusing the grant money. The university announced last month that Raab would step down as president in June. Under the settlement, English \u2014 the whistleblower \u2014 is entitled to $120,759. +7 View gallery Blundering van driver causes \u00a330,000 of damage after crashing into rare British sports car don't feel sorry for the nakedly ambitious Bianca Censori. Her marriage to Kanye turned her from a nobody into a global superstar Tom Hanks 'stormed out' of 50th anniversary concert with wife Rita Wilson for bizarre reason BAFTAs 2025 winners: Adrien Brody and Mikey Madison scoop top gongs, The Brutalist and Best Film Conclave lead with awards fans go wild as Trump whips around Daytona 500 in the Beast but not everyone is delighted Why Trump's Harry and Meghan move will be a 'relief' to Charles... as insider tells me savage comment that reveals how some in the Palace feel E... Survivor left 'relieved but broken' as rapist loses parole board bid for early release BAFTA's Fashion Verdict from CRAIK: Stylish stars turned up the heat but still gave us goosebumps t. Labour ministers' knives out for Keir Starmer's law chief they call the 'Herminator' Winners Zoe Saldana and Warwick Davis share sweet celebratory moment together while Wicked's Cynthia Erivo 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 7/39 Share or comment on this article researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money He told the Washington Post he would donate the money to 'community organizations actually doing the work to end the epidemic Embed this Bill Burr: Billionaires should be 'put down like dogs' for dividing Gym and pool built in backyard for teen's head injury recovery Trump rides in 'The Beast' to Daytona Speedway fans like Binman runs in terror as rat jumps out of bin Police speak from scene where 'grinning' Syrian migrant killed Trump supports Vance over speech that 'ruffled feathers' in Meat shoplifter's e- scooter escape takes an unexpected turn Alaska hiker encounters two bald eagles tangled Newest Oldest Best rated Worst rated Comments 0 Share what you think We are no longer accepting comments on this article. and Ariana Grande pose for playful selfie BAFTAs host David Tennant wins praise for a second year running as he delights with outfit changes, an epic opening song, and savage Trump jibe don't feel sorry for the nakedly ambitious Bianca Censori. Her marriage to Kanye turned her from a nobody into a global superstar Warwick Davis leaves viewers sobbing as they admit they weren't 'emotionally prepared' as he tearfully dedicates Fellowship to his late wife Samantha Zoe Saldana shares a passionate kiss with husband Marco Perego as the couple pack on the while leading stars at Netflix afterparty SNL50's most viral moments from Kim Kardashian's hilarious bum drum sketch to Ryan Reynolds' awkward Blake Lively gag Love Island descends into chaos after axed star Liv Hawkins accuses Grace Jackson of a 'showmance' as she claims she has seen bombshell texts Mikey Madison reveals the advice she regrets taking from Robert De Niro ahead of her shock Best Actress win at the 2025 BAFTAs Lady Gaga lovingly gazes at fianc\u00e9 Michael Polansky during SNL50: The Anniversary Special Guy Pearce reunites with his ex-girlfriend Game Of Thrones star Carice van Houten at the 2025 Awards after announcing their split Kylie Jenner fans joke 'she's not in Calabasas anymore' as she interacts with BAFTAs host David Tennant during star-studded ceremony 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 8/39 50: Kim Kardashian, Scarlett Johansson and Sabrina Carpenter lead the best dressed stars on the red carpet Emilia Perez shock as snubbed Mexican film only wins two gongs despite garnering impressive 11 nods as fears for movie deepen Love Island: All Stars finalists as one couple are brutally axed by fellow Islanders - just one day before series' final Kim Kardashian shows ex Pete Davidson what he's missing in nude look at party after he scrubbed tattoo tribute to her and kids White Lotus star Michelle Monaghan wows in a sexy plunging feather-trim red gown at the BAFTAs This \u00a331 beauty buy loved by Victoria Beckham and Zendaya is so good one is sold every - now you'll donate \u00a35 to charity with every purchase Kylie Jenner is spotted chatting to Demi Moore at the BAFTAs by eagle-eyed fans just weeks after 'snub' Emilia P\u00e9rez director pays heartfelt tribute to disgraced star Karla Sof\u00eda Gasc\u00f3n while co- star Zoe Salda\u00f1a also name checks the absent actress BAFTAs host David Tennant makes Selena Gomez jump out of her skin during performance of I'm Gonna Be as fans hail the 'iconic' opening Zoe Saldana is pulled off camera during expletive-laden speech as she breaks down in tears while accepting Best Supporting Actress award 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 9/39 Ben Affleck goes for dog walk after spending first Valentine's Day as a single man following JLo divorce Has Ellen already fallen out of love with her \u00a315m Cotswolds dream home? Residents say talk show queen is already eyeing up new rural retreat Michelle Pfeiffer cozies up to husband of 31 years David E. Kelley during Valentine's Day weekend 'People thought was wearing falsies!' Beauty fans are 'totally in love' with new volume-boosting \u00a313 mascara - and it's beating out high-end brands 80s sitcom star who acted with Michael J. Fox and played a Laker Girl is unrecognizable... can you guess who Shakira hospitalized after suffering abdominal issues as she announces cancellation of Peru concert She's a snack! Emma Stone wears kooky popcorn dress at SNL50: The Anniversary Special with husband Dancing On Ice viewers furious after fifth contestant is eliminated as they claim the star was 'robbed' Meghan Markle is 'feeling the pressure' and has been 'working very hard for five months' as she establishes herself as an influencer Madonna looks fantastic with no filters as she heads to Chris Rock's 60th birthday party 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 10/39 Pictured: Incredible Wiltshire home actor Stephen Mangan bought with his sisters to help cope with the early deaths of both their parents Shrinking creator reveals why Harrison Ford, 82, insisted on being shirtless for certain scene Jesse Eisenberg explains reason for Kieran Culkin's absence from BAFTAs as he accepts acting award on his Real Pain co-star's behalf Vanessa Kirby is the epitome of elegance in a black bardot gown with thigh-high split as she arrives at the BAFTAs ahead of presenting an award Cher, Madonna, and Anya Taylor-Joy bring the star power to Chris Rock's 60th birthday bash in Leo Woodall looks more loved-up than ever with glamorous girlfriend Meghann Fahy as they attend the star-studded 2025 BAFTAs Jake Paul claims Mike Tyson was diagnosed with Parkinson's before their Netflix fight in shock reveal Kyle Walker splashes out on \u00a310,000 -a-week city centre Milan apartment for himself as he adjusts to his new club - but his wife Annie Kilner has stayed at home From Love Island to red carpet royalty! Molly-Mae Hague makes surprise appearance at the 2025 BAFTAs as she shows off her sense of style Kourtney Kardashian shares rare snap with stepdaughter Alabama Barker as she shows off Valentine's Day roses s. 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 11/39 Lisa Vanderpump's daughter Pandora welcomes baby number two as she shares precious new photo Camila Cabello left shivering as she flaunts her jaw-dropping figure in a daring sheer gown while hitting the chilly red carpet at 2025 BAFTAs was on The 1% Club and there's a secret behind where we're placed on set bosses know exactly what they're doing Hugh Grant, 64, cuts a dapper figure as he joins leggy wife Anna Eberstein, 42, for rare red carpet appearance at the 2025 BAFTAs Colin From Accounts stars Harriet Dyer and Patrick Brammall welcome their second child - and reveal the newborn's very sweet name Selena Gomez puts on a glamorous display in a busty silver and black velvet gown as she stuns on the BAFTAs 2025 red carpet The Substance director Coralie Fargeat turns heads as she hits the star-studded red carpet in a black puffer coat at the 2025 BAFTAs How Natalie Cassidy 'is set to make millions' following her EastEnders exit as expert bills her the next Stacey Solomon and tips her for the jungle' Vanessa Williams makes her return to the spotlight as she attends the BAFTAs following tragic death of her 'remarkable' mother Vera Wang, 75, shows off her ageless looks as she slips into a racy strapless cut-out gown 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 12/39 and edgy leather jacket at the BAFTAs Anna Kendrick looks out of this world in a black glitzy gown as she graces the 2025 BAFTAs red carpet Ariana Grande is the epitome of glamour in a plunging black velvet gown with dramatic pink skirt as she arrives at the BAFTAs 2025 Alice Evans reveals she's being evicted from her home after being 'unable to pay her rent' amid her bitter court battle with ex Ioan Gruffudd Melissa Joan Hart reveals the jaw- dropping Valentine's Day surprise from her husband Pamela Anderson, 57, looks effortlessly chic in a long white gown as she rocks her signature make-up-free look for BAFTAs 2025 Leading Actress favourite Demi Moore, 62, looks sensational in a dazzling backless sequin gown as she arrives at the 2025 BAFTAs Kaia Gerber sports smart glasses as she departs theater performance amid Lewis Pullman romance Revealed: Lily Allen's husband David Harbour, 49, has a new model girlfriend 22 years his junior White Lotus is back, and you simply won't believe the real-life drama when the cameras rolling on TV's hottest show Mikey Madison is the epitome of chic in an ivory strapless dress at 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 13/39 the BAFTAs after her nomination for Best Leading Actress Wicked star Cynthia Erivo turns heads in a structured white lace gown as she poses up a storm on the 2025 BAFTAs red carpet Nepo baby who stars in Bridget Jones stuns in a daring mesh jeweled gown at the BAFTAs - can you guess who her very famous mother is? Marisa Abela looks sensational in a glitzy black gown as she makes her arrival to the BAFTAs 2025 red carpet - amid her Rising Star nomination Paul Mescal and singer girlfriend Gracie Abrams 'make up' after public spat last month as Gladiator star reprises role Who is set to triumph at the BAFTAs? Conclave and The Brutalist among favourites with Ralph Fiennes and Demi Moore set to scoop gongs Jeff Goldblum's wife Emilie Livingston teams her very glamorous dress with bizarre shoe choice at the star- studded 2025 BAFTAs Kneecap star proudly dons Irish outfit as the hip hop group put on a animated display after their controversial movie is tipped to scoop awards at star- studded BAFTAs Gwendoline Christie showcases her bold new look as she walks the 2025 red carpet with long braided extensions Bridgerton stars Hannah Dodd and Florence Hunt look words away from their regal characters as slip into stylish cut-out gowns at the 2025 BAFTAs 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 14/39 fans are sent into a frenzy with the red carpet arrival of 'icons' Wallace And Gromit as latest movie competes in a brand new category found that very difficult but she was no longer aware': Dame Maggie Smith's son Toby Stephens reveals he wasn't with his mum when she died Drake to headline all three days at one of UK's favourite music festivals amid Kendrick Lamar feud - will you be joining in with the Drake-mania? His parents are an iconic British couple - but can you guess the Nepo baby in this sweet childhood throwback snap? Love Island SPOILER: Olivia Hawkins gives her brutal verdict on Ronnie Vint and Harriett Blackmore's relationship as she returns to villa in shock twist Amazing unseen images of 'Bride of Wildenstein's' incredible life in Africa: Fascinating photos offer new insight into the billionaire's bride dubbed 'Catwoman' Netflix star Kim Sae- ron dies aged 24: Actress who starred in hit K-drama Bloodhounds found dead in her home as fans pay tribute The ultimate nepo family who have taken over Hollywood! How the ever-expanding Wayans have dominated screens for the past three decades Barry shares shocking story about couple's massage with her girlfriend Ella Rutherford Who is David Harbour's new girlfriend? Aspiring model Ellie Fallon boasts glam Insta which gives away clue as to when the pair met 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 15/39 Love Island's Tasha Ghouri hints at the heartbreaking reason behind her shock split from Andrew Le Page Love Island: All Stars villa 'left in chaos as star suffers head injury after passing out - as show medics are called in' How to watch the BAFTAs 2025 and what time it starts: Live stream the film awards from anywhere as David Tennant returns to hosting duties Billie Piper is reprising her iconic Doctor Who role opposite Christopher Eccleston in honour of the revival's 20th Anniversary TOWIE's James Argent takes huge step in his relationship with Spanish girlfriend Nicoline Artursson Myleene Klass turns heads in a racy black lace look as she arrives at work at Smooth Radio - after her quirky new headgear looks were explained Kate and Rio Ferdinand enjoy family work out with their sons Cree, four, and Tate, 16, in their lavish home gym Mending your 'broken heart'? Maura Higgins sings along to Whitney Houston hit on Valentine's night out after taking a swipe at 'cheating' ex Pete Wicks The making of Aimee Lou Wood: How the working class star overcame a traumatic childhoo and 'many mental illnesses' to landa Phillip Schofield's helping hand for pal Gino D'Acampo following allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 16/39 The Masked Singer fans are left baffled and claim they have 'never heard' of series winner after Pufferfish was unmasked in grand finale Ozzy Osbourne, 76, reveals he will not perform a full set at Black Sabbath's farewell gig as he confesses he can only manage 'little bits and pieces' The nepo baby set for superstardom: From starring alongside his famous mother to his romance with another child star, inside Sam Nivola's rise to fame Rylan Clark is forced to pull out of his Radio 2 show after health concern as Strictly Come Dancing star steps in at the last minute How Taylor Swift's ex Joe Alwyn is chasing fame in wake of his split from pop megastar - after 'breaking up over privacy fears' Olivia Bowen shares sweet clip of the moment she told her husband Alex she was pregnant with their second child Good Morning Britain star welcomes his first child with wife as he shares newborn's sweet name Bridget Jones fans devastated after watching Mad About The Boy as sobbing cinemagoers say they spent the 'whole time crying' Meghan Markle gives rare glimpse of daughter Lilibet in recent video - as fans notice similarity with 'her mama fans obsessed with 'phenomenal' crime drama that 'needs another series' - but you only have days left to watch it Katie Price, 46, and Slater, 33, hit 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 17/39 Liverpoolbut risk a parking ticket as they dump Pink Pricey Range Rover outside a sexual health clinic Kaya Scodelario reveals 'terrifying' teenage sex scenes on set of Skins were 'improvised' as she opens up about being a child actor pre #MeToo Justin Bieber and Hailey spend Valentine's Day together in Beverly Hills amid rumored marriage woes Valentine's Day date? Tom Cruise, 62, and Ana de Armas, 36, are all smiles as they are mobbed by fans during night out in London Eamonn Holmes makes sweet marriage remark live on air months after split from ex Ruth Langsford Amanda Holden angers bosses after breaching commercial guidelines with advert for her own interior design range Starmer 'ready' to put troops on ground in Ukraine to protect\u2026 See more versions \u00b7 5hrs ago London to see 14C temperatures and sunshine as gloom finally\u2026 See more versions Evening Standard \u00b7 Extra two million appointments in Labour's first fi\u2026 See more versions Sky News \u00b7 6hrs ag The Brutalist and Conclave among winners at this year\u2019s Bafta film\u2026 See more versions Evening Standard \u00b7 Nick Cannon responds to Elon Musk welcoming his 13th child See more versions MailOnline \u00b7 6hrs ag 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 18/39 Landlady of pub where woman was shot dead thought the loud\u2026 See more versions The Sun \u00b7 5hrs ago Police investigated over man's death after officers attend report\u2026 See more versions Sky News \u00b7 4hrs ag 'One in a million' Brit diabetic, 37, left to die alone in Vegas hotel See more versions Daily Star \u00b7 1hr ago Austria: Villach stabbing attack linked to IS, officials say See more versions \u00b7 16hrs ago Love Island descends into chaos as axed stars accuse finalist of\u2026 See more versions MailOnline \u00b7 2hrs ag Click here to view more Follow Daily Mail Subscribe Daily Mail Follow @DailyMail Follow Daily Mail Follow @dailymailuk Follow Daily Mail Boris Becker, 56, and wife Lilian de Carvalho Monteiro, 33, put on a loved-up display as they party at the 75th Berlinale International Film Festival Nick Cannon, father of 12, responds to news that Elon Musk has welcomed his 13th child How Beyonce feels about husband Jay-Z's shock rape case dismissal Rita Ora shows off her toned figure in skimpy gym gear as she shares photo dump documenting her extended stay in Australia Love Island: All Stars' Ronnie Vint leaves girlfriend Harriett Blackmore reeling by revealing his hair in hilarious unseen clip How Amelia Dimoldenberg built her multi-million pound empire from a chicken shop: Inside comedian's surprising rise to fame ahead of Oscar's red carpet gig Britain's Got Talent's Bruno Tonioli shares that for 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 19/39 the sake of entertainment 'sometimes you have to be a little spicy' I'm the voice of Come Dine With Me - fans will be stunned to learn the truth about my catty swipes at the contestants Kylie Minogue cuts a stylish figure as she departs Perth Airport after kicking off Australian tour Gemma Atkinson reveals sex secrets including one- night stands and two engagements before settling down with fianc\u00e9 Gorka Marquez Celeb chefs rated: Best and worst reviews for Gordon Ramsay, Gino D'Acampo and Jamie Oliver revealed The sombre reason why Meghan Markle shutting the car door was a security headache for her staff Max George reveals he underwent a secret heart operation after first pacemaker surgery left him in agony Kim Kardashian teases her 50 appearance where she's 'set to reunite' with ex Pete Davidson Is this the end for Kanye West? Slurs, a crumbling marriage with wife Bianca Censori and collaborators fleeing Maura Higgins takes a brutal swipe at 'cheating' ex Pete Wicks during Valentine's Day night out as she addresses split for first time Britney Spears and ex- felon Paul Soliz confirm they're back on as they 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 20/39 spend Valentine's Day with his kids Make-up free Isla Fisher enjoys breakfast with children after reports her amicable divorce from Sacha Baron Cohen is set to turn nasty Chrissy Teigen and John Legend sing to their late dog Penny's ashes in a touching Valentine's Day video Jacqueline Jossa 'brings in lawyers over unpaid five figure sum from In The Style as fashion retailer faces administration' Jessica Chastain dazzles in a strapless dress and boa sleeves at Berlinale International Film Festival Liam Gallagher 'plans to spend Oasis reunion payout on a Cotswolds manor house' ahead of \u00a3100million tour Strictly's Tasha Ghouri says she's 'still processing' split from ex Andrew Le Page in emotional update as he moves out of their shared home From Hogwarts to High Society! First glimpse of actress Katie Leung in new Bridgerton role Sydney Sweeney exudes Hollywood glamour in strapless gown at Armani Beauty Party during Berlinale Film Festival Prince Harry does knee slide and kisses bald man's head as he joins in boisterous celebrations of one of the last events of the Invictus Games Kanye West breaks his silence over alleged $250k resurfaced sex 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 21/39 tape amid Bianca Censori divorce Queen Mary of Denmark quietly slips into Australia for a family holiday in her native Tasmania 2025 Writers Guild Awards: Anora's Sean Baker continues winning streak as he nabs top honor Who won the Masked Singer? Pufferfish is crowned and identity is revealed as Samantha Barks Heidi Klum, 51, reveals she has 'chin and boob' hair as she gets candid about aging: 'It's as long as my pinky finger' Linkin Park star Chester Bennington's child, 22, comes out as transgender - five years after the rock star killed himself Drake performs songs from new album in tiny Sydney bar during Australian leg of Anita Max Win tour Emma Watson makes surprise appearance at All-Star Celebrity Game in rare public outing Brooks Nader goes on the beach as she enjoys Valentine's Day getaway in Mexico without boyfriend Gleb Savchenko Phil Foden's childhood sweetheart Rebecca Cooke 'sparks engagement rumours after sporting huge diamond ring' following romantic getaway 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 22/39 Prince Harry is greeted by raucous crowd at the Invictus Games and holds impromptu royal get- together with Denmark's Princess Marie and Prince Joachim Kiernan Shipka takes the plunge in floral maxi dress as she leads the stars at Awards in Beverly Hills Selling Sunset's Chrishell Stause puts on a leggy display in pink mini dress as she and spouse Flip grab Valentine's Day dinner Vanessa Kirby exudes elegance in a draped gown as she joins classy Lily James and Ellie Bamber at the Charles Finch & Chanel Pre party Taylor Swift's pal Este Haim and Jonathan Levin are engaged! Singer debuts massive diamond ring: 'I'm taken' Megan Thee Stallion sets pulses racing in stringy blue bikini as she celebrates 30th birthday Lizzo is accused of 'copying' Lily-Rose Depp as she breaks down in tears in teaser for 'new era' of music Wendy Williams flashes a smile as she rides mobility scooter during rare public outing in Miami amid battle to end guardianship The Invictus Games are Harry's tribute to the bravery of injured military heroes. But this year they were also the perfect opportunity for Meghan How does Amber Turner maintain her jaw- dropping physique star's strict workout routine and diet is revealed 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 23/39 David Blaine, 51, reveals he is working on final ever stunt and plans to retire at the same age that his hero Harry Houdini died Anna Kendrick stuns in a red mini dress as she joins Camila Cabelo and Mikey Madison at the Film Awards Nominees' Party Dannii Minogue opens up about sister Kylie's devastating cancer diagnosis: 'We were going to lose her' Renee Zellweger appears to hide her ring finger amid Ant Anstead engagement rumors in Jake Quickenden opens up about the challenges of pursuing his career while raising a young family: 'It can be tough' Jeremy Clarkson goes on furious 'cancel culture' rant as he defends under-fire stars Gino D'Acampo, Wynne Evans and Gregg Wallace Adrien Brody puts on a loved-up display with girlfriend Georgina Chapman at Film Awards nominees party Kevyn Major Howard dead at 69: Full Metal Jacket actor passes away after being hospitalized for weeks The Masked Singer final: Wolf is unveiled as a legendary 80s singer after missing out on a place in the top two as Pufferfish and Dressed Crab make it through Princess Eugenie shares pictures of her children in heartfelt (and slightly apologetic) Valentine's Day tribute to her husband James Brooksbank 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 24/39 Pregnant Jesy Nelson shows off her blossoming baby bump in jumper dress as she enjoys Valentine's Day date with boyfriend Zion Foster How Queen Camilla introduced this bunion- busting footwear to celebrity friends Judi Dench and Mary Berry The 1% Club contestant takes home biggest ever prize on gameshow after risking everything to take on the final question Pamela Anderson turns heads in a dramatic tulle hat as she attends The Last Show Girl in London Gino D'Acampo 'kissed' international footballer's wife on the lips in front of her husband - telling onlookers did that because f***ing can Kerry Katona shows off her two-stone weight loss in a red bikini as she enjoys her first solo Valentine's Day in Thailand since split from Ryan Mahoney Nathalie Emmanuel wows in a slinky black dress as she joins glam Toni Collette and leather-clad Robert Pattinson at the Mickey 17 premiere during Berlin Film Festival Fans go wild after Meryl Streep flips middle finger at Will Ferrell during 50th concert Hailey Bieber and husband Justin cuddle up in post-Valentine's Day photos amid rumors of marital issues Helen Flanagan oozes glamour in a baby pink midi dress and statement heels as she attends the Elle Sera Galentine's lunch in Liverpool 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 25/39 Gladiators legend recalls horrifying moment she could have been left 'dead or paralysed' after a live stunt went wrong Kanye West and Bianca Censori 'have prenup' as estranged couple are headed for 'divorce' Sacha Baron Cohen claims it's with Isla Fisher as \u00a360 million divorce could turn nasty: Friends tell Georgia Harrison stuns in sheer black lace dress as she wishes new boyfriend Jack a happy Valentine's Day Auf Wiedersehen, Pet and Doctor Who star Maya Woolfe dies aged 72 as tributes pour in EastEnders stars Danielle Harold and Max Bowden unfollow each other after stint on Celebrity Antiques Road Trip Hollywood A-lister on Saturday Kitchen says she's 'going to cry' just minutes into appearance on show as fans share their shock Rihanna shares raunchy throwback video with Rocky for Valentine's Day amid trial Liam Payne asked me to be his best man. Three days later he was dead: Star's closest confidant tells horrifying truth of singer's drug use Khloe Kardashian shares Valentine's snaps with True and Tatum as she reveals son's nickname for Kris Jenner All you need is planning permission! Now Stella McCartney's \u00a35m 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 26/39 Highland hideaway hits a bum note with locals... again Clueless? No Tunstall's West End debut was child's play thanks to all those music lessons as a kid! Diddy accused of hiring trafficked underage girl for Miami sex party in a new lawsuit Leo Woodall, 28, isn't 'bothered' by toyboy label after age-gap Bridget Jones role as gives rare update on his relationship with Meghann Fahy, 34 Model, 30, who has a famous sister looks chic as she attends the Apple brunch - but can guess who her A- list sibling is? Andrew Le Page admits he's 'cried more than ever' as he marks the 'end of an era' after shock split from Tasha Ghouri and moves out of the home they shared Star of iconic 90s show who also played Marilyn Monroe is unrecognizable on rare outing in The surprising career changes of iconic Noughties band revealed: From Net Zero manager and songwriters to the stars to reality contestants Laura Whitmore shares her final messages with Caroline Flack on the fifth anniversary of her death and confirms she won't appear in the new doco about the late star TOWIE's Ella Rae Wise confirms she is back together with Dan Edgar as she shares romantic Valentine's Day snaps 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 27/39 Justin Baldoni issues stinging retort after Blake Lively and Ryan Reynold's Hollywood agent mocked his name Dave Chappelle reveals censored his viral monologue over two topics Prince Harry's risque joke makes former Marine laugh at Invictus games - even though veteran had to battle testicular cancer Pamela Anderson, 57, stuns in a stylish green jumper and satin midi skirt as she arrives at Studios to promote The Last Showgirl amid career resurgence Brian Cox, 78, looks dapper in a checked suit as his glam wife Nicole, 56, rocks tight pencil skirt at star- studded Baftas brunch in London Keely Hodgkinson looks incredible in a black cropped jacket as she hosts her Keely Klassic debut at Utilita Arena Birmingham Jessica Chastain commands attention in lime green suit as she steps out to the Dreams photocall at the 75th Berlinale International Film Festival Inside Amelia Dimoldenberg's love life as she settles with Adam Faze: How star sparked romance rumours with of Andrew Garfield and Aitch Jamie Theakston issues health update after cancer treatment and sends touching message to radio listeners Kid Rock's shocking claim about Kendrick Lamar and Colin 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 28/39 Kaepernick after Super Bowl halftime show Katie Price and Slater put split rumours to bed as they enjoy loved-up night out at a Manchester nightclub on Valentine's Day Love Island All Stars highest earners as expert predicts which couple will be the most profitable after leaving the villa On your marks! Queen Camilla is effortlessly chic in statement faux fur hat as she watches races at Ascot Kylie Minogue, 56, proves she's an ageless beauty as she stuns in sheer black gown while kicking off her Australian tour Nirvana reunite on stage with Post Malone for milestone SNL50 gig - in Dave Grohl's second performance since his cheating scandal The Bangles bombshells! First-ever authorized biography of iconic 80s band reveals in-house jealousies, disturbing fan mail and being stalked by Prince Hollywood horror icon with a Star Wars connection is unrecognizable at 77... can you guess who he is? Bridgerton's Luke Thompson reveals why he declined to seek the advice of his co-stars ahead of taking a lead role in season 4 Helen Flanagan sets pulses racing in a busty black gown for Galentines event - before shocking fans with an unrecognisable throwback snap 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 29/39 Davide Sanclimenti makes dig at ex Ekin-Su Culculoglu as he marks Valentine's Day with his new girlfriend and says 'true love doesn't destroy you' Newly-single Maura Higgins sizzles in a scarlet strapless dress as she hits the town for Valentine's Day with pals after split from Pete Wicks Inside Belle Gibson's warped mind after Netflix's Apple Cider Vinegar made her a 'star': Who she blames for her downfall, her hope for the future Meghan 'made jokes about Harry having different parents to William', thought senior royals 'behaved like babies' and Kate was a 'goody two shoes', insiders reveal As Kanye and Bianca head for 'divorce', we reveal the Censori family's chilling theory for why their daughter became a rapper's nude plaything The Traitors' Mollie Pearce reflects on heartbreak after split with long-term boyfriend as she shares Valentine's relationship status update Liam Payne's girlfriend Kate Cassidy shares devastating Valentine's Day tribute with a 'special' link to the late singer Princess of Wales's top 20 sell-out items show the 'Kate effect' isn't waning - from a \u00a31,000 jacket to earrings you can find on the high street Ben Fogle reveals he applied to be on Cilla Black's Blind Date because he was 'so shy' with women - but turned it down for Castaway 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 30/39 Hilarious moment Breakfast star is interrupted by his phone live on air - as he says 'I've got to go!' Sabrina Carpenter takes brutal swipe at ex Barry Keoghan in new music video with Dolly Parton Cher, 78, turns back time in see-through bodysuit as she sings at 50: The Homecoming Concert Gaby Roslin shares her heartbreak over the death of beloved family member and says grief is like 'being punched in the stomach' Viewers roast as the same dinner jacket appears on a different groom one year later in editing fail EastEnders star Davood Ghadami 'leaves wife for married mother-of-three co- star amid pair's sizzling on-stage chemistry' Did Prince Harry have to physically stop Meghan from breaking royal protocol? Unearthed footage shows what really happened during awkward walkabout Lisa Snowdon candidly confesses her 'reservations' about getting married to fianc\u00e9 George Smart eight years after they got engaged Philly turns on hometown girl Taylor Swift as they reveal why Super Bowl could have been for the 'traitor Emotional Jay hails 'victory' as teen rape case with Diddy is by accuser's attorney 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 31/39 We broke records on Dragons' Den - the panel were different when the cameras stopped rolling and we couldn't believe what happened after New romance alert? Zoe Kravitz spotted with Noah Centineo four months after Channing Tatum split Anya Taylor-Joy looks ethereal as she cosies up to husband Malcolm McRae at the SNL50: The Homecoming Concert on Valentine's Day Victoria Beckham is 'desperate' for her new documentary to be a hit as excitement builds after huge success of husband David's Netflix show Kylie Jenner bares cleavage in sparkly gown as she spends Valentine's Day with Timothee Chalamet at Berlinale Fans ecstatic as beloved show returns to screens after more than 30 years - and it's finally confirmed whether original star is back Gracie Abrams wows fans with special performance ahead of The Secret of Us European tour after sparking outrage over her 'pricey' merch Beyonce sizzles in gold bustier to promote her fragrance after Jay teen rape case with Diddy was dismissed Netflix fans gripped by 'captivating' hooligan drama 'full of twists and turns' as it rockets up the charts Leonardo DiCaprio has frog named after him - and no, it's not because it is only attracted to young females Leo Woodall's great aunts who were the Bridget Joneses of their day! Nation's new 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 32/39 heartthrob comes from a long line of trailblazing women Katie Price insists she's 'not on fat loss jabs' and is in 'a really good place' after cleaning up her diet amid concerns over her drastic weight loss Tilda Swinton announces she is taking a break from 'merciless' movie- making... hours after accepting lifetime achievement award Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus get A-listers dancing as they lead star-studded performances at 50: Concert Bianca Censori's creepy two word comment to Kanye West days before shock 'divorce' revealed Mauricio Umansky to undergo surgery after skiing accident in Aspen as he shares health update from hospital bed Jason Momoa and girlfriend Adria Arjona have the look of love as they make their red carpet debut as couple at SNL50: The Homecoming Concert Why Kim Kardashian has stayed silent despite fears amid Kanye West and Bianca Censori 'split Bhad Bhabie breaks silence on claims she lied about having cancer after being slammed for vaping Craig Conover denies texting other women behind ex Paige DeSorbo's back prior to shock split 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 33/39 bosses putting 'a ring of steel around the ceremony' after YouTube prankster gatecrashed the stage in 2024: 'They are taking no risks' Charli looks effortlessly cool as she steps out of Melbourne hotel braless in brown tank top Elsa Pataky puts on a leggy display in denim short shorts as she pampers 'new family member' with pats in Byron Bay Danielle Lloyd breaks down in tears as she reveals she's been diagnosed with skin cancer - and star issues important health warning to her fans Lady Gaga stuns in edgy black gown outside Radio City Music Hall ahead of the SNL50: The Homecoming Concert Selena Gomez's fianc\u00e9 Benny Blanco slammed over 'disgusting' Valentine's Day gesture Teri Hatcher, 60, shows off her age- defying figure in a busty yellow bandeau and matching suit at SNL50: The Homecoming Concert in New York Prince Harry is all smiles despite Meghan being 1,000 miles away with their children on Valentine's Day Jermain Defoe, 41, and Alisha LeMay, 31, 'split': Pair call it quits as influencer 'unfollows' the footballer on social media - a year after cheating scandal Caroline Flack's hidden legacy: Star's mother Christine fights to prevent others from her heartbreak, after her daughter's tragic passing 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 34/39 Meghan Markle shares video of children Archie and Lilibet making love heart treats for Valentine's Day hours after her gushing post kissing Prince Harry Robbie Williams movie biopic Better Man to be transformed into a West End musical after nod ALERT: Married At First Sight couple Adrian Araouzou and Awhina Rutene spotted together on Valentine's Day Bridgerton series four first look: Teaser images show Penelope and Colin as parents and a steamy new love story Bafta After Party is thrown into chaos after venue of Chiltern Firehouse is ravaged by huge fire - as organisers scramble to find somewhere else to host celebrity bash Jessica Alba shows off her bikini body enjoying the single life in Cabo... while ex Cash Warren is alone in Jesse McCartney and wife Katie Peterson reveal they are expecting their first child: 'Our lil Valentine' Amanda Byram, 51, gives birth to a baby boy! Irish presenter welcomes second 'miracle child' after a 'surprise' labour and journey Nepo baby island! New Channel 4 reality show plans to dump offspring of famous faces on a desert island and there's a shock twist Miley Cyrus puts on a united front with mom Tish amid Billy Ray drama at the SNL50: The Homecoming Concert Jason Momoa and girlfriend Adria Arjona 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 35/39 hold hands as they make first public outing as couple on Valentine's Day Jonathan Ross reflects on 'awkward' moment Macy Gray stormed off the stage on The Masked Singer Love Island All Stars viewers in shock as Harriett Blackmore 'pies off' Ronnie Vint and turns down his romantic proposal for the time Rihanna branded an 'evil human being' for wearing fur by animal rights protester at Rocky shooting trial Dance Moms star JoJo Siwa returns to Sydney for a very romantic Valentine's Day with Aussie partner Kath Ebbs Pete Davidson reveals sad reason he gets 'harassed' over A-List dating life after whirlwind Ariana Grande romance Love Island: All Stars in shock as three couples are at risk of being dumped from the villa - but fans are all saying the same thing Jennifer Lopez leaves sassy note about 'self love' during first Valentine's Day in 4 years after Ben Affleck split Love Island fans brand Pritchard 'fake' as he changes his tune on Ekin-Su - after previously calling for her to be 'REMOVED' from villa Emmerdale's Lisa Riley admits there's 'never a day' she feels 'safe' from being axed on the soap as she says producers treat cast 'like chess pieces' Today's headlines Most Read Emotional Warwick Davis fights back tears as he pays tribute to his late wife 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 36/39 Samantha and admits he has... England and Wales's most dangerous streets: Map of 37,000 neighbourhoods lays bare hotspots for violent and... 'This is the moment for us all to step up': Keir Starmer says it's time to put boots on the ground in... Everyday gadget could be making you go deaf and it's nothing to do with the volume, experts warn 'More extremists in the than the Middle East': Counter-extremism analyst warns the is becoming a... Get fit for the bedroom: These 16 exercises will make you better at sex, reveals expert personal trainer Worst dressed stars at 2025 BAFTAs Odudu makes a rare fashion faux pas as she bizarrely channels Kylie... BAFTAs 2025 full list of winners: Mikey Madison and Adrien Brody scoop top gongs, The Brutalist and Best... Ariana Grande puts on a showstopping display in a blush pink and black gown as she joins busty Selena Gomez,... Heartbreaking new details of Caroline Flack's desperate final hours... and why friends fear 'blame game'... I'm a savings expert and I've tried 40 different platforms - here are my must-read tips to get your... The secret influencers hierarchy: Our snitch leaks the real to list of the social media elite, from the... Zoe Ball and Fatboy Slim have been 'gardening, doing puzzles and working in a local cafe' after she quit her... Shakira hospitalized after suffering abdominal issues as she announces cancellation of Peru concert JANE: My boyfriend asked to try a wild new bedroom kink on Valentine's Day said no but he insists... Inside 'Hot Felon' Jeremy Meeks troubled past: From overcoming heroin-addled childhood, crime and addiction... The White Lotus season 3 episode 1 recap: Death, full frontal nudity and the shock return of a familiar... Patrick Schwarzenegger makes mom Maria Shriver and sister Katherine cry revealing he got The White Lotus... The sombre reason why Meghan Markle shutting the car door was a security headache for her staff Royal expert reveals Kate Middleton 'put her foot down' and stopped George, Charlotte and Louis taking part... Meghan Markle is 'feeling the pressure' and has been 'working very hard for five months' as she establishes... Blake Lively watches as Ryan Reynolds jokes about Justin Baldoni scandal as duo returns to spotlight for... Jimmy Mizen's killer 'posts new rap video on TikTok' despite him being recalled to prison for at least a might be 67 but women still want to sleep with me... because I'm an expert in serial killers, reveals... Prince Harry and the Canadian Prime Minister pose for selfies while cheering on the final sport match of the... 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 37/39 The purrrfect journey! Meet the adventurous cat who took a train into London alone - leaving its owner... Meghan Markle 'wanted to finish what Princess Diana started' but on a 'part- time basis' - and 'hated'... Is this London's mouldiest home? Inside the \u00a3220,000 flat with black spores 'in every room' Sex doll makers say they're now using to 'improve the user experience' Snow set to hit the north and Scotland before warmer spells during the middle of next week Jeremy Clarkson says he'd rather have lead our country than Starmer... and blasts Gen Zs viewers left 'disgusted' as beloved stars Timothy West, Bernard Hill and Brian Murphy are 'snubbed'... BAFTA's Fashion Verdict from CRAIK: Stylish stars turned up the heat but still gave us goosebumps Emilia Perez shock as snubbed Mexican film only wins two gongs despite garnering impressive 11 nods as... Kylie Jenner and Timoth\u00e9e Chalamet can't keep their hands off each other at the BAFTAs after she skipped the... Zoe Saldana is pulled off camera during expletive-laden speech as she breaks down in tears while accepting... Heartbroken family of British father, 37, who was 'left to die alone in a Las Vegas' are the hotel he... Rare single-letter number plate sells for \u00a31.45MILLION in mad dash auction Fury as more than 25,000 small boat migrants have reached Britain since Labour came to power Two members of the same family are rushed to hospital after being attacked by their pet dog during a game of... Man from isolated indigenous tribe returns to Amazon rainforest after brief contact with outside world Our \u00a332million mansion was turned into a scene from Alien by moths who invaded and took over our home fans go wild as Trump whips around Daytona 500 in the Beast but not everyone is delighted All the Oval Office decor changes Trump has made\u2026 including a controversial presidential portrait swap-out Labour's raid forced a teenage girl, 13, out of private school and now council has to fund her \u00a38,000... Laughing shoplifters, drugs, and prostitution: How district in Leeds became one of the worst places in... I'm a normal mother in my 40s but I've found a nudist hobby that's changed my life was widowed at 35 with 3 young children but the cruellest blow was the judgement faced for moving on... How one of the biggest threats to British honeybees could be eradicated thanks to scientific breakthrough Kylie Jenner is spotted chatting to Demi Moore at the BAFTAs by eagle-eyed fans just weeks after 'snub' 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 38/39 Sitemap Archive Video Archive Authors Topics Index Mobile Apps Screensaver Text-based site Reader Prints Our Papers Top of page Daily Mail Mail on Sunday This is Money Metro Jobsite Mail Travel Mail Subscriptions Help & FAQs Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group dmg media Contact us How to complain Leadership Team Advertise with us Contributors Terms Subscription Terms & Conditions Do not sell or share my personal information About MailOnline Privacy Settings Privacy policy & cookies Back to top Home News Royals U.S. Sport Showbiz Femail Health Science Money Travel Podcasts Shopping 2/16/25, 10:01 researcher is forced to pay back $375k of grant money | Daily Mail Online 39/39", "8390_106.pdf": "Ex party professor forced to repay $375K in stolen funds By Ben Feuerherd Published Jan. 31, 2023 Updated Jan. 31, 2023, 2:18 p.m Jeffrey Parsons will have to pay $375,000 he used to fund a lavish personal lifestyle. Hunter College Refusal to crack down on antisemitism made school a \u2018hostile\u2019 workplace: Jewish studies director News Metro Long Island Politics World News 2/16/25, 10:01 Hunter College professor Jeffrey Parsons forced to repay $375K in stolen funds 1/5 star Hunter College psychology professor who quit amid claims he threw out-of-control parties and snorted cocaine at school events has admitted he used federal grant money to fund his lavish lifestyle \u2014 including scuba diving trips in the Caribbean. Jeffrey Parsons, a former leading sex and drug researcher at the school, will now have to pay $375,000 back as part of a civil-suit settlement agreement with the Department of Justice filed in Manhattan federal court on Monday. The public college will also repay $200,000 in funds that had been earmarked for its Center for Educational Studies and Training, known as CHEST, which Parsons headed before he quit in July 2019. The center received funds from the National Institute of Health, which Parsons misused from 2010 to 2018, according to federal prosecutors in Manhattan. Parsons, once a prized faculty member, used the grant money to square his personal expenses, including international flights for his family, a tropical birthday celebration and scuba trips to locales such as the Cayman Islands, Costa Rica and Belize. In 2019, The Post reported Parsons was being probed by the college over claims he hosted raucous, alcohol-soaked parties that he dubbed the annual fest.\u201d Staffers said the 2018 bash, held at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, went off the rails as Parsons encouraged attendees to drink and lifted the shirt of a co-worker, exposing the person\u2019s chest and humiliating them prof who held machete to Post reporter\u2019s neck chants about \u2018slitting the master\u2019s throat,\u2019 calls \u2018slave patrol\u2019 at anti-Israel rally City funding to fight antisemitism, hate at won\u2019t even \u2018scratch the surface,\u2019 critics say Jeffrey Parsons used funds for personal travel expenses, including a number of scuba diving vacations. LinkedIn/Jeffrey Parsons 2/16/25, 10:01 Hunter College professor Jeffrey Parsons forced to repay $375K in stolen funds 2/5 \u201cIt was as if the host of a dinner party came down and had taken a pee on a pot roast,\u201d a former worker told The Post at the time. \u201cThat\u2019s how shocking it was.\u201d Hunter hired a former Department of Education employee to probe the allegations, and a report issued at the end of the probe determined Parsons \u201cengaged in the use, and in the distribution, of illegal drugs (cocaine) at events.\u201d As part of the settlement, Hunter admitted it deposited funds into an account that Parsons \u2014 who earned the title \u201cdistinguished professor\u201d in 2012 \u2014 used \u201cfor expenses for alcohol at CHEST-related events,\u201d according to federal authorities. Parsons \u201cobtained these funds under false pretenses, then used them to cover his personal expenses and for other purposes totally unrelated to research Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement. In a statement, a Hunter spokesperson said the school \u201cswiftly removed Jeffrey Parsons from campus when allegations of his misconduct surfaced.\u201d \u201cWhile we are proud of the life-saving research in which our faculty engages, we continue to strengthen protocols that advance accountability and transparency,\u201d the rep said , 1/31/23 Parsons was a leading sex and drug researcher at Hunter. LinkedIn/Jeffrey Parsons 'Disgraceful': Biden ignores migrant crisis during tunn 2/16/25, 10:01 Hunter College professor Jeffrey Parsons forced to repay $375K in stolen funds 3/5 'White Lotus' Season 3 is finally here \u2014How to watch for free, release time 7 Catholic schools announce in past month alone they are closing -- as experts blame skyrocketing tuition, loss of religion 2/16/25, 10:01 Hunter College professor Jeffrey Parsons forced to repay $375K in stolen funds 4/5 \u00a9 2025 Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use Membership Terms Privacy Notice Sitemap Your California Privacy Rights 2/16/25, 10:01 Hunter College professor Jeffrey Parsons forced to repay $375K in stolen funds 5/5"} |
7,597 | Alexander Wells | Tennessee State University | [
"7597_101.pdf",
"7597_102.pdf",
"7597_103.pdf"
] | {"7597_101.pdf": "v (1999) Supreme Court of Tennessee,at Nashville. Alexander C. WELLS, Petitioner/Appellee, v REGENTS, Tennessee State University, and Dr. James Hefner, Respondents/Appellants. Decided: December 20, 1999 Mark C. Scruggs, Nashville, for Petitioner/Appellee. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General, Kevin Steiling, Deputy Attorney General, Nashville, for Respondents/Appellants In this direct appeal, we must review the Chancery Court's reversal of the Tennessee Board of Regents' decision to terminate a tenured faculty member at Tennessee State University on the statutory ground of \u201ccapricious disregard of accepted standards of professional conduct.\u201d 1 The Tennessee Board of Regents challenges the decision of the Chancery Court on several grounds, insisting primarily that the Chancellor failed to consider properly admitted evidence which established the charge by clear and convincing evidence. The Board of Regents also takes issue with the Chancellor's finding that the professor was denied due process because he received insufficient notice of the allegations against him. After a thorough review of the record, we agree that the Chancellor committed error by disregarding the testimony of one witness and by finding that the professor received insufficient notice. However, despite these errors, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the Chancellor's findings and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court The appellee, Dr. Alexander Wells, has been employed at Tennessee State University (\u201cTSU\u201d) since 1958, when he was hired as a lab assistant. He later became a professor in the biology department and finally obtained a tenured professorship in that department in 1985. Since becoming a tenured \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 1/16 professor, Dr. Wells has conducted research and taught several biology, anatomy and physiology courses each semester. In the fall of 1990, Trina Hayes Jordan, one of Dr. Wells' former students, filed a complaint with the Affirmative Action Officer at alleging that Dr. Wells had sexually harassed her. Specifically, Ms. Jordan asserted that on October 4, 1990, Dr. Wells engaged in sexual activity with her, against her will. In response to her complaint, and in accordance with the Tennessee Board of Regents' policy, an evidentiary hearing was conducted on September 9, 10 and 11, 1991, before an Administrative Law Judge (\u201cALJ\u201d). At the conclusion of the hearing the entered an order finding that Dr. Wells had violated TSU's policy prohibiting sexual harassment. On August 19, 1992, James A. Hefner, president of TSU, entered an order upholding the findings of the ALJ. Thereafter, the Tennessee Board of Regents (\u201cTBR\u201d) initiated charges to terminate Dr. Wells' tenure committee issued Dr. Wells a formal tenure termination notice and invited him to meet with the committee in an attempt to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the case. Despite this invitation, Dr. Wells did not respond to the committee. Pursuant to policy, a hearing was then conducted before a faculty committee on April 5 and 6, 1994, to determine if adequate grounds existed to terminate Dr. Wells' employment at TSU. For reasons not contained in the record, Dr. Wells did not testify at the tenure hearing. At the conclusion of proof the hearing committee found just cause to terminate Dr. Wells' tenure based upon his \u201ccapricious disregard of accepted standards of professional conduct\u201d pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-302(5) (Repl.1996). On September 1, 1994, Dr. Hefner affirmed the decision of the formal hearing committee. Dr. Wells then appealed the decision to the Chancellor of the TBR, Charles E. Smith, who sustained the findings of the hearing committee on March 15, 1995. Dr. Wells also sought permission from the to appeal his termination. The Committee on Personnel denied that request, and on June 16, 1995 the full Board affirmed the Committee's denial. On July 12, 1995, pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-304 (1996 Repl.), Dr. Wells filed a petition in the Davidson County Chancery Court for judicial review of the termination decision trial was conducted on April 8, 1998.2 During this de novo hearing, the Chancellor considered the entire administrative record, as well as additional evidence submitted by Dr. Wells at the hearing, including the live testimony of several witnesses. Dr. Wells was one of the witnesses who testified before the Chancellor. The presented no live testimony, but limited its proof to that contained in the administrative record. On August 17, 1998, the Chancellor entered an order reversing the TBR's decision to terminate Dr. Wells' tenure. The Chancellor concluded that the TBR's finding of \u201ccapricious disregard of accepted standards of professional conduct\u201d was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Chancellor specifically found Dr. Wells to be a credible witness and observed that his testimony was bolstered by that of other witnesses. 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 2/16 The filed a notice of appeal in this Court on September 10, 1998, pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49- 8-304(d) (1996 Repl.). The challenges the decision of the trial court on several grounds, including insufficient evidence to support the Chancellor's findings and due process deficiencies stemming from lack of notice. Although we have determined that the trial court committed two legal errors, we are constrained to find that the evidence does not preponderate against the Chancellor's findings and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court The Tennessee Board of Regents' termination of a tenured faculty member for one of the \u201cadequate grounds\u201d set forth at Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-302 (1996 Repl.) must be supported by \u201cclear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole.\u201d See Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-303(a)(4) (1996 Repl tenured faculty member may appeal his or her dismissal by obtaining a de novo review in Chancery Court. See Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-304(a) (1996 Repl.). The scope of the de novo review in tenure cases was unclear until clarified by this Court in Frye v. Memphis State Univ., 671 S.W.2d 467, 469 (Tenn.1984), when we stated that \u2018[d]e novo judicial review\u2019 in this statute and context means a new hearing in the chancery court based upon the administrative record and any additional or supplemental evidence which either party wishes to adduce relevant to any issue. The Chancellor may, of course, confine new evidence to that which is truly supplemental or additional and is not required to hear all of the evidence anew if he does not find this necessary. Otherwise there would be little need for the administrative transcript. However, he may permit introduction of any and all evidence which he deems necessary to enable him to dispose of the issues presented. Either party may appeal the decision of the Chancellor directly to the Supreme Court. See Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-304(d). Because the Chancellor reviews the case without a jury, our scope of review is set forth in Tenn. R.App. P. 13(d), which directs that we make a de novo review of the trial court's findings of fact, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Walker v. Saturn Corp., 986 S.W.2d 204, 207 (Tenn.1998); Foster v. Bue, 749 S.W.2d 736, 741 (Tenn.1988). This case also presents questions of law, of which we make a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. See State v. Levandowski, 955 S.W.2d 603, 604 (Tenn.1997); Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 914 S.W.2d 79, 80 (Tenn.1996 The TBR's first contention is essentially a sufficiency of the evidence argument. It asserts that the Chancellor erred in evaluating the proof and in applying the clear and convincing standard. After reviewing the totality of the evidence, including the administrative record and the live testimony before the Chancellor, we have determined that although there is proof in the record that supports both Dr. 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 3/16 Wells' and TBR's positions, the has not demonstrated that the evidence preponderates against the Chancellor's findings. A. The Chancellor's Assessments of Live Witness Testimony The first insists that no deference should be afforded the live testimony presented at the Chancery trial because \u201cmany of the recognized reasons for according deference to trial court findings of fact are absent.\u201d Specifically, the points out that while the Chancery Court observed several witnesses who testified on Dr. Wells' behalf, including Dr. Wells himself, it never saw nor heard the vast majority of witnesses in this case and that it did not observe any of the witnesses who had testified on behalf of the TBR. Because the Chancellor did not observe the demeanor of all the witnesses, the asserts that the court's credibility findings are not entitled to deference. We find this argument to be contrary to well-settled law. Unlike appellate courts, trial courts are able to observe witnesses as they testify and to assess their demeanor, which best situates trial judges to evaluate witness credibility. See State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn.1990); Bowman v. Bowman, 836 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn. Ct. App.1991). Thus, trial courts are in the most favorable position to resolve factual disputes hinging on credibility determinations. See Tenn-Tex Properties v. Brownell-Electro, Inc., 778 S.W.2d 423, 425-26 (Tenn.1989); Mitchell v. Archibald, 971 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tenn. Ct. App.1998). Accordingly, appellate courts will not re- evaluate a trial judge's assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 315, 315-16 (Tenn.1987); Bingham v. Dyersburg Fabrics Co., Inc., 567 S.W.2d 169, 170 (Tenn.1978). In contrast, appellate review of documentary proof, such as depositions or other forms of testimony presented to the trial court in a \u201ccold\u201d record, differs considerably. When reviewing documentary proof, all impressions of weight and credibility are drawn from the contents of the evidence, and not from the appearance of witnesses and oral testimony at trial. See Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 672, 676 (Tenn.1991); Landers v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 775 S.W.2d 355, 356 (Tenn.1989). As a result, appellate courts may make an independent assessment of the credibility of the documentary proof it reviews, without affording deference to the trial court's findings. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn.1988). This rule is premised on the fact that appellate courts are in just as good a position as the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses who provided the proof. See Elmore v. Travelers Ins. Co., 824 S.W.2d 541, 544 (Tenn.1992). The is correct that the Chancellor heard only the testimony of witnesses testifying on Dr. Wells' behalf. Yet the seems to ignore the fact that it was also in a position to ask the Chancellor to put on live witnesses at the Chancery Court trial. Had it chosen to do so, the would have also secured the Chancellor's assessment of the credibility of those witnesses and the considerable deference afforded that assessment on appeal. Because the did not present witnesses at trial, we must now 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 4/16 review a record consisting of, on the one hand, live witness testimony submitted by Dr. Wells, and the Chancellor's assessment of that testimony, and, on the other hand, the \u201ccold\u201d testimony contained in the administrative record submitted by the TBR. According to well-settled law, we must afford strict deference only to the trial court's credibility assessments of the witnesses it actually observed, and not to its findings with regard to the administrative record it considered, of which we may make our own independent review. See Elmore v. Travelers Ins. Co., 824 S.W.2d at 544. Our review of the transcript of the Chancery proceedings, as well as a reading of applicable case law, indicates that the was not without opportunity to present live witness testimony at the Chancery hearing. In defining the scope of evidence admissible in a de novo review of a tenure termination, we observed in Frye v. Memphis State Univ., 671 S.W.2d at 470, that the General Assembly intended that there be a broad review in the chancery court with the right of the parties to offer additional evidence if desired. We do not believe that the General Assembly intended to confine review to the record made at the administrative level or to limit additional evidence at the chancery level only to alleged procedural irregularities or improprieties in the administrative process. Although \u201c[t]he Chancellor may, of course, confine new evidence to that which is truly supplemental or additional and is not required to hear all of the evidence anew if he does not find it necessary \u2024,\u201d id. at 469, we made it clear that the Chancellor has broad discretion in allowing additional evidence at the de novo review, even if the evidence had already been included in the record at a prior administrative hearing. See id. at 469. In this case the Chancellor did not preclude the from presenting live witnesses. The Chancellor began the hearing by asking each party whether it had additional proof to offer. Dr. Wells' counsel alone indicated his intent to put on witnesses. Counsel for the then objected to the witnesses on the ground that their testimony would be redundant and cumulative of testimony that had been submitted at the prior administrative hearings. Even though the Chancellor overruled the objections and allowed Dr. Wells' witnesses to testify, the made the decision to confine its own proof to the administrative record. We acknowledge that counsel for the may have interpreted Frye v. Memphis State Univ., 671 S.W.2d 467, as restricting Dr. Wells from presenting witnesses at the Chancery hearing whose testimony would be redundant of that presented at prior administrative hearings. However counsel was aware that Dr. Wells did not testify at the prior hearing before the faculty committee, and that his testimony may therefore have been considered \u201cadditional\u201d by the Chancellor and permissible under the Frye decision. Furthermore, the record indicates that counsel for the was made aware that Dr. Wells planned to put on as many as eighty-one witnesses at the Chancery hearing. In sum, by confining its proof at trial to the administrative record, despite Dr. Wells' presentation of additional witnesses, the knew or should have known that on appeal, this Court would strictly defer to the Chancellor's credibility 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 5/16 determinations with regard only to the witnesses it actually heard, and not to the testimony contained in the administrative record, of which we may make an independent credibility assessment. In reversing the decision of the TBR, the Chancellor specifically found Dr. Wells' testimony to be credible, and we adhere to that assessment due to the absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary. See Bingham v. Dyersburg Fabrics Co., Inc., 567 S.W.2d 169, 170 (Tenn.1978); Thompson v. Creswell Indus. Supply, Inc., 936 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tenn. Ct. App.1996). B. The Chancellor's Review of the Administrative Record The also argues that the Chancellor did not review or consider the record of the hearing before the in making its factual determinations. As evidence of this assertion, the points out that in his Memorandum and Final Order, the Chancellor made no reference to the hearing or to a few witnesses who testified only at that hearing and whose testimony would significantly affect the Chancellor's findings. These omissions include the testimony of Dr. Mallette, whose testimony at the hearing, according to the TBR, directly undermines the credibility of Tok Sun Choe, a witness that the Chancellor found bolstered Dr. Wells' testimony. Also overlooked by the Chancellor, according to the TBR, is the testimony of Vanessa Smith, who testified before the that Dr. Wells had sexually harassed her both physically and verbally on three occasions in 1985. The record of the hearing before the was clearly admitted into evidence at the Chancery trial. In his Memorandum and Final Order, the Chancellor refers to all of the evidence, stating that his decision was \u201c[b]ased upon review of the entire record, the additional evidence introduced at trial and consideration of the argument of counsel for both parties \u2024\u201d While the Final Order makes no reference to the testimony of specific witnesses who testified before the ALJ, we have no reason to believe that the Chancellor ignored or otherwise overlooked the transcript of that hearing in weighing the evidence. Furthermore, the could have filed a motion pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59 in order to call the Chancellor's attention to the matters it felt he had disregarded in reviewing the evidence. However the failed to do so. The also challenges the Chancellor's determinations of the credibility of some of its key witnesses, insisting that the court \u201cminimizes and dismisses\u201d testimony from the faculty committee tenure hearing. Although the did submit compelling proof at that hearing, the record also contains reliable evidence that controverts that proof and substantiates Dr. Wells' position. We recognize that we are not required to give strict deference to the Chancellor's assessment of the testimony contained in a \u201ccold\u201d record. See Orman v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., 803 S.W.2d at 676. Yet our own evaluation of the faculty committee tenure hearing testimony, coupled with the deference we must afford the Chancellor's finding that Dr. Wells was a credible witness, leads us to agree with the Chancellor that the charges against Dr. Wells were not proven by clear and convincing evidence 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 6/16 The next contends that the Chancellor erred by declining to consider the testimony of Jackie Jones, who worked as a secretary in the biology department at from 1977 to 1983. Ms. Jones testified that Dr. Wells sexually harassed her during her tenure at and that she filed charges against him with the University. Ms. Jones further testified that after learning that the University's only disciplinary action against Dr. Wells was a six-month probation, she left her job because she did not feel safe working in the same building as Dr. Wells. Although Ms. Jones had testified at the faculty committee tenure hearing, the Chancellor did not consider her testimony when evaluating the case, on the ground that \u201cher claims were very specifically employer-employee sexual harassment and were fully and finally resolved through a formal administrative process. Disciplinary action was taken against Dr. Wells as a result. Thus, the claims of Ms. Jones have no bearing on the present case.\u201d The points out that the Chancellor cites no authority indicating that the \u201ccapricious disregard of accepted standards of professional conduct\u201d applies only to conduct of faculty members toward students. Furthermore, the insists that we have held that the \u201ccapricious disregard\u201d grounds for termination does in fact apply to conduct between faculty and staff. We agree. In Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 863 S.W.2d 45 (Tenn.1993), we addressed the situation where a tenured faculty member at Shelby State Community College was terminated for \u201ccapricious disregard of accepted standards of professional conduct\u201d based upon her \u201clack of professional behavior toward students, staff and colleagues,\u201d \u201cinsubordination to supervisors,\u201d and \u201ccontinuous increasing patterns of controversy with other professional areas at the college.\u201d See id. at 48. This Court affirmed the tenure termination, finding that there was \u201coverwhelming proof from students, staff, colleagues, and superiors about Phillips' inappropriate behavior.\u201d See id. at 48. The Phillips case clearly illustrates that the behavior of tenured faculty toward staff, colleagues and superiors, as well as toward students, can constitute \u201ccapricious disregard\u201d within the meaning of Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-302(5) (1996 Repl.). Accordingly, we conclude that the Chancellor erred by disregarding the testimony of Ms. Jones, a staff member who complained of harassment by Dr. Wells. This error, however, does not alter our conclusion that the Chancellor's findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence We next address the TBR's assertion that the Chancellor committed error by failing to consider the claims of a number of women who also allege they were sexually harassed by Dr. Wells. In his Memorandum and Final Order, the Chancellor recognized that \u201c[i]n addition to Ms. Hayes [Jordan], the Respondents [TBR] presented evidence at the administrative hearing from four other women regarding incidents of alleged misconduct by Dr. Wells.\u201d The Chancellor then discussed the allegations and credibility of the testimony of these four women. The points out that the record contained allegations of eight alleged victims, and that the Chancellor's failure to discuss some of these 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 7/16 allegations in the final order indicates a blatant disregard for their claims. Accordingly, the insists that the Chancellor's findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We acknowledge that in his final order the Chancellor discussed only the testimony of the alleged victims who testified at the faculty committee tenure hearing, and not at the hearing.3 However the claims of the other alleged victims, who testified only at the hearing, were also contained in the record, and nothing indicates that the Chancellor refused to consider their testimony. We therefore reject the TBR's assertion that the Chancellor failed to consider these allegations in making his factual determinations. Moreover, as we have pointed out, the could have filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59 if it believed the Chancellor disregarded pertinent testimony. The did not do so Finally, the argues that the trial court erred in determining that the charges against Dr. Wells cannot stand because did not give him prior notice that his behavior was inappropriate. Relying on Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 863 S.W.2d 45, the Chancery Court concluded that \u201c[i]n order for one to evince the requisite capricious disregard for the applicable standard of professional conduct, it is necessary to first have notice that one's behavior does not conform to the standard.\u201d In the Phillips case a tenured professor, prior to her dismissal for cause, received notice from the university on several occasions that her behavior was inappropriate and that her failure to correct it could result in her termination. Applying that logic to these facts, the Chancellor determined that \u201c[i]n the instant case, there was no evidence that the University ever told Dr. Wells of any problems or complaints regarding his behavior toward students\u2024 Because Dr. Wells was not put on notice that he had acted inappropriately, his actions could not evince a \u2018capricious disregard for accepted standards of professional conduct.\u2019 \u201d We have concluded that the Chancellor misinterpreted our holding in Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 863 S.W.2d at 50-51, and erred by finding that Dr. Wells did not receive adequate notice of the charges against him. Although this error does not alter our conclusion that the Chancery Court's findings are otherwise supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we take this opportunity to clarify our holding in Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 863 S.W.2d at 50-51, and to discuss the degree of notice necessary to satisfy due process in tenure termination proceedings. Our decision in Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 863 S.W.2d 45, does not hold that formal notice of each allegation of deficient conduct is required before termination proceedings can be initiated against a tenured employee. Rather, in that case we observed that while the fundamental requirements of due process must be satisfied (notice and an opportunity to be heard) in tenure termination proceedings, see Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), due process is flexible and \u201c[e]laborate procedures at one stage may compensate for deficiencies at other stages,\u201d see Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 863 S.W.2d at 50 quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 8/16 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). The primary purpose of the notice requirement is \u201cto allow the affected party to marshal a case against the firing body.\u201d See Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 863 S.W.2d at 50. Applying these guidelines, we determined that although Phillips claimed she was not given sufficiently detailed notice of the charges against her, by the time she received a de novo review in Chancery Court she had received detailed notice and was capable of presenting additional evidence to refute the allegations against her. See id. at 50. Like in Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 863 S.W.2d at 50-51, we conclude that in this case \u201cthe component parts of the process afforded a substantively correct result.\u201d Dr. Wells initially received notice of the charges against him in the form of a letter, issued by TSU, alerting him to the allegations of sexual harassment. He was then afforded two full administrative hearings at which he was permitted to testify and present witnesses. Finally, Dr. Wells received a de novo review of his case in Chancery Court, where he again testified and presented witnesses. Any alleged due process deficiency was certainly cured at the time of the Chancery Court hearing, which occurred eight years after charges were initiated against him. The also takes issue with the Chancery Court's conclusion that because he had not been informed by the University that there was a problem with his behavior toward students, Dr. Wells could not have known that his conduct evinced a capricious disregard for accepted standards of conduct within the meaning of Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-302(5) (1996 Repl.). In essence, Dr. Wells contends that the statute does not sufficiently define what conduct it encompasses. In Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 863 S.W.2d at 50, this Court addressed Phillips' contention that the \u201ccapricious disregard\u201d statute was void for vagueness by stating: We agree with the Third Circuit that it is not unfair or unforeseeable for a tenured professor to be expected to behave professionally towards students and co-workers and to comply with the directives of a superior\u2024 Clearly, Phillips, using her common sense and general knowledge of employer-employee relationships, had fair notice that the conduct charged put her at risk of dismissal under the standard of \u2018capricious disregard of accepted standards of professional conduct.\u2019 Id. quoting San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 961 F.2d 1125, 1137 (3rd Cir.1992). Applying the rule in Phillips v. State Bd. of Regents, 863 S.W.2d at 50, that a tenured employee must use common sense in discerning what is appropriate behavior, it is clear that Dr. Wells had ample notice that his alleged conduct was not appropriate within the meaning of Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-302(5) (1996 Repl.). The allegations in this case, including asking female students to go to happy hour, grabbing a female student's breast, and commenting on female students' clothing in a suggestive and sexual manner, establish a pattern of behavior that common sense dictates deviates from accepted standards. 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 9/16 Moreover, Dr. Wells had been disciplined by on a prior occasion, when Ms. Jones had filed charges against him for sexual harassment. Contrary to Dr. Wells' contention that he was unaware of TSU's standards with regard to sexual harassment, the probation he received in connection with Ms. Jones' complaint should have alerted him that his behavior, in some fashion, did not comport with university standards. We find no merit to the Chancery Court's conclusion that Dr. Wells did not have notice that his conduct, while perhaps constituting a \u201cdisregard\u201d for accepted standards of professional conduct, could have also amounted to a \u201ccapricious\u201d disregard for those standards We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the Chancellor's finding that the record in this case fails to clearly and convincingly establish the charge of \u201ccapricious disregard of accepted standards of professional conduct.\u201d Accordingly, the judgment of the Chancery Court reversing the Tennessee Board of Regent's dismissal of Dr. Wells is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed against the Tennessee Board of Regents 1. See Tenn.Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-302(5) (1996 Repl.). 2. The trial was delayed for a variety of reasons, including the retirement of one Chancellor assigned to the case, the recusal of two other Chancellors and the denial of several motions of Dr. Wells, including one seeking an interlocutory appeal in the Court of Appeals for the claims against him to be severed and to receive a jury trial. 3. An exception exists with regard to the testimony of Bettye Williams, who testified at both the faculty committee tenure hearing and at the hearing, and whose testimony was discussed by the Chancellor in his final order. DROWOTA, J. ANDERSON, C.J., BARKER, HOLDER, JJ., concur. BIRCH, J., Not Participating. Was this helpful? Yes No 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 10/16 Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law v (1999) Decided: December 20, 1999 Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee,at Nashville. Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 11/16 Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 For Legal Professionals 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 12/16 Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * \uf105 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 13/16 Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 14/16 Find a lawyer Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 15/16 Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles By Name Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/16/25, 10:01 v (1999) | FindLaw 16/16", "7597_102.pdf": "June 7, 2007 Session v Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals, Middle Section Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 95-2144-II, Carol McCoy, Chancellor No. M2005-00938-SC-R11 - Filed on August 17, 2007 We accepted review of this case to decide whether a tenured university professor whose employment by the State was wrongfully terminated may recover back pay and lost benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-8-304. While the trial court initially found there was no statutory authority to grant monetary damages, the plaintiff was awarded back wages, lost benefits, and interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Because there is no statutory authority for the award, however, the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals must be reversed and the cause dismissed. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Reversed & Case Dismissed R. WADE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which and A. CLARK, JJ., joined. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, Jay C. Ballard, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellants, Tennessee Board of Regents, Tennessee State University, and James Hefner. Phillip L. Davidson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Alexander C. Wells. At that time, Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-8-304(d) (1990) authorized a direct appeal to this Court. 1 -2 Factual and Procedural Background In 1958, Alexander Wells (\u201cthe Plaintiff\u201d) was employed as a lab assistant at Tennessee State University (\u201cTSU\u201d). As a part of his duties at the school, he conducted research and taught several biology-related courses each semester. In 1985, the Plaintiff was granted tenure. In 1990, a student filed a complaint with alleging that the Plaintiff had sexually harassed her. In accordance with the policy of the Tennessee Board of Regents, an administrative law judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and determined that the Plaintiff had, in fact, violated the sexual harassment policy subsequently conducted proceedings to determine if adequate grounds existed to terminate employment. An internal hearing committee found that the Plaintiff had \u201ccapricious[ly] disregard[ed] . . . accepted standards of professional conduct,\u201d a statutory ground for dismissal, and recommended termination. See Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-302(5) (2002 President, James Hefner, who was joined as a defendant in his official capacity, terminated the employment of the Plaintiff in 1995. An appeal to the Board of Regents, also a named defendant, was unsuccessful. The Plaintiff then filed a petition seeking judicial review of the decision to terminate his employment. After considering the record and testimony of the Plaintiff\u2019s witnesses, the Davidson County Chancery Court determined that the evidence did not sufficiently establish any violation of the professional standards of conduct and reversed the decision of the Tennessee Board of Regents. Upon review, this Court affirmed the ruling of the chancellor. See Wells v. Tenn. Bd. of Regents, 1 9 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 1999). The issue of damages was not before us in the prior appeal. In 1998, while the first appeal was pending, the Plaintiff filed a motion in the chancery court seeking monetary damages. The chancellor ruled that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the case because of the appeal and concluded that, even if there was jurisdiction, the Plaintiff had waived his right to relief by failing to seek damages at trial. The chancellor also ruled that the State was protected from liability by the doctrine of sovereign immunity few months later, the Plaintiff filed an action against the State in the Tennessee Claims Commission alleging breach of contract. He sought $600,000 in damages for back pay, attorney\u2019s fees, lost benefits, and litigation costs incurred since the date of his dismissal. The Claims Commission dismissed the action because the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a contract. The Court of Appeals affirmed. See Wells v. State, No. M2002-01958-COA-R3-CV, 2003 21849730 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2003). As to the claim for damages, the Court of Appeals observed that \u201c[i]t is a mystery to us why the claim for back pay was not pursued in the original action in the chancery court or why the order overruling the motion for back pay was not appealed. But those issues are not before us now.\u201d Id. at *4. Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part: \u201cOn motion and upon such terms as 2 are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment . . . for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) fraud . . . misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (3) the judgment is void; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged . . . ; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.\u201d -3- Undeterred by a lack of success in either the chancery court or the Claims Commission, the Plaintiff filed a motion in 2004 under Rule 60.02(5) seeking relief from the chancellor\u2019s previous order of dismissal of the claim for damages. The chancellor granted the motion and directed the 2 Board of Regents to pay the Plaintiff back wages, lost benefits, and interest stemming from his termination. The chancellor reasoned that because the issues of reinstatement and back pay were never addressed, \u201cthe end result\u201d from the prior litigation was \u201cnot fair.\u201d In a divided decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the award. The majority concluded that (1) the chancery court did not abuse its discretion by granting Rule 60 relief to the Plaintiff, and (2) even though Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-8-304 does not expressly provide for an award of back pay, the enactment of the statute waived the State\u2019s sovereign immunity in that regard. Analysis The General Assembly has authorized the Tennessee Board of Regents to promulgate a tenure policy for faculty within the state university and college system to \u201censure academic freedom and provide sufficient professional security to attract the best qualified faculty available.\u201d Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-301(a) (2002). The Board is also charged with the responsibility of providing \u201cfor the termination of faculty with tenure by institutions for adequate cause . . . .\u201d Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-301(b)(3) (2002). Among other proper grounds, \u201cadequate cause\u201d is defined as falsification of qualifications, incompetence or dishonesty, the willful failure to perform duties or assignments, conviction of a felony, excessive use of drugs or alcohol, or, as was initially found in this case, the capricious disregard of accepted standards of professional conduct. See Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-302 (2002). In the event a tenured faculty member is dismissed based on the grounds identified in section 49-8-302, judicial review is available under section 49-8-304: Judicial review. \u2013 (a faculty member who has been awarded tenure, and who has been dismissed or suspended for cause, may obtain de novo judicial review of the final decision by filing a petition in a chancery court having jurisdiction within thirty (30) days of the final decision, and copies of the petition shall be served upon the board and all parties of record. (b) Within forty-five (45) days after service of the petition, or within such further time allowed by the court, the board shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding. -4- (c) The chancellor shall reduce the chancellor\u2019s findings of fact and conclusions of law to writing and make them parts of the record. Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 49-8-304 (2002). Our task in this appeal is to determine whether section 49-8-304 authorizes an award of back pay and lost benefits to a tenured faculty member who has been wrongfully discharged. In performing this analysis, we are guided by the established rule that the construction of a statute is a question of law. Sallee v. Barrett, 171 S.W.3d 822, 825 (Tenn. 2005). The standard of appellate review for questions of law is de novo. Leab v Mining Co., 76 S.W.3d 344, 348 (Tenn. 2002); Bryant v. Genco Stamping & Mfg. Co., 33 S.W.3d 761, 765 (Tenn. 2000). We must presume that every word in a statute has meaning and purpose; thus, each word should be given full effect if the obvious intention of the General Assembly is not violated by so doing. In re C.K.G., 173 S.W.3d 714, 722 (Tenn. 2005). If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning in its normal and accepted use and without a forced interpretation that would limit or expand the statute\u2019s application. Eastman Chem. Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tenn. 2004). When called upon to construe a statute, courts must take care not to unduly restrict a statute\u2019s application or conversely to expand its coverage beyond its intended scope. Houghton v. Aramark Educ. Res., Inc., 90 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tenn. 2002). If, however, a statute is ambiguous, capable of conveying more than one meaning, we look to the entire statutory scheme to determine legislative intent. Sallee, 171 S.W.3d at 828. The Plaintiff argues that Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-8-304 permits an award of monetary damages for wrongful termination and submits that the State has, therefore, waived its sovereign immunity as to awards of back pay and lost benefits. In response, the defendants, the Board of Regents, TSU, and Dr. Hefner, point out that the section contains no language indicating the legislature meant to provide for an award of monetary damages in circumstances like these and maintain that they are protected by sovereign immunity. Historically, the doctrine of sovereign immunity has provided that a sovereign governmental entity cannot be sued in its own courts absent legislative consent. Hawks v. City of Westmoreland, 960 S.W.2d 10, 14 (Tenn. 1997); Williams v. State, 139 S.W.3d 308, 311 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); see also Lewis L. Jaffe, Suits Against Governments and Officers, Sovereign Immunity, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1963). Article 1, section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution does, however, authorize the General Assembly to waive sovereign immunity: \u201cSuits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct.\u201d Further, Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-13-102(a) (1994) prohibits courts from entertaining suits against the State, absent waiver, and requires dismissal on proper motion. The doctrine of sovereign immunity, therefore, has both a constitutional and statutory basis. Jones v R.R. Co., 617 S.W.2d 164, 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). In Tennessee, the principal case on the subject at issue is State ex rel. Chapdelaine v. Torrence, 532 S.W.2d 542 (1976), wherein a tenured university professor was awarded back pay for -5- breach of his employment contract following his wrongful discharge. At the time that case was decided, Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-1421 (1966) provided that tenured college and university professors were entitled to \u201cjudicial review of [termination decisions] for the same purposes and in the same manner provided in section 49-1417.\u201d Section 49-1417 was part of the statutory scheme applicable to elementary and secondary school teachers in local school systems, for whom the courts had \u201cconsistently approved awards of back pay.\u201d Chapdelaine, 532 S.W.2d at 550; see also Wagner v. Elizabethton City Bd. of Educ., 496 S.W.2d 468 (Tenn. 1973); Jeffers v. Stanley, 486 S.W.2d 737 (Tenn. 1972). While the State relied upon the defense of sovereign immunity in Chapdelaine, this Court awarded back pay, observing that the \u201ccollege and university teachers\u2019 tenure law, as incorporated in [section] 49-1421, . . . would be \u2018as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal\u2019 if it did not carry with it the coordinate right of a tenured teacher to seek back pay in wrongful dismissal cases.\u201d Chapdelaine, 532 S.W.2d at 551. In 1976, however, the legislature repealed section 1421, thereby severing the statutory connection between actions of tenured college and university faculty and those of tenured elementary and secondary teachers in local school systems. As expressed by Judge Patricia Cottrell in her dissent to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the \u201cbasis for the Chapdelaine court\u2019s reliance on authority governing public school teachers in local systems no longer exists.\u201d The present statute governing state college and university professors, Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-8-304 (2002), makes no mention of back pay or other monetary relief. In contrast, section 49-5-511(a)(3) (2002), the statute applicable to tenured school teachers on the elementary and secondary level, provides that if the teacher is \u201cvindicated or reinstated, the teacher shall be paid the full salary for the period during which the teacher was suspended.\u201d That the legislature did not include any such remedy for tenured faculty at the college or university level in section 304 speaks to the issue. Had the legislature intended for a wrongfully terminated college or university professor to receive monetary damages, the statute should have included that provision. When a statute is not ambiguous, \u201cwe need only to enforce the statute as written, with no recourse to the broader statutory scheme, legislative history, historical background, or other external sources of the Legislature\u2019s purpose.\u201d Abels v. Genie Indus. Inc., 202 S.W.3d 99, 102 (Tenn. 2006). Statutes may be construed in pari materia in order to ascertain their purpose or intent. Lyons v. Rasar, 872 S.W.2d 895, 897 (Tenn. 1994). When considering their meaning, this Court may employ the Latin maxim, express unius est exclusio alterius, which translates as \u201cthe expression of one thing implies the exclusion of . . . things not expressly mentioned.\u201d Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 84 (Tenn. 2001). The application of these guidelines suggests that the General Assembly has chosen not to waive sovereign immunity under these circumstances. Moreover, we have held that any abrogation of the immunity doctrine by the legislature must be set out in \u201cplain, clear, and unmistakable terms.\u201d Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727, 731 (Tenn. 2000). In summary, the Plaintiff has no remedy for monetary relief. In the alternative, the defendants argue that the chancery court abused its discretion by granting a Rule 60 motion six years after denying relief. Further, the defendants maintain that the Plaintiff waived his right to relief in the chancery court by filing a breach of contract claim in the -6- Claims Commission. As authority, the defendants rely upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8- 307(b) (1999), which provides that \u201c[c]laims against the state . . . shall operate as a waiver of any cause of action, based on the same act or omission, which the claimant has against any state officer or employee.\u201d In light of our conclusion that section 49-8-304 does not authorize an award of monetary relief, we decline to address these ancillary issues. Conclusion Because section 49-8-304 does not authorize an award of back pay and lost benefits to a wrongfully discharged tenured faculty member of a state college or university, the State is protected by sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are reversed, and the cause is dismissed. The costs on appeal are taxed against the Plaintiff, for which execution may issue if necessary. ___________________________________", "7597_103.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Wells v. State Court of Appeals of Tennessee. at Nashville Dec 5, 2001 78 S.W.3d 302 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Delegate legal research to CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free No. M2001-00144-COA-R3-CV. Filed December 5, 2001. Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission; No. 98000548. Affirmed. *303 303 Mark C. Scruggs, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Alexander C. Wells. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; and George H. Coffin, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/16/25, 10:01 Wells v. State, 78 S.W.3d 302 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/7 JUDGE, M.S. Ben H. Cantrell, P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which William B. Cain, J. and Walter C. Kurtz, S.J., joined Appellant, Dr. Alexander C. Wells, was a professor at Tennessee State University (\"TSU\"). He was relieved of his teaching duties in 1992 and was asked to remove his property from the office and laboratory space he occupied at TSU. He moved some of his belongings in 1995. His remaining belongings were boxed and moved to the campus warehouse in 1996 because the space had been reassigned. When he retrieved his belongings in 1997, he found several items missing. Appellant then brought a claim in the Tennessee Claims Commission asking the State of Tennessee to return his property or, in the alternative, give him monetary compensation for the lost items. The Commission held that had not been negligent in the care, custody and control of appellant's property. Therefore, the State was not liable for the missing property. We affirm the decision of the Commission. I. Appellant, Dr. Alexander Wells, began working at Tennessee State University (\"TSU\") in 1958 as a lab assistant. By 1969, he was a full-time professor in the Biology Department His problems began *304 when he was accused of sexual harassment in 1990. This was not the first allegation of this nature during his teaching tenure. At this time, appellant was relieved of his teaching duties, but was assigned duties elsewhere at TSU. The Head of the Biology Department, Dr. Terrance Johnson, requested appellant, by letter on August 26, 1992, to move his personal property from his office and laboratory space at Rooms 301 and 303 at Harned Hall. Appellant replied by letter on September 1, 1992 that he was entitled to the space due to his ongoing research through Research Centers in Minority Institutions Program (\"RCMI\"). Dr. Johnson checked with the contact for and found that appellant had no funded research through that program. Dr. Johnson sent a letter to appellant dated September 3, 1992 stating that appellant had been assigned a new office in McCord Hall and that there was 304 2/16/25, 10:01 Wells v. State, 78 S.W.3d 302 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/7 no record of research through RCMI. Dr. Johnson also enclosed a key to appellant's new office. Appellant did not retrieve his personal belongings or vacate Rooms 301 and 303. On January 23, 1993, Dr. Washington, the Vice-President for Academic Affairs, sent appellant a letter notifying him of his appointment to the Graduate School. Appellant was told to relocate to Crouch Hall by January 29, 1993. Appellant did not remove his belongings from Rooms 301 and 303 in Harned Hall. August 26, 1993, Dr. Johnson informed appellant by letter that Room 303 in Harned Hall had been assigned to a new professor, Dr. Bennie Washington. Appellant replied by letter on September 3, 1993. He requested that the lock be replaced on his office. In that letter, he also called the replacement of the original lock \"an TRANSGRESSION\" and requested Dr. Johnson to \"[p]lease stop the harassment now.\" There had been ongoing litigation concerning the sexual harassment allegations. The Tennessee Board of Regents found appellant guilty of \"capricious disregard of accepted standards of professional conduct\" in the Summer of 1995. Appellant was terminated from his position as Professor of Biology at and ordered to leave the campus. The university asked him to clean out his office at this time. Appellant had occupied the offices and the labs for approximately 15 years. On October 7, 1995, appellant brought movers to pack up and move his belongings. Campus security and Dr. Johnson were present for the move. The movers worked for approximately four and a half hours, but were unable to move everything. On October 14, 1995, appellant returned, but it was raining, and he was unable to move anything. On October 21, 1995, they returned but there was no key available for Room 301. On November 11, 1995, appellant returned without the movers, but could not access Room 303 because it was occupied. 1 1 Appellant appealed this decision to the Davidson County Chancery Court, where the decision was overturned. The Tennessee Supreme Court later affirmed the chancery court's decision. Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 1999). In 1996, Room 301 was assigned to a new professor. The office was cleaned out by employees and any personal items were boxed and sent to Central Receiving for the appellant to pick up. Appellant attempted to pick 2/16/25, 10:01 Wells v. State, 78 S.W.3d 302 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/7 up his items in June of 1997. Appellant maintained that much of the property left in Rooms 301 and 303 was missing. On September 22, 1997, appellant filed a claim with the Commission asking for the return of the property that had been left in his office or monetary compensation. May 30, 2000, the Commission filed a judgment denying appellant's claim. June 2, 2000 *305 appellant filed a Motion for En Banc Hearing. October 25, 2000, the Commission filed an order granting the en banc hearing and affirming the dismissal of appellant's claim. 305 II. The appellant argues two issues on this appeal: (1) the Commissioner erred in applying the wrong standard of care and (2) the Commissioner erred in holding that appellant had abandoned his personal property. Under Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-8-403(a)(1), any appeal from a decision of the Commission to this court is made pursuant to the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Under Tenn.R.App.P. 13(d), we review this case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness for the Commission's findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. However, this presumption does not extend to issues of law. Tenn.R.App.P. 13(d). The Commissioner's judgment stated in part: The Commission finds that Dr. Wells, like all employees, was subject to be assigned his duties and the location to carry them out. Dr. Wells, rather than the University, was the transgressor when he continued to occupy space in Harned Hall contrary to the correspondence and instructions he received from Dr. Johnson. By his actions beginning in August 1992, Dr. Wells abandoned his personal property when he left the property in a place where he clearly understood it had no right to be. And the property was left in that location for over three years. It is further found that Dr. Wells had the obligation to mitigate damages. Despite the problems he encountered on October 21, 1995 and November 11, 1995, it appears that Dr. Johnson and Dr. Myles were ready and willing to 2/16/25, 10:01 Wells v. State, 78 S.W.3d 302 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/7 help Dr. Wells obtain his personal property. But Dr. Wells made no further effort to arrange to pick up the remaining items of his personal property. Finally, Mr. Pillow and another employee were told to clean Room 301 for another new professor. The steps taken by them in respect to any personal belongings of Dr. Wells cannot reasonably be characterized as negligent care, custody or control of property under the circumstances surrounding this matter. This matter is analogous to the right of a landlord whose tenant maintains personal property on leased premises. When the lease expires, it is proper for the landlord to clean up those premises for the use of other tenants. The Commissioner applied the standard of care found in Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-8-307(a)(1)(F) for monetary claims against the State for negligent care, custody or control of personal property. It is the ordinary standard of a \"reasonable person.\" Appellant argues that the Commission should have applied a higher standard of care, and compares this situation to a \"constructive bailment.\" This is a question of law, therefore, we look at this question de novo with no presumption of correctness. This court has defined a bailment as, \"a delivery of personalty for a particular purpose or on mere deposit, on a contract expressed or implied, that after the purpose has been fulfilled, it shall be re-delivered to the person who delivered it or otherwise dealt with according to his direction or kept until he reclaims it.\" Merritt v. Nationwide Warehouse Co., Ltd., 605 S.W.2d 250, 252 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1980). We have also stated that when there is no express contract between the parties evidencing a bailment, there must be a full *306 transfer of the possession and the control of the property giving the other party sole custody of the property. Id. at 253. This court turned to the Oregon Court of Appeals for an explanation of the difference between bailment and custody: 306 In the distinction between bailment, or possession, and mere custody, . . . the element of intent to control and possess plays the leading part. Where the owner of the goods places them in the actual physical control of another but does not intend to relinquish 2/16/25, 10:01 Wells v. State, 78 S.W.3d 302 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/7 the right, as distinct from the power, of dominion over them, there is no bailment or possession but only a mere custody. Harmon v. Dunn, No. 01A01-9607-CH-00344 1997 136462, at * 6 (Tenn.Ct.App. March 27, 1997) (quoting Dundas v. Lincoln County, 618 P.2d 978, 982-83 (Or.Ct.App. 1980)). We find that there is no constructive bailment in this case. It is clear from the record that the appellant did not intend to \"relinquish the right . . . of dominion over\" his property. The property was not given to for a particular use, nor was it given to to store for him. Appellant did not intend for to control and possess his property. Appellant merely failed, for various reasons, to retrieve his property from his former offices did not intend to have exclusive control over his property. It is clear that the Commissioner applied the correct standard of care in this situation. III. Appellant's next issue is that the Commissioner erred in holding that appellant had abandoned his personal property. We, however, choose to pretermit this issue because, even if he is correct, we can find no basis for the State's liability. The appellant directs us to Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 66-29-112 which requires a five year period for an item to be abandoned. However, this statute applies to \"property . . . that is held or owing in the ordinary course of the holder's business . . . .\" This statute under the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed [Personal] Property Act applies primarily to businesses that deal with monetary assets. Clearly, this statute is not applicable to this situation. The Commissioner's holding that appellant abandoned his property is a finding of fact and entitled to a presumption of correctness. IV. Appellant waited eighteen months to retrieve his property after his final attempt at a formal move. There was no proof, other than from the appellant, that all of the missing items were in Rooms 301 and 303, or what actually happened to much of the property in Rooms 301 and 303 between November of 1995 until it was packed up and later sent to Central Receiving at TSU. 2/16/25, 10:01 Wells v. State, 78 S.W.3d 302 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/7 We find that the evidence supports the Commissioner's findings that was not negligent in the care, custody or control of appellant's property and acted as a reasonable person would in dealing with the property in question. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the Commission. Tax the costs of this appeal to appellant, Alexander C. Wells. *307 307 About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:01 Wells v. State, 78 S.W.3d 302 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/7"} |
7,252 | Alex Taurke | Cabrillo College | [
"7252_101.pdf",
"7252_102.pdf",
"7252_103.pdf",
"7252_104.pdf",
"7252_105.pdf",
"7252_106.pdf"
] | {"7252_101.pdf": "By By UPDATED: UPDATED: September 11, 2018 at 12:00 September 11, 2018 at 12:00 former student and teacher\u2019s aide has filed a lawsuit against former student and teacher\u2019s aide has filed a lawsuit against Cabrillo College and a member of its faculty, alleging the professor repeatedly Cabrillo College and a member of its faculty, alleging the professor repeatedly sexually harassed her and committed sexual assault and sexual battery in sexually harassed her and committed sexual assault and sexual battery in May 2016. May 2016. The professor, The professor, Alex Taurke Alex Taurke, has taught math at Cabrillo College since 1994. , has taught math at Cabrillo College since 1994. During that time, Taurke only received one training session related to sexual During that time, Taurke only received one training session related to sexual harassment awareness and prevention, according to the harassment awareness and prevention, according to the May 18, 2017 May 18, 2017 complaint complaint At the time of the alleged incidents, the student was an undergraduate math At the time of the alleged incidents, the student was an undergraduate math major and enrolled in Taurke\u2019s calculus class. Under the professor\u2019s guidance, major and enrolled in Taurke\u2019s calculus class. Under the professor\u2019s guidance, she worked as a tutor in the Math Learning Center, eventually becoming his she worked as a tutor in the Math Learning Center, eventually becoming his aide. aide Cabrillo professor sued for Cabrillo professor sued for sexual assault, college sued for sexual assault, college sued for Title violations Title violations 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo professor sued for sexual assault, college sued for Title violations \u2013 Santa Cruz Sentinel 1/3 The The complaint complaint alleges Taurke sexually harassed the student throughout the alleges Taurke sexually harassed the student throughout the spring semester, including closing blinds to \u201censure privacy\u201d during office spring semester, including closing blinds to \u201censure privacy\u201d during office meetings; moving his chair close to the student\u2019s chair; placing his knees meetings; moving his chair close to the student\u2019s chair; placing his knees around hers so their knees and thighs would touch; and caressing and around hers so their knees and thighs would touch; and caressing and stroking the side of the student\u2019s face, head and legs. stroking the side of the student\u2019s face, head and legs. Many of the student\u2019s colleagues and friends witnessed the interactions, Many of the student\u2019s colleagues and friends witnessed the interactions, causing further humiliation, according to the causing further humiliation, according to the complaint complaint.. When the student filed a grievance with Cabrillo College, she found the When the student filed a grievance with Cabrillo College, she found the proper reporting procedure unclear and the necessary documents proper reporting procedure unclear and the necessary documents inaccessible to students, the inaccessible to students, the complaint complaint reads. reads. In addition, the In addition, the complaint complaint alleges that Cabrillo College has never complied alleges that Cabrillo College has never complied with its Title obligations nor employed a permanent and designated Title with its Title obligations nor employed a permanent and designated Title coordinator. coordinator. By failing to provide sufficient sexual harassment faculty and staff training By failing to provide sufficient sexual harassment faculty and staff training management, Cabrillo College failed to protect the student, according to the management, Cabrillo College failed to protect the student, according to the complaint complaint.. After being unable to contact the Title coordinator at Cabrillo College, the After being unable to contact the Title coordinator at Cabrillo College, the student was directed to a male athletic coach with whom the student felt student was directed to a male athletic coach with whom the student felt uncomfortable speaking. As a result, the student submitted a grievance uncomfortable speaking. As a result, the student submitted a grievance against Cabrillo College with the U.S. Department of Education against Cabrillo College with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Office for Civil Rights Rights on May 25, 2016. on May 25, 2016. In the course of the ensuing investigation, the Office for Civil Rights In the course of the ensuing investigation, the Office for Civil Rights determined that Cabrillo College \u201cdid not and never had\u201d a permanent and determined that Cabrillo College \u201cdid not and never had\u201d a permanent and designated Title coordinator. designated Title coordinator. During the interview, Taurke admitted to the Office for Civil Rights that he had During the interview, Taurke admitted to the Office for Civil Rights that he had made the statements to the student and realized the statements constituted made the statements to the student and realized the statements constituted sexual harassment, according to the sexual harassment, according to the complaint complaint.. In addition, Cabrillo College officials admitted to inadequacies in its Title In addition, Cabrillo College officials admitted to inadequacies in its Title policy obligations as well as Title notification, reporting, monitoring and policy obligations as well as Title notification, reporting, monitoring and training requirements, according to the training requirements, according to the complaint complaint.. Cabrillo College spokeswoman Kristin Fabos confirmed that the Office for Cabrillo College spokeswoman Kristin Fabos confirmed that the Office for Civil Rights complaint had been filed and investigated. Civil Rights complaint had been filed and investigated. 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo professor sued for sexual assault, college sued for Title violations \u2013 Santa Cruz Sentinel 2/3 2017 2017 \ue907 \ue907June June \ue907 \ue90766 Originally Published: Originally Published: June 6, 2017 at 12:00 June 6, 2017 at 12:00 Dec. 21, 2016 Dec. 21, 2016 resolution agreement resolution agreement posted on the Office for Civil Rights posted on the Office for Civil Rights website contains an extensive list of required revisions to Cabrillo College\u2019s website contains an extensive list of required revisions to Cabrillo College\u2019s Title procedures and policies. It includes mandatory staff and student Title procedures and policies. It includes mandatory staff and student trainings as well as remedies to its reporting process. trainings as well as remedies to its reporting process. Fabos also confirmed that the student had filed the lawsuit. Fabos also confirmed that the student had filed the lawsuit. \u201cIt is now a legal matter as well as a personnel matter,\u201d said Fabos. \u201cIt is now a legal matter as well as a personnel matter,\u201d said Fabos. Although Fabos went on to confirm that Taurke remains employed by Cabrillo Although Fabos went on to confirm that Taurke remains employed by Cabrillo College, she said the college would not comment further on the lawsuit at College, she said the college would not comment further on the lawsuit at this time. He is also listed as scheduled to teach multiple courses in Fall 2017. this time. He is also listed as scheduled to teach multiple courses in Fall 2017. The student is represented by The student is represented by John Kristensen John Kristensen of Kristensen Weisberg LLP, a of Kristensen Weisberg LLP, a Los Angeles-based law firm, who won a Los Angeles-based law firm, who won a $1.15 million $1.15 million sexual assault sexual assault settlement from the University of California Regents in January. That claim settlement from the University of California Regents in January. That claim centered on allegations that a Santa Cruz student was sexually assaulted centered on allegations that a Santa Cruz student was sexually assaulted on June 13, 2015 by one of her professors. on June 13, 2015 by one of her professors. Kristensen is in trial this week and unavailable to comment on the more Kristensen is in trial this week and unavailable to comment on the more recent Cabrillo College case, according to a representative of his law firm. recent Cabrillo College case, according to a representative of his law firm. Prior to the start of the Fall 2016 academic semester, the student quit her job Prior to the start of the Fall 2016 academic semester, the student quit her job with Taurke as a teacher\u2019s aide because the potential of seeing or interacting with Taurke as a teacher\u2019s aide because the potential of seeing or interacting with Taurke made her feel \u201canxious, nervous and uneasy.\u201d with Taurke made her feel \u201canxious, nervous and uneasy.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo professor sued for sexual assault, college sued for Title violations \u2013 Santa Cruz Sentinel 3/3", "7252_102.pdf": "Cabrillo settles sexual Cabrillo settles sexual harassment lawsuit for $350,000 harassment lawsuit for $350,000 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo settles sexual harassment lawsuit for $350,000 \u2013 Santa Cruz Sentinel 1/4 By By | Santa Cruz Sentinel | Santa Cruz Sentinel UPDATED: UPDATED: September 11, 2018 at 12:00 September 11, 2018 at 12:00 Alex Taurke Alex Taurke sexual harassment lawsuit brought against Cabrillo College and sexual harassment lawsuit brought against Cabrillo College and one of its instructors ended with the college agreeing to pay a former student one of its instructors ended with the college agreeing to pay a former student $350,000. $350,000. Approval of the settlement was announced Monday night by the Cabrillo Approval of the settlement was announced Monday night by the Cabrillo Governing Board, according to Cabrillo College President Matt Wetstein. Governing Board, according to Cabrillo College President Matt Wetstein. \u201cThis brings to a closure all litigation surrounding a claim of sexual \u201cThis brings to a closure all litigation surrounding a claim of sexual harassment that was filed by a former student,\u201d Wetstein said in a statement harassment that was filed by a former student,\u201d Wetstein said in a statement to the Sentinel. to the Sentinel. The college agreed to pay $115,000 to the former student out of its own The college agreed to pay $115,000 to the former student out of its own coffers, with the remainder of the $350,000 stemming from insurance funds, coffers, with the remainder of the $350,000 stemming from insurance funds, according to Wetstein. The settlement, Wetstein emphasized, is not an according to Wetstein. The settlement, Wetstein emphasized, is not an admission of liability. admission of liability female former student and teachers aide female former student and teachers aide filed the suit in May filed the suit in May, alleging the , alleging the math instructor Alex Taurke repeatedly harassed, sexually assaulted and math instructor Alex Taurke repeatedly harassed, sexually assaulted and sexually battered her in May 2016. The woman was enrolled in Taurke\u2019s sexually battered her in May 2016. The woman was enrolled in Taurke\u2019s calculus class and also served as his teacher\u2019s aide during the time of the calculus class and also served as his teacher\u2019s aide during the time of the alleged incidents. alleged incidents. 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo settles sexual harassment lawsuit for $350,000 \u2013 Santa Cruz Sentinel 2/4 Originally Published: Originally Published: March 6, 2018 at 12:00 March 6, 2018 at 12:00 The suit accused Cabrillo of failing to comply with Title IX, a federal civil rights The suit accused Cabrillo of failing to comply with Title IX, a federal civil rights law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. The complaint alleged law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. The complaint alleged Cabrillo failed to provide Taurke with adequate sexual harassment training Cabrillo failed to provide Taurke with adequate sexual harassment training and did not have a clear pathway to report harassment. The former student and did not have a clear pathway to report harassment. The former student claimed she repeatedly tried to report the alleged harassment but was so claimed she repeatedly tried to report the alleged harassment but was so stymied she eventually turned to the federal Office of Civil Rights. That office stymied she eventually turned to the federal Office of Civil Rights. That office began its own investigation, which began its own investigation, which concluded in January 2017 concluded in January 2017 that Cabrillo that Cabrillo had violated Title with respect to its \u201cnotice, policies and procedures\u201d and had violated Title with respect to its \u201cnotice, policies and procedures\u201d and that the student was subjected to \u201cunwanted touching and comments by a that the student was subjected to \u201cunwanted touching and comments by a faculty member, which created a hostile environment on the basis of sex.\u201d faculty member, which created a hostile environment on the basis of sex.\u201d As a result, As a result, Cabrillo agreed to overhaul Cabrillo agreed to overhaul its harassment policies and its harassment policies and procedures to include annual training and clear reporting mechanisms, and procedures to include annual training and clear reporting mechanisms, and has since hired a full-time Title coordinator and compliance officer. has since hired a full-time Title coordinator and compliance officer federal judge federal judge granted Cabrillo\u2019s motion granted Cabrillo\u2019s motion to dismiss the lawsuit in September, to dismiss the lawsuit in September, but gave the student leave to amend the complaint and re-file, which she did but gave the student leave to amend the complaint and re-file, which she did on Oct. 20. on Oct. 20. Due to the \u201cnature of the settlement and the personnel issues involved,\u201d Due to the \u201cnature of the settlement and the personnel issues involved,\u201d Wetstein said he was unable to provide further comment about the cause. Wetstein said he was unable to provide further comment about the cause. \u201cHowever can say that we have strengthened our processes around Title \u201cHowever can say that we have strengthened our processes around Title and sexual harassment training and as an institution of higher education we and sexual harassment training and as an institution of higher education we take responsibility for ensuring that our learning and working environments take responsibility for ensuring that our learning and working environments are safe, free of harassment, and open to all who can benefit from are safe, free of harassment, and open to all who can benefit from educational advancement,\u201d he said.\u201d educational advancement,\u201d he said.\u201d Cabrillo spokeswoman Kristin Fabos declined to comment on any internal Cabrillo spokeswoman Kristin Fabos declined to comment on any internal discipline proceedings and Taurke\u2019s continued role in the college, calling the discipline proceedings and Taurke\u2019s continued role in the college, calling the matter an \u201congoing personnel issue.\u201d matter an \u201congoing personnel issue.\u201d The law firm representing the former student, Kristensen Weisberg LLP, won The law firm representing the former student, Kristensen Weisberg LLP, won a a $1.15 million settlement $1.15 million settlement from Santa Cruz in 2017, alleging sexual assault from Santa Cruz in 2017, alleging sexual assault by a professor who is now terminated. by a professor who is now terminated. Attorneys representing the former student did not respond to requests for Attorneys representing the former student did not respond to requests for comment by press time, nor did attorneys representing Taurke or Taurke comment by press time, nor did attorneys representing Taurke or Taurke himself. himself. 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo settles sexual harassment lawsuit for $350,000 \u2013 Santa Cruz Sentinel 3/4 2018 2018 \ue907 \ue907March March \ue907 \ue90766 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo settles sexual harassment lawsuit for $350,000 \u2013 Santa Cruz Sentinel 4/4", "7252_103.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll Sep 20, 2017 Case No. 17-CV-02870 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2017) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Take care of legal research in a matter of minutes with CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free Case No. 17-CV-02870 09-20-2017 GANGITANO, Plaintiff, v COLLEGE, et al., Defendants United States District Judge Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/16/25, 10:02 Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll., Case No. 17-CV-02870 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/10 Re: Dkt. No. 16 Plaintiff Gabrielle Gangitano (\"Gangitano\") sues Defendants Alex B. Taurke (\"Taurke\") and Cabrillo College (\"Cabrillo\") (collectively, \"Defendants\"), for causes of action arising from Taurke's alleged sexual harassment of Gangitano. See No. 1 (\"Compl.\"). Before the Court is Cabrillo College's motion to dismiss No. 16. Having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court Cabrillo College's motion to dismiss with leave to amend A. Factual Background Gangitano is an undergraduate student at Cabrillo. Compl. \u00b6 15. In Spring of 2016, Gangitano was enrolled in a course taught by Taurke, and Gangitano also worked as a tutor under Taurke's guidance. Id. Sometime during the Spring 2016 term, Taurke asked Gangitano to be Taurke's \"Supplemental Instructor.\" Id. *2 2 Gangitano alleges that when she worked as Taurke's \"Supplemental Instructor,\" Taurke \"began to make suggestive comments\" and eventually engaged in \"offensive conduct,\" all of which were \"sexual in nature and sometimes [] accompanied by inappropriate physical touching.\" Id. \u00b6 16. For example, Gangitano alleges that Taurke \"forc[ed] [Gangitano] to feel his scars.\" Id. \u00b6 17. Gangitano alleges that this behavior came to a peak in May 2016. First, on May 7, 2016, Taurke emailed Gangitano and remarked that \"you continue to amaze me how mature you are don't think I've ever know [sic] an 18-year-old who's as put together as you was pretty lost when was 18. Are you sure you're not fooling me? Are you actually 30 mean you look the role of a beautiful, young woman, but you sure don't act it!).\" Id. \u00b6 18. Then, on May 17, 2016, Taurke emailed Gangitano and stated that know we don't have calculus anymore, sniff, sniff, but if you want to discuss/ Physics leadership, /your future theater career,/ or your special extra credit project ;-) / Whatever. I'll be around always enjoy seeing you!\" Id. \u00b6 19. The following day, Taurke met Gangitano in person and told Gangitano \"you 2/16/25, 10:02 Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll., Case No. 17-CV-02870 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/10 have that superpower where you are enchantingly beautiful and incredibly smart and funny and beautiful inside and out and you have a superpower of casting a spell on people and you've cast a spell on me.\" Id. \u00b6 20. Taurke also hugged Gangitano and \"touch[ed] and strok[ed] her legs.\" Id. Then, on May 20, 2016, Gangitano met again with Taurke. Id. \u00b6 21. During this meeting, Taurke \"closed the blinds to ensure privacy in his office space,\" \"discretely moved his chair closer to [Gangitano] so he could put his knees around hers so their knees and thighs would touch,\" and \"caressed and stroked the side of [Gangitano's] face and head.\" Id. Gangitano alleges that she wanted to file a grievance with Cabrillo and report Taurke's conduct, but Gangitano could not figure out the proper procedure. Id. \u00b6 23. Gangitano states that Cabrillo's \"Notice of Nondiscrimination\" was \"not readily accessible to students,\" and that it did not \"contain specific information about where to file a complaint, or who to contact.\" Id. \u00b6 24. Between May 22, 2016, and May 24, 2016, Gangitano attempted to contact Cabrillo's Title coordinator, but Gangitano was \"deferred to many offices, until she was finally directed to a male athletic coach.\" Id. \u00b6 25. Gangitano \"felt uncomfortable talking to [the male athletic coach] about *3 her complaint,\" and thus did not file a complaint with Cabrillo at all. Id. Instead, on May 25, 2016, Gangitano filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (\"OCR\"). Id. \u00b6 26. Gangitano's complaint with described Taurke's conduct towards her, in addition to Cabrillo's lack of clear procedures for filing grievances about inappropriate conduct on the part of instructors. Id. \u00b6 26. In response to that complaint began investigating Cabrillo and determined that Cabrillo never actually had a permanent and designated Title coordinator. Id. \u00b6 27. Further, Gangitano states that on December 21, 2016, Cabrillo \"admitted to inadequacies in its notification, reporting, monitoring, and training requirements and policy obligations as required under Title IX.\" Id. \u00b6 28 also interviewed Taurke, who \"admitted both to making the statements and realizing that the statements were sexually harassing.\" Id. \u00b6 27. 3 Gangitano quit her job as \"Supplemental Instructor\" for Taurke before the start of the Fall 2016 academic term \"because the potential of seeing or interacting with Professor Taurke made her feel anxious, nervous, and 2/16/25, 10:02 Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll., Case No. 17-CV-02870 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/10 uneasy based on his prior conduct with her.\" Id. \u00b6 29. Gangitano alleges that \"[w]hile Cabrillo College supposedly initiated a conduct process with Professor Taurke as a result of the investigative decision, [Gangitano] is informed and believes that Professor Taurke has been allowed to remain on campus as an employee and no further actions have been taken by Cabrillo to either address his conduct against her, or to protect others like herself on the Cabrillo campus from any further actions by Professor Taurke and others.\" Id. \u00b6 32. Further, Gangitano \"believes [Cabrillo] has failed to adequately address and resolve her complaint as Cabrillo has barely, if at all, implemented any disciplinary actions towards Professor Taurke for his improper conduct against her.\" Id. \u00b6 33. B. Procedural History On May 18, 2017, Gangitano sued Defendants in this Court. See No. 1. Gangitano's complaint alleged four causes of action: (1) violation of Title of the Education Act Amendments of 1972 (\"Title IX\"), 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681 (against Cabrillo); (2) violation of 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 (against Cabrillo); (3) sexual assault (against Taurke); and (4) sexual battery (against Taurke). *4 4 On July 6, 2017, Taurke answered Gangitano's complaint No. 17. On June 29, 2017, Cabrillo filed a motion to dismiss Gangitano's complaint No. 16. On July 27, 2017, Gangitano opposed Cabrillo's motion No. 21. On August 10, 2017, Cabrillo filed a Reply No. 25 A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to include \"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief complaint that fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The United States Supreme Court has held that Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead \"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.\" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 2/16/25, 10:02 Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll., Case No. 17-CV-02870 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/10 alleged.\" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). \"The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.\" Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). For purposes of ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court \"accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.\" Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court, however, need not accept as true allegations contradicted by judicially noticeable facts, see Schwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000), and it \"may look beyond the plaintiff's complaint to matters of public record\" without converting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment, Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128, 1129 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995). Nor must the Court \"assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.\" Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mere \"conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.\" Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 *5 (9th Cir. 2004). 5 B. Leave to Amend If the Court determines that a complaint should be dismissed, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend \"shall be freely given when justice so requires,\" bearing in mind \"the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decisions on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.\" Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). When dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim, \"a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.\" Id. at 1130 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, leave to amend generally shall be denied only if allowing amendment would unduly prejudice the opposing party, cause undue delay, or be futile, or if the 2/16/25, 10:02 Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll., Case No. 17-CV-02870 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/10 moving party has acted in bad faith. Leadsinger, Inc. v Music Publ'g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008 Cabrillo moves to dismiss the only causes of action asserted against Cabrillo in Gangitano's complaint, Counts One and Two. The Court considers each of the Counts below. A. Count One (Title IX) Count One of Gangitano's complaint alleges that Cabrillo violated Title IX. See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 34-41. Title states in relevant part that \"[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.\" 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a). Title provides a private right of action to students who are sexually harassed by their teachers. See Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 75 (1992) (\"Unquestionably, Title placed on the Gwinnett County Public Schools the duty not to discriminate on the basis of sex, and when a supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate because of the subordinate's sex, that supervisor discriminates on the basis of sex. We believe the same rule should apply when a *6 teacher sexually harasses and abuses a student\" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). However, to state a Title claim against an educational institution for its faculty member's sexual harassment of a student, a plaintiff must allege that (1) \"an official [of the institution] who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the [institution]'s behalf ha[d] actual knowledge\" of the harassment; and (2) the institution \"fail[ed] adequately to respond\" to the harassment in a way that \"amount[ed] to deliberate indifference\" to the harassment. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290 (1998). 6 Count One of Gangitano's complaint does not contain adequate factual allegations to state a claim against Cabrillo under Title for teacher-on- student sexual harassment. In Count One, Gangitano alleges only that Cabrillo (1) \"failed to protect [Gangitano] from the unwanted, inappropriate, injurious and continuing conduct of Professor Taurke . . . by 2/16/25, 10:02 Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll., Case No. 17-CV-02870 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/10 failing to provide sufficient sexual harassment training . . . , management and supervision of Professor Taurke to deter and/or prevent[] such unlawful conduct\"; and (2) \"failed to provide [Gangitano] . . . with sufficient, easily understandable and accessible information on how to present complaints of such unlawful conduct, or identification of an appropriate Title Coordinator.\" Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 38-39. Nowhere in Count One does Gangitano allege facts that plausibly suggest that Cabrillo had \"actual knowledge\" of any teacher-on-student sexual harassment committed by Taurke or any other Cabrillo faculty members. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 290. Further, because Count One fails to sufficiently allege that Cabrillo had knowledge of any teacher-on-student sexual harassment, the factual allegations in Count One do not plausibly suggest that Cabrillo was deliberately indifferent to harassment of which Cabrillo had actual knowledge. See id. at 290-91. *7 1 7 1 In Count One, Gangitano points to a Department of Education regulation requiring schools to \"adopt a public grievance procedure providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints\" about sexual harassment. Compl. \u00b6 39; see 34 C.F.R. \u00a7 106.8(b) (1997). However, the United States Supreme Court has stated that a defendant institution's alleged failure to comply with \u00a7 106.8(b) \"does not establish the requisite actual notice and deliberate indifference\" for a Title claim. Gebser, 524 U.S. at 292. As a result, Gangitano's allegation that Cabrillo failed to comply with \u00a7 106.8(b)'s grievance procedure requirement is not sufficient to plausibly suggest that Cabrillo was deliberately indifferent to teacher-on-student sexual harassment in violation of Title IX. -------- In her opposition to Cabrillo's motion to dismiss, Gangitano raises an entirely new Title deliberate indifference theory. Specifically, Gangitano argues in her opposition that (1) Cabrillo had actual knowledge of Taurke's alleged sexual harassment of Gangitano because Gangitano \"[got] the to contact Cabrillo\" about the harassment; and (2) \"the end result of no complete investigation [of the harassment] conducted [by Cabrillo] after a year, as well as [Cabrillo's] failure to inform [Gangitano] of any decision or remedial actions specifically about Taurke,\" amount to deliberate indifference towards Taurke's alleged sexual harassment on the part of Cabrillo No. 21 at 8, 11 -12. However, the Court need not address this new theory because Count One of Gangitano's complaint does not appear to be based on this theory. As explained above, Count One alleges only that 2/16/25, 10:02 Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll., Case No. 17-CV-02870 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/10 Cabrillo (1) failed to sufficiently train and supervise Taurke; and (2) failed to institute an adequate grievance procedure for reporting instances of sexual harassment. See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 38-39. Further, Count One asserts that these specific \"acts or omissions by Cabrillo\" violate Title IX. Id. \u00b6 40. Count One does not identify any other acts or omissions as violative of Title IX. Id. Thus, Count One currently is not premised on Cabrillo's purported failure to complete an investigation of Taurke and failure to notify Gangitano of any remedial actions against Taurke a year after being contacted by the about Gangitano's complaint. In other words, Gangitano's current complaint fails to \"provide[] fair notice of the nature of\" Gangitano's new theory of Title liability and \"the facts which underlie\" that theory. Grid Sys. v. Tex. Instruments, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 1991). As a result, Gangitano's current complaint did not adequately plead a Title deliberate indifference claim. Accordingly, the Court Cabrillo's motion to dismiss Count One. The Court affords Gangitano leave to amend because Gangitano may be able to allege sufficient facts to state a claim under Title IX. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (holding that \"a district court should grant leave to amend . . . unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts\" (internal quotation marks omitted)). *8 8 B. Count Two (\u00a7 1983) Cabrillo moves to dismiss Count Two (Gangitano's \u00a7 1983 claim) as barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. In her opposition, Gangitano agrees to voluntarily dismiss Count Two without prejudice. In its Reply, Cabrillo argues that Count Two should be dismissed with prejudice. However, in light of the numerous exceptions to sovereign immunity established by California law, see, e.g., Cal. Gov't Code \u00a7\u00a7 815, 820, the Court cannot conclude at this stage that amendment would necessarily be futile. See Leadsinger, 512 F.3d at 532. Thus, the Court Cabrillo's motion to dismiss Count Two with leave to amend. Should Gangitano elect not to amend Count Two, then Cabrillo may move to dismiss Count Two with prejudice in a subsequent motion to dismiss 2/16/25, 10:02 Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll., Case No. 17-CV-02870 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/10 For the foregoing reasons, Cabrillo's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. In particular: 1. The Court with leave to amend Cabrillo's motion to dismiss Gangitano's Title claim in Count One. 2. The Court with leave to amend Cabrillo's motion to dismiss Gangitano's \u00a7 1983 claim in Count Two. Should Gangitano elect to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified herein, Gangitano shall do so within thirty (30) days of this order. Failure to meet this thirty-day deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in this order will result in a dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff may not add new causes of action or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 ORDERED. Dated: September 20, 2017 /s/_________ United States District Judge About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn 2/16/25, 10:02 Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll., Case No. 17-CV-02870 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/10 Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:02 Gangitano v. Cabrillo Coll., Case No. 17-CV-02870 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/10", "7252_104.pdf": "Cabrillo College professor accused of sexual harassment Professor Alex Taurke has taught math at Cabrillo College in Aptos for decades student is suing Taurke and the college. Updated: 7:14 Jun 7, 2017 Infinite Scroll Enabled Bianca Beltr\u00e1n \uf10a \uf112 \uf108 Watch on Demand \uf10c \uf0e0 \uf12555\u00b0 \uf0c9 Monterey 93940 55\u00b0 \uf125 Cloudy \uf114 3% \uf041 \uf124 \uf102 1 / 1 \uf104 \uf04c 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo College professor accused of sexual harassment 1/4 The only Presidents Day mattress sales worth checking out VIDEO: Shirtless Florida man steals patrol car, carjacks woman in wild chase Pope Francis thanks doctors and healthcare workers after \u2018quiet\u2019 second night in hospital Santa Cruz Wharf collapses during repair project, 3 rescued 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo College professor accused of sexual harassment 2/4 \uf09a \uf099 \uf16a Contact Us News Team Apps & Social Email Alerts Careers Internships Advertise with Advertise with Estrella Digital Advertising Terms & Conditions Broadcast Terms & Conditions Reports Captioning Contacts Public Inspection File Public File Assistance Applications News Policy Statements Hearst Television participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites. \u00a92025, Monterey Hearst Television Inc. on behalf of KSBW-TV. Privacy Notice Notice at Collection Your Privacy Rights/Shine the Light Industry Opt-Out Terms of Use Site Map Your Privacy Choices/(Opt-Out of Sale/Targeted Ads) 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo College professor accused of sexual harassment 3/4 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo College professor accused of sexual harassment 4/4", "7252_105.pdf": "Cabrillo College and Instructor Sued for Title violations Trigger warning: This story contains references to sexual violence former Cabrillo College student and mathematics teaching aid is suing both Cabrillo College, for depriving her of her rights and violating Title IX, and Cabrillo mathematics instructor Alex Taurke for sexual assault and sexual battery. According to the court claim, the student, whose name has been withheld to protect her identity, was unable to find information about Title and was directed to an athletics coach, whom she felt uncomfortable speaking with. Because of this, she went directly to the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to report. Georgia Johnson, June 8, 2017 3 min \ue081 \uf097 \ue617 0 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo College and Instructor Sued for Title violations - City on a Hill Press 1/5 The resulting investigation report states Cabrillo College was found not in compliance with Title policy with respect to the transparency of the Human Resources and Title combined position. Taurke was also found in violation of Title policy. \u201cThe complainant was subjected to unwanted touching and comments by a faculty member, which created a hostile environment on the basis of sex,\u201d according to the report. Cabrillo College director of marketing and communications Kristin Fabos was unable to comment on personnel specifics, though she confirmed Taurke is currently employed and is scheduled to teach in fall 2017. \u201cCabrillo [College] possessed actual knowledge of Taurke\u2019s unfitness, putting the college on actual notice of the substantial risk of abuse to students,\u201d the court report stated. In accordance with OCR, there is not a minimum number of hours required for sexual violence training, but it should be provided on a regular basis. Fabos said every two years, Cabrillo staff, faculty and administrators are required to complete a sexual harassment training. But according to the suit filing document, Taurke had only one sexual harassment training in his 20 years at Cabrillo College. \u201cOn many levels, be it [Title IX] or any particular office on campus, we have smaller staffing and resources than any of the UCs and many of the CSUs because of our funding structure,\u201d Fabos said. Cabrillo College did not admit to any violation of law but agreed to implement all recommendations by the OCR, including implementing a mandatory staff sexual violence training beginning next year. \u201cTitle and the link for students submitting complaints is prominently featured on our website home page, and [\u2026] it has been featured in our course catalog too,\u201d Fabos said. \u201cIn addition, every student who completes an online orientation has to complete a sexual harassment training.\u201d As per Title regulations, colleges must have at least one employee to coordinate compliance with nationwide Title regulations. There is no Title director at Cabrillo College, rather there is an interim human resources director who also holds the title of Title 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo College and Instructor Sued for Title violations - City on a Hill Press 2/5 Georgia Johnson Co-Editor-in-Chief at City on a Hill Press. Harsh critic of popchips, slow wifi and people who put clothes on dogs officer. Cabrillo College has been in the process of hiring a Title coordinator to separate the position from human resources, and though it is in the \u201cfinal stages\u201d of hiring, it has yet to fill the position, Fabos said. \u201cAt the present, Plaintiff believes the college has failed to adequately address and resolve her complaint as Cabrillo has barely, if at all, implemented any disciplinary actions toward Professor Taurke for his improper conduct against her,\u201d the complaint said. *Taurke was unable to be reached for comment Apply Primer 2024 Elections News 30 City on a Hill Press 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo College and Instructor Sued for Title violations - City on a Hill Press 3/5 CHPNow Arts & Culture Visual Stories Opinion Editorials Letters to the Editor Submissions Columns Archive City on a Hill Press is produced by and for students. Our primary goal is to report and analyze issues affecting the student population and the Santa Cruz community. We also serve to watchdog the politics of the administration. While we endeavor to present multiple sides of a story, we realize our own outlooks influence the presentation of the news. The City on a Hill Press (CHP) collective is dedicated to covering underreported events, ideas and voices. Our desks are devoted to certain topics: campus and city news, sports, arts and entertainment, opinion and editorial is a campus paper, but it also provides space for Santa Cruz residents to present their views and interact with the campus community. Ideally, CHP\u2019s pages will serve as an arena for debate, challenge, and ultimately, change is published weekly in the fall, winter and spring quarters by the City on a Hill Press publishing group, except during Thanksgiving and academic breaks. Mission 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo College and Instructor Sued for Title violations - City on a Hill Press 4/5 WordPress Theme built by Shufflehound. The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff at large, or the University of California. Search Search here... \ue090 2/16/25, 10:02 Cabrillo College and Instructor Sued for Title violations - City on a Hill Press 5/5", "7252_106.pdf": "Call on Cabrillo College to fire Alex Taurke for Sexual Assault Started 7 June 2017 Petition to Cabrillo College and 1 other 212 500 Signatures Next Goal Support now Sign this petition Why this petition matters Petition details Comments 2/16/25, 10:03 Petition \u00b7 Call on Cabrillo College to fire Alex Taurke for Sexual Assault - United States \u00b7 Change.org 1/3 Started by Megan Goodhue lawsuit has been filed by a former Cabrillo College student stating that Alex Taurke, a professor at Cabrillo College, sexually harassed and assaulted the student in May 2016. Cabrillo College has failed to comply with Title and has not provided proper trainings to staff and administration. Cabrillo College has failed to protect this student, and am calling on Cabrillo College and the president/superintendent Dr. Laurel Jones to fire Alex Taurke. Taurke is scheduled to teach during Fall of 2017, which causes an unsafe environment for Cabrillo College students. Stand with the victim in this situation and call on Alex Taurke to RESIGN, or Dr. Laurel Jones to fire the professor immediately. Below have attached links to the Santa Cruz Sentinel article and the filed complaint against Alex Taurke. College-Alex-Taurke.html Share this petition in person or use the code for your own material. Download Code Report a policy violation Decision-Makers Cabrillo College Dr. Laurel Jones President/Superintendent of Cabrillo College Support now Sign this petition 2/16/25, 10:03 Petition \u00b7 Call on Cabrillo College to fire Alex Taurke for Sexual Assault - United States \u00b7 Change.org 2/3 Change.org Sexual Assault on Campus Call on Cabrillo College to fire Alex Taurke for Sexual Assault Company About Impact Careers Team Community Blog Community Guidelines Support Help Guides Privacy Terms Cookie Policy Manage Cookies Connect Twitter Facebook English (United Kingdom) \u00a9 2025, Change.org This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Support now 2/16/25, 10:03 Petition \u00b7 Call on Cabrillo College to fire Alex Taurke for Sexual Assault - United States \u00b7 Change.org 3/3"} |
8,125 | David Voros | University of South Carolina | [
"8125_101.pdf",
"8125_102.pdf",
"8125_103.pdf",
"8125_104.pdf",
"8125_105.pdf",
"8125_106.pdf",
"8125_107.pdf"
] | {"8125_101.pdf": "professors accused of sexual harassment are no longer employed, university confirms By Alexa Jurado Updated April 10, 2023 4:05 PM| Two University of South Carolina professors accused in lawsuits and school documents of sexual harassment are no longer with the university. David Voros, a painting professor, retired on Jan. 16, 2023 spokesman Jeff Stensland confirmed. University of South Carolina Professor David Voros Provided by the Provided by Log In | Subscribe 2/16/25, 10:03 Two professors accused of sexual harassment no longer at | The State 1/3 Subscribe now for only $1.99 for your first 2 months Already a subscriber? Log In Voros was accused in lawsuits filed by a student and two coworkers of sexual harassment. Voros was accused in lawsuits filed by a student and two coworkers of sexual harassment. Take Us With You Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand Start a Subscription Customer Service Edition The State Now Vacation Hold Pay Your Bill About Us Contact Us Newsletters Archives Personal Finance McClatchy Advertising Place an Ad Place a Classified Ad Place an Ad - Celebrations Place an Obituary Staffing Solutions Political | Advocacy Advertising 2/16/25, 10:03 Two professors accused of sexual harassment no longer at | The State 2/3 Part of the McClatchy Media Network 2/16/25, 10:03 Two professors accused of sexual harassment no longer at | The State 3/3", "8125_102.pdf": "The University of South Carolina and Clemson University report an increase in gifts this year recent University of South Carolina graduate has filed a lawsuit against the university, President Harris Pastides, a professor and the International Center for the Arts. Allison Dunavant is a recent graduate of the university's School of Visual Arts ad Design's graduate program. She has filed a lawsuit alleging that she and other students were treated Recent grad files lawsuit against university, professor following study abroad trip by Andrea Butler Tue, May 15th 2018 at 6:10 Updated Wed, May 16th 2018 at 1:27 2/16/25, 10:03 Recent grad files lawsuit against university, professor following study abroad trip 1/5 poorly while they studied abroad in the university's to Italy\" program. While on a trip to Italy Dunavant says that her professor David Voros required her to perform manual labor, restricted her access to food when she did not perform work to his expectations and was subjected to unwelcomed sexual advances. The lawsuit states that Dunavant and her professor conversed via email about the trip to Italy, which was supposed to last three weeks allowing students studio time, preparing art supplies and other activities similar to her role as a Graduate Teaching Assistant. Dunavant states that while in Italy she lived in a \"prison environment\" with locked bars on windows, frigid temperatures, no bed linen or towels in a building filled with cat urine, scorpions and spiders. Instead of having studio time, Dunavant says she and two other students were required to work twelve hour days pulling nails and tacks out of walls, removing paint from bricks with a sponge, painting walls and moving heavy furniture up and down flights of stairs. Due to her living conditions, Dunavant stated that she began having headaches and congestion and felt overwhelmed the entire trip. She also states that at one point during the trip she walked in on Voros having sex with another student. The lawsuit also alleges that Voros implied Dunavant could go on shopping trips if she would engage in sexual acts with him. After numerous complaints Dunavant stated that Voros told her that the trip to Italy was not in conjunction with the university but was instead a trip based on Voros' generosity. At one point during the trip, Dunavant says she was eating breakfast when Voros told her that she was an employee for him and that she owed him five hours of work for five days a week. After being locked in her room for not working and being denied meals Dunavant became fearful for her safety and reached out to the university and her parents so that she could get assistance to return to South Carolina. After two weeks in Italy, the university flew Dunavant back home before the program had ended 2/16/25, 10:03 Recent grad files lawsuit against university, professor following study abroad trip 2/5 The lawsuit further claims that since returning from Italy in 2016, the university has failed to handle the situation properly and Dunavant has been the victim of retaliation from the university's administration and faculty members, Dunavant is being represented by Samantha Albrecht of Cromer Babb Porter & Hicks. Albrecht released the following statement in regards to the case: What happened to Allison in Italy was horrible, and even worse was the treatment she received when she spoke up about what she experienced. The facts of this case are extraordinary, and we believe these facts will ultimately spell out the lengths to which the University will go to silence students who speak up when they believe they are being treated unfairly. Allison was a dedicated student who did not deserve to go through any of what she went through, and we intend to work hard to see that justice is done. The university has not issued a comment on the allegations. Full lawsuit below: *For a first cause of action against defendants Voros and -False Imprisonment-See Page 21 * For a second cause of action against defendants Voros and ICA-assault-see page 22 *For a third cause of action against defendants Voros and ICA- battery-see page 23 *For a fourth cause of action against defendant Voros-criminal conspiracy-see page 23 * For a fifth cause of action against defendants Voros and ICA-defamation-see page 24 *For a sixth cause of action against defendants Voros and USC-fraud-see page 25 *For a seventh cause of action against defendants Voros and USC-negligent misrepresentation-see page 27 * For a eighth cause of action against defendants USC-negligent supervision-see page 28 2/16/25, 10:03 Recent grad files lawsuit against university, professor following study abroad trip 3/5 *For a ninth cause of action against defendant USC-gross negligence in handing of investigation-see page 29 *For a tenth cause of action against defendant USC-Violation of Title IX-The School's Deliberate Indifference to Alleged Sexual Harassment-see page 29 *For a eleventh cause of action against defendant USC-Violation of Title IX-retaliation-see page 31 *For a twelfth cause of action against defendant USC-promissory estoppel-see page 32 *For a thirteenth cause of action against defendant Pastides-Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983-see page 32 *For a fourteenth cause of action against defendant Pastides-Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985-see page 34 by Andrea Lashay on Scribd 2/16/25, 10:03 Recent grad files lawsuit against university, professor following study abroad trip 4/5 Loading Allison R. Dunavant, Plaintiff, v. University of South Carolina, The International Center For The Arts, LLC, David W. Voros, and Harris Pastides, Defendants and required to answer the Complaint herein, a copy of which is served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this Complaint upon the subscriber at the address shown below within thirty (30) days (thirty five (35) days if served by United States Mail) after service hereof, exclusive of the date of such service, and if you fail to answer the Complaint, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint BY: s/Samantha Albrecht Samantha Albrecht (#102642) 1418 Laurel Street, Suite Post Office Box 11675 (29211) Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Phone 803-799-9530 Fax 803-799-9533 Attorney for Plaintiff May 15, 2018 Columbia, South Carolina -2 0 1 8 a y 1 5 1 1 : 4 8 # 2 0 1 8 4 0 0 2 6 5 5 Download this 1 of 36 2/16/25, 10:03 Recent grad files lawsuit against university, professor following study abroad trip 5/5", "8125_103.pdf": "UofSC professor accused of sexual harassment set to teach online in spring with higher pay By Hannah Wade | Oct 1, 2021 Watch the broadcast daily at 4 p.m. at this link Cocky, behind the feathers: the heart of Gamecock spirit Gentle parenting is becoming more challenging for parents Orangeburg roads suffer UofSC McMaster College, where studio art professor David Voros works, is home to the Arts department. Photos by Hannah Wade David Voros, the University of South Carolina professor who was accused of sexual harassment in 2018 and 2020, will begin teaching online in the spring semester, earning $91,923, a nearly 13 percent raise from his 2019 salary of $81,681 About Us Staff Archives \ue63a 2/16/25, 10:03 UofSC professor accused of sexual harassment set to teach online in spring with higher pay | Carolina News and Reporter 1/6 extensive damage from recent flooding New koala arrives at Riverbanks Zoo; the reason might surprise you Impressive performance on the pitch: The continued success of South Carolina\u2019s women\u2019s soccer team Ariana\u2019s Fight: Facing life- saving heart surgery this holiday season Celebrating 50 Years of Title at USC: The Journey of Women\u2019s Sports students prepare for a fiery tradition Voros, who is at the center of ongoing civil lawsuits, is barred from physically returning to the university\u2019s campus and will be teaching three courses completely online. Voros has been accused of sexual harassment by three separate women, two other faculty members and a former student. The former student settled for $75,000. The two civil lawsuits remain. Many students at the university have been advocating for the professor to be fired and removed from campus. The Coalition to Fire David Voros is a group of students who have been protesting and petitioning since December 2020. \u201cWe\u2019re going to stop at nothing to remove him,\u201d said Sophie Luna, a student at the university, \u201cThe university is trying to sneak him in the back door because they think we\u2019ve forgotten, but we haven\u2019t. We will be here until he\u2019s removed.\u201d For tenured professors like Voros, who has been teaching at the university since 2000, the firing process is often complicated and drawn-out. While he has not been able to teach classes or come to campus, he has continued to receive his salary, while the university awaits verdicts in the lawsuits. He now makes a salary of $91,923, according to the Department of Administration website and University Spokesperson Jeff Stensland. Voros will be teaching three studio arts classes online, ranging from a typically freshman class like \u201cIntroduction to Painting\u201d to higher level classes. Voros is the only professor slated to teach the higher level classes. The higher level classes 710 and 810, are small classes \u2013 maxing out at 8 students per class. \u201cThere are no plans to change current restrictions that prevent him from coming to campus and engaging in-person with students,\u201d Stensland said in an email statement. The fully online class schedule will allow Voros to meet his faculty obligations while maintaining physical separation from campus, according to Stensland. Multiple attempts to reach Voros\u2019 attorney were unsuccessful. The university\u2019s attorney declined to comment on the state of the lawsuits, which could continue until at least March 2022. 2/16/25, 10:03 UofSC professor accused of sexual harassment set to teach online in spring with higher pay | Carolina News and Reporter 2/6 Carolina Carolina sign hangs in the hall at McMaster College, where Voros teaches. The Coalition to Fire David Voros is a group of students who have been active since the fall of 2020. Students at the University of South Carolina hold a protest against David Voros on Friday, April 2, 2021 on the University of South Carolina\u2019s campus. Courtesy of Sophia Luna. 2/16/25, 10:03 UofSC professor accused of sexual harassment set to teach online in spring with higher pay | Carolina News and Reporter 3/6 Voros has not returned in-person to the office since being accused of sexual harassment in a civil lawsuit late last year. The professor is still barred from campus, but will be teaching virtually in the spring. The University of South Carolina is now paying David Voros, a professor accused of sexual harassment, $10,000 more than they were during his fall 2021 sabbatical. 2/16/25, 10:03 UofSC professor accused of sexual harassment set to teach online in spring with higher pay | Carolina News and Reporter 4/6 SHARE: FastCast for Friday, Oct. 1 Beamer era in Gamecock football begins in optimism Hannah Wade Hannah Wade is a senior multimedia journalism student from Chester, South Carolina. During her time at the university, Wade has worked for the student publication, The Daily Gamecock, both as a news writer and a photo editor. She has interned with both and the Greenville News. She's learned to combine her photojournalism skills with her storytelling abilities to create compelling stories with accompanying visuals. In her free time, she enjoys reading, cooking and spending time with friends and family, including her cat, Bagel. After graduation in December, she plans to work for a local paper in a southeastern community \ue62f \ue61a \ue623 \ue60f \ue610 2/16/25, 10:03 UofSC professor accused of sexual harassment set to teach online in spring with higher pay | Carolina News and Reporter 5/6 Have a story idea? Want to keep up with the latest Midlands news? Carolina News email: [email protected] Twitter: @usccarolinanews Facebook: CarolinaNewsandReporter Instagram: usccarolinanews Gather Cola: New food hall and outdoor space coming to Columbia Egg suppliers take precations as bird flu spreads Women\u2019s basketball\u2019s new revenue model hints at a more equitable future Gamecock fans fuel South Carolina\u2019s record-breaking 70-game home win streak Advocates talk about \u2018art for art\u2019s sake\u2019 as they lobby state lawmakers Log in Entries feed Comments feed WordPress.org Info for Staff UofSC School of Journalism and Mass Communications \ue61a\ue623\ue60f\ue614 2/16/25, 10:03 UofSC professor accused of sexual harassment set to teach online in spring with higher pay | Carolina News and Reporter 6/6", "8125_104.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co. United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division Mar 6, 2024 Civil Action 3:22-01265 (D.S.C. Mar. 6, 2024) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Meet CoCounsel, pioneering that\u2019s secure, reliable, and trained for the law. Try CoCounsel free Civil Action 3:22-01265 03-06-2024 and STASKO, Plaintiffs, v COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a The State, and DAPRILE, Defendants Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/15 Plaintiffs David Voros (Voros) and Alexandra Stasko (Stasko) (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this defamation lawsuit in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas against Defendants The McClatchy Company, LLC, d/b/a The State (The State), and Lucas Daprile (Daprile) (collectively, Defendants). Daprile \u201cis a news reporter and at all times material to this case, an employee of The State.\u201d Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint \u00b6 3. Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential, and punitive damages. The State removed the matter to this Court before Daprile had been served. The Court has diversity jurisdiction over the matter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332. Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Having carefully considered the motion, the response, the replies, Plaintiffs' supplement, Defendants' objections, the *2 record, and the applicable law, it is the judgment of this Court Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted. 2 When Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, \u201cVoros [was] a Professor of Studio Art at the University of South Carolina [(USC)] School of Visual Art and Design.... He is also an owner of the International Center for the Arts, located in Monte Castello, Italy, a business that hosts retreats and events promoting the study of the arts and humanities in an historic Italian setting.\u201d Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint \u00b6 5. \u201cStasko was formerly an instructor at [USC] teaching Figure Structure and Ceramic classes. She is formerly a master's student at [USC].\u201d Id. \u00b6 6. Plaintiffs allege, \u201c[l]eading up to December 2, 2020, Defendants published a series of stories and hosted several online events relating to claims of harassment made by several individuals against . . . Voros, which also had serious negative implications and insinuations relating to . . . Stasko.\u201d Id. \u00b6 7. 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/15 \u201cIn a December 2, 2020[,] article entitled protected professor repeatedly accused of sexual harassment, lawsuit alleges' the Article . . . states \u2018failed to protect students and faculty from a professor repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct, two new lawsuits allege.'\u201d Id. \u00b6 8. \u201cThis article goes on to state . . . Voros was previously sued by \u2018a former student alleging he made unwanted sexual advances on her.'\u201d Id. \u00b6 9. According to Plaintiffs, \u201c[t]his reporting was and is a complete misrepresentation of the prior allegations made by Allison Dunavant [(Dunavant)], and *3 importantly . . . Dunavant had previously recanted many of these allegations in sworn deposition testimony taken in April of 2019.\u201d Id. \u00b6 10. 3 Plaintiffs maintain \u201c[t]his information being readily available to The State, had a thorough, complete and fair investigation . . . been conducted, and upon information and belief, . . . Defendants knew or should have known of this sworn deposition testimony at the time of this publication.\u201d Id. \u00b6 11. Plaintiffs also contend \u201con March 12, 2021, . . . Daprile publicly states have read the legal documents in the Dunavant case,' on his Twitter account.\u201d Id. \u00b6 12. Plaintiffs say \u201c[t]his article also states . . . both the new lawsuits accuse Voros of sexually harassing them, was and remains patently false, as the allegations made by Jamie Misenhiemer [(Misenhiemer)] do not support this statement.\u201d Id. \u00b6 13. Plaintiffs maintain \u201c[t]he article also states that a \u2018student's complaint, described in [Misenhiemer's] lawsuit alleges . . . Voros traded employment benefits to female faculty and or graduate students for sexual favors.'\u201d Id. \u00b6 14. According to Plaintiffs, \u201c[i]t was well known by the community . . . these statements were directed at . . . Stasko.\u201d Id. Plaintiffs further contend, \u201cin a March 12, 2021[,] article titled, \u2018Women claim mishandled their sexual harassment claims,' . . . Daprile linked a document of excerpts of Lauren Chapman's deposition, a close friend of . . . Misenhiemer and individual deposed in . . . Dunavant's lawsuit, and not her full deposition.\u201d Id. \u00b6 18 (emphasis omitted). Plaintiffs state \u201c[t]hese 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/15 excerpts were a one-sided representation of Lauren Chapman's full deposition.\u201d Id. In the March 12, 2021, article, Defendants also write: \u201cDunavant . . . alleged Voros subjected her to sexual advances and required her to do manual labor during a study abroad trip to Italy.... Dunavant settled the suit in federal court for $75,000 in late 2019, according to documents and an interview with Dunavant.\u201d Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit at 10-11. *4 4 According to Plaintiffs, they \u201chave made demand for retraction of these false and defamatory statements made by Defendants and Defendants have refused to respond to Plaintiffs' demand for retraction.\u201d Amended Complaint \u00b6 19. After Defendants removed Plaintiffs' lawsuit to this Court, they filed a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition, and Defendants filed a reply in support. Plaintiffs later filed a supplement to their response, and Defendants filed an objection to the supplement, to which Plaintiffs filed a reply. The Court, now having been fully briefed on the relevant issues, will adjudicate Defendants' motion Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment \u201cshall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show . . . there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d The moving party bears this initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motions, and identifying those portions of the record \u201cwhich it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.\u201d Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court reviews the record by drawing all inferences most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/15 \u201cOnce the moving party carries its burden, the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings, but the adverse party's response . . . must set forth specific facts showing . . . there is a genuine issue for trial.\u201d Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The adverse *5 party must show more than \u201csome metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.\u201d Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. If an adverse party completely fails to make an offer of proof concerning an essential element of that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof, then all other facts are necessarily rendered immaterial and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. Hence, the granting of summary judgment involves a three-tier analysis. 5 First, the Court determines whether a genuine issue actually exists so as to necessitate a trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). An issue is genuine \u201cif the evidence is such that a reasonable [trier of fact] could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.\u201d Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Second, the Court must ascertain whether that genuine issue pertains to material facts. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The substantial law of the case identifies the material facts, that is, those facts that potentially affect the outcome of the suit. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Third, assuming no genuine issue exists as to the material facts, the Court will decide whether the moving party shall prevail solely as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Summary judgment is \u201cproperly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.\u201d Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327. The primary issue is whether the material facts present a substantive disagreement as to require a trial, or whether the facts are sufficiently one-sided that one party should prevail as a matter of law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52. The substantive law of the case identifies which facts are material. Id. at 248. Only disputed facts potentially affecting the outcome of the suit under the substantive law preclude the entry of summary judgment. *6 6 A. Applicable Law 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/15 1. Defamation \u201cThe tort of defamation allows a plaintiff to recover for injury to his or her reputation as the result of the defendant's communications to others of a false message about the plaintiff.\u201d Parrish v. Allison, 656 S.E.2d 382, 388 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007). \u201cDefamatory communications take two forms: libel and slander. Libel is the publication of defamatory material by written or printed words, by its embodiment in physical form or by any other form of communication that has the potentially harmful qualities characteristic of written or printed word. Slander is a spoken defamation.\u201d Id. \u201cThe elements of defamation include: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault on the part of the publisher; and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.\u201d Murray v. Holnam, Inc., 542 S.E.2d 743, 748 (S.C. Ct. App. 2001 communication is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.\u201d Id. 2. Qualified Privilege Concerning the second element of a defamation claim, the \u201cunprivileged publication to a third party[ ]\u201d element, id., \u201cthe defendant may assert the affirmative defense of conditional or qualified privilege. Under this defense, one who publishes defamatory matter concerning another is not liable for the publication if (1) the matter is published upon an occasion that makes it conditionally privileged, and (2) the privilege is not abused.\u201d Swinton Creek Nursery, 514 S.E.2d at 134. But, \u201c[t]he privilege extends only to a report of the contents of the public record and any *7 matter added to the report by the publisher, which is defamatory of the person named in the public records, is not privileged.\u201d Jones v. Garner, 158 S.E.2d 909, 913 (S.C. 1968). 7 Underlying the qualified privilege doctrine is the recognition \u201c[c]ourt proceedings are public events and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing the facts in them. Traditionally court records have been public records, generally open for public inspection. Fair reports of what is shown on public records may be circulated freely and without liability.\u201d Padgett v. 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/15 Sun News, 292 S.E.2d 30, 33 (S.C. 1982) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, \u201c[p]rivilege in reporting a judicial record is not measured by the legal sufficiency of the charges made in the judicial proceedings or the truth of those charges. The privilege consists of making a fair and substantially true account of the particular proceeding or record.\u201d Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3. Malice As to the third element of a defamation claim, the \u201cfault on the part of the publisher[,]\u201d Murray, 542 S.E.2d at 748, \u201c[i]f a communication is libelous, then the law presumes the defendant acted with common law malice[.]\u201d Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit, ACA, 514 S.E.2d 126, 134 (S.C. 1999). But,\u201d[w]here the occasion gives rise to a qualified privilege, there is a prima facie presumption to rebut the inference of malice, and the burden is on the plaintiff to show actual malice or that the scope of the privilege has been exceeded.\u201d Id. \u201cTo prove actual malice, the plaintiff must show . . . the defendant was activated by ill will in what he did, with the design to causelessly and wantonly injure the plaintiff; or that the statements were published with such recklessness as to show a conscious disregard for plaintiffs rights.\u201d Id. B. Whether there is a genuine issue of materials fact as to Defendants' affirmative defense of qualified privilege as to their December 2, 2020, and March 12, 2021, publications *8 8 According to Defendants, \u201c[t]o withstand [their] motion for summary judgment on defamation[,] [P]laintiffs must demonstrate . . . [D]efendants did not report fairly and substantially accurately information in the public records as those records existed at the time of the news reports.\u201d Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment at 14. \u201cTo meet this burden[,]\u201d Defendants contend, \u201c[P]laintiffs must point to documents in the public record at the time of the news reports which support a conclusion . . . [D]efendants' report was not a fair and substantially accurate summation of the contents of the public record.\u201d Id. 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/15 Plaintiffs, however, state \u201c[a] genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether Defendants have willfully disregarded material exculpatory information in its reporting of recanted allegations of sexual harassment- instead opting to repeat and republish stale, recanted and unsubstantiated allegations in five separate publications over a two-and-one-half year period.\u201d Plaintiffs' Response at 14. Concerning Plaintiffs' reference to the \u201cfive separate publications[,]\u201d id., the Court acknowledges Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that, \u201c[l]eading up to December 2, 2020, Defendants published a series of stories and hosted several online events relating to claims of harassment made by several individuals against . . . Voros, which also had serious negative implications and insinuations relating to . . . Stasko.\u201d Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint \u00b6 7. But, Plaintiffs' amended complaint specifically references only the December 2, 2020 and March 12, 2021, news reports; and a plaintiff is disallowed to raise a new claim in response to a summary judgment motion. See Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir.2004) (holding a plaintiff could not raise a new claim in response to a summary judgment motion). To the extent Plaintiffs seeks to constructively amend their complaint, the request is denied. *9 9 Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to say which other articles, previous to the December 2, 2020, news report, they are referring to; nor do they attempt to develop this argument. Thus, the Court also considers any argument concerning articles other than the December 2, 2020 and March 12, 2021, ones as being waived. See Russell v. Absolute Collection Servs., Inc., 763 F.3d 385, 396 n. * (4th Cir. 2014) (\u201cWe deem this perfunctory and undeveloped claim .\u201d). As the Court will explain below, Defendants have the better argument as to whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the proper application of their qualified privilege defense to the facts of this case. 1. Whether Dunavant's alleged recantation of some of her allegations is sufficient to overcome Defendants' qualified privilege argument 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/15 *10 Defendants argue \u201c[P]laintiffs have failed to demonstrate . . . a news report based on allegations in a suit between Dunavant and Voros was inaccurate based on their assertion . . . Dunavant had \u2018recanted' her allegations of sexual harassment against Voros in a deposition predating the filing of the Second Amended Complaint.\u201d Defendants Reply at 2. Plaintiffs, however, make much of their contention Dunavant recanted several of the allegations in her complaint against Voros during her April 8, 2019, deposition testimony. According to Voros, this deposition testimony was available to Defendants and they should have made it known to their readers. Plaintiffs contend Dunavant recanted the following three allegations they say are contained in her initial complaint against Voros: 1. \u201cWhile at Voros' house for a meal, [Dunavant] walked in on Voros and [Stasko] engaging in sexual acts.\u201d Plaintiff's Response at 1 (citation omitted). 10 2. \u201cVoros implied he wanted to engage in sexual acts with her as well.\u201d Id. (citation omitted). 3. \u201cVoros would place his hands on [Dunavant's] face and legs sexually[.]\u201d Id. (citation omitted). The Court has carefully read the December 2, 2020, and March 12, 2021, articles and notes they fail to specifically mention any of these allegations Dunavant supposedly later disavowed. In Dunavant's second amended complaint against Voros, which she filed on August 28, 2019, she made the following five allegations of Voros's unwanted sexual advances, which are relevant to the Court's consideration of the parties' arguments here: 1. Dunavant \u201cbelieved . . . the request for her to act more like [Stasko] was a request for [her] to engage in sexual acts with . . . Voros.\u201d Dunavant's Second Amended Complaint \u00b6 37. 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/15 *11 2. \u201cVoros would host dinners late into the night at his personal residence in which he would serve wine to all the students. During these dinners, . . . Voros placed his hands on [Dunavant's] face in a manner that was unwanted and made [her] uncomfortable.\u201d Id. \u00b6 38. 3. \u201cDuring dinner, Voros had also placed his hand on [Dunavant's] leg. This touching was also unwanted and made [her] uncomfortable.\u201d Id. \u00b6 39. 4. \u201cVoros . . . inflicted unwelcomed sexual contact on [Dunavant].\u201d Id. \u00b6 151. 5 \u201cwas grossly negligent in supervising Voros, allowing him to intentionally harm [Dunavant] through sexual harassment and creating a hostile environment in which no reasonable individual could feel safe while acting as an agent of where Voros was an employee.\u201d Id. \u00b6 191. 11 So, Dunavant made these allegations of Voros's unwanted sexual advances and other misbehavior in her August 28, 2019, second amended complaint. This was over four months after she purportedly reneged on some of her earlier allegations of Voros's misconduct in her April 8, 2019, deposition, but well before Defendants published their December 2, 2020 and March 12, 2021, news stories. Thus, given Dunavant's allegations of Voros's unwanted sexual advances in her second amended complaint, whether she recanted her original allegations of Voros's misconduct, is immaterial. This is so because, even after Dunavant's purported retraction of her earlier allegations of Voros's unwanted sexual advances, she made additional allegations of Voros's unwanted sexual advances later, which were a part of the Court's records and, therefore, available for Defendants to see and to report on in their December 2, 2020 and March 12, 2021, new articles. As such, Plaintiffs are unable to credibly argue either Defendants unfairly reported Dunavant's claims against him or he was harmed by Defendants' 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/15 failure to report on Dunavant's supposed repudiation of her earlier allegations in her initial complaint. Consequently, Plaintiffs are unable to pierce Defendants' qualified privilege defense with its recantation argument. 2. Whether any of Defendants' reports fall outside the reporting of judicial proceedings. Plaintiffs contend, \u201cbecause much of the content of the articles arise outside the report of judicial proceedings (i.e. Defendants' interviews and internal record review), the privilege is wholly inapplicable to those publications.\u201d Plaintiffs' Response at 11. But, like the \u201cother articles\u201d argument the Court discussed above, Plaintiffs fail to develop this argument. The Court, thus, deems it as being waived. See Russell, 763 F.3d at 396 n. * (\u201cWe deem this perfunctory and undeveloped claim waived.\u201d). 3. Whether Defendants' failure to retract either of the news reports establish malice *12 12 Plaintiffs maintain they \u201cwrote Defendants in January of 2022 demanding a retraction of these defamatory publications, and . . . Defendants did not provide any response, nor did they make any retractions of the inaccurate publications.\u201d Plaintiffs' Response at 13. Defendants fail to address this argument. \u201cRefusal to retract an exposed error tends to support a finding of actual malice.\u201d Zerangue v Newspapers, Inc., 814 F.2d 1066, 1071 (1987) (cited wit approval in Anderson v. The Augusta Chronicle, 585 S.E.2d 506, 520 (S.C. Ct. App.2003). But, the Court is unpersuaded Defendants were required to retract their stories about the allegations of Voros's sexual misconduct. They were merely reporting what was contained in the Court records. And, as the Court noted earlier, \u201ccourt records have been public records, generally open for public inspection. Fair reports of what is shown on public records may be circulated freely and without liability.\u201d Padgett, 292 S.E.2d at 33 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4. Whether Defendants' indirect mention of Stasko is privileged Defendants maintain \u201cPlaintiffs have offered no evidence . . . they can satisfy the requirement . . . the publications were understood by others to reference 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/15 Stasko.\u201d Defendants' Reply at 3. Plaintiffs contend, however, \u201c[t]he [December 2, 2020] article . . . states . . . a \u2018student's complaint, described in [Jaimie Misenhiemer's (Misenhiemer)] lawsuit alleges . . . Voros traded employment benefits to female faculty and or graduate students for sexual favors.'\u201d Plaintiffs' Complaint \u00b6 14. According to Plaintiffs, \u201c[i]t was well known by the community . . . these statements were describing . . . Stasko.\u201d Plaintiffs' Response at 4. But, Defendants' December 2, 2020, article merely parrots Misenhiemer's amended complaint, alleging, \u201c[u]pon information and belief, the student's complaint included that . . . Voros exchanged employment benefits to female faculty and/or graduate students in exchange for sexual favors, and . . . Voros and Stasko were engaging in an inappropriate relationship.\u201d Misenhiemer's *13 Amended Complaint \u00b6 22. The contents of what is contained in the Court's docket, again, \u201c may be circulated freely and without liability.\u201d Padgett, 292 S.E.2d at 33 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Hence, whether \u201c[i]t was well known by the community . . . these statements were describing . . . Stasko[,]\u201d Plaintiffs' Response at 4, is inconsequential. 13 5. Whether Defendants' statements describing Misenhiemer's complaint are false, and thus fall outside the protection of the qualified privilege doctrine The Court would be remiss if it failed to address a couple allegations in Plaintiffs' amended complaint, which the parties have neglected to discuss. As the Court stated above, Plaintiffs allege the \u201c[March 12, 2021,] article also states . . . both the new lawsuits accuse Voros of sexually harassing them, was and remains patently false, as the allegations made by . . . Misenhiemer do not support this statement.\u201d Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint \u00b6 13. What is patently false is this statement by Plaintiffs. The Court, having been assigned the Misenhiemer matter, is well aware of the accusations Misenheimer made of Voros sexually harassing her, which are contained in her amended complaint. Here is a partial list of those allegations: 1. \u201c[USC] was grossly negligent in supervising . . . Voros, allowing him to intentionally harm [Misenhiemer] through sexual 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/15 *14 harassment and to create a hostile environment in which no reasonable individual could feel safe while acting as an agent of [USC] . . . Voros was an employee.\u201d Misenhiemer's Amended Complaint \u00b6 91. 2. \u201c[Misenhiemer] was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment based on her sex from . . . Voros during her employment with [USC].\u201d Id. \u00b6 99. 3. \u201cSuch harassment affected tangible aspects of [Misenhiemer's] compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.\u201d Id. \u00b6 100. 4. \u201c[USC] knew or should have known of the harassment and took no effective remedial action.\u201d Id. \u00b6 101. 14 5. \u201c[Misenhiemer] was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment based on her sex from . . . Voros during her employment with [USC.\u201d Id. \u00b6 121. 6. \u201cSuch harassment affected tangible aspects of Plaintiff's compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.\u201d Id. \u00b6 122. 7. \u201cAppropriate persons, including [USC] and its officials, had actual knowledge of the harassment and took no effective remedial action.\u201d Id. \u00b6 123. 8. \u201cVoros intentionally and improperly interfered with [Misenhiemer's] contractual relations with [USC] and intentionally procured a breach of [her] employment contract with [USC] by [ ] harassing [her] in her workplace[.]\u201d Id. \u00b6 141. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' argument that Misenhiemer's lawsuit fails to allege Voros sexually harassed her is a clear example of Plaintiffs' fudging the facts. 6. Whether Defendants' statements describing Dunavant's complaint are false, and thus fall outside the protection of the qualified privilege doctrine 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/15 Equally and manifestly meritless is this false allegation from Plaintiffs' amended complaint: \u201c[The December 2, 2020,] article goes on to state . . . Voros was previously sued by \u2018a former student alleging he made unwanted sexual advances on her.'\u201d Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint \u00b6 9. According to Plaintiffs, \u201c[t]his reporting was and is a complete misrepresentation of the prior allegations made by [Dunavant][.]\u201d Id. \u00b6 10 The Court also presided over the Dunavant case and it also well aware of Dunavant's allegations of Voros's unwanted sexual advances and other misbehavior contained in her August 28, 2019, second amended complaint. The Court listed them above, and will thus refrain from listing them a second time here. In sum, the Court is unable to say there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the proper application of Defendants' qualified privilege defense to the facts of this case. Simply stated, the *15 Court is of the firm opinion Defendants made \u201ca fair and substantially true account of the particular . . . record[ ]\u201d in this case. Padgett, 292 S.E.2d at 33 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs have failed to provide, and the Court has been unable to find, any cases with similar facts in which a court found the defendant liable for libel. 15 Thus, inasmuch as Plaintiffs have been unable to establish any malice on Defendants' behalf, the Court concludes Defendants are entitled, as a matter of law, to the affirmative defense of qualified privilege as to their December 2, 2020, and March 12, 2021, publications. As such, it is appropriate for the Court to grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' defamation claim. The Court will decline from addressing the remainder of parties's arguments because the conclusions above are dispositive. See Karsten v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Mid-Atlantic States, Inc., 36 F.3d 8, 11 (4th Cir. 1994) (\u201cIf the first reason given is independently sufficient, then all those that follow are surplusage; thus, the strength of the first makes all the rest dicta 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/15 Consequently, based on the foregoing discussion and analysis, it is the judgment of the Court Defendants' motion for summary judgment is ORDERED. About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:04 Voros v. The Mcclatchy Co., Civil Action 3:22-01265 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/15", "8125_105.pdf": "Settles 2 Sexual Harassment Cases Against Ex-Professor Two former co-workers, one of whom is an ex-wife, and a former student filed sexual harassment lawsuits against the ex professor. Published: May 9, 2024 Author: Amy Rock Photo: zimmytws - stock.adobe.com \uf09a \uf099 \uf08c \uf0e0 COLUMBIA, S.C. \u2014 The University of South Carolina (USC) settled two lawsuits connected to sexual harassment complaints made against former art professor David Voros. The university agreed to pay a total of $280,000 to plaintiffs Pamela Bowers and Jaime Misenheimer, both of whom are former co-workers, The State reports. Misenheimer accused Voros of luring her into a dark closet in the visual arts building in Feb. 2017 and making sexual advances. Voros allegedly retaliated by giving her poor performance reviews and preventing \uf002 Trending High School Band Competition Shooting Injures 1 2024 Campus Safety Conference Resource Center Xtract One Gateway Selected by Manitoba Hospitals \uf002 Follow Us \ue093 \ue09a \ue09d \ue094 \ue0a3 Emerald Media Network Advertise Campus Safety Conference 2/16/25, 10:04 Settles 2 Sexual Harassment Lawsuits Against Ex-Professor 1/5 her from teaching classes. The lawsuit also alleges several students told Misenheimer in 2017 that Voros made them uncomfortable. Misenheimer subsequently filed an official complaint on behalf of a graduate student in April 2017, and Voros allegedly responded by intimidating her in her classroom while she was teaching. Misenheimer resigned from her job in May 2019 BELOW\u2014\u2014 Bowers, who is also Voros\u2019 ex-wife, accused Voros of making \u201cunwelcome physical and sexual advances\u201d towards her in her campus office after they separated in 2016. Bowers said the separation was partially due to Voros having \u201cone or more\u201d sexual relationships with students or former students previous lawsuit filed against Voros in 2018 by former student Allison Duvanant was settled for $75,000. Duvanant accused Voros of making sexual advances and subjecting her to manual labor and poor living conditions during a study abroad trip in Italy. After filing a complaint with several university officials, Bowers claims Voros would stand in her classroom doorway while she was teaching to intimidate her. He also allegedly taunted her and called her derogatory names. In Jan. 2018, Bowers claimed Voros went to her office and tried to hug and grope her. She asked him to leave and he did but he was waiting by her car later that day. Plaintiffs Accused Art Chair of Retaliation All three lawsuits allege multiple university officials enabled Voros\u2019 behavior and protected him by failing to adequately respond to their complaints. Bowers and Misenheimer claim Peter Chametzky, the then-chair of the School of Visual Art and Design, retaliated against them for filing complaints against Voros. Bowers said Chametzky \u201cunexpectedly\u201d visited her at her office and threatened her job after she complained to several university officials about the harassment. Misenheimer said she reported the Feb. 2017 incident to Chametzky but that he did not take any action. As part of the settlement, the university will give Misenheimer a letter of recommendation from Chametzky, according to Post and Courier Gave Ex-Professor Retirement Benefits Voros left in Jan. 2023 as part of a resignation agreement, which the university called retirement. As part of the agreement, USC\u2019s Educational Foundation agreed to pay a sum of money to the South Carolina 2/16/25, 10:04 Settles 2 Sexual Harassment Lawsuits Against Ex-Professor 2/5 retirement system so Voros could qualify as a 28-year employee and be eligible to receive full state retirement benefits. According to documents, the foundation purchased three years, five months, and 16 days of service credit from the state. Voros cannot seek or accept future employment at USC, and agreed to discharge from any additional cost or complaints. Voros and the university are not allowed to make disparaging or defamatory comments about each other, per the agreement. Voros last taught classes on campus in 2020. After a year-long paid sabbatical, the university agreed to allow him to teach several online classes in the spring semester of 2022. The university later reverded that decision following backlash. Posted in: News Tagged with: Assault, Harassment, Lawsuits, Mandated Reporting, Sexual Harassment, Student Safety, Title IX, University Security Related Posts Students Create a Culture of Belonging on National No One Eats Alone Day 90% of Americans Want Bystanders to Use AEDs But Less Than 50% Believe They Have Same Responsibility 7 Years Later: The Heroes and Victims of the Parkland School Shooting 2 Pro-Palestine Student Groups Suspended for Vandalizing Regent\u2019s Home 2/16/25, 10:04 Settles 2 Sexual Harassment Lawsuits Against Ex-Professor 3/5 Contact Us Emerald Expositions 31910 Del Obispo, Suite 200 San Juan Capistrano 92675 Phone: 800-440-2139 Customer Service: 774-505-8058 Social: \ue093 \ue09a \ue09d \ue094 \ue0a3 General News Insights Resources Awards Podcasts Sponsored Press Releases Topics View All Posts \u00bb Active Assailant Clery / Title Emergency Management Hospital Security Mental Health Public Safety School Safety Security Technology Facilities Management University Security Awards Campus Safety Awards Director of the Year Awards About Us About Us Editorial Team Advertise with Us General News Insights Topics View All Posts \u00bb Active Assailant 2/16/25, 10:04 Settles 2 Sexual Harassment Lawsuits Against Ex-Professor 4/5 \u00a9 2025 Emerald X, LLC. All Rights Reserved Contact Us Emerald Expositions 31910 Del Obispo, Suite 200 San Juan Capistrano 92675 Phone: 800-440-2139 Customer Service: 774-505-8058 \ue093 \ue09a \ue09d \ue094 \ue0a3 Resources Awards Podcasts Sponsored Press Releases Clery / Title Emergency Management Hospital Security Mental Health Public Safety School Safety Security Technology Facilities Management University Security Resources Campus Safety Awards Director of the Year Awards About Us About Us Editorial Team Advertise with Us 2/16/25, 10:04 Settles 2 Sexual Harassment Lawsuits Against Ex-Professor 5/5", "8125_106.pdf": "(/) Upcoming Event (/SUBSCRIBE) Home(/) > News(Https://Sclawyersweekly.Com/News/Category/News/) > Headlines(Https://Sclawyersweekly.Com/News/Category/News/News-Briefs pays $280K to settle harassment cases pays $280K to settle harassment cases South Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff ( // May 9, 2024 // 1 Minute Read 2Fusc-pays-280k-to- harassment%20cases) (mailto:?subject pays $280K to settle harassment cases&body \u2014 Settling two sexual harassment lawsuits filed by co- workers of a former art professor has cost the University of South Carolina $280,000. David Voros, who was an art professor... You can read the content in details following link https%3A%2F%2Fsclawyersweekly.com%2Fnews%2F2024%2F05%2F09%2Fusc- pays-280k-to-settle-harassment-cases%2F) Listen to this article \u2014 Settling two sexual harassment lawsuits filed by co-workers of a former art professor has cost the University of South Carolina $280,000. David Voros, who was an art professor in the College of Arts and Sciences before he left the university in what the school said was retirement in 2023, was accused of sexual harassment in 2020 lawsuits filed by co-workers Jaime Misenheimer and Pamela Bowers, who also is Voros\u2019 ex- wife, The State newspaper reported public records request by the newspaper found that Misenheimer\u2019s case was settled for $120,000 and Bowers\u2019 for $160,000. Voros also was sued in 2018 by former student Allison Duvanant; the case was settled for $75,000. All three women said that they had reported their cases to university officials, but that no action was taken, the newspaper reported. Voros challenged the settlements thought it important for the facts to be considered in a court of law,\u201d he said in a statement given to The State by his attorney do not believe that justice was served in the outcome.\u201d Jeff Stensland, a university spokesman, did not comment on the settlements. Related Content South Carolina Newsletter Sign up for your daily digest of South Carolina News. By signing up you agree to our Privacy Policy ( policy/) Sign In (/User-Login/?Dmcss=Login) Select Region or Brand Manage Account News (/news/category/news/) Events (/south- carolina- events/) Opinion Digests (/news/category/opinion- digest/) Verdicts & Settlements (/news/category/verdicts- settlements/) Classifieds (/classifieds/) Press Releases (/people- in-the- law- sclw/) Advertise ( 2/) Search \u2014 Dr. David Carlos Rodriguez Jr., 50, of Florence, was sentenced to almost five years in federal pr[...] February 14, 2025 Court sentences doctor in drugs-for-sex scheme South Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff Where a man argued the District Court erred when it sentenced him as an ar[...] February 13, 2025 4th Circuit: Appeal waiver forecloses challenge to sentence Business Law ( law/) Economy forces attorneys to get down to\u2026 Business Court judges trawl for customer\u2026 Va. company's Web site did not subject\u2026 Former running back from S.C. wins\u2026 Contract \u2013 Government Contract \u2013 Qui Ta\u2026 Licenses & Permits \u2013 Beer & Wine Permit \u2026 Consumer Protection \u2013 Auto Loan\u2026 Licenses & Permits \u2013 Veterinarian \u2013\u2026 Tort \u2013 Business Tort \u2013 Va. Computer\u2026 Textile firm, railroad settle Graniteville trai\u2026 State regulators look at car dealer accuse\u2026 Subprime mortgage meltdown hits\u2026 See all Business Law News The Power List ( features/) 02/sclw- Employment Law Power List 2024 Listen to this article Please click below for our Employment Law Power List 2024: South Carolina\u2026 ( list-employment-law/) Commentary We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking \u201cAccept\u201d, you consent to the use of the cookies. Cookie settings 2/16/25, 10:04 pays $280K to settle harassment cases \u2013 South Carolina Lawyers Weekly 1/4 Polls How Is My Site? Good Excellent Bad Can Be Improved No Comments View Results (/feed) ( SC/South-Carolina-Lawyers- Weekly/78670228940) ( Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking News alerts. Sign-up for Lawyers Weekly Email Alerts (/email-alert-sign-up (/feed) ( SC/South-Carolina-Lawyers- Weekly/78670228940) ( ( gid=3218056 Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking News alerts. Sign-up for Lawyers Weekly Email Alerts (/email-alert-sign-up/) (/) ( sentences-doctor-in-drugs-for-sex-scheme/) ( appeal-waiver-forecloses-challenge-to-sentence/) ( mace-accuses-ex-fiance-and-associates-of-assaulting-her- and-raping-others-in-house-speech/) Rep. Nancy Mace accuses ex-fianc\u00e9 and associates of assaulting her and raping others i\u2026 CHAPIN, S.C. (AP) \u2014 Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina on Monday used a nearly hour-long speech on the U.S.[. [...] February 11, 2025 ( attorneys-general-campaign-group-brings-back-leader-who- resigned-in-aftermath-of-jan-6 state attorneys general campaign group brings back leader who resigned in aftermath o\u2026 An organization with the mission of electing Republicans to state attorney general positions is bringing back [...] February 10, 2025 ( creates-5-million-fund-for-nwsl-players-after-abuse-scandal/) Settlement creates $5 million fund for players after abuse scandal The National Women's Soccer League will establish a $5 million fund for players as part of a settlement that s[...] February 5, 2025 ( carolina-puts-inmate-marion-bowman-jr-to-death-in-states- third-execution-since-september/) South Carolina puts inmate Marion Bowman Jr. to death in state\u2019s third execution since\u2026 COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) \u2014 South Carolina put a third inmate to death in four months Friday as it goes through[..[...] February 3, 2025 ( Report tracks staffing, tech, work trends in\u2026 Happy New Year \u2014 or whatever\u2026 Industry danger prompts to ta\u2026 Plan today for \u201926 end of the gift, estate ta\u2026 How to manage key stakeholders\u2026 Steps help prevent transactional legal\u2026 Court upholds two-prong test for repetitiv\u2026 Have your clients tread carefully in wage\u2026 Top 5 LinkedIn tips every lawyer should\u2026 Balancing business, big decisions at\u2026 Daniel I. Small: As a trial lawyer, try to do\u2026 Retainer agreements can help avoid\u2026 See all Commentary We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking \u201cAccept\u201d, you consent to the use of the cookies. Cookie settings 2/16/25, 10:04 pays $280K to settle harassment cases \u2013 South Carolina Lawyers Weekly 2/4 News (/news/category/news/) Events (/south- carolina- events/) Opinion Digests (/news/category/opinion- digest/) Verdicts & Settlements (/news/category/verdicts- settlements/) Classifieds (/classifieds/) Press Releases (/people-in-the- law-sclw South Carolina provides 24/7 legal news coverage and events honoring top legal professionals Login (/user-login/? dmcss=login) Subscribe (/subscribe/) Manage Account (/manage-account-fc) Group Subscription ( 002e/t/page/fm/0) Subscriber Agreement ( agreement About Us (/south- carolina-lawyers- weekly/) Contact Us (/contact- us (/frequently-asked- questions Advertising ( 2/) Media Kit ( kit/) Classifieds (/classifieds/) Reprints ( ( ( Carolina-Lawyers- Weekly/78670228940) We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking \u201cAccept\u201d, you consent to the use of the cookies. Cookie settings 2/16/25, 10:04 pays $280K to settle harassment cases \u2013 South Carolina Lawyers Weekly 3/4 Get our free South Carolina Daily Record e-alerts & breaking news notifications ( c.newsmemory.com/) ( sc.newsmemory.com/ssindex.php) ubscribe (/subscribe) for access to the latest digital and special editions. \u00a9 2025 BridgeTower Media. All rights reserved. Use of this website is subject to its Terms of Use ( | Privacy Policy ( | Your California Privacy Rights/Privacy Policy ( | Do Not Sell My Info/Cookie Policy ( We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking \u201cAccept\u201d, you consent to the use of the cookies. Cookie settings 2/16/25, 10:04 pays $280K to settle harassment cases \u2013 South Carolina Lawyers Weekly 4/4", "8125_107.pdf": "46\u00b0 Columbia 2 Weather Alerts In Effect \uf00d \uf0c9 Live News First Alert Weather \uf002 COLUMBIA, S.C. (WIS) -Two University of South Carolina professors accused of sexual harassment are leaving the university. David Voros, a painting professor, retired from the university in January, according to spokesman Jeff Stensland. Theater professor Robert Richmond, whose legal name is Bourne, will resign effective July 1. Neither had been teaching for some time. Stensland said that Voros had not taught classes since 2020, while Bourne had not taught since 2021. He would not say whether their departures are related to complaints or pending lawsuits against them. However, Voros was slated to teach three online classes in the spring of 2021, but after student protests, the university decided not to give any teaching assignments to either professor that spring. In October 2021, the university sent an email to students from Joel Samuels, the Interim Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Two professors accused of sexual harassment leaving the university Watch News 10 at 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. By Nick Neville Published: Apr. 7, 2023 at 7:11 2/16/25, 10:05 Two professors accused of sexual harassment leaving the university 1/5 It said in part, \u201cSoon after becoming Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences learned about concerning allegations of interpersonal misconduct by faculty and staff across the campus, including in this College have listened as many of you have expressed concerns about the University\u2019s handling of these allegations understand the desire to see more concrete action. Therefore, in the best interest of the entire campus community am writing today to let you know that, with the approval of the Provost, Professor David Voros and Professor Robert Bourne will not be assigned any teaching responsibilities in the upcoming Spring semester and will remain barred from campus unless specifically authorized by Provost Cutler or me hope this action provides some reassurance that the concerns voiced by many in our community have been heard \u2014 both by me and by University leaders.\u201d In a court deposition from December of last year, Voros revealed that he had instead been reviewing the syllabi, and developing an online course curriculum. He was sued in 2018 by a female student who alleged that he made unwanted advances toward her, and retaliated against her. Samantha Albrecht, the lawyer who represented the woman, told the lawsuit has been settled and resolved. In court documents, Voros claimed the woman \u201crecanted\u201d some of her allegations. He had denied the woman\u2019s claims. There are two pending lawsuits against Voros. One is from his ex-wife, a professor, who alleges that he sexually harassed her and created a hostile work environment for her. Another, from a former professor, alleges that Voros took her into a dark closet of an unused classroom and held a plastic head in front of her face. The lawsuit claims that Voros then whispered into her ear to look through a small window in the closet. The former professor said that she could feel Voros\u2019 breath on her skin, and felt intimidated. Voros in court documents said this is an art tool that all students utilize. Complaints against Bourne were filed with the university, but there are no lawsuits against him. Voros\u2019 lawyer, Damon Wlodarczyk sent a statement on Friday, which reads in part cannot comment on pending litigation other than to state that Mr. Voros vehemently denies the allegations in the present actions reached out to Bourne to ask why he was resigning from his position but did not receive a response. Notice a spelling or grammar error in this article? Click or tap here to report it. Please include the article's headline. Stay up to date with News 10. Get the app from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and Stream us on Roku, YouTube, Amazon Fire, or Apple TV. Copyright 2023 WIS. All rights reserved. Most Read \uf144 Viral fight video shared by Richland County Sheriff\u2019s Department originated in North Carolina 2/16/25, 10:05 Two professors accused of sexual harassment leaving the university 2/5 All lanes blocked on Interstate 77 South at Forest Drive \uf144 Sumter police: Man killed in Walmart shooting, 19-year-old in custody \uf144 Victim identified after fatal Walmart shooting in Sumter, 19-year-old in custody \uf144 Tracking chance rain, wind this weekend ahead of wintry weather potential next week \uf144 Tracking a potential wintry mix for this week \uf144 Columbia Police investigate shooting near shopping center on Fairfield Road \uf144 Person killed after running across I-20 East in Columbia, law enforcement says 2/16/25, 10:05 Two professors accused of sexual harassment leaving the university 3/5 Latest News South Carolina prepares to face UConn in marquee Sunday matchup \uf144 \uf144 Tracking a potential wintry mix for this week BLOG: South Carolina prepares to face UConn in marquee Sunday matchup \uf144 Power outages reported across the Midlands during Sunday storm Columbia Police investigate shooting near shopping center on Fairfield Road \uf144 \uf144 Columbia Police investigate shooting near shopping center on Fairfield Road 2/16/25, 10:05 Two professors accused of sexual harassment leaving the university 4/5 \uf144 Officials: Morning earthquake reported in South Carolina \uf144 Victim identified after fatal Walmart shooting in Sumter, 19-year-old in custody Terms of Use Privacy Policy Public Inspection File [email protected] - 803-799-1010 Applications Report Careers Closed Captioning/Audio Description Advertising Digital Marketing At Gray, our journalists report, write, edit and produce the news content that informs the communities we serve. Click here to learn more about our approach to artificial intelligence Gray Local Media Station \u00a9 2002-2025 News First Alert Weather Sunrise Sports Contact Submit a News Tip 1111 Bull St. Columbia 29201 (803) 799-1010 2/16/25, 10:05 Two professors accused of sexual harassment leaving the university 5/5"} |
7,369 | Ambrose Garner | Hillsborough Community College | [
"7369_101.pdf"
] | {"7369_101.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Garner v. State Com'n of Ethics District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District Oct 31, 1983 439 So. 2d 894 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Delegate legal research to CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free No. 82-2619. September 14, 1983. Rehearing Denied October 31, 1983. Appeal from the Commission on Ethics. Joseph C. Jacobs and Dean Bunch of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom Kitchen, Tallahassee, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Patricia R. Gleason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Philip C. Claypool, Staff Atty., Com'n on Ethics, Tallahassee, for appellee. *895 895 Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details 2/16/25, 10:05 Garner v. State Com'n of Ethics, 439 So. 2d 894 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/4 LEHAN, Judge. Complaints were filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics (the \"Commission\") against appellant alleging that he corruptly used or attempted to use his official position as president of Hillsborough Community College to sexually harass or obtain sexual favors from various female subordinate personnel and that such behavior constituted a violation of section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (1981). After finding that the complaints were legally sufficient, conducting an investigation, finding probable cause to proceed, and charging appellant with five instances of the foregoing conduct, the Commission conducted an extensive hearing. Following that hearing, the Commission entered a final order which contained findings of fact and law sustaining the charges and which recommended that appellant be suspended from office for three months. In re Ambrose Garner, 5 F.A.L.R. 105 (Jan. 24, 1983). Appellant appeals that order of the Commission. We affirm. One of appellant's contentions on appeal is that section 112.313(6) is unconstitutional as applied in this case. Appellant previously raised the issue of the constitutionality of that section by reason of asserted vagueness when he sought injunctive relief to prevent the Commission from proceeding on the complaints filed against him. The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit denied injunctive relief, and the First District Court of Appeal affirmed. The First District found that the allegations against appellant were within the jurisdiction of the Commission under section 112.313(6) and that section 112.313(6) is not unconstitutionally vague. Garner v. Florida Commission on Ethics, 415 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1st 1982), pet. for review denied, 424 So.2d 761 (Fla. 1983). We have carefully considered appellant's arguments to the contrary but believe that that determination by the First District, which became the law of this case, is not incorrect and that section 112.313(6) was not unconstitutional as applied. Section 112.313(6) provides that \"No public officer or employee of an agency shall corruptly use or attempt to use his official position . . . to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself or others.\" Section 112.313(7) defines \"corruptly\" as \"done with a wrongful intent and for the 2/16/25, 10:05 Garner v. State Com'n of Ethics, 439 So. 2d 894 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/4 purpose of obtaining . . . any benefit resulting from some act or omission of a public servant which is inconsistent with the proper performance of his public duties.\" Appellant contends that the statute did not give adequate notice that sexual harassment, with which he was charged, was prohibited; that the statute is intended to cover only economic benefit; and that, since there were no adverse job-related effects upon employees who were allegedly subjected to Appellant's conduct, a requisite nexus between the alleged conduct and such effects was not shown. However, the charges included the obtaining of sexual favors, which we cannot say are not \"any benefit\" within the generally understood meaning of the term and the receipt of which was, in this context within the foregoing definition of \"corruptly,\" inconsistent with the performance of official duties. Also, no legislative intent to restrict the reach of the statute to economic benefits appears. See Tenney v. Commission on Ethics, 395 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 2d 1981). In addition, the statute does not specifically require that as a result of a public officer's efforts to obtain a benefit from an employee, that employee will necessarily be impacted in any particular way. In any event, appellant's conduct was shown to have been incident to appellant's official position; as to one of the incidents there was evidence which, while strongly contested, could have supported a finding that the uncooperative recipient of sexual advances lost her job as the result of that lack of cooperation. Pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes (1981), we have reviewed the record and the Commission's order which found that the alleged conduct occurred in the five alleged instances and that various other instances of that type of conduct had previously occurred. We cannot hold that there was not competent substantial evidence *896 in the record to support the findings of the Commission, specifically the finding that the alleged acts constituted use of appellant's official position to obtain benefits inconsistent with the proper performance of his official duties. 896 We have also considered appellant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. AFFIRMED. 2/16/25, 10:05 Garner v. State Com'n of Ethics, 439 So. 2d 894 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/4 DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:05 Garner v. State Com'n of Ethics, 439 So. 2d 894 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/4"} |
7,602 | Rodney Hicks | Texas Tech University | [
"7602_101.pdf",
"7602_102.pdf",
"7602_103.pdf",
"7602_104.pdf"
] | {"7602_101.pdf": "35\u00b0 Lubbock \uf0c9 Livestream News Video professor ordered to not contact students, resigned under pressure Published: Jul. 14, 2010 at 9:41 | Updated: Dec. 15, 2014 at 12:45 2/16/25, 10:05 professor ordered to not contact students, resigned under pressure 1/5 By James Clark | email former Texas Tech Health Sciences Center professor resigned under pressure NewsChannel 11 has learned in a follow up story from late June. 2/16/25, 10:05 professor ordered to not contact students, resigned under pressure 2/5 The Texas Tech released new documents Wednesday after an open records request. Included is the resignation letter of Rod Hicks Ph.D. dated June 25th. Also included is a letter from President Tedd Mitchell June 24th telling Hicks that he is suspended and ordering him \"not to come on the campus or interact with students\u2026\" Hicks' resignation is one sentence. It says wish to voluntarily separate from the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center as soon as possible.\" Sources in the medical and academic communities told NewsChannel 11 that Hicks was found to have been viewing sexually oriented material in an Internet video feed that students were instructed to watch. The video started with official instruction and then changed to Hick's personal Internet usage after the instruction was over. More recently NewsChannel 11 has learned from sources that the sexually oriented materials did not consist of images. But rather, they consisted of written descriptions of fictitious activities that if carried out would be illegal. Last month NewsChannel 11 broke the story that Hicks was removed from the Endowed Chair for Patient Safety at the request of University Medical Center, which put up the money for the program back in 2008. Some documents, including the Internet video, were not provided because the says they could interfere with the Texas Tech police department investigation a spokesperson said. However, one documented complaint of Hicks' behavior was released. It appears to have come from an staffer but name, gender, and other identifiers have been removed from the publicly released copy. It says on December 4th 2009 Hicks pushed himself into the other person's arm in what some people would describe as sexual or inappropriate way. The text of the complaint says in part, \"The manner in which he pressed against me was very purposeful and forceful and was the only part of his body touching me.\" It goes on to say was in shock and began to have an anxiety attack.\" Hicks also resigned from his position as Vice President of the Texas Nurses Association. Copyright 2010 KCBD. All rights reserved. Most Read \uf144 Juvenile in custody, 1 injured after shots fired at South Plains Mall \uf144 Deadly fire at University Club Apartments caused by \u2018improperly discarded cigarette\u2019 \uf144 Raising money for nonprofits at 73rd annual Lubbock Lions Club Pancake Festival 2/16/25, 10:05 professor ordered to not contact students, resigned under pressure 3/5 \uf144 Affidavit: Patient seen with bloody mouth, fractured tooth after being struck by staff member Reward offered for information after deadly shooting in North Lubbock One dead after fight in north Lubbock First responders on scene of structure fire in Levelland \uf144 Lubbock Public Health Confirms Positive Case of Measles in Lubbock Resident Public Inspection File Report Applications [email protected] - 806-744-1414 Closed Captioning/Audio Description Advertising Digital Marketing Terms of Service Privacy Policy Customize At Gray, our journalists report, write, edit and produce the news content that informs the communities we serve. Click here to learn more about our approach to artificial intelligence Gray Local Media Station \u00a9 2002-2025 News Weather Sports About Us Contests Careers 9810 University Ave. Lubbock 79423 (806) 744-1414 2/16/25, 10:05 professor ordered to not contact students, resigned under pressure 4/5 2/16/25, 10:05 professor ordered to not contact students, resigned under pressure 5/5", "7602_102.pdf": "Nursing Prof Says His Kiddie|Sex Fantasies Were Private / October 8, 2012 former nursing professor claims in court that the Texas Board of Nursing unfairly disciplined him for accidentally posting on the Internet a long web chat about \"fantasies of sexual contact with minors.\" Rodney Wayne Hicks, of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., sued the Texas Board of Nursing, its Executive Director Katherine Thomas and President Kristen Benton in Travis County Court. Hicks claims that though he is primarily a professor, his license to practice as a nurse in Texas is encumbered by a July disciplinary order from the board that sanctioned him with a warning and stipulations. \"The order disciplines Dr. Hicks for inadvertently disseminating a sexually explicit chat to graduate nursing students in the course of creating an online tutorial for his software program, eLOGS,\" the complaint states. \"The order requires Dr. Hicks to take remedial education courses, provide 64 hours of monthly direct patient care in Texas for a year, undergo monitoring of his clinical practice by another family nurse practitioner or doctor and undergo employer monitoring.\" Hicks claims he slipped up because of unfamiliarity with the WebEx video- capture software that he used to create the tutorial for eLOGS. \"As a result, unbeknownst to Dr. Hicks, WebEx continued recording his computer screen activity for over six hours,\" the complaint states. \"During that time, Dr. Hicks engaged in a sexually oriented fantasy chat in a private Internet chat room that encompassed various explicit and taboo topics. These topics include fantasies of sexual contact with minors, of sexual activity in the presence of minors, and other unorthodox sexual activity.\" The entire chat was recorded onto the WebEx video file and automatically uploaded to the Internet when the computer was shut down, Hicks says in the complaint nursing student viewed the chat and reported it to the board and to police. Although Hicks was not criminally charged or arrested, the board referred him to a psychologist for a sex offender evaluation. \"No finding of pedophilia was present though the psychologist did diagnose Dr. Hicks with a personality disorder and a paraphilia,\" the complaint states. Hicks claims the discipline and sanction should be voided because the chat was conducted in the privacy of his home and not within the scope of his nursing profession. He claimis there is no evidence that the chat took place while he was practicing, that he was merely providing a software tutorial for eLOGS, a program written by non-nurses that does not require nursing knowledge for use. Try Litigation Reports or Log in Sunday, February 16, 2025 | Back issues Log in to CasePortal Sunday, February 16, 2025 Free Litigation Reports Find Judicial Opinions 2/16/25, 10:05 Nursing Prof Says His Kiddie|Sex Fantasies Were Private | Courthouse News Service 1/2 Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Connect with us on our social channels: \u00a9 2025, Courthouse News Service About Us / Masthead / Advertise / Terms of Use / Privacy Policy / Support Hicks also claims that he was not acting as a nursing professor for Texas Tech at the time, that he was on vacation and that graduation for the semester had already taken place the week before. \"Dr. Hicks was acting merely as an eLOGS support person and not as a nursing professor,\" the complaint states. Hicks claims that under board rules, he must be a practicing nurse during the misconduct to be disciplined. He claims the discipline is arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional because it violates his free speech and privacy rights. The stipulations are also arbitrary because the 64 hours of care requirement \"makes the order a perpetual order because Dr. Hicks has no intention of living in Texas,\" the complaint states. Hicks seeks judicial review and a reversal of the board's discipline. He is represented by Louis Leichter of Austin. Follow @davejourno Categories Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world. enter your e-mail address Additional Reads Contributor-Test-Post- 2025-02-15 February 15, 2025 Contributor-Test-Post- 2025-02-15 February 15, 2025 Contributor-Test-Post- 2025-02-15 February 15, 2025 Contributor-Test-Post- 2025-02-15 February 15, 2025 Subscribe to Closing Arguments Submit 2/16/25, 10:05 Nursing Prof Says His Kiddie|Sex Fantasies Were Private | Courthouse News Service 2/2", "7602_103.pdf": "Off duty, under scrutiny: How much off- the-clock behavior can the state regulate? Eric Dexheimer [email protected] Published 11:01 p.m Feb. 9, 2013 Updated 5:28 a.m Sept. 27, 2018 Three years ago, while on his computer at home one evening, professor Rodney Hicks clicked the wrong button. After digitally recording a lesson for his graduate nursing students at Texas Tech University, he accidentally reduced the screen instead of completely exiting out of it. Then he logged onto a private chat room. Because he hadn\u2019t closed the window, the program continued to capture screen shots of his sexually explicit session. Hicks, who holds a doctorate in his field and taught under an endowed professorship, had earned high reviews as both a nurse and an academic. Months earlier, the Texas Tech University Health Science Center\u2019s School of Nursing had named him \u201cOutstanding Teacher of the Year.\u201d In more than 30 years of nursing practice he\u2019d never had a patient complaint filed against him, court records say. Colleagues praised his high ethical standards. But when the single college student who saw the mistakenly posted graphic discussion reported it, none of that mattered. Hicks said he left his university job under pressure in 2011. The Austin-based state Board of Nursing also moved to suspend or revoke the professional license essential to his livelihood. Even though he was never charged with any crime, the board asserted Hicks had nevertheless engaged in \u201cunprofessional or dishonorable conduct\u201d that threatened patient and public safety. It\u2019s not an isolated case. In recent years, Texas boards that oversee the growing number of state-regulated occupations have punished licensed professionals not for on-the-job missteps that imperil the public, but for legal behavior that occurs outside of work hours \u2014 often 2/16/25, 10:06 Off duty, under scrutiny: How much off-the-clock behavior can the state regulate? 1/8 saying the incidents dishonor the profession or indicate character failings that might seep into their work. Legal critics say the cases are based on an unproven connection between off-duty behavior and acceptable work performance, and that they distract licensing boards from attending to genuine public threats. Once regulators begin linking professional licenses to personal behavior that, while perhaps objectionable is not against the law, they say it\u2019s hard to know where to stop. \u201cShould we take away the license of a cardiologist who smokes cigarettes?\u201d asked Adam Slote, a San Francisco lawyer considered an expert in the field through his representation of nurses in several high-profile California cases. \u201cOr the nurse who doesn\u2019t vaccinate her children, or the Realtor who goes into foreclosure because he paid too much for his own home?\u201d Civil libertarians fear such broad reach can overstep the government\u2019s authority don\u2019t think that when people get an occupational license they should be giving up their privacy,\u201d said Marc Levin, an analyst with the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. Board of Nursing Executive Director Katherine Thomas stressed that regulators must act aggressively on behalf of patients who in many instances can\u2019t look out for themselves. \u201cIf you are a nurse, you are caring for the most vulnerable people \u2014 unconscious, elderly, children \u2014 who are putting their entire trust in you,\u201d she said. \u201cYou need to uphold standards to where that trust is deserved.\u201d She added that it is uncommon for nurses to be sanctioned for their legal off-duty actions. Yet the board also has taken the official position that a licensed nurse may be judged on his or her behavior 24 hours a day, regardless of whether he or she is on the clock. In 2009, after nurse Terri Dye reached into her car and drew a handgun on an unfamiliar man advancing aggressively on her in a Lubbock hospital parking lot, a jury may or may not have concluded she acted in self-defense; the man, a process server in her divorce, never filed a complaint. But that didn\u2019t stop the nursing board from moving in 2011 to suspend her license. Never mind that Dye hadn\u2019t yet checked in at work, where her nursing skills were not in question: In legal filings, regulators contended the parking lot incident had grave \u2014 if theoretical \u2014 implications for patients. While none had actually witnessed the incident, a board expert testified that if they had, they might have been frightened by the gun. 2/16/25, 10:06 Off duty, under scrutiny: How much off-the-clock behavior can the state regulate? 2/8 Dye\u2019s behavior \u201cdid not conform to the minimum standards of nursing practice [because] Dye did not appropriately assess the situation,\u201d the board\u2019s legal filings explained. \u201cIf a nurse reacts without appropriately assessing a situation, it could cause an unsafe environment.\u201d \u201cIt was \u2018could\u2019ve, could\u2019ve, could\u2019ve,\u2019\u201d recalled Dye, who now lives in Amarillo. At the judge\u2019s recommendation, the board eventually decided not to punish Dye for the incident. But its final order in the matter stressed its authority: \u201cThe Board reiterates that a nurse may be subject to disciplinary action for unprofessional or dishonorable conduct whether such conduct occurs while the nurse is \u2018on duty or on call\u2019 or not.\u201d Casting wide net Other state-regulated professions have seen similar cases. In July 2011, the Texas Education Agency revoked the license of a teacher who\u2019d had a sexual relationship with a high school student. Yet Plano teacher Robert Lange didn\u2019t know the 18-year-old from his classes; she was enrolled in a different school district in a different county. The two had met in a non-school activity and the legally adult woman \u201cfully consented\u201d to the relationship, court documents show. No charges were filed because no laws were broken. The agency nevertheless found Lange \u201cunworthy to instruct\u201d and permanently revoked his license. Lange, 56, who taught for 30 years, is appealing the decision. \u201cWhen all you have in play is lawful personal behavior \u2014 not relevant to the license in any way \u2014 how do you get to \u2018unworthy to instruct?\u2019\u201d asked his Austin attorney, Kevin Lungwitz. The answer is that some regulators have adopted rules that allow for broad interpretation. Texas\u2019s description of \u201cunworthy to teach,\u201d for example, has been defined in a key court case as essentially undefinable: \u201cWhat qualities or lack of qualities should render one unworthy would be difficult for legislative enumeration.\u201d That allows licensers to cast a wide net. In 2006, Houston school teacher Carmelita Anderson decided she wanted to teach her then-10-year-old foster son a vivid lesson. The boy had been in trouble \u2014 stealing, lying and smoking \u2014 so Anderson, who had also worked with prisoners and emotionally disturbed youth, decided to offer a quick \u201chomeless\u201d lesson that they\u2019d discussed in the past, court records show. 2/16/25, 10:06 Off duty, under scrutiny: How much off-the-clock behavior can the state regulate? 3/8 She let the boy off on a street a few minutes from their home and drove off, keeping an eye on him in the mirror. She said she drove 500 feet, performed two u-turns, and picked him up. \u201cYou were out here less than a minute,\u201d she said as they debriefed in the car. \u201cImagine your life like this forever.\u201d Two Houston police officers had observed the incident, however, and Anderson was charged with child endangerment for leaving the boy alone on the side of a busy road at dusk. Prosecutors declined to pursue the charges. Child Protective Services and the school district both investigated and dropped the matter. But the state moved to suspend Anderson\u2019s teaching certificate anyway. While she had earned glowing job evaluations working as a teacher, the out-of-school incident proved she \u201clacks fitness\u201d to instruct children, the regulatory board said. It eventually voted to reprimand Anderson. Similarly, the nursing board can discipline licensees for any conduct that might hurt not just patients, but also \u201cthe public.\u201d It doesn\u2019t have to prove actual harm to pursue disciplinary proceedings. In 2010, when Ollie Traylor was found asleep on the couch at the house of her Houston home health patient, the state nursing board moved to revoke her license. The judge concluded her conduct wasn\u2019t serious; there was no evidence it had happened repeatedly, for example, or that Traylor\u2019s nap harmed, or was likely to harm, the patient. He recommended dropping the case. The board disagreed, contending it only had to show there was potential for patient harm. Last July, it overrode the judge\u2019s recommendation and revoked Traylor\u2019s license. The nursing board\u2019s definition of \u201cpatient,\u201d too, has been expansive. Hospice nurse Lori Jan Vazquez cared for a man dying of cardiac disease in Austin for two months in late 2007. The two stayed in touch afterwards, and he gave Vazquez and her children several gifts before he died. In 2010, when regulators sought to reprimand Vazquez for violating \u201cthe professional boundaries of the nurse/patient relationship\u201d for accepting the gifts, she noted their professional relationship had ended. Before he\u2019d died, the patient testified he gave her the gifts as a friend. 2/16/25, 10:06 Off duty, under scrutiny: How much off-the-clock behavior can the state regulate? 4/8 But an expert for the board recommended a penalty because a nurse\u2019s duties \u201cdon\u2019t just end when the nurse stops caring for a patient.\u201d The expert testified there were no definitive rules when the relationship ended, so \u201cthe nurse/patient relationship may extend ad infinitum.\u201d Such interpretations suggest \u201cthe nursing board is taking an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the law,\u201d said Baylor University law professor Ron Beal, who teaches and practices administrative law. Other attorneys agreed the nursing board had an aggressive approach to off-duty behavior, though it wasn\u2019t unique. \u201cThe dirty little secret is when you become a health care professional you can\u2019t make the mistakes Joe Blow down the street does,\u201d said Austin\u2019s Jon Porter, who worked as an investigator for the Texas Medical Board before entering practice defending licensees. \u201cAnd when you make that mistake, it puts your license at risk.\u201d Legislating morality? State-issued licenses \u2014 Texas currently has more than 500 occupations overseen by state regulators, representing about a third if its total workforce \u2014 are considered a government privilege that can be removed or restricted for reasons including \u201cmoral turpitude.\u201d Often these are cases in which a licensee has been convicted of a crime relevant to his or her profession. Few would argue that a teacher who has sexually assaulted a child or a stockbroker convicted of swindling investors should be allowed to continue in those professions. But other crimes are more of a stretch. Following a rough patch, San Antonio licensed vocational nurse Tammy Spence qualified for food stamps and Medicaid assistance for her son for an 18-month period in 2007 and 2008. Picking up some extra shifts later put her over the income limit, which she didn\u2019t report. In 2009 she was charged with welfare fraud. After she explained what happened, prosecutors agreed to a deferred prosecution; the charge would eventually be dropped after she paid back the more than $12,000 in total benefits she\u2019d received. She did. Meanwhile, in 2010 the Board of Nursing moved to revoke her license \u2014 even though Spence had practiced without incident for more than a decade. \u201cThey said it was a crime of moral turpitude,\u201d Spence said. \u201cThat if deliberately got welfare benefits wasn\u2019t entitled to, it would hurt patient safety.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:06 Off duty, under scrutiny: How much off-the-clock behavior can the state regulate? 5/8 Spence settled, agreeing to be supervised by another nurse for a year. Thomas, of the nursing board, said the crime could hint at professional problems: \u201cIf they have engaged in behavior that violated the public trust outside of work, it could speak to their behavior at work.\u201d Yet Elizabeth Higginbotham of San Antonio, a registered nurse and lawyer who represents nurses in licensing disputes, said that approach means \u201canything you could do at any point could be considered unprofessional. They really do believe they have the ability to legislate morality.\u201d Slote, the San Francisco lawyer, said occupational boards increasingly are feeling pressure to take aggressive action as a legal shield. \u201cIt\u2019s really the fear that if they don\u2019t act, and then something happens, they\u2019ll be blamed,\u201d he said. \u201cThere\u2019s this concept of, \u2018We\u2019re trying to prevent future conduct.\u2019\u201d One of the few researchers to study the issue in detail, Loyola University Chicago School of Law professor Nadia Sawicki, concluded in a 2010 law review article that state medical boards \u201coften focus on character-related misconduct, including criminal misconduct, that bears only a tangential relation to clinical quality and patient care.\u201d Even among doctors who have encountered personal or certain legal tangles, Sawicki added, there is slim evidence it predicts trouble in their clinical work. Very little research shows what personal behavior reveals future professional problems. And the connection isn\u2019t always obvious. In 2008, a nurse from Magnolia attempted suicide after a series of personal setbacks. Following a four-day hospital stay, psychiatric treatment and on-going counseling, the woman, who\u2019d been a nurse for 16 years, returned to work, according to court documents. Since then she\u2019d been a stellar worker, testimony showed, earning the highest evaluation from her employer in 2010 and 2011. At a recent hearing, a quadriplegic patient she cared for in his home four days a week said she often stayed late to help him, and he rated her care 9.99 out of 10. She\u2019d also been a foster mother to medically fragile children. But the nursing board contended the woman\u2019s suicide attempt had demonstrated poor judgment that placed patients at risk, so she should practice only under the supervision of another nurse. \u201cAn attempted suicide speaks to a person\u2019s competency to act rationally,\u201d Dusty Johnston, the nursing board\u2019s general counsel, said in an interview. 2/16/25, 10:06 Off duty, under scrutiny: How much off-the-clock behavior can the state regulate? 6/8 Last September, an administrative judge recommended only a warning. \u201cThere was no evidence (the nurse) has ever placed a patient at risk of harm,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cIndeed, the record demonstrates that she is an extraordinary person who ably cares for her patients.\u201d The case is pending. \u2018Reckless behavior\u2019 The computer error by Hicks, the nursing professor, wasn\u2019t discovered for a month. The single graduate nursing student who saw the explicit screen-grabs immediately reported it to the university. She later described her reaction as \u201cshock and disgust,\u201d though conceded she continued reading even after realizing the chat was private and had been posted mistakenly. The only other person to view the graphic content was Chandice Covington, the dean of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, who immediately initiated a review of all of Hicks\u2019s patient contacts. It found no evidence of misbehavior or complaints. The dean also lodged a complaint with the Board of Nursing, and in early 2011, the board formally charged Hicks with engaging in unprofessional or dishonorable conduct. It also asserted the \u201cobscene\u201d content of the chat demonstrated he was mentally unfit to practice battery of psychological tests given or interpreted by five experts was inconclusive. Although the chat had veered from adults to underaged subjects, several experts testified there was nothing to indicate that he was any more likely to engage in \u2014 versus fantasize or talk about online \u2014 deviant sexual behavior than anyone else. Last March, Judge Penny Wilkov agreed Hicks had no mental disabilities. \u201cDr. Hicks had a pattern of accolades, success, and promotions that would not be expected of a person with a personality disorder,\u201d she wrote in her opinion. \u201cBy all accounts, his record as a nurse is exemplary.\u201d But the judge did find Hicks\u2019s at-home behavior had harmed the nursing student. \u201cTo conduct private graphic chats just minutes (after preparing a lesson) was reckless behavior,\u201d she wrote. \u201cHad he kept his work life and private life completely separate, he would have ensured a safe environment for his students to learn without the possibility of viewing explicit material.\u201d Wilkov recommended Hicks work only under the supervision of another nurse for a year. Hicks has appealed to district court, arguing that he has never acted unprofessionally while working. 2/16/25, 10:06 Off duty, under scrutiny: How much off-the-clock behavior can the state regulate? 7/8 \u201cThe nursing board regulates nursing practice; they don\u2019t regulate nurses,\u201d he said from California, where he now teaches nursing. \u201cWhere are my privacy rights? The board can\u2019t regulate what goes on in your own home.\u201d Watchdog coverage 2/16/25, 10:06 Off duty, under scrutiny: How much off-the-clock behavior can the state regulate? 8/8", "7602_104.pdf": "v (2000) Court of Appeals of Texas,Houston (14th Dist.). Rodney HICKS, Appellant, v. The of Texas, Appellee. No. 14-98-00736-CR. Decided: April 06, 2000 Panel consists of Justices SEARS, DRAUGHN, and HUTSON-DUNN. * Robert A. Morrow, Houston, for appellants. Barbara Anne Drumheller, Houston, for appellees Rodney Hicks appeals his conviction for sexual assault of a child. Tex. Pen.Code Ann. \u00a7 22.011(a)(2) (A) (Vernon 1994 & Supp.2000). The jury assessed his punishment at 25 years imprisonment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions. In four points of error, appellant contends: (1) Rule 606(b), Texas Rules of Evidence, is unconstitutional; (2) Section 22.011(a)(2), Texas Penal Code, is unconstitutional; (3) the trial court erred in informing jurors at voir dire that appellant had prior convictions; and (4) his 25-year sentence is unconstitutional as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We affirm. Appellant was tried June 16, 1998, for the sexual assault of T. L., a female child under the age of seventeen years. T.L. testified she had a sexual relationship with appellant when she was fourteen years of age. She initially lied about her age, but later told appellant the truth. Appellant continued to have sex with T.L. after he learned she was only fourteen. Soon after she commenced sexual relations with appellant, T.L. became pregnant analysis indicated there was a 99.86% probability that appellant is the father of T. L.'s child. Appellant did not put on any evidence to refute T. L.'s testimony. \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 1/12 In his first point of error, appellant contends the amended version of rule 606(b), Texas Rules of Evidence, which became effective March 1, 1998, should be declared unconstitutional because: (1) it conflicts with his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel; (2) it conflicts with his rights to due process and due course of law; and (3) it conflicts with the substantive rights for a motion for new trial under rule 21, Texas Rules of Appellate procedure. Appellant filed a motion for new trial alleging jury misconduct as grounds. He attached the affidavit of Juror Anella Coleman in support of his motion. In her affidavit, Ms. Coleman stated she was told by the foreman and other jurors that if they did not reach a verdict on punishment, the Judge would make the decision and appellant would get more time. She also said she would not have agreed to appellant's punishment if she had known that a mistrial would result, and that the Judge would not be assessing a harder punishment. She stated the jury voted \u201cguilty\u201d because they did not want the Judge to give him a longer sentence. She also said she had reasonable doubt as it related to the age of the victim, and what T.L. told appellant. She stated the jurors discussed the fact that appellant did not testify, and one of the jurors said they should not consider that. She concluded by saying she voted guilty, but still had reasonable doubt. Rule 606(b) provides: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the jury's deliberations, or to the effect of anything on any juror's mind or emotions or mental processes, as influencing any juror's assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment. Nor may a juror's or any statement by a juror concerning any matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be admitted in evidence for any of these purposes. However, a juror may testify: (1) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror; or (2) to rebut a claim that the juror was not qualified to serve. Tex.R. Evid. 606(b) (effective March 1, 1998). Because appellant's trial commenced June 16, 1998, the 1998 amendment to rule 606(b) applies to his case. Appellant first contends rule 606(b) is unconstitutional because it denies him effective assistance of counsel. Appellant argues that his trial counsel could not render effective assistance because he could not use evidence of jury misconduct, even if he found it. Appellant next contends rule 606(b) violates his constitutional rights to due process and due course of law under the state and federal constitutions. Appellant offers no authority to support these contentions, and has waived error. Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(h); Hughes v. State, 962 S.W.2d 689, 692 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd). We overrule appellant's sub-points of error, under point one, contending rule 606(b) is unconstitutional by denying him effective assistance of counsel, and by denying him due process and due course of law. In any case, rule 606(b) has been found to be constitutional under both the state and federal constitutions guaranteeing a fair and impartial jury. See Hines v. State, 3 S.W.3d 618, 622- 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 2/12 623 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd); Sanders v. State, 1 S.W.3d 885, 888 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, no pet.h.). In his third sub-point of error, under point one, appellant contends rule 606(b) conflicts with rule 21.3, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant contends that prior to the new rule, Buentello v. State, 826 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) allowed proof by a juror's affidavit of anything that was \u201crelevant to the validity of the verdict.\u201d By changing the rule to eliminate anything \u201crelevant \u2024 to \u2024 the verdict,\u201d the rule has deprived appellant of a substantive right under rule 21.3, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allows proof of jury misdirection and jury misconduct as grounds for a new trial. See Tex.R.App. P. 21.3(f) & (g). The 1998 version of Rule 606(b) apparently wipes out Buentello, and all of its progeny. Sanders, 1 S.W.3d at 887. Henceforth, the same rule that has applied to offering the testimony or affidavits of jurors in Texas civil cases will apply to criminal cases. Id. See Cathleen C. Herasimchuk, Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook, Rule 606(b), at 558-59 (3d ed.1998). Appellant argues that we should not apply rule 606(b) as written because to do so would cause the rule to conflict with appellate rule 21.3. Appellant's argument overstates the alleged conflict between appellate rule 21.3 and evidence rule 606(b). Sanders, 1 S.W.3d at 887. Rule 606(b) does not purport to redefine juror misconduct, nor does it alter the grounds for obtaining a new trial in criminal cases. Id. By generally prohibiting jurors from testifying as to matters and statements occurring during deliberations, rule 606(b) unquestionably makes proving jury misconduct in criminal trials more difficult than it was under prior rules. Id. But the rule does not preclude proof of jury misconduct by other means, such as through the testimony of a nonjuror with personal knowledge of the misconduct. See Mayo v. State, 708 S.W.2d 854, 856 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (witness permitted to testify regarding telephone conversation with juror); Sanders, 1 S.W.3d at 887. Rule 606(b) \u201cattempt[s] to strike an appropriate balance between \u2024 the desire to rectify verdicts tainted by irregularities in the deliberative process \u2024 [and] the desire to protect jurors and promote the finality of judgments.\u201d Id. (citing 1 Steven Goode, Olin Guy Wellborn III, & M. Michael Sharlot, Texas Practice: Guide to the Texas Rules of Evidence: Civil and Criminal \u00a7 606.2, at 535 (2d ed.1993 & Supp.2000)). The limitation on juror testimony in post-trial proceedings is intended to encourage open discussion among jurors during deliberations, to promote the finality of judgments, and to protect jurors from harassment by unhappy litigants seeking grounds for a new trial. See id.; and see Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 120-21, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987) (post-verdict scrutiny of juror conduct disrupts finality of process and undermines full and frank discussion in jury room); Soliz v. Saenz, 779 S.W.2d 929, 934 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied) ( rule 606(b) promotes full discussion during deliberations and reduces juror harassment). The district court correctly held that Coleman's affidavit was inadmissible under rule 606(b). Appellant's point of error one is overruled. 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 3/12 In point two, appellant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment because section 22.011(a)(2), Texas Penal Code, is unconstitutional in that the State was not required to prove that he knew that the complainant was under seventeen years of age. Appellant argues that section 22.011(a)(2) violates the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, \u201cas depriving him of due process and equal protection.\u201d Appellant further asserts that the statute violated his rights as protected by Article I, Sec. 19, of the Texas Constitution. Appellant does not furnish any argument as to how and why the statute deprives him of due process and equal protection, nor does he furnish argument as to how his rights are further violated under the Texas Constitution. Appellant cites no authority to support his assertions that the statute has somehow violated his state and federal constitutional rights. Appellant argues that Judge Baird's dissent in Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 848, 854-859 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) establishes his constitutional arguments. In his dissent, Judge Baird argues that criminal responsibility cannot be imposed where the defendant's mens rea as to the age of the participant was not a statutory element of the charged crime. Id. at 856. We find nothing in Judge Baird's dissent that even mentions due process, equal protection of the laws, or Article I, Sec. 19, of the Texas Constitution. \u201c[I]t is incumbent upon the defendant to show that in its operation the statute is unconstitutional as to him in his situation; that it may be unconstitutional as to others is not sufficient.\u201d McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 521-522 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1119, 117 S.Ct. 966, 136 L.Ed.2d 851 (1997). To adequately brief a constitutional issue appellant must proffer specific arguments and authorities supporting his contentions under the constitution. Otherwise his contentions are inadequately briefed. Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(h); Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 558 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), cert. denied,, 519 U.S. 826, 117 S.Ct. 88, 136 L.Ed.2d 44 (1996). Johnson clearly reestablishes the long- standing rule in Texas that the State is not required to show that the defendant knew the victim to be under the age of seventeen in sexual assault cases. Johnson, 967 S.W.2d at 850. We hold appellant has waived his constitutional contentions, and we overrule his point of error two. In point three, appellant contends the trial court erred by informing the jury panel that appellant had prior convictions. The trial court explained the range of punishment for the offense to the jury panel prior to voir dire. The trial court stated, in pertinent part: \u201cNow, we started out with second degree, with one prior. It goes up to 5 to 99 or life. And someone convicted of any felony with two prior convictions, it goes from 25 years to life.\u201d The trial court never mentioned appellant's prior convictions. Appellant did not object to the trial court's instructions. For an issue to be preserved on appeal, there must be a timely objection which specifically states the legal basis for that objection. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 119-120 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). Because appellant is raising this argument for the first time on appeal, any error is waived. We overrule appellant's point of error three. 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 4/12 In point four, appellant contends his 25-year sentence is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Appellant argues that his punishment was so disproportionate to his crime that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Appellant's sentence was enhanced by his two prior felony convictions under section 12.42(d), Texas Penal Code. The range of punishment for conviction as a habitual felony offender with two prior convictions is 25 to 99 years, or life. The jury assessed the minimum punishment in this case. \u201cAlthough a sentence may be within the range permitted by statute, it may nonetheless run afoul of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.\u201d Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3009, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983); Diaz-Galvan v. State, 942 S.W.2d 185, 186 (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd). In reexamining its Solem analysis, the Court held that punishment will be grossly disproportionate to a crime only when an objective comparison of the gravity of the offense against the severity of the sentence reveals the sentence to be extreme. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991). The Court emphasized: Only if we infer that the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense will we then consider the remaining factors of the Solem test and compare the sentence received to (1) sentences for similar crimes in the jurisdiction and (2) sentences for the same crime in other jurisdictions. Id., 111 S.Ct. at 2707 threshold proportionality analysis requires a comparison of the gravity of the crime with the severity of the sentence. McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 849, 113 S.Ct. 146, 121 L.Ed.2d 98 (1992); Harmelin, 111 S.Ct. at 2707 (gross disproportionality). This Court will review a sentence to determine whether it is grossly disproportionate to the crime. Harmelin, 111 S.Ct. at 2707. As will be discussed below, we hold that appellant's sentence is not grossly disproportionate to his crime; accordingly, we do not decide what role, if any, the remaining factors play on his disproportionality point of error. Appellant's conduct in committing sexual assault on a child under 17 is a second degree felony punishable by 2 to 20 years imprisonment. Tex. Pen.Code Ann. \u00a7 12.33 & 22.011(f) (Vernon 1994 & Supp.2000). However, appellant's offense was not based upon this conduct alone. Appellant's sentence-in addition to being based upon his having committed a second degree felony-was based upon the habitual criminal provisions of section 12.42(d) of the Texas Penal Code. Under a recidivist statute, a sentence is \u201cbased not merely on that person's most recent offense but also on the propensities he has demonstrated over a period of time during which he has been convicted of and sentenced for other crimes.\u201d Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1144, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980); McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316 state with a recidivist statute is not required to treat a defendant as if an offense was his first but is entitled to place upon the defendant \u201cthe onus of one who is simply unable to bring his conduct within the social norms prescribed by the criminal law of the State.\u201d Rummel, 445 U.S. at 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 5/12 284, 100 S.Ct. at 1144. \u201c[The] primary goals [of a recidivist statute] are to deter repeat offenders and, at some point in the life of one who repeatedly commits criminal offenses serious enough to be punished as felonies, to segregate that person from the rest of society for an extended period of time.\u201d Rummel, 445 U.S. at 284, 100 S.Ct. at 1144-45. \u201c[T]he point at which a recidivist will be deemed to have demonstrated the necessary propensities and the amount of time that recidivist will be isolated from society are matters largely within the discretion of the punishing jurisdiction.\u201d Rummel, 445 U.S. at 285, 100 S.Ct. at 1145. Appellant relies upon Solem and its progeny for the proposition that his twenty-five-year sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In Solem, the United States Supreme Court held that a judgment, enhanced by a recidivist statute, sentencing a defendant to life imprisonment without parole for the crime of uttering a no-account check for $100 violated the Eighth Amendment. Solem, 463 U.S. at 281-84, 103 S.Ct. at 3005. In this case, appellant was not sentenced to life imprisonment, and there is the possibility of parole. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. \u00a7 508.145 (Vernon 1998 & Supp.2000); See Smallwood v. State, 827 S.W.2d 34, 37-38 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). The Supreme Court considers the availability of parole a factor that supports the validity of a sentence. Solem, 103 S.Ct. at 3013. For instance, the Supreme Court upheld a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for a conviction of a third nonviolent felony pursuant to an earlier version of the Texas recidivist statute. Rummel, 100 S.Ct. at 1145. The First Court of Appeals, when faced with similar facts and the same argument that are before us, upheld a conviction of fifty years for the shoplifting of meat worth less than thirty dollars for a defendant with nine prior felony convictions. Smallwood, 827 S.W.2d at 35. See also Lackey v. State, 881 S.W.2d 418, 421-422 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd); Cantu v. State, 866 S.W.2d 647, 648-649, (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1993, no pet.). Appellant has three felony convictions and has been sentenced to twenty-five years with the possibility of parole. We do not find his punishment disproportionate to the offense he committed. Appellant's fourth point of error is overruled. We affirm the judgment of the trial court L. DRAUGHN, Justice (Assigned). Was this helpful? Yes No 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 6/12 Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law v (2000) Docket No: No. 14-98-00736-CR. Decided: April 06, 2000 Court: Court of Appeals of Texas,Houston (14th Dist.). Need to find an attorney? 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 7/12 Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 For Legal Professionals 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 8/12 Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * \uf105 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 9/12 Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 10/12 Find a lawyer Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 11/12 Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles By Name Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/16/25, 10:06 v (2000) | FindLaw 12/12"} |
7,335 | Jeffrie Jinian | Florida Gulf Coast University | [
"7335_101.pdf",
"7335_102.pdf",
"7335_103.pdf"
] | {"7335_101.pdf": "Home Weather News Sports Business instructor suspended after sexual harassment investigation 2/16/25, 10:06 instructor suspended after sexual harassment investigation 1/5 Jeffrie Jinian By Liam Dillon Published on: 2/23/2009 Florida Gulf Coast University instructor has been suspended without pay for the remainder of the semester and ordered to attend counseling and sexual harassment training following a 2/16/25, 10:06 instructor suspended after sexual harassment investigation 2/5 harassment investigation. Jeffrie Jinian, 42, an instructor and internship coordinator in the Department of Justice Studies is not eligible to teach again until the Fall 2009 semester because he is on a nine- month contract. Jinian also will no longer be the department's internship coordinator upon his return. 'The University has reached this decision because you have been found to have engaged in repeated unwelcomed and inappropriate behaviors that had a negative effect on students Provost Ronald Toll wrote in a Feb. 20 letter to Jinian and released by the university Monday. The disciplinary action stems from complaints from multiple students, including those he taught, that Jinian asked them out and made other repeated unwanted advances toward them. Toll also wrote that Jinian intentionally deleted e-mails related to the investigation and misrepresented his academic credentials to indicate he held a doctoral degree when he doesn't. In a telephone interview, Toll called Jinian's punishment 'proportional' based on the investigation's findings. 'This university has not or will not in the future stand for unprofessional conduct of any employees,' Toll said. According to the university's investigation, at least seven students complained about Jinian's behavior to university faculty or staff. One student reported her concern about Jinian to an individual in the university's office of counseling and psychological services. The investigation, completed by Cheryl Seals-Gonzalez, director of FGCU's Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance, deemed no individual complaint against Jinian was sexual harassment. But the investigation determined Jinian's behavior 'created a hostile environment,' and recommended disciplinary action. Jinian's Naples attorney, Eric Vasquez, said Jinian's behavior was 'misinterpreted' and that he was 'disappointed' with the university's decision. 'Mr. Jinian disagrees with the interpretation of the evidence, findings and conclusions of the university,' Vasquez said. 'He does not believe he created a hostile environment.' Vasquez said Jinian is unsure if he'll appeal the decision. The Jinian investigation was the last in the string of sexual harassment or gender discrimination complaints active at FGCU, a university spokeswoman said. Since Jan. 2008, the university has paid $4.85 million to settle three gender discrimination lawsuits also fired an adjunct German language professor after an internal investigation found he sexually harassed a female graduate student and suspended without pay an associate professor in the Department of Justice studies after the school determined the professor fondled and made inappropriate comments about anatomically correct mannequins during a death investigation class. That professor, David Lounsbury, has said he would appeal the university's decision, but has yet to file a grievance, the university spokeswoman said. 2/16/25, 10:06 instructor suspended after sexual harassment investigation 3/5 Jinian earns $40,177.15 a year. He began working at in 1998 as a graduate assistant. In 2000, he was appointed as a counselor/advisor in the College of Professional Studies. In 2007, he began in his current position. Jinian had been placed on paid administrative leave pending results of the investigation in October. Toll said he was pleased to no longer have any active sexual harassment or gender discrimination complaints. 'Hopefully we will not have additional complaints like this,' Toll said. 'If there are, they will be investigated.' Sexual harassment and gender discrimination at Since the start of 2008 Florida Gulf Coast University has faced numerous sexual harassment and gender discrimination complaints and lawsuits. ? Jan. 15, 2008: Johnny McGaha, a professor and former dean of the College of Professional Studies, settles a two-year-old federal gender discrimination lawsuit against the university for up to $650,000. McGaha contended he was demoted and had his salary cut after filing a gender discrimination complaint. ? Jan. 17, 2008: Gina Ramacci, a former assistant softball coach, files an internal gender discrimination complaint after she was not reappointed as a coach. On April 30, the university found the complaint unsubstantiated. ? Jan. 18, 2008: Jaye Flood, then women's volleyball coach, files a federal gender discrimination lawsuit contending the university retaliated against her for reporting Title gender equity issues in the athletic department. Former women's golf coach Holly Vaughn later joined Flood's suit. The case was settled Oct. 14 for $3.4 million. ? April 17, 2008: Wendy Morris, former university counsel, files a federal gender discrimination lawsuit against the university contending she was retaliated against for advocating Title compliance. The case was settled Sept. 25 for $850,000. ? Oct. 31, 2008: University places Department of Justice Studies associate professor David Lounsbury and instructor Jeffrie Jinian on paid administrative leave after separate sexual harassment complaints. On Jan. 14, 2009, the university suspended Lounsbury without pay for the remainder of this semester after it determined he fondled and made inappropriate comments about anatomically correct mannequins during class. Monday, the university suspended Jinian without pay after it found he made repeated unwanted advances toward students. ? Nov. 13, 2008: Richard Pegnetter, the university's business school dean and former interim president, files an internal gender discrimination complaint after the school's attorney had criticized his handling of the Flood, Vaughn and Morris matters. The university declines to investigate, saying its outside the equity office's jurisdiction. ? Dec. 15, 2008: University fires adjunct German language professor Carl Wood after it found he sexually harassed a female graduate student including attempting to French kiss her twice following an all-day outing. 2/16/25, 10:06 instructor suspended after sexual harassment investigation 4/5 Help \u00b7 Terms of Service \u00b7 Subscription Terms & Conditions \u00b7 Privacy Policy \u00b7 Site Map \u00b7 Accessibility \u00b7 Our Ethical Principles \u00b7 Responsible Disclosure \u00b7 Your Privacy Choices 2/16/25, 10:06 instructor suspended after sexual harassment investigation 5/5", "7335_102.pdf": "Home Weather News Sports Business suspends professor without pay in sexual harassment case 2/16/25, 10:06 suspends professor without pay in sexual harassment case 1/4 David Lounsbury By Liam Dillon Published on: 1/15/2009 2/16/25, 10:06 suspends professor without pay in sexual harassment case 2/4 Florida Gulf Coast University has suspended a well-known professor without pay following a sexual harassment investigation released Thursday. An internal investigation determined that David Lounsbury, an associate professor in the Division of Justice Studies, fondled and made inappropriate comments about anatomically correct mannequins during class. Lounsbury was using the mannequins as part of a death investigation course. University Provost Ronald Toll suspended Lounsbury for the remainder of this semester. 'The university has reached this decision because you have been found to have made inappropriate, sexually related comments and engaged in inappropriate behaviors that appear devoid of educational purposes or content,' Provost Ronald Toll wrote in a Jan. 14 letter to Lounsbury. Lounsbury, who had been placed on paid administrative leave Nov. 4 pending the investigation's outcome, can return for the fall 2009 semester. Toll, in a telephone interview, said he believed Lounsbury could remain 'a supportive and contributing member of our community' when he returns. Toll added the disciplinary action was proportionate to Lounsbury's actions believe (the Jan. 14 letter) represents a strong message about what is, or is not, acceptable conduct within an academic setting,' Toll said. Lounsbury, in a brief telephone interview, said he plans to appeal the suspension. 'The incident didn't occur as alleged,' said Lounsbury, 56. Lounsbury, a frequently-quoted expert on local criminal justice issues, directs the university's Institute for Forensic Excellence and coordinates the school's Criminal Forensic Studies program. He has 34 years of crime scene processing experience, including 21 years with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation command, his faculty profile states. He was previously employed as a sergeant with the university police department. Lounsbury was placed on administrative leave at the same time as another criminal justice instructor, Jeffrie Jinian sexual harassment investigation against Jinian, which is unrelated to Lounsbury's, remains open, a university spokeswoman said. Both incidents are part of a string of sexual harassment and gender discrimination incidents at the university. In the past year settled three gender discrimination lawsuits for $4.85 million and fired an adjunct German professor after an internal investigation determined he sexually harassed a female graduate student. According to the Lounsbury investigation, two of the professor's female students filed complaints against him after they said he lifted a female mannequin's skirt and groped the mannequin's genitalia and breasts. They also said Lounsbury told them a person could have realistic intercourse with the mannequins after a heating pad warmed their bodies. When Lounsbury found out a sexual harassment complaint had been filed against him, the students said Lounsbury led a hostile and critical discussion about the complaint in a subsequent class. Lounsbury denied that he groped and fondled the mannequins and that he made inappropriate comments about them, according to the report. He said he discussed the 2/16/25, 10:06 suspends professor without pay in sexual harassment case 3/4 gathering of medical evidence from a victim's genitalia, a relevant issue throughout the course. Lounsbury said he raised the complaint in a subsequent class, but he didn't intend to retaliate against those who complained. Instead, he indicated that students upset by graphic subjects would have trouble in the field. The students who filed the complaints and other witness names are redacted in the investigation report, per state and federal law. The university's investigator, Robert C. Shearman, found complaints against Lounsbury credible. 'Regardless of the absence of a longstanding pattern of severe and pervasive sexually hostile conduct amounting to sexual harassment, Dr. Lounsbury's statements and actions present an unprofessional appearance, appear devoid of educational purposes or content, and are inconsistent with the goals of respect, collegiality, and professionalism espoused by Florida Gulf Coast University,' wrote Shearman, an attorney at Fort Myers firm Henderson Franklin. Help \u00b7 Terms of Service \u00b7 Subscription Terms & Conditions \u00b7 Privacy Policy \u00b7 Site Map \u00b7 Accessibility \u00b7 Our Ethical Principles \u00b7 Responsible Disclosure \u00b7 Your Privacy Choices 2/16/25, 10:06 suspends professor without pay in sexual harassment case 4/4", "7335_103.pdf": "2 7 , 2 0 0 9 Still more from The climate in Florida has never been to my liking, but the climate at Florida Gulf Coast University has got to be even worse! We have documented (click on the tag) what we thought were the only incidents of discrimination and harassment at the university. But apparently we missed some of what has been going on outside of the athletic department. But the recent suspension of an instructor in the criminal justice program at has brought to light incidents we had not heard of. This most recent involved the sexual harassment* of students by the instructor, Jeffrie Jinian. The investigation into the students' complaints (which was impeded by Jinian's deletion of emails related to his propositions to students) has resulted in his suspension for the rest of the semester. But he will be back teaching in the fall, though no longer serve as the internship coordinator. Other incidents of faculty behaving badly at include an adjunct German professor who was fired after sexually harassing a graduate student professor in the justice studies department was suspended after he fondled a mannequin and made inappropriate comments in class about investigating deaths. He's supposed to be appealing the suspension. This article details all the cases (including the ones we have previously covered). Provost Ronald Toll said he is happy to no longer have any active gender discrimination or sexual harassment complaints bet! * The internal investigation actually concluded that any one (of the Co-Founder and Contributing Blogger: Kristine Newhall, Associate Professor of Kinesiology Cortland Co-Founder and Blogger Emerita: Erin Buzuvis, Professor of Law, Western New England University Hero for Daisy of Washington's Sports Equity Page American Association of University Women Association for Women in Science Association of Title Administrators Black Women in Sport Foundation Center for the Study of Sport in Society (Northeastern University) Christine Hepler's Title Bibliography Dep't of Ed's Website Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Equal Rights Advocates More Create Blog Sign In . Image from the award-winning film Hero for Daisy. \u00a950 Eggs Films. All rights reserved. Posts Comments 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 1/19 Newer Post Older Post seven) complaints on its own did not constitute sexual harassment but that in the aggregate they contributed to a hostile environment created by Jinian 9:36 Home Feminist Majority Foundation Gender Equity in Sports (Drs. Mary Curtis & Christine Grant) How to File a Discrimination Complaint with It Takes a Team (a blog) (Professor Pat Griffin) Know Your Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center (San Francisco) National Women's Law Center NCAA's Resources for Parenting and Pregnant Athletes OCR's Title Reading Room Save Title Sexual Orientation and the Law Blog Stop Sexual Assault in Schools Title Regulations Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport Women's Law Project Blog Women's Sports Foundation Womenstake.org (NWLC's blog Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979) North Haven Board of Education v. Bell (1982) Grove City College v. Bell (1984) Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 2/19 Deborah L. Brake, Getting in the Game: Title and the Women's Sports Revolution (2010) Katherine Hanson et al., More than Title IX: How Equity in Education Has Shaped the Nation (2009) Christina Cruz, Gender Games: Why Women Coaches Are Losing the Field (2009) Eileen McDonagh & Laura Pappano, Playing with the Boys: Why Separate is not Equal in Sport (2007) Encyclopedia of Title and Sports (Nicole Mitchell & Lisa Ennis, eds., 2007) Equal Play: Title and Social Change (Nancy Hogshead-Makar & Andrew Zimbalist, eds., 2007) Women and Sports in the United States Documentary Reader (Jean O'Reilley & Susan Cahn, eds., 2007) Susan Ware, Title Brief History With Documents (2007) Valerie Bonnette, Title and Intercollegiate Athletics: How it All Works in Plain English (supp. 2007) Karen Blumenthal, Let Me Play: The Story of Title (2005) Linda Carpenter & Vivian Acosta, Title (2005) Welch Suggs Place on the Team: The Triumph and Tragedy of Title (2005) Cynthia Lee A. Pemberton, More Than a Game: One Woman's Fight for Gender Equity in Sport (2002 \u25ba 2025 (7) \u25ba 2024 (3) \u25ba 2023 (1) \u25ba 2022 (9) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 3/19 \u25ba 2021 (4) \u25ba 2020 (1) \u25ba 2019 (18) \u25ba 2018 (64) \u25ba 2017 (51) \u25ba 2016 (79) \u25ba 2015 (99) \u25ba 2014 (150) \u25ba 2013 (119) \u25ba 2012 (162) \u25ba 2011 (162) \u25ba 2010 (153) \u25bc 2009 (230) \u25ba December (18) \u25ba November (15) \u25ba October (9) \u25ba September (14) \u25ba August (11) \u25ba July (18) \u25ba June (22) \u25ba May (24) \u25ba April (23) \u25ba March (22) \u25bc February (30) Mesa College and Other Division School Are Addi... Still more from Changes in harassment law in just a decade Former Assistant Coach Sues Fresno State Training Rules to Premier at Philadelphia Cinefest drops baseball Claims reinstated in high school rape case Proposal Would Eliminate Sex Discrimination in Com... The financial deterrent effect 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 4/19 to cut sports Article Advocates Title Approach to Olympic Games Chronicle Projects Increased Title Enforcement ... More hockey in Wisconsin WATN? Coach Roderick Jackson of Birmingham More on Indiana baseball Harassment Cases Roundup Celebrate (and note the irony!) Player Sues Coach for Heterosexual Bias Former Athletic Director Settles with Georgia State Update on Indiana Baseball Seeing effects of ruling College of Marin adding sports Worries over the Russlyn Ali to Head 6th Circuits Reinstates Plaintiff's Anti-Gay Harra gets an extension Happy National Girls & Women in Sports Day! Serena praises Title Breaking news settles Wisconsin Court Says Cheerleading Is a Contact Sport \u25ba January (24) \u25ba 2008 (283) \u25ba 2007 (333) \u25ba 2006 (81 35th anniversary (9) 4 (1) 40th anniversary (9) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 5/19 Hero for Daisy (3) accounting practices (1) activism (12) Adams State College (1) adding sports (40) Adrian College (4) affirmative action (2) Air Force Academy (2) Alabama (15) Alaska (1) Albany (1) Alcorn State (1) Alfred University (1) Alma College (1) American University (1) Amherst College (10) Appalachian State University (1) Arizona (5) Arizona State University (7) Arkansas (5) athletics (593) Auburn University (1) Augustana University (1) Aurora University (1) backlash (20) badminton (1) Ball State (8) band (3) baseball (41) basketball (129) bath (1) bathrooms (35) Baylor University (20) Bemidji State (1) Berkeley (14) Billie Jean King (6) Blackburn College (1) Bloomsburg University (1) Boise State (3) books (17) boosters (21) Boston College (1) Boston University (3) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 6/19 bowling (10) Bowling Green State University (1) Brandeis College (3) Brevard College (1) Bridgewater College (1) Brigham Young (3) Brown University (7) Bucknell (2) budget cuts (49) bullying (2) Bush administration (4) Butler (3) Cal Poly (1) Cal State Bakersfield (2) Cal State Fullerton (1) California (49) Capital University (1) Carnegie Mellon University (1) Carolina Coastal (1) Catawba College (2) Catholic University (1) Central Connecticut State (1) Central Michigan State (2) Central Michigan University (1) championships (1) charter schools (5) cheerleading (62) Cheney University (1) Chicago (3) Cincinnati (5) Cisco Junior College (1) Clarion (2) Clark College (3) Clery Act (8) club sports (7) coach (3) coaching (147) Colgate University (1) college admissions (8) College of Marin (1) College of St. Rose (1) Colorado (2) Colorado State University (2) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 7/19 Colorado State University-Pueblo (1) Columbia University (12) Columbus State University (1) Commission on Civil Rights (4) community college (5) competitive dance (2) conferences (11) Connecticut (10) contact sports exception (6) contraception (1) Cornell (1) Cottey College (1) cross country (3) Crowder College (1 (7) Cuesta College (2) Culver-Stockton College (1 (3) curriculum (14) cutting teams (131) damages (4) Danica Patrick (1) Dartmouth College (7) debate (1) Del Mar College (1) Delaware (3) Delaware State (11) Denison University (1) Diablo Valley College (2) Dillard University (1) disability (5) discipline (36) District of Columbia (3) diving (4) Division (3) donations (2) Donna Lopiano (4) Drake University (1) dress (9) dress codes (1) drivers ed (2) Duke (2) Duquesne University (1) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 8/19 (6) East Stroudsburg University (1) Eastern Michigan University (3) elementary school (18) Elmira College (2) emerging sports (10) Emerson College (3) Emory (1) employment (143) engineering (5) equal treatment (8) equestrian (10) Erie Community College (1) events (1) facilities (127) faculty (13) fair pay (3) Fayetteville State University (1) Feather River Community College (2) feminism (2) field hockey (21) flag football (2) Florida (27) Florida Atlantic University (1) Florida Gulf Coast University (41) Florida High School Athletic Association (11) Florida State University (25) football (140) Fort Lewis College (1) Franklin Pierce University (1) fraternities (11) Fresno (42) Fresno State University (2) Frostburg State University (1) fundraising (6) Gavilan College (1) Gender Equity Scorecard (2) gender identity (2) gender stereotypes (75) gender-neutral housing (2) George Fox University (4) George Mason University (1) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 9/19 George Washington University (1) Georgia (15) Georgia State (2) Gillette College (1) golf (26) Goucher (1) grading policy (1) graduate school (4) Grand Canyon (1) gym class (1) gymnastics (14) Hampshire College (1) harassment (209) Harrisburg Area Community College (1) Harvard (8) Hawaii (4) hazing (7) health care (1) high school (279) Hilbert College (1) Hobart and William Smith Colleges (1) Hofstra (7) Hollins University (1) homophobia (22) Howard University (1) Humboldt State (1) ice hockey (27) Idaho (7) Illinois (12) Immaculata (1) immunity (2) India (2) Indiana (38) Indiana State University (2) Indiana University of Pennsylvania (1) international (7) interscholastic sports transgender athletes (1) intersectionality (1) intersex (3) intramurals (2) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 10/19 Iowa (8) Iowa State (5) Ithaca College (1 (1) Ivy Tech (1) Jackson (12) Jackson State University (2 (29) job training (3) John Brown University (1) Johns Hopkins (2) Kansas (2) Kansas State (2) Kent State University (3) Kentucky (7) Knight Commission (2) Knox College (1) Kutztown (3) lacrosse (22) Lafayette College (1) legislation (13) Liberty University (3) Lock Haven University (2) Logan College (2) Louisiana (9) Louisiana State University (1) Louisiana Tech University (2) Loyola University (1) Madison Area Technical College (2) Maine (5) Mansfield University (1) Maricopa County Community College (1) Maryland (4) Marymount University (1) mascots (1) Massachusetts (18) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1) mathematics (2) media (61) medical personnel (4) Merrimack College (1) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 11/19 Mesa College (1) Metro State College (1) Miami University (3) Michigan (27) Michigan State (9) middle school (38) Middlebury College (1) Miles Community College (1) military schools (2) Millersville University (1) Minnesota (11) Minnesota State Mankato (2) Minot State University (1) misinformation (3) Mississippi (2) Mississippi State (2) Missouri (3) Missouri State (1) mixed gender competition (6) Montana (7) Montana State University (4) Montclair State (1) Moorhead State (2) Morehead State University (1) Morehouse College (1) Mount Holyoke College (1) movies (9) naming (2) National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (1) National Geography Bee (1) National Girls and Women in Sports Day (2 (57) Nebraska (3) Nevada (7) New Enforcement Policy Permits to Dismiss Activists' Complaints (1) New Jersey (6) New Mexico (4) New York (26) New York City (5) Niagara University (1) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 12/19 Niagra University (1) Nicholls State (1 (1) nnsylvania (1) North Carolina (10) North Dakota (2) Northeastern University (4) Northern Essex Community College (1) Northwest Florida State College (2) Northwestern University (9) Notre Dame (4) Notre Dame College (1) Obama (7) Occidental College (9) Ohio (10) Ohio State University (6) Ohio University (8) Oklahoma (8) Old Dominion (3) olympic sports (2) olympics (11) opportunities (3) Oregon (24) Oregon State (3) Ottawa College (1) Paralympics (1) parenting (11) Pat Summitt (1) Patrick Henry College (1) Peace College (1) Penn State (19) Pennsylvania (34) Pepperdine University (6) Philadelphia (1) Pierce College (1) Pittsburgh (4) Point Loma Nazarene University (1) policy (22) politics (7) practice players (4) Prairie View (1) preemption (13) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 13/19 pregnancy (25) Princeton (2) Princeton Theological Seminary (1) prisons (1) private school (4) professors (1) prom (8) prong three (24) prong two (27) proportionality (90) Providence College (5) publicity (4) Puerto Rico (1) Purdue (1) Quinnipiac College (31) race (26) race car driving (1) recruiting (4) religion (19) retaliation (165) revenue (7) Rider College (2) Rockhurst University (1) rodeo (1) roster management (12) Rowan University (1) rowing (17) rugby (6) running (1) Russlyn Ali (4) Rutgers (5) sailing (1) Saint Joseph's University (3) Saint Louis University (2) salaries (21) Salem International University (1) Salisbury University (1) San Diego Mesa (3) San Diego State (12) sand volleyball (13) Santa Clara (2) scheduling (39) scholarship (85) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 14/19 scholarships (29) science (18) seasons (10) Seattle (2 (3) Seton Hall (1) settlement (22) sex work (1) sexual assault (307) sexual harassment (33) sexual orientation (81) Shippensburg University (1) Simpson University (1) single-sex education (75) ski jumping (1) skiing (4) Slippery Rock (11) Smith College (2) Snead State (2) soccer (48) softball (117) South Carolina (9) South Carolina State (2) South Dakota (5) Southeastern Oklahoma State University (2) Southern Illinois University (2) Southern Methodist University (3) sport history (9) sports injuries (5) Spring Arbor University (1) St. Cloud State University (2) St. Norbert College (1) St. Thomas University (1) Stanford (8) statistics (17) student activities (2 (2 Albany (2 Binghamton (1 Buffalo (1 Potsdam (1 Stony Brook (4) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 15/19 surveys (18) Swarthmore (6) swimming (40) Syracuse (2) teachers (3) Temple University (3) Tennessee (11) tennis (28) tenure (3) Texas (24) Texas and (5) Texas Southern University (3) The New School (1) Title anniversary (1) Title Coordinators (9) Title (10) Towson University (4) track and field (31) transgender (107) transgender athletes (4) travel (3) triathlon (3) Tufts University (4 Davis (17 Irvine (1 Santa Barbara (1 (4 (1 (12 Charlotte (5) undergraduate majors (1) uniforms (4) University of Akron (1) University of Alabama (5) University of Alabama-Huntsville (1) University of Alaska (1) University of Alaska-Anchorage (4) University of Arizona (2) University of Arkansas (1) University of Buffalo (1) University of California (3) University of California San Diego (2) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 16/19 University of California Santa Barbara (1) University of Charleston (1) University of Chicago (1) University of Cincinnati (6) University of Colorado (16) University of Connecticut (7) University of Dayton (1) University of Delaware (10) University of Denver (1) University of Florida (6) University of Georgia (2) University of Hawaii (10) University of Hawaii-Hilo (1) University of Houston (1) University of Iowa (16) University of Kansas (8) University of Maine (1) University of Maryland (9) University of Massachusetts (6) University of Memphis (1) University of Michigan (5) University of Minnesota (4) University of Minnesota-Crookston (1) University of Minnesota-Duluth (9) University of Missouri (5) University of Montana (10) University of Nebraska-Kearney (1) University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1) University of Nebraska-Omaha (2) University of Nevada (2) University of New Hampshire (8) University of New Mexico (3) University of North Carolina (3) University of North Dakota (1) University of North Florida (4) University of Northern Iowa (3) University of Oklahoma (2) University of Oregon (14) University of Pennsylvania (2) University of Pittsburgh (1) University of Portland (1) University of Rhode Island (2) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 17/19 University of South Carolina (3) University of South Florida (2) University of Southern California (1) University of Southern Mississippi (1) University of Tennessee (11) University of Tennessee-Chattanooga (2) University of Tennessee-Martin (2) University of Texas (1) University of the South (1) University of Toledo (2) University of Tulsa (2) University of Vermont (1) University of Virginia (2) University of Washington (5) University of Wisconsin (3 (8 (1) utah (1) Utica College (1) Valparaiso University (1) Vanderbilt University (2) Vassar College (2) Virginia (12) Virginia Commonwealth University (3) Virginia Military Institute (1) vocational programs (2) volleyball (59) wage gap (2) Washington (19) Washington and Lee University (1) Washington (1) Washington State University (3) water polo (6) Wayland Baptist University (1) Wayne State (1) Weatherford College (4) weight (1) weightlifting (2) Wellesley College (2) Wesley College (1) Wesleyan (2) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 18/19 West Virginia (8) West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine (1) Western Illinois University (1) Western Kentucky University (2) Western New England College (2) Western Washington University (1) Whitman College (1) Whittenburg University (1) Wichita State University (1) Winona (1) Wisconsin (19 (1) Women's Law Project (1) Women's Sports Foundation (13) World Athletics (1) wrestling (53) Xavier University (4) Yakima Valley Community College (3) Yale (10) yearbook (2) Yeshiva University (1) Youngstown State (1) youth service organizations (1) youth sports (4) 2/16/25, 10:06 Title Blog: Still more from 19/19"} |
7,569 | Arthur Lopez | Southwestern College | [
"7569_101.pdf",
"7569_102.pdf",
"7569_103.pdf",
"7569_104.pdf",
"7569_105.pdf"
] | {"7569_101.pdf": "More Metro news The Wayback Machine - 2 Southwestern officials have resigned Assistant accused them of harassment By Chris Moran June 7, 2008 \u2013 Two Southwestern College administrators recently accused of sexual harassment have resigned, a college spokeswoman confirmed yesterday. The resignations of Greg Sandoval, vice president for student affairs, and Arthur Lopez, director of financial aid, have been accepted by college President Raj Chopra, according to the governing board agenda for Wednesday, which was released yesterday. If the board approves the resignations, they become effective Sept. 30. Sandoval and Lopez could not be reached for comment. Their resignations came three months after a student services assistant accused them of sexual harassment in a complaint to the state's Department of Fair Employment and Housing. College spokeswoman Nevada Smith said Lopez's resignation letter stated that he was leaving for personal reasons. Sandoval is leaving the college to dedicate himself full time to a doctoral program at San Diego State University, Smith said. Smith said Sandoval has had an \u201coutstanding\u201d career at the community college in Chula Vista. The assistant, Martha Jimenez, stated in the complaint she filed that she had sex with Lopez to keep her job. She said that during their encounters Lopez would tell her to remember who got her the job at the college and that her performance evaluation was coming up. Lopez's attorney denied the allegations on Thursday. Sandoval allegedly harassed Jimenez by having a picture of her in an evening gown as a screen saver and by asking her to read aloud a message from a fortune cookie and to add the words \u201cin bed\u201d at the end, according to her complaint. She also accuses the men of sexual harassment in an administrative claim filed with the college last month claim must be filed before a lawsuit. Lopez has been on paid administrative leave from his $118,000-a-year job since April. Lopez, 42, has worked at the college since 1987. Sandoval, 54, has worked at the college since 1976 and has been a vice president for five years. He served as interim president for 5\u00bd months last year. His salary is $150,072. 2/16/25, 10:07 SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Metro -- 2 Southwestern officials have resigned 1/2 Jimenez accused a third administrator, director of outreach Fernando Poveda, of sexual harassment in both the state complaint and the administrative complaint. Poveda yesterday denied any allegations against him, and said will be fully exonerated and vindicated, and if possible will be pursuing slander charges against her (Jimenez).\u201d Poveda said he brought Jimenez's allegations of harassment to the attention of the college administration last summer, as soon as he became aware of them. Both Poveda and Jimenez still work at the college. Sandoval's resignation means that all four of the college's vice presidents have either resigned or been fired in the past 10 months. \u201cThe decision that Greg has made was solely his decision and based on his desire to complete his Ph.D. program sooner,\u201d Smith said. \u201cHe served the district for more than 30 years in a reputable manner, and we're really happy that he's exploring his future goals, and we wish him well.\u201d Chris Moran: (619) 498-6637; [email protected] Sponsored Links 2/16/25, 10:07 SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Metro -- 2 Southwestern officials have resigned 2/2", "7569_102.pdf": "By By UPDATED: UPDATED: August 28, 2016 at 8:37 August 28, 2016 at 8:37 \u2014 \u2014 Chula Vista \u2014 Chula Vista Southwestern College administrator who resigned last year amid Southwestern College administrator who resigned last year amid allegations of sexual harassment has filed a lawsuit against the college to get allegations of sexual harassment has filed a lawsuit against the college to get his job back. his job back. Arthur Lopez resigned in June as director of financial aid. Arthur Lopez resigned in June as director of financial aid student services assistant claimed in a complaint to the state Department student services assistant claimed in a complaint to the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing that she had sex with Lopez to keep her job. of Fair Employment and Housing that she had sex with Lopez to keep her job. Martha Jimenez alleges that Lopez would tell her during their sexual Martha Jimenez alleges that Lopez would tell her during their sexual encounters to remember who got her the job and that she soon faced a encounters to remember who got her the job and that she soon faced a performance evaluation. performance evaluation. Jimenez filed a lawsuit against the college, Lopez and two other Jimenez filed a lawsuit against the college, Lopez and two other administrators last summer. administrators last summer. Lopez\u2019s attorney said at the time that the allegations were false. Lopez\u2019s attorney said at the time that the allegations were false. Lopez, who filed his lawsuit last month, seeks to be reinstated to his job, with Lopez, who filed his lawsuit last month, seeks to be reinstated to his job, with its annual salary of $118,704. He also seeks an unspecified amount for its annual salary of $118,704. He also seeks an unspecified amount for damages. damages Ex-official at college files suit to Ex-official at college files suit to return return Lopez had quit amid harassment claims at Lopez had quit amid harassment claims at Southwestern Southwestern 2/16/25, 10:07 Ex-official at college files suit to return \u2013 San Diego Union-Tribune 1/2 2009 2009 \ue907 \ue907January January \ue907 \ue90731 31 Originally Published: Originally Published: January 31, 2009 at 5:00 January 31, 2009 at 5:00 The most recent lawsuit paints a different picture of the relationship between The most recent lawsuit paints a different picture of the relationship between Lopez and Jimenez. It describes their eight-month relationship as consensual. Lopez and Jimenez. It describes their eight-month relationship as consensual. In 2007, a year and a half after the relationship ended, the college launched In 2007, a year and a half after the relationship ended, the college launched two investigations \u2013 one to determine whether Jimenez had received two investigations \u2013 one to determine whether Jimenez had received favorable treatment as a result of the relationship, and another to determine favorable treatment as a result of the relationship, and another to determine whether she had been sexually harassed. whether she had been sexually harassed. Both investigations cleared Lopez, according to his lawsuit. The college would Both investigations cleared Lopez, according to his lawsuit. The college would not comment on the suit. not comment on the suit. Last April, college President Raj Chopra sent Lopez a letter informing him that Last April, college President Raj Chopra sent Lopez a letter informing him that he was being placed on administrative leave and being recommended for he was being placed on administrative leave and being recommended for termination, according to the suit. The letter was sent a week after the termination, according to the suit. The letter was sent a week after the college\u2019s governing board renewed Lopez\u2019s contract for the 2008-09 academic college\u2019s governing board renewed Lopez\u2019s contract for the 2008-09 academic year. year. Chris Moran: (619) 498-6637; Chris Moran: (619) 498-6637; [email protected] [email protected] 2/16/25, 10:07 Ex-official at college files suit to return \u2013 San Diego Union-Tribune 2/2", "7569_103.pdf": "By Maura Larkins attended Castle Park Elementary in Chula Vista Elementary School District as a child, and taught third grade there until 2001 care about this district and the kids who go there Reporter Reporter 02, 2009 Posted by Maura Larkins at 6:25 Labels: lawsuits, Southwestern College Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College Ex-official at college files suit to return By Chris Moran San Diego Union-Tribune January 31, 2009 Southwestern College administrator who resigned last year amid allegations of sexual harassment has filed a lawsuit against the college to get his job back. Arthur Lopez resigned in June as director of financial aid student services assistant claimed in a complaint to the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing that she had sex with Lopez to keep her job. Martha Jimenez alleges that Lopez would tell her during their sexual encounters to remember who got her the job and that she soon faced a performance evaluation. Jimenez filed a lawsuit against the college, Lopez and two other administrators last summer. Lopez's attorney said at the time that the allegations were false. Lopez, who filed his lawsuit last month, seeks to be reinstated to his job, with its annual salary of $118,704. He also seeks an unspecified amount for damages. The most recent lawsuit paints a different picture of the relationship between Lopez and Jimenez. It describes their eight-month relationship as consensual. In 2007, a year and a half after the relationship ended, the college launched two investigations \u2013 one to determine whether Jimenez had received favorable treatment as a result of the relationship, and another to determine whether she had been sexually harassed. Both investigations cleared Lopez, according to his lawsuit. The college would not comment on the suit. Last April, college President Raj Chopra sent Lopez a letter informing him that he was being placed on administrative leave and being recommended for termination, according to the suit. The letter was sent a week after the college's governing board renewed Lopez's contract for the 2008-09 academic year page if this blog San Diego Education Report San Diego Education Report Role Model Lawyers Lawsuit Abuse Law Enforcement Problems Enron by the Sea Education and the culture war . 2008 case involving Castle Park Elementary teachers and their lawyers (9) . Bejarano (David Bejarano) (9) . Bejarano (Marissa) (1) . Billings (Lowell Billings) (29) . Blair-Loy (Attorney David Blair-Loy) (1) . Bonilla (Jaime) (1) . Brand (Ed Brand) (8) . Carberry (Dianna) (1) . Cartmill (Jim Cartmill) (2) . Cash (Michael) (1) . Castaneda (Steve Castaneda) (6) . Coronado (Russell Coronado) (5) . Cox (Cheryl Cox) (23) . Cozaihr (Danielle Cozaihr) (6) . Cozaihr v lawsuit (9) . Crosier (Diane Crosier) (1) . Cruz (Tom Cruz) (1) . Cudeiro (Amalia Cudeiro) (1) . Cunningham (Larry) (9) . Dennis Doyle (2) . Donlan (Robin Donlan) (3) . Doyle (Dennis M) (1) . Dumanis (Bonnie Dumanis) (2) . Duncan (Arne) (1) . Duzyk (Lora) (1) . Escobedo (Francisco) (8) . Fagen (Peter) (1) . Filner (Bob Filner) (1) . Gallagher (Robert) (1 More Create Blog Sign In 2/16/25, 10:07 Reporter: Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College 1/10 7 comments: Sherrie said... There was never a question as to whether or not the \"relationship\" was consensual. The facts surrounding what Lopez's actions were when Ms. Jimenez tried to end the relationship are what Mr. Lopez would like to divert everyone's attention from. When Ms. Jimenez tried to end the relationship, Mr. Lopez, in a desperate, mid-life crisis attempt threatened Ms. Jimenez with his statement: \"Remember why it is you have your job\". The implication is clear. Mr. Lopez should never be allowed to return to SWCC. Nor should Mr. Sandoval. Their behavior was and remains reprehensible, unethical, and illegal. For to reinstate these men sends a clear message to other institutions that they do, in fact, and in deed, support this kind of behavior. SWCC's hiring practices are in serious need of investigation. It's not what you know, or how qualified you are that gets you hired, or that helps you to retain your job; it's who you know and what you've done for them that keeps you employed, and keeps you employed \"comfortably\" there. 1:07 Maura Larkins said substituted the words \"Miss X\" for the name of the woman discussed in the following comment that was left anonymously: Arthur Lopez had another sexual relationship with a subordinate employee, Miss X. He had \"evaluated\" her over a period of time and then promoted her from Technician to Specialist. Miss is a lonely single mother and was a willing sexual partner for Arthur Lopez. Arthur Lopez had Miss promoted without her even having to apply and interview for her \"position\". Arthur Lopez had arranged for the \"position\" to not be advertised internally to the current Southwestern College employees or to be advertised externally to the general public. Miss is still in her same \"position\" with Southwestern College to this day. There is a difference between a willing female sexual partner like Miss who gives everything she can to please her boss to get what she wants versus an unwilling female employee who has become trapped as a victim of sexual harassment. 8:52 Anonymous said... 7:55 Maura Larkins said... The following comment seems to be an honest evaluation of a public entity's hiring practices. In a society where blacks are shamefully deprived of so much, it seems believable that their are small pockets where blacks receive some advantages would like to see fairness in all public entities, but suspect that whites will continue to receive the lion's share of the advantages in this country. I, too, am troubled by the fact that US-born people of Mexican descent are so often left out of the American dream. It's a disgrace that only 19% of young Latino males graduate from Los Angeles Unified School District (according to statistics released a couple of years ago would like to see Mexico treat its own people better. If Lopez and Sandoval really cared about Mexicans, they would use their position to work for change in Mexcio removed the name of one minor employee from the following comment. 8:45 This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. . Gandara (Jesus Gandara) (8) . Garcia (Bonifacio Bonny Garcia) (4) . Gil (Libia Gil) (3) . Griego (Bob Griego) (3) . Groth (Jim Groth) (26) . Gutierrez (Ernie Gutierrez CVCEO) (1) . Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe (2) . Hartley (Susan) (1) . Hayes (Judge Judith) (1) . Holtz (James) (1) . Jones (Sharon) (1) . Judd (Patrick Judd) (13) . Kamper (Lowell Fred Kamper) (1) . Keenan (Kevin Keenan ACLU) (1) . Kinloch (John Raymond) (3) . Kriss (Carla) (1) . Kriss (Tim) (1) . Lopez (Bertha Lopez) (15) . Luffborough (Doug) (3) . Luzzaro (Frank) (1) . Malcolm (David) (1) . Marinovich (Nick) (2) . McAllister (Archie McAllister) (1) . McMillan (Corky McMillan) (1) . Milgram (James) (1) . Minnehan (Kelly Angell) (1) . Moore (Ann Moore) (1) . Myers (Peg Myers) (29) . Najera (Michael Najera) (2) . Neeley (Lucille and Ron) (1) . O'Neill (Kevin) (3) . Padilla (Charlie) (2) . Padilla (Steve Padilla) (1) . Paul (Manuel) (1) . Peevy (Michael) (1) . Peraza (Humberto) (1) . Pettit (Stephenie Parker) (1) . Porch (Jennefer Porch) (2) . Puplava (Daniel Puplava) (1) . Quinonez (Pearl) (1) . Ricasa (Arlie) (3) . Rindone (Jerry Rindone) (1) . Rosas (Linda Rosas--Chula Vista Star- News) (1) . Salas (Mary Salas) (3) . Sanchez pres. David A. Sanchez) (1) . Shinoff (Daniel Shinoff) (9) . Smith (Pamela Smith) (16) . Sorenson (Monica Sorenson) (4) . Stark (Peter Barron Stark) (1) . Vargas (Juan Vargas) (1) . Villegas-Zuniga (Sandra) (1) . Vogel (Dean Vogel of CTA) (2) 2/16/25, 10:07 Reporter: Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College 2/10 Anonymous said... On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Anonymous wrote: One positive area about Southwestern College is that the Faculty is very good to exceptional in what they do. But agree with the comments that Sherrie said... above that the hiring decisions by Southwestern College need to be investigated am someone who has was asked to serve on hiring committees and won't do it anymore will tell you the truth about what goes on in the hiring committees and understand that if employees ever complain or talk about the hiring committee decisions made at - they will be fired! First, Greg Sandoval and Arthur Lopez both used to have a major influence over hiring decisions. They ran the personnel office with hiring decisions - promotions - salaries - and how good or how bad the employees are treated and intimidated by the current mean personnel office director. Unbelievably to the public now, Greg Sandoval and Arthur Lopez were always serving on hiring committees too. Second, if any employees are from Tijuana they will get special treatment over other employees from the considers itself a college to serve Mexico and that should be entitiled to receive state and federal dollars for operating expenses considers mexicans from Tijuana as better success stories for their students over the mexicans from California. It doesn't even matter to that the mexican employees from Tijuana only have high school educations from Mexico while the mexican employees from California have more experience and more education. Third, the administration is scared of the black employees few years ago the black employees made a complaint to the about and the audited SWC. After that audit the black employees began to get big salary increases and promotions and new black applicants were hired too whether they were qualified or not. This special treatment for black employees still goes on to this day. It is well known too that the black employees cannot be approached for any inappropriate behavior or for poor work performance. The threatened so badly that a fallacy began that black employees are somehow more ethnic because of skin color than spanish employees. Even though the black employees speak only one language and aren't immigrants... Fourth, during the hiring committee process of interviewing job applicants have seen firsthand where the fix was in on who was going to get hired or promoted from inside Southwestern College. It didn't matter that the outside applicants performed better in their interviews and had better background experience and higher educations. It is disgusting and that is what goes on at also has phony hiring compliance officers who sometimes sit in with the hiring committees. Usually they are elderly retired Ex employees from the past who have nothing more to do. They are just elderly figureheads that have no true direction over what is occurring in front of them. For example they are like the elderly figurehead boss Uncle Junior Soprano on the television show or just like the elderly figurehead college president - Raj K. Chopra. Chopra is about eighty years old and was a retired senior citizen who never worked at a college before hired him to be the college president. That should tell the public something about and about how all the hiring decisions at should be investigated. 8:46 Anonymous said... 8:47 This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. . Ward (Randolph Ward) (3) . Weegar (Mary Anne Weegar) (2) . Werlin (Richard Werlin) (7) . Winters (Dan) (1) . Yvellez (Manuel) (2) .Cox (Greg Cox) (1) 2012 election (3) 2014 election (1) 78th District (1) abuse of power (6) Academic Performance Index (API) (2) Accelerated Charter School (Los Angeles) (2) accidents (1 (1 (13) administrators (1) Advocating for students (1) Allen School (1) Alliant International University (1) Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (1 (1) apology (1) appointing board members (1) arrest (3) art (1) Asilomar (1) Associated Builders and Contractors (2) Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud and Romo (1) Attorney Mark Bresee (1) bad teachers (4) baseball (1) bathroom policy (1) bilingual (3) blogging (1) Blue San Diego (1) Bond oversight committee (1) bond underwriter (1) bud (1) budget cuts (11) builders and board members (2) bullying (2 bonds (1) cafeteria (1) Cal Public Utilities Comm (CPUC) (1) calculus (1) California Teachers Association (CTA) (9) Camarena Elementary (2) campaign donations (4) capital appreciation bonds (1) Castle Park (2) Castle Park Elementary (42) 2/16/25, 10:07 Reporter: Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College 3/10 Newer Post Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Post a Comment Anonymous said... 8:48 This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. Castle Park Family (13) Castle Park Five (12) Castle Park May 27 08 mtg (4) Castle Park Middle School (1) Castle Park Promise Neighborhood (1) censorship (1) character (1) charter schools (3) cheating (3) cheese sandwich (1) child abuse (2) child molesters in the classroom (7) child pornography (5) child sexual abuse (7) Chula Vista Educators (12) Chula Vista Educators (CVE) (30) Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) (81) Chula Vista History (1) Chula Vista Police Dept (CVPD) (4) Chula Vista Promise Neighborhood (1) City of Chula Vista (17) closed sessions (1) Coach James Ted Carter (1) coaches (1) college (1) Comic-Con (1) Common Core (6) common core standards (5) Compton Unified School District (1) conflict of interest (1) consultant Peter Barron Stark (1) contest (1) contractors (6) corruption in schools (11) CoTA (Collaboration of Teachers and Artists) (1) County of San Diego (1) crimes (1) criminal charges (2) cronyism (1 San Marcos (1 (19 (California Teachers Association) (12 Gina (Virginia) Boyd (1 lawyer Beverly Tucker (4 laywer Michael Hersh (1 Tim O'Neill (2 v (1 democracy (1) culture of childishness (4) culture of learning (1) culture of silence (1) 2/16/25, 10:07 Reporter: Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College 4/10 curriculum (1 (16 elections (6 President Peggie Myers (5 presidents (3 (56 administrators (9 board meets in supt's office before board mtgs (1 board members (9 lawyers (2) Dash and Stretch (5) defamation (3) deposition (2) DeveloperAlert.org (1) developers (1) dirty tricks (1) discipline (1) double-dipping (1) education attorneys (5) education reform (4 (1) Elected city attorney (5) election (8) election 2010 (5) election 2014 (1) employers (1) esquire (1) ethics (3) evaluating teachers (9) executive privilege (1) Fagen Friedman Fulfrost (1) false accusations (2) Feaster Elementary (2) Felicia Starr (1) fire safety (3) firing employees (2) firing lawyers (1) firing teachers (1) food fights (1) football (1) Form 990s (2) Fraud (1) free speech (5) game for insiders (1) generosity (1) gifted teachers (1) Girl Scouts (1) Googins (Glen Googins) (1) grade tampering (1) graduation requirements (1) Green Dot charter schools (1) grievance (3) 2/16/25, 10:07 Reporter: Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College 5/10 Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College (1) guilty pleas (1) guns (1) hacking (3) harassment (1) Harvard (1) hazing (1) Hepatitis (1) illegal recording (4) immunizations (1) incompetence (1) inservice (1) intimidation (1) investigation (1) Iraqi army (1) Is it wrong that I'm smiling? (1) June 4 2008 rally at Castle Park Elementary (8) Kim Simmons (1) Labor (1) Lauderbach Elementary (1) lawsuits (4) layoffs (6) Leaders and followers (1) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (1) Lincoln Club (1) Lopez (Jose Lopez) (1) Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) (2) Loya (1) mathematics (2) Maura Larkins case (3) McCann (John) (3) mental health (1) Mexico (1) misappropriation of public funds (2) Missing English canoeist (1) Motion to Strike (1) National School District (3) naughty non-profits (2) negotiations (1) nepotism (1) non-profits (2) Otay Elementary (1) Otay Water District (1) Palomar Elementary (1) parents (2) parents v. teachers (1) Park View Little League (2) Peaker Power Plant (3) People: Billings (Lowell Billings) (1) People: Boyd (Gina Boyd) (2) People: Cox (Cheryl Cox) (4) 2/16/25, 10:07 Reporter: Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College 6/10 People: Groth (Jim Groth) (1) People: Luzzaro (Frank Luzzaro) (2) People: Luzzaro (Susan Luzzaro) (4) People: Murray (Dawn Murray) (1) People: Smith (Pamela Smith) (1 (2 lawyer Bob Thompson (1) perjury (2) pertussis (1) picketing (1) police (4) police chief (1) poverty (1) preschool (1) Preuss charter school (1) principals (6) promotions (1) proposition (1) Proposition (1) public employees (1) public entity lawyers (3) Public records (1) punctuality (1) real estate developer (1) Recall (1) reports of violence (3) retaliation (1) Rice Elementary (1) Roger Hedgecock (1) Rosebank Elementary (1) Ruud Romo (1) safety (1) Salon.com (1) Salt Creek (2) San Diego County Office of Education (Joint Powers Authority) (3) San Diego Port Commission (3) San Diego Reader (1) San Diego Union Tribune (2) San Ysidro Schools (1) school administrators (1) school bonds (5) school budgets (9) school official arrests (1) School Resource Officers (1 Bonnie Dumanis (3 (1 (4 (1) SDGandE (3 guaranteed admission (1) SDUT's Don Sevrens (1) secrecy in government (1) 2/16/25, 10:07 Reporter: Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College 7/10 secrecy in non-profits (1) Secrecy in schools (12) Sheriff of San Diego (1) Silicon Valley (1) site-based decision making (2) smuggling son of Moammar Gadhafi (1) South Bay Community Services (2) South Bay indictments (7) Southwestern College (10) special education (1) special election (1) sports (1) standardized test scores (7) strike (1) Stutz Artiano Shinoff Holtz (12) Stutz v. Larkins (5) sudden departures (1 (5 election (4) sunshine (1) superintendents (2) suspended credential (1) Sweetwater Education Association (2) Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) (44) Sweetwater USD's Jaime Mercado (4) Swim program (1) taxes (2) teacher arrested (3) teacher certification (1) teacher cliques (3) teacher culture (1) teacher quality (1) teacher salary cuts (1) teachers harming students (2) tenure (1) test scores (6) testing students (1) The Accelerated Charter School in Los Angeles (TAS) (1) tort claim (1) transferring teachers (1) transparency (1) travel (1) truancy (1) Trustee areas (1) truth and reconciliation (1) Turlock decision (1) Turning the Hearts Center (1 (1) Union (6) universal health care (1 Department of Education (1) 2/16/25, 10:07 Reporter: Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College 8/10 Vergara v. California (1) violence (1) Voice of San Diego (1) watch list (1) White Chalk Crime (3) Wireless Facilities (1) Yahoo (1 (2) Maura Larkins Contact me at sandiegoedreport @gmail.com View my complete profile \u25ba 2015 (1) \u25ba 2014 (27) \u25ba 2013 (32) \u25ba 2012 (24) \u25ba 2011 (31) \u25ba 2010 (49) \u25bc 2009 (74) \u25ba December (1) \u25ba November (1) \u25ba October (2) \u25ba September (9) \u25ba August (9) \u25ba July (8) \u25ba June (9) \u25ba May (11) \u25ba April (3) \u25ba March (11) \u25bc February (6) Four out of five board members think Doug Lu... Will the court quash my deposition subpoenas of CV... Dan Forster, Cheryl Cox's chief of staff, leaves e... David Bejarano for San Diego Sheriff CVESD's new board member sounds good to me Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern Col... \u25ba January (4) \u25ba 2008 (86) \u25ba 2007 (44) \u25ba 2006 (10 2/16/25, 10:07 Reporter: Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College 9/10 Picture Window theme. Powered by Blogger. 2/16/25, 10:07 Reporter: Former director Arthur Lopez sues Southwestern College 10/10", "7569_104.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division Jun 14, 2011 No. D057248 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 14, 2011) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Delegate legal research to CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free LOPEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. D057248 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division June 14, 2011 from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 37-2008-00074832-CU-BC-SC, William S. Cannon, Judge. Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/16/25, 10:07 Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District, No. D057248 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/10 IRION, J. Arthur Lopez appeals the summary judgment entered against him on claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief arising out of his resignation as Director of Financial Aid of Southwestern Community College District (the District). After independently examining the record, we find no triable issues of material fact and affirm the summary judgment A. Lopez's Resignation After serving as the District's Director of Financial Aid for several years, Lopez received a notice of recommended disciplinary action from the District recommending that his employment be terminated based on charges he sexually harassed another employee. Lopez denied the charges and requested an administrative hearing. Lopez tendered his defense to the District, but it refused to provide a defense or reimburse him for legal fees incurred in connection with the administrative hearing. According to Lopez, because he could not afford to pay for an attorney, he resigned. Pursuant to a written agreement, Lopez submitted his notice of resignation, and the District withdrew the disciplinary proceedings. B. The Litigation Based on the events described above, Lopez sued the District for damages on theories of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful termination, and also requested declaratory relief requiring the District to reinstate him to his former position. In a second amended complaint, Lopez alleged that the District \"forced [him] out of [its] ranks on a pretext arising from a past consensual relationship with a co-worker\" by initiating proceedings to terminate his employment without providing counsel to represent him. Lopez further alleged he had \"no choice but to incur significant expense to defend himself or be terminated [and] was forced to resign his position, thereby constructively being forced to end his employment with [the District].\" 2/16/25, 10:07 Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District, No. D057248 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/10 The trial court sustained without leave to amend the District's demurrers to Lopez's claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and wrongful termination. The court subsequently granted the District's motion for summary judgment on Lopez's claims for damages for breach of contract and for declaratory relief. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the District. Lopez filed a timely notice of appeal. 1 1 Lopez does not challenge this ruling on appeal A. Standard of Review On appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, \"[t]he rules of review are well established. If no triable issue as to any material fact exists, the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. [Citations.] In ruling on the motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the [plaintiff]. [Citation.] We review the record and the determination of the trial court de novo.\" (Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 499.) With this standard of review in mind, we will address Lopez's contentions that there are factual disputes with respect to his breach of contract and declaratory relief claims which require a trial and that the trial court therefore erred in granting the District's motion for summary judgment. B. Breach of Contract Claim Lopez contends the trial court should not have granted the District's motion for summary judgment on his breach of contract claim because he submitted evidence showing the District breached the employment contract by refusing to provide counsel to defend him in the disciplinary proceedings, which forced him to resign due to his inability to afford counsel. To establish his claim for breach of contract, Lopez had to prove the existence of a contract, his performance or excuse for nonperformance, breach by the District and resultant damages. (See, e.g., First Commercial Mortgage Co. v. Reece (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 731, 745; McDonald v. John P. Scripps Newspaper (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 100, 104.) The District sought summary judgment on 2/16/25, 10:07 Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District, No. D057248 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/10 the ground that Lopez could not establish two elements of this claim: (1) the existence of an employment contract and (2) the District's breach of that contract. (See Code Civ. Proc., \u00a7 437c, subd. (p)(2) [defendant may seek summary judgment by showing one or more elements of plaintiff's claim cannot be established].) As we shall explain, we reject the first ground but agree with the second, as did the trial court. 1. Lopez Raised a Triable Issue of Fact as to the Existence of a Contract with the District Lopez raised a triable issue of fact with respect to the existence of an employment contract with the District. In opposition to the District's motion for summary judgment, Lopez submitted a declaration stating that he had been employed by the District since 1987 and had held the position of Director of Financial Aid since 2000. Lopez also submitted several offers of reemployment, which he had accepted over the years. With respect to his most recent term of employment, Lopez submitted a classified employee list containing his name and position, and minutes of a meeting at which the District's governing board approved reemployment of the individuals on the list. The record also contains a Classified Administrator Handbook, which states that classified administrators may be disciplined \"for cause.\" This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the existence of an employment agreement between Lopez and the District. (See Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 680 [longevity of service and personnel practices are factors to be considered in ascertaining existence of employment agreement]; Colores v. Board of Trustees (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1313 [evidence plaintiff worked for defendant for 21 years and defendant had practice of not terminating employees without cause was sufficient to establish employment agreement].) 2. Lopez Cannot Prove aBreach of Contract by the District To defeat the District's motion for summary judgment, Lopez had to raise a triable issue of material fact that the District breached the employment agreement breach is an unjustified failure or refusal to perform a contractual obligation. (Brown v. Grimes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 265, 277; Central Valley General Hospital v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 514 & fn. 2/16/25, 10:07 Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District, No. D057248 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/10 3.) As discussed below, the summary judgment record indicates the District did not breach the contract by refusing to defend Lopez in the disciplinary proceedings. a. Lopez Resigned The record shows that Lopez voluntarily resigned, not that the District discharged him in violation of the employment agreement. As part of its motion for summary judgment, the District submitted a letter, signed by both parties' counsel, stating that Lopez would submit an irrevocable letter of resignation stating that he was resigning for personal reasons. The letter also stated that the District would take no further action against Lopez in the disciplinary proceedings. When shown a copy of this letter during his deposition, Lopez testified that he approved it. Since Lopez voluntarily resigned and a voluntary resignation is not a discharge (see, e.g., Zuniga v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1260; Casenas v. Fujisawa USA, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 101, 115), there was no discharge that could constitute a breach of the employment agreement. b. The District Did Not Constructively Discharge Lopez Despite his letter agreement with the District, Lopez argues his resignation was really a \"forced discharge\" because the District instituted disciplinary proceedings against him without also providing counsel, whom he could not afford to retain. In making this argument, Lopez relies on Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1244-1245, where our Supreme Court held: \"Constructive discharge occurs when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. Although the employee may say quit, ' the employment relationship is actually severed involuntarily by the employer's acts, against the employee's will. As a result, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.\" According to Turner, a constructive discharge by itself does not constitute a breach of contract; such a discharge is actionable only if it violates a term of the employment contract or a public policy embodied in a constitutional or statutory provision. (Id. at pp. 1251-1252.) Here, Lopez appears to argue his resignation is actionable as a constructive discharge because it involved the District's breach of a term of his employment agreement. As best we can tell 2/16/25, 10:07 Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District, No. D057248 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/10 from his briefs, Lopez contends the District had a \"policy\" of providing counsel to defend employees in disciplinary proceedings \u2014 based on a combination of a written personnel policy concerning suspension, demotion and dismissal of classified employees (Policy No. 5215) and Government Code section 995.4 \u2014 that is part of the employment agreement. The interpretation of the personnel policy and of the statute Lopez relies on presents pure questions of law. (See McClung v. Employment Development Dept. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 467, 472 [interpretation of statute is judicial function]; Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865 [interpretation of contract is judicial function].) We conclude neither imposes an obligation on the District to provide counsel to employees in disciplinary proceedings. Nothing in the documents constituting the parties' employment contract required the District to hire counsel to defend Lopez in the disciplinary proceedings. Lopez asserts the District \"rendered empty and meaningless\" its Policy No. 5215 when it \"flatly refused to provide its employee with counsel while hiring a high-powered, 3 time nominated 'Super Lawyer' \" for itself. That policy, which is referenced in the termination provisions of the Classified Administrator Handbook, states that in a hearing on recommended disciplinary action, an employee \"shall have the right to be represented by counsel.\" This provision merely permits an employee facing disciplinary action to retain counsel to represent him at the hearing; it does notobligate the District to hire counsel for the employee. The statute cited by Lopez, Government Code section 995.4, also makes plain that the District had no duty to provide him with counsel in the disciplinary proceedings. Under that statute, \"[a] public entity may, but is not required to, provide for the defense of.. . [\u00b6]... [a]n action or proceeding brought by the public entity to remove, suspend or otherwise penalize its own employee....\" (Gov. Code, \u00a7 995.4, subd. (a), italics added.) Thus, where, as here, \"it is the public entity that brings the action or proceeding against the employee, the public entity has no duty to provide the defense to its own action.\" (City of Huntington Beach v. Petersen Law Firm (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 562, 566.) 2 2/16/25, 10:07 Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District, No. D057248 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/10 2 In his pleadings, Lopez alleged Labor Code section 2802 required the District to provide him with a defense in the disciplinary proceedings and to indemnify him for all related expenses. That statute requires an employer to indemnify an employee \"for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.\" (Lab. Code, \u00a7 2802, subd. (a).) But it does not apply because Government Code section 995.4 \"must prevail to the extent necessary over Labor Code section 2802 in cases involving public employees.\" (Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 168, 179.) Finally, we are not persuaded by Lopez's argument that the District constructively discharged him because \"notions of fair play\" embodied in the concept of \"due process of law\" impose \"higher standards of conduct\" on public entities like the District which require them to provide counsel for employees in disciplinary proceedings. Lopez did not allege a violation of his due process rights in his pleadings and may not avoid summary judgment by raising a due process claim for the first time in opposition to the District's motion. (See Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 26 Cal.3d 848, 885 [pleadings define issues relevant to summary judgment motion], revd. on other grounds, (1981) 453 U.S. 490; Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663 [\"summary judgment cannot be denied on a ground not raised by the pleadings\"].) Moreover, Lopez has no right to his former position as Director of Financial Aid that is protected by the requirements of due process. (Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (9th Cir. 1984) 743 F.2d 1310, 1315 [\"neither [Ed. Code, \u00a7 72411] nor any other section of California law relating to the employment of superintendents provides [plaintiff] a property interest in his position\"]; Agosto v. Board of Trustees of Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Dist. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 330, 341 [\"former community college administrators do not have either a statutory right or property right to their former administrative positions that would entitle them to writ of mandate relief reinstating them to their former positions\"].) C. Declaratory Relief Claim Lopez also contends his entitlement to declaratory relief precluded entry of summary judgment. In his opening brief, however, Lopez makes no discernible argument as to how the trial court erred in summarily 2/16/25, 10:07 Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District, No. D057248 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/10 adjudicating this claim against him. In his reply brief, he mentions the claim in one short paragraph, without any citation to the record or to any authority. We therefore may deem abandoned any claim of error regarding the disposition of this claim. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 845; Estate of Randall (1924) 194 Cal. 725, 728-729.) We note that the claim for declaratory relief has no merit in any event. The claim is based on the same alleged violation of the employment agreement that forms the basis of Lopez's claim for breach of contract \u2014 namely, the District's refusal to provide counsel to defend him in the disciplinary proceedings. Since we have already determined, in part II.B.2., ante, that there was no such violation, there is no basis for declaratory relief. In addition, the specific relief Lopez seeks \u2014 reinstatement to his former position with the same salary and benefits \u2014 is not available because employment contracts generally may not be specifically enforced. (Civ. Code, \u00a7 3390, subd. 2; Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 454, 473 [employee not entitled to specific performance of employment contract absent statutory authorization].) \" '[N]either an agreement to render personal service, nor an agreement to employ another in personal service, is specifically enforceable; i.e., the employee cannot be forced to serve, and the employer cannot be forced to hire.' \" (Barndt v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 397, 404.) Lopez was therefore not entitled to declaratory relief, and summary judgment was proper. D. Evidentiary Issues Lopez complains that the trial court did not specify the grounds on which it sustained the District's objections to several items of evidence he offered in opposition to the District's summary judgment motion. Again, however, Lopez has not included in his brief any discernible argument to support this point. He did not identify the specific objections he contends were erroneously sustained or explain how any of the excluded material would have raised an issue of material fact sufficient to defeat the District's motion for summary judgment. We may therefore deem these evidentiary issues abandoned. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); In re Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 845; Estate of Randall, supra, 194 Cal. at pp. 728-729.) 2/16/25, 10:07 Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District, No. D057248 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/10 Nevertheless, we have reviewed the evidence to which the trial court sustained the District's objections. None of the excluded material supports the existence of an obligation on the part of the District to provide counsel to defend Lopez in the disciplinary proceedings. Rather, the excluded evidence suggests the District might have had improper motives for pursuing disciplinary proceedings against Lopez. Although such evidence might be relevant to statutory employment discrimination claims (see, e.g., Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 545 [evidence of discriminatory comments by decision makers and coworkers properly considered on summary judgment in age discrimination case]), \"the law generally does not distinguish between good and bad motives for breaching a contract.\" (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 516; see also Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 168, 182 [\"motive, regardless of how malevolent, remains irrelevant to a breach of contract claim\"].) Since this case involves only contract-based claims, the error, if any, in the trial court's sustaining of the District's objections to some of Lopez's evidence was harmless and does not warrant reversal. (Cal. Const., art. VI, \u00a7 13; Evid. Code, \u00a7 354; Mangano v. Verity, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 217, 221.) 3 3 Among the evidence to which the trial court sustained objections by the District were the following: (1) portions of Lopez's declaration describing positive performance reviews, statements by the District's superintendent that he always prevailed in litigation, statements by the District's counsel that the District would not provide counsel for Lopez, and the District's governing board's knowledge that two investigations had cleared Lopez of the sexual harassment charges; (2) portions of a declaration from the District's former Vice-president of Student Affairs describing the District's procedure for employing and reemploying administrators; (3) declarations from three District employees describing statements by the District's superintendent that he intended to \"get rid of\" certain administrators and always prevailed in litigation; and (4) copies of a printout from the Web site of the law firm that represented the District in the disciplinary proceedings against Lopez, and of reports of the investigations that had cleared Lopez of the sexual harassment charges, which were attached to a declaration of Lopez's counsel 2/16/25, 10:07 Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District, No. D057248 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/10 The judgment is affirmed CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., McDONALD, J. About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:07 Lopez v. Southwestern Community College District, No. D057248 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/10", "7569_105.pdf": "December 2013 Southwestern Board Members still love Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz Southwestern Community College Resignations and lawsuits, including sexual harrassment: See Reporter December 2007 Board Meeting 7:00 Wednesday, December 12, 2007 214 Why was this page hacked? The information below was erased by some unknown person, and has been replaced. Why This Website Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins defamation Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins Hearing David Blair-Loy MiraCosta College Southwestern Community College Whistleblowers Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Freedom of Speech Attacks on Free Speech Don Siegelman Trial Lawsuit Grijalva Whistleblowers Site Map San Diego Education Report Blog San Diego Education Report San Diego Education Report Updates: see all blog posts on 2013-15 agreements with law firms 2013-15 agreements with law firms South Bay Indictments Raj Chopra Southwestern College police chief who fired gun at head level in his headquarters is back on the job without explanation Two employees who escaped his bullet are out on stress leave The law firm of Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore, which represents school districts, apparently advised Southwestern College to keep its police chief on the job after he pulled out his gun and let a bullet fly in police headquarters at Southwestern College. \"After his reinstatement, Cash dropped in on the office of The Sun and said he would be willing to talk to student journalists about the episode and subsequent events. During a two-and-a-half hour interview Cash again apologized for the gunfire and said the campus community did not need to worry. He refused to say why he was holding his gun that morning, why it was pointed at head level or why he pulled the trigger, citing 'personal confidentiality.'\u201d \"Personal confidentiality\"?\" It is a confidential matter when a public employee fires a gun in his office, even if it didn't hit anybody. The Chula Vista Police Department, by not investigating, is failing to fulfill its duty to protect the public. Sun Editorial Board: Letter to Superintendent/ President Dr. Nish Written by: Sun Staff 11/21/2013 The letter was given to the superintendent\u2019s office on 11/20/13 and we request the report be given to us within 24 hours, by 4:30pm on 11/21/13. Dear Dr. Nish, As you certainly know, the recent events surrounding Southwestern College Police Chief Michael Cash are of great interest to the students, employees and community of Southwestern College. The incident involving his discharge of a weapon on campus, suspension, investigation and reinstatement are matters of public interest. Members of this community have the right to know what happened that morning at campus police headquarters, information leading to his suspension, the findings of the college-ordered investigation and the circumstances leading to the college\u2019s decision to restore Chief Cash to his position. Our numerous requests for information from you, campus administrators and governing board members have been declined or ignored, including, most recently, a formal request made to the governing board of the college at its November 6 meeting. It is our firm belief that Southwestern College is now in violation of California Public Access and Media Law by refusing to divulge basic, routine information about the Cash incident and by covering up evidence, applying a gag order on employees and refusing to share reports paid for with public funds with the public that paid for them. It is our position that the college is misinterpreting the \u201cPersonnel, medical and similar files\u201d clause of the Government Code section 6254(c) as justification for hiding the investigators report from public view. The law does not support the college\u2019s position. \u201cThis exemption, Updates: see all blog posts on Leslie Devaney: Southwestern Community College District. Special Counsel (2010 \u2013 present) From Stutz law firm website Mar. 12, 2014 2/16/25, 10:07 Southwestern Community College and 1/9 ...Page 19 ASSISTANCE... Authorize Agreements with law firms listed below, for providing legal advice to the District for the period January 1 to December 31, 2008, inclusive, at various hourly costs. Best, Best & Krieger \u2013 Agreement Approval No. A2281.07 At a cost of $235 per hour for work performed by partners. Atkinson, Adelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo \u2013 Agreement Approval No. A2282.07 at a cost of $225 per hour for work performed by partners. Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz \u2013 Agreement Approval No. A2283.07 At a cost of $225 per hour for work performed by partners. Worley, Schwartz, Garfield, & Prairie \u2013 Agreement Approval No. A2284.07 At a cost of $170 per hour for work performed by attorneys. Rutan & Tucker \u2013 Agreement Approval No. A2285.07 At a cost of $265 per hour for work performed by attorneys. Garcia, Calderon & Ruiz \u2013 Agreement Approval No. A2286.07At a cost of $215 per hour for work performed by Partners. Parham & Rajcic \u2013 Agreement Approval No. A2287.07At a cost of $173 per hour for fact finding performed by attorneys The District requires legal advice on various administrative, personnel, and business matters during the year. All legal requests will be approved through the Office of the Superintendent/President prior to 2006 Election Board Member Southwestern Community College District Seat 2 Terri Valladolid 42895 votes 63.65% G. Michael German 24493 votes 36.35% Seat 4 Yolanda Salcido 43733 votes 64.58% Rebecca R. Sapien-Melchor 23988 votes 35.42% Seat 5 Jorge Dominguez 34961 votes 52.97% Christine Aranda 31039 votes 47.03% Ex-official at college files suit to return By Chris Moran San Diego Union-Tribune January 31, 2009 Southwestern College administrator who resigned last year amid allegations of sexual harassment has filed a lawsuit against the college to get his job back. Arthur Lopez resigned in June as director of financial aid student services assistant claimed in a complaint to the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing that she had sex with Lopez to keep her job. Martha Jimenez alleges that Lopez would tell her during their sexual encounters to remember who got her the job and that she soon faced a performance evaluation. The following story is ironic considering the dangerous actions of the police chief (see story above) College Police: Rifles Needed to Keep the Peace Rifles would help law enforcement keep the campus safe by being able to shoot at long-range targets instead of being limited to handguns, officers from the community college's police force said. Posted by Khari Johnson (Editor) Imperial Beach Patch November 28, 2012 Southwestern College Police Department Chief Michael Cash has requested that law enforcement at the community college receive rifles in order to respond in the event of a shooting or other potential threats at the campus, The Sun reported Wednesday. \u201cIf I\u2019m going to put my life on the line want to make sure that our people have the best equipment to stop whatever is going to come across, because if we don\u2019t, we\u2019re not of service to anyone here,\u201d Cash told the newspaper. known as the \u2018personnel exemption,\u2019 is routinely invoked when the public agency believes a request seeks information pertaining to identifiable public officials or employees that is private or controversial. However, this exemption was developed to protect intimate details of personal and family life, not official business judgments and relationships.\u201d (Bakersfield City School Dist. V. Superior Court, 118 Cal App. 4th 1041, 1045) (2004). Click to download/view original Personnel exemption has been soundly rejected by California courts in matters of investigations of employee misconduct. In fact, the California Courts have established a liberal standard for disclosure of public records relating to complaints or investigations of misconduct by public employees. Courts have held that \u201cthere is a public policy against disclosure of trivial or groundless charges,\u201d but that \u201cwhere the charges are found true, or discipline is imposed, the strong public policy against disclosure vanishes.\u201d This is true even where the sanction is a private reproval. \u201cIn such cases a member of the public is entitled to information about the complaint, the discipline, and the information upon which it is based.\u201d (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Regents of the University of California, 80 Cal. App. 3rd 913, 918) (1978). Courts have also held that \u201cwhere there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint to be well founded, the right of public access to related public records exists.\u201d(American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Regents of the University of California, 80 Cal. App. 3rd 913, 918 (1978). With respect to high-level public servants, disclosure of an investigation into misconduct is required even if the charges are found not to be reliable and the official is exonerated. \u201cIn this circumstance, the public\u2019s interest in understanding why (the official) was exonerated and how the (agency) treated the accusations outweighs (the official\u2019s) interest in keeping the allegations confidential.\u201d (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 759) (2006). California\u2019s State Constitution is clear about this issue and comes down firmly on the side of our request. Article (b)(1) reads: \u201cThe people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people\u2019s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.\u201d Furthermore, these rights \u201cshall be broadly construed if it furthers the people\u2019s right to access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.\u201d The law is very clear on this matter. The Southwestern College community has the right to access the Kelepecz Report pertaining to Chief Cash as well as any information generated by college officials about the decision-making process related to the investigation of Chief Cash and his exoneration. We, therefore, with all due respect, ask once again for a full, unedited copy of the Kelepecz report and all other college documents related to Chief Cash\u2019s firing of his weapon, his suspension, the related investigation and the administration\u2019s decision-making process leading to his reinstatement. As this information has been requested multiple times already over the period of a month, we respectfully ask for this information in print format within 24 hours or no later than 4:30 p.m. Thursday, November 21, 2013. Respectfully, David McVicker, Editor in Chief The Southwestern College Sun and the members of the Southwestern College Sun Editorial Board See the following story for more on gun safety at Southwestern College. 2/16/25, 10:07 Southwestern Community College and 2/9 The Sun Southwestern College Dissident Group Wants to Cut Ties with By: Sean Campbell Oct. 5, 2007 Last spring 389 Southwestern College professors and adjunct instructors told the state Public Employment Relations Board they wanted to vote on who represented them. They got their wish. Ballots were sent by to about 1,300 faculty members and are due Nov. 5. With Pasadena City College recently breaking from the California Teachers Association and Rio Hondo Community College marshaling to follow in its footsteps, the CTA, which ultimately oversees the [Note: Southwestern faculty members Paiano and Stroh were proved right in the Feb. 5, 2008 election when campaigned against an initiative to help community colleges.] \"Freedom Fighters Frank Paiano and Joan Stroh said the is loyal to K-12 educators at the expense of community colleges. They said that college faculty could get more for less if it was keeping its money local. They are not anti-union, they said, they are anti-CTA.\" Vote may decide future of the faculty union requesting services General Fund Account No. 5730-664000- 000 [Blogger's note: Taxpayers are paying these lawyers. This information shouldn't be hidden.] Jimenez filed a lawsuit against the college, Lopez and two other administrators last summer. Lopez's attorney said at the time that the allegations were false. Lopez, who filed his lawsuit last month, seeks to be reinstated to his job, with its annual salary of $118,704. He also seeks an unspecified amount for damages. The most recent lawsuit paints a different picture of the relationship between Lopez and Jimenez. It describes their eight- month relationship as consensual. In 2007, a year and a half after the relationship ended, the college launched two investigations \u2013 one to determine whether Jimenez had received favorable treatment as a result of the relationship, and another to determine whether she had been sexually harassed. Both investigations cleared Lopez, according to his lawsuit. The college would not comment on the suit. Last April, college President Raj Chopra sent Lopez a letter informing him that he was being placed on administrative leave and being recommended for termination, according to the suit. The letter was sent a week after the college's governing board renewed Lopez's contract for the 2008-09 academic year. Raj Chopra | President, Southwestern College The San Diego Union - Tribune - San Diego, Calif. Author: Don Sevrens Date: Mar 28, 2009 Section Raj Chopra arrived as the new president of Southwestern College in August 2007 with an unusual background. He was from Pakistan and India and had spent his career in educational administration but never at the community Southwestern College pays $18K to investigate a $22K mailer Garcia Calderon Ruiz law firm concludes investigation [Compare to $3 million spent by MiraCosta College for Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz investigation of $305 in stolen water] By Wendy Fry July 1, 2011 \u2014 Southwestern College paid $18,531 for an investigation into a November mailer that some critics said was an illegal political expense. Others question why the college chose the law firm of Garcia Calderon Ruiz to conduct the review. Final purchase orders were approved in mid-June for Garcia Calderon Ruiz\u2019s investigation. The review concluded the newsletter was an improper expense. Interim Superintendent Denise Whittaker said she is implementing safeguards to assure the mistake is not repeated. Just before the November election, voters received a mailer that touted Southwestern College\u2019s accomplishments and its attempts to resolve accreditation issues. It repeatedly referred to the then-board of directors as being responsible for the college\u2019s achievements. Though the mailer did not identify board members by name, community members complained at the time that it was a political mailer because three of the board members were up for re- election. New board members asked in December for a review of what had been sent to South County residents. Some complained the mailer \u2212 costing $22,603 \u2212 was a failed ploy to get incumbents re-elected. The board hired Garcia Calderon Ruiz to investigate. The law firm was formerly the district\u2019s counsel but left in 2008 amid concerns about conflicts of interest with several other South Bay governmental agencies it also represented, including the Otay Water District and Sweetwater schools. It has since provided legal consulting services to Southwestern Community College as needed. Yuri Calderon, an attorney for Garcia Calderon Ruiz, issued a legal opinion in March that cited former board member Yolanda Salcido, who lost her seat in November, as one of the people responsible for the \u201cillegal political expense.\u201d The opinion stated that two district employees who helped Salcido draft and distribute the newsletter were working on her campaign team at the same time. The law firm also concluded that those two employees knew or should have known that it was an improper use of taxpayer funds. Salcido said the newsletter was a legitimate expense addressing community questions about the college\u2019s accreditation problems. She said she is being targeted because of her attempt to stop the law firm\u2019s meddling in the college\u2019s affairs. She added she would have been a strong opponent to what she said will be a future endeavor to reinstate former Vice President Greg Sandoval, who lost his job amid allegations of sexual harassment. \u201cThe law firm of Garcia Calderon Ruiz left in disgrace from our district when was there because of their meddling in board business,\u201d she said. Salcido said it was the investigation \u2212 not the mailer \u2212 that was the waste of taxpayer\u2019s money and much-needed college funds. \u201cIt\u2019s irresponsible, specifically given the recent serious cut backs to higher education,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s in essence political grandstanding on taxpayer\u2019s dollars and on the backs of students\u2019 South Bay Indictments Cash was hired as the college's new police chief in August. Southwestern is the only college in the county that does not have rifles or Tasers, Sergeant Robert Sanchez told The Sun. Some college employees believe the community's opinions should be sought before rifles come to the Chula Vista campus, and that other more likely public safety threats like earthquakes or fires should be addressed first. 2/16/25, 10:07 Southwestern Community College and 3/9 college's faculty union, has a stake in keeping under its organization professors and instructors have three choices on their ballots, to stay with the Southwestern College Education Association, have no union at all, or switch to an independent union called the Independent Faculty Association (IFA). All balloting will be conducted by mail. Votes will be tallied Nov. 6 second vote in the future will ask instructional staff if union payments should be mandatory instructional staff pay the Burlingame-based association about $400,000 in fees annually. That is the problem, for a group of professors who call themselves the Freedom Fighters. The dissidents started organizing more than a year ago when the made union payments mandatory. More than 80 percent of that money is sent to the SCEA's larger associations, most of which goes to the CTA. Freedom Fighters Frank Paiano and Joan Stroh said the is loyal to K-12 educators at the expense of community colleges. They said that college faculty could get more for less if it was keeping its money local. They are not anti-union, they said, they are anti-CTA. That the is primarily focused on K-12 is not contested by President Janet Mazzarella. Almost 90 percent of the association is made up of K-12 members, she said. But, Mazzarella, along with other members, said that being second priority with the still gives the college faculty better representation than being first priority with an independent union Under current representation, full-time faculty pay $97.30 a month and the part-time faculty pay $20.76 a month. The proposes to charge full-time professors $45 and the part-time instructors $5. Paiano contends that an college level. At age 70, he vowed that this would be his final career stop and welcomed an initial 23-month contract. Since then, Chopra has cleaned house in an administration ravaged by turmoil, has guided the opening or renovation of campuses in Otay Mesa and San Ysidro, and won public support for a $389 million bond issue. Chopra proposes to reorganize the 20,000-student college for a second time. He was interviewed by Union-Tribune editorial writer Don Sevrens. Are you contemplating some major changes at Southwestern College to take it to the next level? Yes. The changes are really coming from two situations. One is to meet the challenge presented by the state's budget crisis and the very extensive cut for community college budgets. The other situation is that our enrollment is increasing. We have an 8 percent enrollment increase compared with last year at this time. We cannot do business as usual... Southwestern College's Proper Snack Bar By Susan Luzzaro July 22, 2010 San Diego Reader Like many community colleges, Southwestern College, located in Chula Vista, had to severely cut course offerings in the spring and summer of this year. At a June 2010 press conference, California Community College chancellor Jack Scott said, \u201cOver the past year, about 140,000 students came to community colleges to take classes but were not able to enroll because those classes were not available.\u201d Despite budget problems, Southwestern\u2019s superintendent/president Raj Chopra hired Trilogy using general fund monies for an unknown reason. According to Trilogy\u2019s website, \u201cSouthwestern College called on Trilogy group\u2019s expertise and contacts to ease media and community pressure during a critical period with a successful crisis management plan implemented by Scott Alevy.\u201d According to Southwestern College\u2019s April 2010 purchase order, Alevy was paid $2491 for communication services. The purchase order names Chopra as the initiator of the agreement. Aside from being a principal at Trilogy, Alevy serves alongside Chopra on the South County Economic Development Council. In a March 2009 Union-Tribune piece, Chopra identified wasteful practices that he was correcting at Southwestern. Among those practices, he mentioned, \u201cWork was being outsourced when personnel from the college could have performed the services.\u201d Chris Bender is Southwestern\u2019s \"chief marketing, communications, and community and government relations officer.\" When contacted on July 19 to inquire what crisis Southwestern College was experiencing when Trilogy was hired and what services were performed, Bender was unable to answer. Bender said he was newly hired during the period in question and was unfamiliar with the situation. When asked in a follow-up email why the college could not handle the matter in-house, he said he would send an update later in the day. That didn\u2019t happen. (On July 21, Southwestern College\u2019s communications called to say he was still searching for the requested information.) Bender was hired in March 2010. His salary for the fiscal year 2011 is $95,772. In an editorial last May, Southwestern College\u2019s student newspaper, the Sun, suggested that money spent on consultants might have been better spent on classes. The editorial stated that the college had spent $99,468 on a pension consultant, $11,500 on a snack-bar consultant, and $122,000 on a technology consultant. Regarding the \u201csnack-bar consultant\u201d and \u201ctechnology consultant,\u201d the editorial stated, \u201cBoth of these consultants seem strange to spend money on since the college already pays a hefty salary to a Director of Food Services and a Director of Computer Systems and Services.\u201d education.\u201d The college was placed on probation with the Western Association of School and Colleges in February 2010. It announced its re-accreditation last week. Tim Nader, who replaced Salcido as board president, said the actions were found to be illegal, but not criminal. He said the Fair Political Practices Commission, a state watchdog agency, should look at it \u201cbut it really has not been at the top of my agenda to file a complaint.\u201d Nader said he wanted a neutral, third party to review the reasoning behind sending out the document because he thought it \u201cshowed poor judgment to send out a mass mailer two weeks before an election at the public\u2019s expense.\u201d Not everybody regards the Garcia Calderon Ruiz law firm as a neutral third party. The legal team has drawn widespread community criticism in recent months after reports by The San Diego Union-Tribune\u2019s Watchdog team concerning the Sweetwater school district. The most recent issues include a Garcia Calderon Ruiz legal opinion for Sweetwater schools that said food-service director Nancy Stewart\u2019s use of campus food courts to sell brands she markets from a side business did not constitute a conflict of interest, and the firm\u2019s practice of submitting thousands of dollars worth of public-relations consultant bills that are now under criminal review. Nader said it is unfortunate that more taxpayer dollars had to be spent on the investigation, but \u201cit is a worthwhile expense because one result, the most important result, is Interim Superintendent Denise Whittaker has put new procedures in place that make it highly unlikely that anything like this could ever happen again.\u201d Whittaker said she is going to initiate district-wide training and an amendment to board policies to ensure such mailers are not sent out in the future. 2/16/25, 10:07 Southwestern Community College and 4/9 independent union will create a larger war chest for the college because its dues will not leave the district. When the money goes to Burlingame it does not disappear, Mazzarella said, and gives the union support that an independent union could not provides information that is \"top notch,\" trained professionals who know the ins and outs of the community college system, and a team of lawyers that can protect faculty. She said she recently had to call on the for help and has used its assistance many times in the past provides training for negotiating, wrote member and English Professor Andrew Rempt, in a global e-mail. Rempt questioned the representation of the proposed independent union. \"What have any of the members of the done to prepare themselves for stepping into the enormous shoes of the SCEA?\" Rempt wrote. Several negotiators have attended interest-based bargaining seminars, Rempt said. He questioned how negotiators would compete. Paiano said that the has an excellent legal firm that has done well against the and has represented other faculty in dealing with districts. The legal firm is well versed in Independent Faculty Unions, which it has been working with for 16 years, he said. Paiano and Stroh have both worked on at least one negotiating team and both said they believe they can do a better job negotiating than SCEA, Paiano said. Rempt said an independent union will not be a strong lobbyist for education legislation in Sacramento and that it was irresponsible for faculty to have other people lobbying for at a state level without SWC's support, said Rempt. Joan Stroh chair for computer information systems, said the would not be on its own, but part of a larger organization called the California Community College Independents (CCCI) which has 13 community college districts under it, Letter to Raj Chopra from Demand Letter: 8 Months Is Long Enough! July 14, 2010 Since last November, the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties has been working with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to convince Southwestern College to fix constitutional problems with its so-called \"Freedom of Expression\" policy. The policy illegally restricts speech, expression and assembly by students and faculty. Chief among the ACLU\u2019s objections is the college\u2019s declaration that most of the campus is not a public forum, and that assembly and expression would be confined to a small \"free speech patio.\" Over the course of the ensuing eight months, the and have exchanged correspondence with SWC, which formed a committee to review the school\u2019s free speech policy. \"We\u2019ve seen some forward progress,\" said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the San Diego ACLU. \"But we remain concerned that Southwestern just isn\u2019t getting it. We still have serious concerns that the college is scared of free expression on its campus look forward to discussing this matter with the college\u2019s counsel to see if imminent litigation can be averted.\" In a letter sent to SWC\u2019s counsel today, the cited continuing concerns with the policy requiring the use of permits as a prior restraint on free speech and with the college's recalcitrant communications. Both the and have sent several letters to the college, but have not received a written response from since a letter dated May 25, 2010, in which the school\u2019s counsel indicated the school was continuing to revise its free speech policies and would consider suggestions offered by the and FIRE. As always, the strives to resolve matters without litigation. \"For the past several months have been hoping to resolve these issues without litigation if possible,\" Blair-Loy wrote in the letter. \"If the relevant policies have been formally revised, please let me know as soon as possible. But if has not taken and does not immediately take sufficient action to comply with the relevant law protecting freedom of speech on campus have no alternative but to initiate litigation.\" The ACLU's demand letter offered continuing discussions on how to resolve the issues and protect freedom of speech on campus, but noted that after eight months and little to show for it, litigation is likely to result if the problem is not solved soon. Letter to Southwestern College San Diego ACLU's David Blair-Loy on prior restraints Box 87131 San Diego 92138-7131 T/ 619-232-2121 F/ 619-232-0036 November 9, 2009 Dr. Raj K. Chopra, President Southwestern College 900 Otay Lakes Road Chula Vista 91910 Re: Southwestern College Actions and Policies Infringing Free Speech Dear President Chopra prior restraint exists when the enjoyment of protected expression is contingent upon the approval of government officials.\u201d Baby Tam & Co., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 154 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.1998 requirement to obtain a permit before engaging in speech is a prior restraint. Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130 (1992). Because prior restraints on college students\u2019 speech are not authorized, the college may not require a permit before a demonstration may occur. 3. The First Amendment narrowly circumscribes the college\u2019s right to require an advance permit for speech or assembly. Even if the statute did authorize a permit requirement, the First Amendment disfavors prior restraints, and the government bears a heavy burden to justify them Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1355 (9th Cir. 1984); Rosen v. Port of Portland, 641 F.2d 1243, 1247, 1249 (9th Cir. 1981)... Question to David Blair-Loy: Do you discuss freedom of speech with Southwestern College lawyer Daniel Shinoff (right column)? 2/16/25, 10:07 Southwestern Community College and 5/9 including the neighboring Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District supporters point out the state's split of Proposition 98 to show CTA's loyalty to K-12. Eleven percent of the millions provided by proposition are supposed to go to community colleges, Paiano said. He said that in the last twenty years community colleges have received the proper 11 percent allocation only once. He contends that the never agitated in the college's favor. \"They're working against us,\" he said. The California Community College Initiative, which is on the February 2008 ballot proposing to lower community college tuition from $20 to $15 is another example of CTA's overarching loyalty to K-12, said Stroh. But officials said the initiative is not as clear-cut an issue as proponents believe. They said that IFA's dragging it into this vote is a \"red herring.\" Part-time adjuncts at outnumber full-time faculty 3 to 1 and they have the power to swing the vote flier found in faculty mailboxes on Oct. 3 read, \"We, the part-time faculty of Southwestern College, know that you need our votes in the upcoming election.\" Adjunct instructors will vote for that organization which creates bylaws benefiting part-timers, the flier read. It asked for adjuncts to be included on the executive board and negotiating team and be placed on representative councils \"in numbers proportionate to the number of part-time faculty on campus.\" The letter went on to ask for adjuncts to have a piece of shared governance on campus committees currently has a place for one part-time faculty member on the union's executive board, negotiation team and health and welfare committee also allows one part-time representative from each of SWC's eight schools to sit on its representative council. Stroh said that the proposed constitution includes bylaws that would give part-timers 49 Freedom Fighters get a vote on decertification By: Sean Campbell 5/30/07 faction of dissident professors and instructors has claimed a first-round victory in its effort to decertify Southwestern College's faculty union. No complaint was filed as of press time. Union executives denied harassing Paiano. Mazzarella said two union executives confronted him not for soliciting signatures but because he was speaking badly about the union's executive team. \"They can do what they want,\" Mazzarella said. \"But now they're making it personal. We walked up to him and said we didn't appreciate that you're insulting your colleagues.\" Fusako Yokotobi, vice president of Human Resources, settled an earlier squabble between the two groups over whether Freedom Fighters could solicit professors for their signatures using faculty mail boxes or by approaching them on campus. In the March 28 e-mail to Paiano, she cited a California government code stating that the Freedom Fighters have the right to solicit employees at and the right to \"use institutional bulletin boards, mailboxes, and other means of communication.\" \"Please be advised,\" she said in the e-mail, \"that harassment of district employees or disruption of district activities will not be permitted at any time Professor of English Phil Lopez said that it was Paiano who was being erratic and behaving inappropriately. The Freedom Fighters, if anyone, are the ones guilty of harassment, Lopez said, citing two examples of when Freedom Fighters pushed social \"They were trying to assassinate me,\" he said call it the five minute hate. You ever read '1984'? It really upset me was useless for the rest of the day wasn't able to do anything else.\" He said five professors, including President Janet Mazzarella, confronted him in front of the 400 building while he was collecting signatures for the decertification petition President Janet Mazzarella Frank Paiano Professor of Business and Information Systems Frank Paiano said a group that calls itself the Freedom Fighters has collected enough signatures from faculty to force two votes in the fall. Paiano said the California Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) would oversee a ballot that would give faculty the choice to dissolve the Southwestern College Education Association (SCEA) and discontinue the \"fair share\" clause that requires faculty to pay union fees mobbing of professor working to decertify union Maura Larkins note: This incident reminds me of the 60 minutes story about the Yusuf Bey family in Oakland, CA.: \"Over the years, the bakery had earned a reputation for intimidation. \"One incident, which they called a 'show of force,' was taped by San Francisco's station KPIX-TV. Members of the bakery could be seen outside an Oakland tow-yard, demanding that a car be released.\" 2/16/25, 10:07 Southwestern Community College and 6/9 percent of the seats on IFA's representative assembly and would allow at least one representative to sit on the negotiation team. Stroh said the bylaws would also include laws that would push to allow for adjuncts to recieve office space and paid office hours. Adjuncts have always expressed concerns about health benefits and not having paid office-hours, Mazzarella said. There are adjuncts that want improvements in these areas but the larger part of adjuncts have expressed that they will not use part-time office hours or benefits, Mazzarella said. Rather than focusing on gains in those areas, the has focused all its attention into getting adjuncts the highest wage per hour, Mazzarella said. Phil Lopez grievance chairman and English professor, said that the SCEA's numbers have shown that they have successfully done this. Since 1992 adjuncts have enjoyed an 88 percent increase in starting pay. Long-time adjuncts have shown a 96 percent increase, compared to full-time faculty, which have seen only a 72 percent increase, according to Lopez. One hurdle the supporters have to overcome for the vote is the SCEA's contract, which was ratified last spring leaders said the contract garnered an unprecedented cost of living increase, 11.53 percent, from the district. Stroh wrote in a global e-mail that the raise was not necessarily due to the negotiating team but instead due to the college's need to keep up with a state regulation. The law requires community colleges to dedicate 50 percent of its allocations to instructional costs. This year college allocations for instruction sit at 52.6 percent according to CCFS-311 report filed with the state chancellors office on Oct. 10. Lopez also pointed out the college's part-time standing compared to a Gossmont-Cuyamaca, a comparable college to that is represented by an independent union. He said the created a step schedule boundaries while collecting signatures. The Freedom Fighters are trying to dissolve the SCEA, which is affiliated with the California Teachers Association. In March the Freedom Fighters filed a petition to call a vote for independent representation with PERB. The petition was supported by what Paiano said he thought was 30 percent of the college's faculty, but he said he was wrong. SWC's Human Resources represntatives had told the Freedom Fighters that there were 970 faculty members working for the college, Paiano said. But when asked the college for a list of faculty, the list had grown to 1,091 names, making the Freedom Fighters short by 31 signatures notified the Freedom Fighters of this shortage April 27 and gave the dissident group 10 days to gather more signatures. While Paiano was scrambling for signatures, he said, the incident with Mazzarella occurred. Paiano said Freedom Fighters were able to add almost 50 signatures to their list in just two days and sent the signatures back to May 7. Three days later notified Paiano that the Freedom Fighters had attained enough signatures and a vote to decertify the union and to rescind fair share would take place sometime in fall 2007. \"Let's hope for a positive, constructive and informative campaign by both sides,\" Paiano said got involved in this because of what did to our adjunct instructors collected over 280 signatures because felt that they were getting a really raw deal from CTA.\" Paiano said that he had given the president of the union the opportunity to avoid this vote told Janet Mazzeralla that if lowered dues for adjuncts from $20 to 5 that wouldn't collect a single signature,\" said Paiano. \"She declined immediately.\" Five days before the vote was called by PERB, Mazzarella rebutted a Freedom Fighter e-mail. \"The statements that were sent out in the (Freedom Fighters) global e-mail are so misguided that we felt compelled to set the record straight,\" wrote Mazzarella. The Freedom Fighter e-mail accused the of being a primarily K-12 union disinterested in community colleges and lambasted the for its mandatory union dues, known as fair share. It told readers that an independent union could build a war chest just as strong as the CTA, and build it up with less expensive dues. Mazzarella said that every educational organization in the country, to her knowledge, has fair share dues and that an independent union could not create a war chest comparable to the CTA. \"The cost to fight the firing of one tenured faculty member is approximately $250,000 to 300,000,\" said Mazzarella spent nearly a million on three faculty members here at SWC. It will take a local independent organization years to build a war chest that big.\" In the e-mail Mazzarella said that the members of the current faculty negotiation team, executive committee and recent officers agreed not to take part in an independent union. \"Who is going to run the new union?\" she said. Mazzarell compared to Grossmont/Cuyamaca, one of California's 12 community college districts with independent unions. Grossmont/Cuyamaca ranked worst on a number of important measures. \"This is one of the reasons Grossmont's part-time faculty just left the (independent union) and joined the ranks of (the CTA),\" she said. Joan Stroh, a Freedom Fighter, said Mazzarella is comparing to Grossmont, which is the only independent union that has lower faculty salaries than SWC. The other 11 community college districts that have independent unions all have higher salaries than SWC, she said. \"She keeps harping on Grossmont,\" said Stroh. In an e-mail to faculty Lopez said the offered Freedom Fighters a vote on mandatory dues. \"We told Frank Paiano that if the (Freedom Fighters) would agree to be bound by this vote we would open the contract ratification election to all faculty members,\" Lopez wrote. \"Paiano said 'no.'\" The movement for an independent union spearheaded by the Freedom Fighters is not as strong as it seems, said Lopez. \"They have sort of created this tempest in a tea pot, which is way out of proportion to the 2/16/25, 10:07 Southwestern Community College and 7/9 that Grossmont-Cuyamaca does not have. It rewards adjuncts who stay with the college. The part-time starting hourly rate at is $17.08 higher than at Grossmont-Cuyamaca, according to a flier written by Lopez receive pro-rated paid benefits compared to Grosmont-Cuyamaca's, which has no part-time benefits, according to Lopez also made a separate salary schedule to benefit part-timers, so that full-time professors teaching overload could not benefit from state money that was allocated solely for part-time use. Most other schools do not have such a system, Lopez said. \"We have these two groups of people, part-time and full-time,\" said Lopez. \"Our goal is to get their salaries closer together, not farther apart.\" He said that from the numbers, they have clearly met that goal and that the numbers clearly demonstrate SCEA's commitment to part-time faculty. Stroh said it is not accurate to use Grossmont-Cuyamaca as a benchmark for an independent union because it is one of the lowest paid independent unions in the CCCI. Three adjuncts interviewed for this article said they had not yet decided how they would vote. Carol Stuardo adjunct faculty representative and Spanish and English as a Second Language instructor, said she was voting for the SCEA. Stuardo teaches at another campus, which she chose not to name, where part-time faculty are represented by an independent union. She said she is much more satisfied with the and that she likes knowing there is proven support, on a state and national level, backing the current union. \"It would be disconcerting to lose their support,\" she said. Stuardo said the independent union at her other college charges $5 a month, about one fourth SCEA's part-time monthly dues has negotiated a contract that pays faculty $15 to 20 more per hour compared to number of people they represent,\" said Lopez. \"In reality what we have is a very small number of people, six or eight, who don't want to pay fair share union dues.\" 2/16/25, 10:07 Southwestern Community College and 8/9 her independent representatives, she said. \"In one hour of teaching (at SWC),\" Stuardo said. \"I've already made back my monthly dues.\" Carole Ziegler geography and geology adjunct, said she planned to vote for the to represent her. \"One of the reasons,\" she said. \"Is that work at another university and have to pay two unions.\" She said she is looking forward to the debate coming to an end so teachers can get back to what they are at for-the student. 2/16/25, 10:07 Southwestern Community College and 9/9"} |
8,172 | Paul Secunda | Marquette University | [
"8172_101.pdf",
"8172_102.pdf",
"8172_103.pdf",
"8172_104.pdf",
"8172_105.pdf"
] | {"8172_101.pdf": "Marquette Law School professor suspended over student relationship Bruce Vielmetti Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Published 8:50 a.m Dec. 27, 2018 Updated 9:08 a.m Dec. 27, 2018 Marquette University Law School professor who might otherwise weigh in as an expert on such issues has been suspended over allegations he had an inappropriate relationship with a student. Paul Secunda, a well-known blogger and authority on labor and employment law, was dismissed from his teaching duties two weeks from the end of this past semester. Marquette officials declined to discuss specifics of the law school's concerns. The university only issued this statement: \"Paul Secunda has been removed from his duties, including teaching, at Marquette University as the result of information developed from an investigation that began last May. Marquette will not comment further on the issue at this time.\" Secunda did not reply to requests for an interview, but did release a statement through his attorney, Jennifer Walther assume Marquette University has chosen to act as it has toward me to protect the University. This does not diminish the great respect have for this institution and my fellow professors. \"Nonetheless cannot stand by idly in the face of what believe to be an injustice have confidence in the process Marquette and the faculty have established to protect tenured professors in these circumstances, and believe will clear my name at the end.\" Secunda directs Marquette Law's Labor and Employment Law program, but also has taught courses in trusts and estate, education law and civil procedure. As a Fulbright scholar, he's taught at the University of Melbourne Law School in Australia 2/16/25, 10:08 Marquette law professor suspended over student relationship 1/3 Earlier this year, Marquette lost a lengthy, nationally publicized court fight over another attempt to discipline a tenured faculty member. The university suspended John McAdams in 2014 for using his politically conservative blog to criticize a graduate student who told an undergraduate in her class he couldn't say he opposed gay marriage. RELATED: Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Marquette professor John McAdams in free speech case While that case was about free speech, it also led the university's Academic Senate to work on developing policies covering professional conduct and cyberbullying that would presumably address issues of when faculty can date students. That subject has become a challenge in higher education, where policies, range from outright bans to varying degrees of acceptance depending on whether the student is a graduate or undergraduate, whether the faculty member supervises their work and other factors. Under Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits gender-based discrimination in education, colleges and universities have become more cautious about student-faculty dating, even while some say that, short of harassment, such consensual relationships among adults should be considered private matters. RELATED: Texas astrophysicist sues UWM, says his reputation was smeared in sex assault allegation Recently, an astrophysicist at a Texas university sued the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee after its Title office determined he had sexually assaulted a woman at an academic conference in West Virginia while she was a graduate student at UWM. The professor, who has identified himself as John Doe in the suit, says he and the woman had a consensual relationship over several months and that she didn't even file a complaint with UWM. The lawsuit says UWM's determination could jeopardize his current position. The University of Wisconsin System in 2016 prohibited faculty from dating any student, graduate or undergraduate, if there was even the potential for an advisory or supervisory relationship. As is common at many universities, a pre-existing relationship between faculty and student, where one or the other later joins the System community, must be disclosed. 2/16/25, 10:08 Marquette law professor suspended over student relationship 2/3 Unlike McAdam's case, whose detailed facts became well-known as it became a conservative cause celebre, Secunda's remains mostly the subject of rumors. It has not been disclosed if the student was in his class or whether she filed the original complaint. RELATED: Marquette provost Dan Myers steps down; acting provost named Marquette Provost Dan Myers reportedly was negotiating a resolution with Secunda and then resigned suddenly in October, and Secunda was then suspended from teaching a short time later. His case is now headed for the Faculty Hearing Committee process. The was the body that issued the report against McAdams. The can gather more information beyond that obtained by the provost's initial review, then hold a hearing on any suggested discipline and issue a report for consideration by the university president and provost. 2/16/25, 10:08 Marquette law professor suspended over student relationship 3/3", "8172_102.pdf": "tenured Marquette law professor suspended in 2018 after a complaint regarding a relationship with a student has left the university Published 12:54 p.m May 19, 2020 Updated 1:53 p.m May 20, 2020 Bruce Vielmetti Milwaukee Journal Sentinel tenured professor has parted with Marquette University Law School more than a year after his suspension amid an investigation that he had an inappropriate relationship with a student. Paul Secunda, a well-known blogger and authority on labor and employment law, was dismissed from his teaching duties near the end of the 2018 fall semester. Then-Marquette Provost Dan Myers reportedly was negotiating a resolution with Secunda before suddenly resigning in October 2018. Secunda was suspended from teaching a short time later. Secunda said at the time he respected the university's position but felt he was the subject of an injustice and would fight for his job have confidence in the process Marquette and the faculty have established to protect tenured professors in these circumstances, and believe will clear my name at the end,\" he said in 2018. His case was headed for the Faculty Hearing Committee process, the same one that resulted in a report against Marquette professor John McAdams. Marquette suspended McAdams in 2014 after he was suspended for using his politically conservative blog to criticize a graduate student who told an undergraduate in her class he couldn't say he opposed gay marriage. The graduate student then received numerous hateful messages and eventually left Marquette. 2/16/25, 10:08 Marquette and tenured law professor part ways 1/2 Some of the messages included wishes that the woman would die a horrible death, and be raped and murdered. McAdams disputes any characterization of the messages as threats. His case became a conservative cause ce\u0301le\u0300bre and he won his job back when the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Marquette's suspension breached McAdams' contract that guaranteed his academic freedom of speech. Seconda's case proceeded with far less attention. It has not been disclosed if the student was in his class or whether she filed the original complaint. Neither he nor the university would discuss the progress of the Faculty Hearing Committee review throughout 2019. But this week, Secunda started a new job at Walcheske & Luzi, an employment law firm in Milwaukee, and said his last day with Marquette was April 27. Neither he nor Marquette would discuss the terms of his departure or the findings of the Faculty Review Committee. Marquette would say only that Secunda no longer worked for the university. Secunda, in an email, said he was trying \"trying to put the Marquette chapter of my life behind me and will have no further comment.\" RELATED: Texas astrophysicist sues UWM, says his reputation was smeared in sex assault allegation Contact Bruce Vielmetti at (414) 224-2187 or [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter at @ProofHearsay. 2/16/25, 10:08 Marquette and tenured law professor part ways 2/2", "8172_103.pdf": "0 9 , 2 0 1 9 Marquette\u2019s Case Against Paul Secunda: What Is It? As we previously discussed, Marquette has suspended and apparently seeks to fire Law School Professor Paul Secunda for an \u201can inappropriate relationship\u201d with a student. The suspension and claim of \u201can inappropriate relationship\u201d were leaked to the Journal-Sentinel. We don\u2019t know by whom, nor what the motive was. And the fact that the leaker failed to supply more details \u2014 leaving the impression that Secunda must have done something terrible \u2014 is suspicious. Would more details make his transgression (if it was a transgression) seem less serious? Was the intention to smear Secunda? Marquette Mum Marquette, when asked by the Journal-Sentinel, simply said Anti-Trump Screed on Syllabus of Ken Mayer, Univer... Leftist Bigotry: the Covington Catholic High Scho... Not Much Choice Unemployment: U.S. vs. Europe Who Now Doesn\u2019t Believe in Evolution? It\u2019s a Dirty Job, But Somebody Has to Do It Marquette Law School Professor Paul Secunda Suspen... Ever Higher Tuition at Marquette Administrative Bloat at Marquette Yes, Again Useful Links Right Wisconsin \u2014 Coverage of Wisconsin news and politics from a conservative perspective. The Louis Joliet Society \u2014 An Alumni Association trying to get 2 . More Create Blog Sign In 2/16/25, 10:08 Marquette Warrior: Marquette\u2019s Case Against Paul Secunda: What Is It? 1/4 \u201cPaul Secunda has been removed from his duties, including teaching, at Marquette University as the result of information developed from an investigation that began last May. Marquette will not comment further on the issue at this time.\u201d So an investigation that began in May resulted in him getting pulled out of class two weeks before the end of the semester, throwing into turmoil the final exam and reporting of grades. That clearly suggests some precipitous move by Marquette. Was the (equally) precipitous departure by Provost Dan Myers in October related? According to the Journal-Sentinel, Myers was \u201cnegotiating a resolution with Secunda and then resigned suddenly in October, and Secunda was then suspended from teaching a short time later.\u201d It would be odd if Kimo Ah Yun, new Acting Provost, moved so abruptly upon taking office. In fact, it would be rather disturbing. What Did He Do? The leaker (but not Marquette) accused Secunda of an \u201can inappropriate relationship.\u201d That would imply something consensual, since \u201csexual assault\u201d is sexual assault, and \u201cquid pro quo harassment\u201d (offering some favorable treatment for sex, or threatening unfavorable treatment if sex is denied) is much worse than \u201can inappropriate relationship.\u201d But who knows if the leaker was using precise language? Has Secunda Made Enemies? When Marquette tried to fire us, they were egged on by a collection of leftist faculty, who had a long-standing grudge about our blogging, which had revealed numerous abuses by politically correct types on campus. But Secunda is a leftist. So shouldn\u2019t that give him some protection? From some things, yes, but not from everything. First, the sort of extreme feminism that thrives on college campuses encourages women to feel abused and ill-treated. Sometimes, perhaps, as the result merely of an ill-considered and inadvisable relationship that turned out badly. Does Secunda have a spurned (or otherwise aggrieved) woman in his past? The other alternative is that the \u201crelationship\u201d was so indiscreet as to provoke complaints to administrators. Marquette to live up to its claims to be \u201cCatholic.\u201d Marquette Tribune \u2014 Marquette's own junior version of the mainstream media. Marquette College Republicans \u2014 Pretty active of late. Marquette College Democrats \u2014 Just what the name implies, and like the College Republicans, pretty active. Dad29 \u2014 Marquette alum writing mostly on state politics issues. Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog \u2014 Law professors write some of the best blogs in the country, so it's good to see Marquette Law faculty joining that movement. Shark and Shepherd \u2014 Blog from a conservative Law School faculty member. Mark F. Johnson \u2014 Marquette Thomist theologian on various topics. The Dimming Torch \u2014 Liberal Marquette Philosophy professor on politics and other things. Health Reform Explained \u2014 Marquette alum writes about the changes in the health care system. Kennedy Assassination Home Page \u2014 one of this bloggers other obsessions. Milwaukee Young Republicans \u2014 Interesting links and news on events. Student Blogs 2/16/25, 10:08 Marquette Warrior: Marquette\u2019s Case Against Paul Secunda: What Is It? 2/4 Has she (if there is a \u201cshe\u201d) threatened to sue Marquette? Secunda\u2019s statement assume Marquette University has chosen to act as it has toward me to protect the University\u201d \u2014 might imply that. And indeed, Cheryl Abbate, the instructor whom we blogged about in 2014, did threaten Marquette with a lawsuit. Marquette\u2019s subsequent attempt to fire us embroiled it in a nasty, protracted and vastly expensive lawsuit which ended in a humiliating defeat before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Enemies Among Administrators One thing that is clearly the case is that Secunda has alienated some campus administrators, and especially Law School Dean Joseph D. Kearney. Secunda has been outspoken in believing that Marquette\u2019s law school, in a fancy, expensive new building, should have been improving its standing in national rankings \u2014 rankings that have a huge effect on (for example) the quality of applicants and the job prospects of graduates reliable source in the Law School reports witnessing \u201con multiple occasions\u201d antagonistic interactions between Secunda and Kearney. In a Law School Faculty meeting, a request was made of Kearney to explain exactly what the charges were, and a motion was made to go into executive session to hear the details. The motion failed. Kearney made it clear he didn\u2019t want to share any details. It doesn\u2019t matter too much whether you are on the left or the right when you make things uncomfortable for campus bureaucrats. We Need More Information Much of what we have said is speculation, but it is informed speculation, based on our own experience and observations. In fact, some in the Law School are calling this \u201cMcAdams II.\u201d Secunda is lawyered up \u2014 yes, lawyers themselves feel the need to lawyer up. And lawyers typically tell their clients to stay silent, lest they say something to complicate their case. But we badly need more sunlight on this case. It has been covered in media highly visible in the legal community, including Above the Law, Law.com, Legal Insurrection, and Inside Higher Ed. It has doubtless harmed his reputation. Gay/Straight Alliance of Marquette \u2014 Student organization Marquette recognized claiming it was in no way in conflict with Marquette's Catholic mission Wisconsin Blogs Selective List, All Highly Recommended Media Trackers Wagner on the Web Jiblog Boots & Sabers MacIver Institute Freedom Eden yoSAMite says Wigderson Library & Pub Badger Pundit Christian Schneider Milwaukee Federalists The Provincial E-Mails From Where Sit Wisconsin Family Voice Cold Spring Shops Crusader Knight Atom Feed For This Site Site Feed 2/16/25, 10:08 Marquette Warrior: Marquette\u2019s Case Against Paul Secunda: What Is It? 3/4 We can easily believe Secunda may have done something we would consider immoral, and maybe something most would agree to be foolish or ill-considered. But that\u2019s not the same as professional misconduct. And given that Marquette has no policy concerning sex between faculty and students, any infraction would have to be obviously and blatantly at odds with some established academic norms to justify disciplining him. Marquette\u2019s credibility on issues like this is poor. We will have to see some hard \u2014 and damning \u2014 information before we conclude that his suspension (or any eventual attempt to fire him) is justified. Labels: Faculty Hearing Committee, Firing, Joseph Kearney, Law School, Marquette University, Paul Secunda, suspension, Termination 9:33 0 << Home 2/16/25, 10:08 Marquette Warrior: Marquette\u2019s Case Against Paul Secunda: What Is It? 4/4", "8172_104.pdf": "Marquette Law Scholarly Commons ( (HTTPS://SCHOLARSHIP.LAW.MARQUETTE.EDU/FACPUB) Getting to the Nexus of the Matter Sliding Scale Approach to Faculty-Student Consensual Relationship Policies in Higher Education ( Authors Paul M. Secunda, Marquette University Law School ( 9e023ef21f18%22%20OR%20%28author%3A%22Paul%20M.%20Secunda%22%20AND%20-bp_author_id%3A%5B%2A%20TO%20%2A%5D%29&start=0&context=1823866) Follow ( Document Type Article Publication Date 2004 Publication Information Paul M. Secunda, Getting to the Nexus of the Matter Sliding Scale Approach to Faculty-Student Consensual Relationship Policies in Higher Education, 55 Syracuse L. Rev. 55 (2004) Source Publication 55 Syracuse Law Review 55 (2004) Abstract prominent law dean is forced to resign over an alleged sexual affair with a student; a writing instructor details in a national magazine his steamy affair with his married student; a student stalks her male professor after he ends their sexual relationship and the criminal stalking charges against her are only dropped when she agrees to voluntarily leave the country. Increasingly, such tantalizing scandals are making their way into the nation's daily consciousness. Yet, behind all of these shocking tales of decadence lays the very real dilemma as to how college and university administrators should regulate consensual relationships between faculty members and students. Although numerous scholars have posited various approaches to these seemingly intractable matters of the heart, none of these commentators have adequately balanced the bewildering array of overlapping faculty, student, university, and third-party interests. Furthermore, current faculty-student consensual relationship policies are either underinclusive in not providing a sufficient institutional response to troubling faculty conduct or overinclusive in ignoring the very real privacy and associational interests that individuals have in forming private intimate associations away from the workplace. As someone who teaches labor and employment law and education law, and who comes from a labor and employment law practice background approach the regulation of faculty-student consensual relationships from a distinctive viewpoint. Rather than focusing on highly indeterminate, and politically charged, concepts such as consent and power as most scholars and postsecondary institutions do, my approach examines the more easily discernible impact or effect that consensual relationships have on the college and university environment. The premise underlying this approach is that a college or university may only legitimately regulate the private affairs of its employees if such private conduct spills over into the academic arena and adversely affects the college or university by damaging the school's reputation, by interfering with a professor's ability to properly perform his or her job, or by causing other faculty members and students not to want to work with the offending professor. While this approach to consensual relationships is new in the college and university context, the idea of regulating these relationships based upon their impact on the surrounding workplace environment is not. In fact, there already exists an extensive body of labor arbitration case law concerning the regulation of employee off-duty conduct. For over a half a century, labor arbitrators in the union context have applied the so-called nexus principle to determine whether an employer could properly discipline or discharge an employee for private conduct away from the workplace on the employee's own time. In such cases, arbitrators have consistently held that an employer has no business interfering with the private lives of its employees unless such conduct adversely affects an employer's business interests in some relevant manner. By applying this nexus principle to the college and university environment, a number of guideposts emerge as to how postsecondary institutions should treat faculty- student consensual relationships. First, a blanket rule either permitting or prohibiting all consensual faculty-student relationships is not appropriate, as the facts of individual cases will determine whether the private sexual conduct of the faculty member has a detrimental impact on the college or university. Second, although a general rule would appear not to be possible, useful presumptions can nevertheless be established. Where the faculty member is involved in a consensual relationship with a student with whom he or she is supervising or evaluating, the presumption is that a private relationship in these circumstances is likely to adversely affect the college or university environment in some fashion, unless the faculty member can establish that the relationship in question in fact caused no detrimental impact to the college or university. On the other hand, where no such supervisory or evaluative relationship exists, the opposite presumption applies unless the college or university can establish that specific facts exist suggesting that such private conduct is directly interfering with the academic setting. In a nutshell, the nexus test supports a sliding scale approach to consensual relationships between a faculty member and a student. 2/16/25, 10:08 \"Getting to the Nexus of the Matter Sliding Scale Approach to Facult\" by Paul M. Secunda 1/2 (/#facebook) (/#linkedin) (/#whatsapp) (/#email) ( Repository Citation Secunda, Paul M., \"Getting to the Nexus of the Matter Sliding Scale Approach to Faculty-Student Consensual Relationship Policies in Higher Education\" (2004). Faculty Publications. 612. Download ( 1,163 Since August 06, 2012 Included in Law Commons ( Share COinS PlumX Metrics ( 2/16/25, 10:08 \"Getting to the Nexus of the Matter Sliding Scale Approach to Facult\" by Paul M. Secunda 2/2", "8172_105.pdf": "Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations Marquette University launched an investigation into professor Paul Secunda, allegedly for an inappropriate relationship with a student. December 27, 2018 at 12:56 3 minute read By Karen Sloan Paul Secunda. 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 1/12 well-known labor and employment expert has been removed from the classroom at Marquette University Law School amid allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a student. The university removed Paul Secunda from the classroom two weeks before the end of the fall semester, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported Thursday. University officials told the Journal that the decision was \u201cthe result of information developed from an investigation that began last May.\u201d They declined to offer more details on the investigation or its origins, and a campus spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. However, Secunda issued a statement to the Journal through his attorney, Jennifer Walther, saying that Marquette is acting to protect itself cannot stand by idly in the face of what believe to be an injustice have confidence in the process Marquette and the faculty have established to protect tenured professors in these circumstances, and believe will clear my name at the end,\u201d Secunda said in his statement. Reached Thursday, Walther said she was not at liberty to comment on the situation beyond the statement Secunda issued to the Journal Sentinel. Secunda also declined Thursday to discuss the investigation. According to the Journal, Secunda's case will now be handled through Marquette's Faculty Hearing process. \u27a4\u27a4 Stay on top of developments and trends in legal education with Ahead of the Curve by Karen Sloan, a new weekly briefing from Law.com. Sign up here and get next week's email update straight to your inbox. Secunda has taught at Marquette Law since 2008. Prior to that, he was on the faculty at University of Mississippi School of Law and an associate in the labor and employment practice at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 2/12 Secunda is just the latest legal academic to come under scrutiny for alleged misconduct with students and staff. Yale Law School is reportedly investigating high-profile professor Jed Rubenfeld for allegedly crossing lines with female students he taught and mentored. Meanwhile, Indiana University is investigating new professor Ian Samuel for possible violations of Title IX, which prohibit gender discrimination and sexual misconduct on campus. And University of Illinois law professor Jay Kesan is on a yearlong leave of absence resulting from an earlier investigation into ongoing inappropriate conduct with female students and fellow faculty members. (The university's investigation found that Kesan's behavior violated the campus code of conduct but did not rise to the level of sexual misconduct. But students called for his dismissal once word of the 2017 investigation went public.) Secunda is a prominent academic and lists employment discrimination law and education law among his areas of expertise. He has chaired three different Association of American Law Schools sections: employee benefits and executive compensation; labor relations and employment law; and employment discrimination law. This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis\u00ae and Bloomberg Law. To view this content, please continue to their sites. Go To Lexis \u2192 Not a Lexis Subscriber? Subscribe Now Go To Bloomberg Law \u2192 Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber? Subscribe Now Why am seeing this? 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 3/12 \u00a9 2025 Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing. You Might Like February 14, 2025 Federal Court Evaluates Constitutionality of School's Transgender Policy Prohibiting Parental Notice By Colleen Murphy 5 minute read 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 4/12 February 14, 2025 Men Push Back, Students Sue: The Culture War on Campus By Briana Warsing 7 minute read 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 5/12 February 13, 2025 Mass Shooting Survivor Hits Michigan State University With $50M Civil Rights Lawsuit By Colleen Murphy 4 minute read 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 6/12 February 12, 2025 Meta Costs Black Students Opportunities in Higher Education, New Discrimination Lawsuit Says By Colleen Murphy 4 minute read 'This Was an Accident': Jury Trial for Orange County Judge Accused of Killing Wife Set To Begin 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 7/12 'Potential Resolution Moves for 28-Day Pause in Coinbase Litigation Read the Doc: Dept. of Justice Asks Judge to Dismiss Adams Case Without Prejudice Munger Retained in $10M Utility Contract for Fire Litigation Defense Sidley Nabs Dentons Partner, Former Consumer Product Safety Chair in San Diego Latest Trending Who Got The Work J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco\u2026 Read More Who Got The Work Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel in a pending securities lawsuit The action filed on Dec Learn More About Radar 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 8/12 More from Davis Polk's Leor Landa on Wild Times in Fund Formation 1 minute read Return to Work Mandates Among Current Mental Health Stressors for Legal Professionals 1 minute read Which Legal Tech Jobs Are on the Rise, and Which Aren't, with Jared Coseglia 1 minute read Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what\u2019s happening in the legal industry. Browse all Products Resources 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 9/12 2025 Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report Brought to you by Download Now The Power of Online Reputation Management For Attorneys Critical Tool For Law Firms in 2025 Brought to you by Erase.com Download Now 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 10/12 The Role of Evolving Support Structures in Optimizing Legal Talent Brought to you by BigHand Download Now Corporate Monitorship Advisory Services Brought to you by HaystackID Download Now Browse More Resources 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 11/12 Subscribe to Law.com Don't miss the crucial news and insights you need to make informed legal decisions. Join Law.com now! Unlimited access to Law.com 1 free article* across the subscription network every 30 days Access to additional free publications Exclusive discounts on events and publications Already have an account? Sign In The industry-leading media platform offering competitive intelligence to prepare for today and anticipate opportunities for future success. About Us Contact Us Site Map Asset & Logo Licensing Advertise With Us Customer Service Terms of Service Privacy Policy Copyright \u00a9 2025 Global, All Rights Reserved Join Law.com 2/16/25, 10:08 Prominent Law Prof Pulled From Teaching Amid Sexual Misconduct Allegations 12/12"} |
7,879 | Andy Eldo Osaitile | Volunteer State Community College | [
"7879_101.pdf"
] | {"7879_101.pdf": "Investigation calls for firing of Vol State professor Dessislava Yankova [email protected] Published 3:44 p.m Dec. 23, 2014 Vol State professor has been removed from the classroom and recommended for termination after a student\u2019s sexual harassment complaint. English professor Andy Eldo Osaitile is on paid administrative leave and not allowed on campus while the college determines his employment status. Osaitile, a tenured faculty member, has taught at the Gallatin school since 1990, Volunteer State Community College said female student alleges Osaitile inappropriately and without her permission touched her on multiple occasions, more specifically holding her hand and grabbing her breasts. Osaitile denies the allegations, saying his conduct was \u201cproper\u201d and he \u201conly patted\u201d her on the shoulder once to express empathy and support. According to an internal college investigation released Dec. 17, the preponderance of the evidence supports the \u201cevents occurred substantially as alleged\u201d by the complainant. \u201cVol State is fully committed to our students, faculty and staff,\u201d the college said in a statement. \u201cWe stand ready to protect their rights and provide a safe and secure learning and working environment for all. We take reports of faculty or staff misconduct extremely seriously.\u201d No past sexual harassment complaints have been filed against Osaitile, according to the investigation launched immediately after the student reported it. The college does not specify when the complaint was filed, but the investigation by the college\u2019s Office of Human Resources was completed in August. No charges will be filed 2/16/25, 10:09 Investigation calls for firing of Vol State professor 1/3 Osaitile\u2019s conduct is \u201cmore than a mere violation\u201d of guidelines by the Tennessee Board of Regents that oversees the state\u2019s public higher education institutions. \u201cIt is likely (Osaitile\u2019s) conduct and the physical contact he made with complainant would constitute a criminal act,\u201d the investigation concludes. The Gallatin Police Department has looked into the complaint and did not find enough evidence to bring criminal charges, said Sumner County District Attorney General Ray Whitley. \u201cThe student said it happened, and he said it didn\u2019t,\u201d Whitley said. \u201cWe have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and we don\u2019t have that. There will not be any criminal prosecution.\u201d Multiple attempts from a reporter to reach Osaitile were unsuccessful. In one of the reported incidents, the student went to Osaitile\u2019s office to hand in an assignment she missed. When she attempted to hug Osaitile on his request, she said he grabbed her left breast and asked, \u201cWhat\u2019s this?\u201d Shocked by his behavior, she said she told him it was her scarf, thinking he might have meant to touch the scarf draped across her chest. Before she could react further, Osaitile grabbed her right breast and asked, \u201cWhat\u2019s this?\u201d She gave the same answer and was \u201cso shocked\u201d that she did not confront him but instead proceeded to get through the meeting as quickly as possible. Osaitile\u2019s later requested a high-five, she said, and when their hands met he \u201ctook her hand and held on to it. On her way out, Osaitile motioned for another hug. She tried to give him a quick hug from the side but he grabbed her arm and held her wrist to his waist, forcing a full frontal hug, which she said furthered her discomfort. Initially, she dismissed his conduct but later felt compelled to report it. The teacher denied touching the student inappropriately or unnecessarily but instead said he listened empathetically to her being overwhelmed by school and other responsibilities. The only physical contact he said they had is when he patted her on her shoulder and encouraged her to \u201chang in there.\u201d Osaitile said in the investigation report that he is shocked by the allegations. He said he sometimes high-fives or fist-bumps students and believes he has done so with the complainant. The last time he said he hugged a student was earlier in the semester and with her permission. 2/16/25, 10:09 Investigation calls for firing of Vol State professor 2/3 In addition to recommending termination at Vol State, the investigation report further recommended Osaitile\u2019s direct personal and physical contact with students be limited to online courses, research or other positions with non-classroom duties to minimize the potential for repeat offenses. Reach Dessislava Yankova at 575-7170 and on Twitter @desspor. 2/16/25, 10:09 Investigation calls for firing of Vol State professor 3/3"} |
7,389 | Yosiya Niyo | Iowa State University | [
"7389_101.pdf"
] | {"7389_101.pdf": "\uf39e \uf16d \ue61b \ue07b Enter Search Term in court over racial lawsuit Tracy Deutmeyer January 16, 1997 After a court hearing yesterday, Iowa State officials are hopeful the courts will dismiss a racial discrimination case filed by an professor against the university, according to Paul Tanaka, head of of University Legal Services. Dr. Yosiya Niyo, a professor of pathology in the College of Veterinary Medicine, filed a lawsuit against on Dec. 24, claiming the \u201cuniversity performed a biased, incomplete and careless investigation of a graduate student complaint.\u201d According to a copy of the lawsuit, which was also filed against Richard Ross, dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, and President Martin Jischke, the university claimed Niyo sexually harassed a graduate student. However, Niyo denies any allegations of sexual harassment. The investigation was performed by David Torres, the former head of affirmative action at ISU. The university found probable cause that Niyo did sexually harass the student, according to the lawsuit. \u201cWe don\u2019t think the lawsuit is appropriate and we want to dismiss the case,\u201d Tanaka said. Tanaka said the university brought the dismissal charges to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in Des Moines yesterday. He said the court should make a decision within a few weeks Future Hunger Fighters Program Empowers Students to Tackle Food Insecurity February 16, 2025 Review: \u201cWe Live In Time\u201d, a heart-wrenching exploration of love and loss February 16, 2025 No. 14 Cyclones come up short too many times, lose to No. 4 Panthers February 16, 2025 Takeaways: No. 4 Northern Iowa outmatched No. 14 Cyclones in scrappy in- state rivalry February 16, 2025 State Auditor Rob Sand to visit campus February 16, 2025 \uf086 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f Niyo is one of two full professors at that are black, according to the lawsuit has recommended that the plaintiff should suffer 11 disciplinary actions, including a one-year suspension without pay, a demotion to associate professor and total exclusion from his accuser\u2019s program of study. Niyo claimed in the lawsuit that the recommendations for him are much harsher than those similarly situated Caucasian males have received for allegations of sexual harassment, which, Niyo said, were much more serious than those against him. He also claims his race was the motivating factor behind the defendants\u2019 acts. He claims because of ISU\u2019s acts and omissions, he will suffer damages including irreparable harm to his livelihood, career path and professional reputation. Niyo and his attorney, Alfredo Parrish of Des Moines, were not available for comment. Donate to Iowa State Daily $5750 $10000 Contributed Our Goal Leave a Comment Your donation will support the student journalists of the Iowa State Daily. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment, send our student journalists to conferences and off-set their cost of living so they can continue to do best-in-the-nation work at the Iowa \uf086 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f \u00a9 2025 Pro WordPress Theme by \u2022 Log in Donate Tracy Deutmeyer, Author State Daily. About the Writer Iowa State Daily The independent student newspaper of Iowa State and Ame\u2026 \uf39e \uf16d \ue61b \ue07b Enter Search Term \uf002 About Advertise with Apply Donate Calendar Contact \uf086 \uf164 \uf39e \ue61b \uf0e0 \uf02f"} |
7,728 | Richard Suplita | University of Georgia | [
"7728_101.pdf",
"7728_102.pdf",
"7728_103.pdf"
] | {"7728_101.pdf": "case/article_59280030-6468-11e4-8e93-001a4bcf6878.html Hot for teacher grossly mishandles teacher/student relationship case Shelby Masters @Masters_Shelbz Nov 5, 2014 Laura Thompson The scandal surrounding professor Richard Suplita and his relationship with a teaching assistant has raised concerns not only about defining relationships between students and teachers but also the mishandling of this particular case. There seems to be some discrepancy regarding UGA\u2019s Equal Opportunity Office\u2019s definition of an appropriate relationship and the actions taken to ensure the safety of students. 2/16/25, 10:10 Hot for teacher grossly mishandles teacher/student relationship case | Views | redandblack.com 1/5 Society\u2019s fetishism of teacher/student relationships has glamorized an unrealistic, romantic portrayal of classroom relationships. Whether it is a \u201csexy schoolgirl\u201d outfit sold at the local Spencers or the portrayal of the Arya/Ezra flame in the popular show \u201cPretty Little Liars,\u201d there is nothing cute or sexual about the bond between a teacher and their student. This sacred bond is one of a flow of knowledge and influence. The words of a teacher can make a student soar to reach their new potential or mold their futures. Teachers are with students eight hours a day, and that means they can be more influential than even their parents. Keeping this in mind was fully prepared when hearing about Richard Suplita\u2019s case to voice a furious and acidic opinion on the sanctity of that bond. However instead found myself agreeing with Suplita\u2019s decision to let his contract run out, not because of the harassment but the poor handling of the case itself. Suplita has been accused by the of violating the University of Georgia policy against sexual harassment. Suplita has been dating a third-year neuroscience Ph.D. student who served as the T.A. for his classes. Suplita and the girl in question asked his supervisor if they could begin a relationship, and were given approval. They even went Facebook official, a milestone in dating in the technology age. Although, because this status change happened before final grades were submitted, Suplita was technically dating his subordinate and this violates the Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment policy. Now agree wholeheartedly with this policy and praise its existence along with the also understand that these rules have been put in place to protect students in case those in mentoring positions and positions of power decide to abuse those in their care. Suplita himself agrees with the policy and said, \u201cReal harassment goes on, real discrimination goes on and they need to be very vigilant of that and have a good, strong system in place for dealing with that,\u201d according to a previous Red & Black article. However he also claims that he had no knowledge of the evidence brought against him and did not have a lawyer to defend him during the investigation am not privy to the EOO\u2019s knowledge, but it does seem they should be re-educating the staff on what constitutes an acceptable relationship. Suplita\u2019s supervisor should have never told him the relationship would be tolerated under the can only feel badly that something like a miscommunication or misunderstanding of the rules has led to a professor\u2019s resignation. While do not condone his relationship with a believe his case was grossly mishandled. He entered the relationship with the false notion that it would be deemed acceptable by the EOO, under the impression that he had done nothing wrong. These policies prohibiting teacher/student relationships are there for the safety of students and faculty and should remain in place to avoid situations such as this. Ultimately, a faculty member was put in an awkward position due to a misunderstanding, which easily could have been avoided with proper guidance and enforcement of policies on the EOO\u2019s part. 2/16/25, 10:10 Hot for teacher grossly mishandles teacher/student relationship case | Views | redandblack.com 2/5 \u2014 Shelby Masters is a sophomore from Johns Creek majoring in public affairs journalism \u2014 Editor's Note previous version of this article stated that Suplita was a former editor. He is still a professor, though his contract ends in May. Professor to resign after policy \u2018abused\u2019 during investigation 2/16/25, 10:10 Hot for teacher grossly mishandles teacher/student relationship case | Views | redandblack.com 3/5 Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment policy amended to protect confidentiality of sexual assault victims, increase awareness 2/16/25, 10:10 Hot for teacher grossly mishandles teacher/student relationship case | Views | redandblack.com 4/5 Changes to national campus safety act modify hate crime definitions for colleges The Case: One student's story reporting sexual harassment 2/16/25, 10:10 Hot for teacher grossly mishandles teacher/student relationship case | Views | redandblack.com 5/5", "7728_102.pdf": "investigation/article_644752cc-5ae5-11e4-bdc1-001a4bcf6878.html Professor to resign after policy \u2018abused\u2019 during investigation Lauren McDonald @laurenmcdonald2 Oct 24, 2014 Katy Janousek, Sexual Health Coordinator at the University Health Center, advises people to confront their significant others in-person rather than over text. Joshua L. Jones University of Georgia psychology professor accused of violating the University policy against sexual harassment intends to resign because of his \u201cdisgust\u201d with the way the investigative process was handled. 2/16/25, 10:10 Professor to resign after policy \u2018abused\u2019 during investigation | Campus News | redandblack.com 1/8 Richard Suplita, a professor of behavioral and brain sciences who has worked at for 14 years, was notified Oct. 15 that an Equal Opportunity Office investigation found he had violated the Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment policy. The investigator recommended his termination from the University. Nearly two months before the investigation began, Suplita began dating a third-year neuroscience Ph.D. student who was a teaching assistant for his class during the summer semester. Suplita and his girlfriend went to his supervisor on July 28 to confirm there would be no issues if the two began a dating relationship. He said his supervisor gave them both her approval. The following evening, after the last class of the summer had ended, the two posted their relationship status on Facebook put this up on public status certainly wasn\u2019t trying to hide it from anyone,\u201d Suplita said clearly thought that we had been given the unequivocal green light.\u201d However, the thought differently. Suplita was notified Sept. 26 that he was being investigated for violating the NDAH. The section of the policy relating to \u201cConsensual Relationships in Regard to Sexual Harassment\u201d states the University \u201cprohibits all faculty and staff, including graduate assistants, from pursuing or engaging in dating or sexual relationships with any student whom they currently supervise, teach or evaluate in any way.\u201d It also states any employee who \u201csupervises, evaluates or in any other way directly affects the terms and conditions of another employee must immediately disclose the existence of a dating or sexual relationship to his/her immediate supervisor.\u201d Suplita said he was supposedly being investigated based on a student complaint filed Sept. 23 to an advisor that certain comments he had made had made the student \u201cuncomfortable.\u201d The investigator found no evidence to substantiate that claim, Suplita said, but did find evidence that he had violated the section of the policy that states no supervisor can date a subordinate. 2/16/25, 10:10 Professor to resign after policy \u2018abused\u2019 during investigation | Campus News | redandblack.com 2/8 The and the Public Affairs Division told The Red & Black they cannot comment on any investigations and cannot confirm that an investigation took place. \u201cIn general, investigative files are closed until 10 days after all appeals are exhausted,\u201d said Tom Jackson Vice President for Public Affairs. Suplita said the found that because he had changed his relationship status before final grades were submitted, he violated the policy. But the way the policy is currently written, Suplita said, it was not clear that he was in violation. \u201cThe policy needs to stipulate think, that all relationships between primary instructions and teaching assistants are inherently supervisors, if that\u2019s what they\u2019re going to enforce,\u201d he said. The most recent revisions to the policy were made in September, in part to \u201cclarify roles, responsibilities, and processes,\u201d according to an ArchNews email. Suplita said while he is in support of UGA\u2019s policy and the EOO, he does not feel the investigative process was fairly handled. He said he was not allowed to have a lawyer defend him or to know the evidence that was brought against him. \u201cThe procedural due process is not being followed by the office,\u201d Suplita said. Suplita said he has \u201cevery intention\u201d of resigning based on his \u201cexasperation and disgust\u201d with the investigation. He has until Oct. 29 to appeal the decision, but he said he does not intend to can\u2019t imagine staying here after this would just be so uncomfortable,\u201d Suplita said. \u201cBut don\u2019t want other people in the future to end up in the same type of situation.\u201d Suplita said the policy itself is in fact a good one. \u201cReal harassment goes on, real discrimination goes on, and they need to be very vigilant of that and have a good, strong system in place for dealing with that,\u201d he said. 2/16/25, 10:10 Professor to resign after policy \u2018abused\u2019 during investigation | Campus News | redandblack.com 3/8 However, Suplita said he hopes to see the policy or investigative process changed so that no employee has to go through unfair treatment in the future. \u201cThis is one of those situations where the policy is being abused to hurt people and not help anybody,\u201d he said. Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment policy amended to protect confidentiality of sexual assault victims, increase awareness 2/16/25, 10:10 Professor to resign after policy \u2018abused\u2019 during investigation | Campus News | redandblack.com 4/8 Former associate athletic director's resignation came during investigation of affair 2/16/25, 10:10 Professor to resign after policy \u2018abused\u2019 during investigation | Campus News | redandblack.com 5/8 With a staff of five does what it can to address sexual assault 2/16/25, 10:10 Professor to resign after policy \u2018abused\u2019 during investigation | Campus News | redandblack.com 6/8 Hot for teacher grossly mishandles teacher/student relationship case 2/16/25, 10:10 Professor to resign after policy \u2018abused\u2019 during investigation | Campus News | redandblack.com 7/8 Proposed parental leave policy provides framework, but lacks guarantees for action 2/16/25, 10:10 Professor to resign after policy \u2018abused\u2019 during investigation | Campus News | redandblack.com 8/8", "7728_103.pdf": "Franklin College Faculty Senate Minutes of the meeting on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 The meeting was called to order at 3:30 in room 101 of the Miller Learning Center, Dana Bultman presiding. Members Present: Christine Albright, Budak Arpinar, Maor Bar-Peled, Mary Bedell, Dana Bultman, Brandon Craswell, Trina Cyterski, Shanta Dhar, Inge DiBella, Husseina Dinani, Diana Downs, Christopher Eaket, Rebecca Enghauser, Christine Franklin, Kim Gilbert, Kelly Happe, Uwe Happek, Charles Hopkinson, Chad Howe, Miriam Jacobson, Natarajan Kannan, Reid Messich, Lan Mu, Dan Nakano, Robert Phillips, Mike Roden, David Smilde, Saral Surakul, Jon Swindler, Karim Traore, Zachary Wood, Sarah Wright, and Angela Yao. Proxies: Thiab Taha (proxy for Shelby Funk) and Julie Runk (proxy for Virginia Nazarea). Members not present: Ibigbolade Aderibigbe, Fred Dolezal, Jim Lauderdale, Dan Rood, Mitch Rothstein, Inseok Song, and Richard Suplita. Visitors: Ricky Roberts Approval of the minutes of the 15 October 2013 meeting: Approved without corrections. President Dana Bultman\u2019s Remarks \uf0b7 President Bultman reminded the Senate this is the last meeting for fall semester and that we will be meeting in 102 Miller Learning Center for spring semester 2014. Dean Dorsey\u2019s Remarks \uf0b7 Dean Dorsey informed the Senate that 6 positions were funded that his office submitted to the Provost office as part of the President\u2019s hiring initiative. These positions are interdisciplinary. He noted that a description of the funded positions are in a recent Columns article that can be accessed as follows: new-faculty/ The Dean indicated his office is working on guidelines for promotion and tenure with respect to these positions. \uf0b7 Dean Dorsey provided follow up information regarding the concerns expressed by the Senate during the October meeting about the administrative access policy. The Dean indicated he is in the process of forming a task force to revisit and examine the current policies in place. He wants the task force to make recommendations on how best to meet the challenges of the college and resources needed to service over 9000 devices. The task force will consist of Franklin senators, department heads, Franklin faculty, and Franklin staff members. Committee Reports: \uf0b7 Academic Standards Committee: Received 6 petitions; 3 approved and 3 denied. \uf0b7 Curriculum Committee: Approved 9 new courses, approved 17 course changes, and approved 2 proposals. \uf0b7 Executive Committee: No new business reported. \uf0b7 Committee on Faculty Affairs: No new business reported. \uf0b7 Committee on Planning & Evaluation: No new business reported. New Business discussion of the Non-Discrimination Policy at and Fair Employment Practices Act was introduced by Miriam Jacobson (Franklin senator) and Ricky Roberts (academic advisor for the Honors Program and doctoral student). The discussion focused on adding \u2018gender identity or expression\u2019 language to the non-discrimination policy and to express support for the Fair Employment Practice Act. Draft documents that were posted to the Franklin website were considered for review and approval by the Senate. The first document was a resolution to express support f0r the inclusion of \u201cgender identity or expression\u201d as a separate category of prohibited discrimination in the \u201cnon- discrimination and anti-harassment\u201d and \u201cequal opportunity\u201d policies at the University of Georgia. This resolution document with a suggested amendment was voted upon by the Senate and passed unanimously. The vote was 35 approve. The second document was a resolution to express support for the Fair Employment Practices Act. This resolution document was voted upon by the Senate and passed unanimously. The vote was 35 approve. The third document was a draft letter of support for the Fair Employment Practices Act addressed to the University Council. With suggested revisions, this letter was voted upon and passed unanimously. The vote was 35 approve. The final versions of the three documents voted upon are included as attachments to the minutes. Meeting was adjourned at 4:09 PM. Respectfully submitted, Christine Franklin Franklin College Senate Secretary and Senator for Statistics 12, 2013 Curriculum Description Approved New Courses Reviewed 9 new courses Course Changes 17 course changes Proposals Approved Bulletin Changes 1000 for University Cultural Diversity Requirement To express support for the Fair Employment Practices Act WHEREAS, Franklin College views faculty, staff, and student diversity and inclusion to be core values of our work and learning environment; and WHEREAS, within the Franklin College, diversity is a strength that is critical to excellence in the teaching, research, and service that we provide and it is supported by actively working to create and sustain an inclusive work and learning environment in which different voices and perspectives are heard as well as valued; and WHEREAS, the diversity of the Franklin College staff, students, and faculty creates opportunities for intellectual stimulation, learning, growth, and innovation that subsequently enable our students to become effective leaders as well as engaged and responsible citizens; and WHEREAS, Franklin College strives to identify and dismantle the often invisible barriers that keep our college and institution from mirroring the increasingly diverse local and global communities we seek to serve; and WHEREAS, the Fair Employment Practices Act would amend state labor laws to add safeguards from discrimination in public employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity; and WHEREAS, all employees working for the State of Georgia would be protected from discriminatory hiring and firing practices; and WHEREAS, if passed, this legislation, would allow Georgia to join twenty-one states that protect public employees based on sexual orientation and twelve states that protect based on gender identity of the University of Georgia that we, in our responsibility to recommend ways to improve conditions of employment for the Faculty of the College, hereby support the Fair Employment Practices Act; and that the Franklin College Faculty Senate urges the University Council to draft a resolution in support of the Fair Employment Practices to exemplify the flagship\u2019s commitment to diversity To express support for the inclusion of \u201cgender identity and expression\u201d as a separate category of prohibited discrimination in the \u201cNon-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment\u201d and \u201cEqual Opportunity\u201d policies at the University of Georgia WHEREAS, the terms gender identity and gender expression are distinct from the term \u201csexual orientation\u201d and \u201csex\u201d is defined as a person\u2019s actual or perceived gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, regardless of whether that identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person\u2019s gender at birth [1]; and WHEREAS, case law continues to reinforce the understanding that discrimination based on gender identity or expression is a form of prohibited sex-based discrimination under Title VII, yet discrimination against transgender people is still very common; and WHEREAS, the results of a national survey, which are consistent with other studies of anti-transgender bias, starkly demonstrate the necessity for legal protection against discrimination due to one\u2019s gender identity [2]; and WHEREAS, inclusion of \u201cgender identity or expression\u201d as a separate category of prohibited discrimination is the best, most direct, and clearest way to establish that transgender individuals are protected from discrimination at the University of Georgia; and WHEREAS, three University System of Georgia institutions (Georgia Institute of Technology, Clayton State University and Georgia Perimeter College) already have this category listed in their policies; and WHEREAS, eight out of twelve of our peer institutions include \u201cgender identity\u201d and/or \u201cexpression\u201d in their Non-Discrimination or Equal Opportunity Policy; and WHEREAS, eleven out of twelve of our aspirational institutions include \u201cgender identity\u201d and/or \u201cexpression\u201d in their Non-Discrimination or Equal Opportunity Policy; and WHEREAS, the Board of Regents\u2019 mission statement claims, \u201cEach institution in the University System of Georgia will be characterized by cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender diversity in the faculty, staff, and student body, supported by practices and programs that embody the ideals of an open, democratic, and global society of the University of Georgia that, in our responsibility to recommend ways to improve conditions of employment for the Faculty of the College, hereby support the inclusion of \u201cgender identity and expression\u201d as a separate category of prohibited discrimination in policies at the University of Georgia. 1 \u201cTransgender\u201d describes an individual whose gender identity (one\u2019s internal psychological identification as a man or woman) does not match the person\u2019s sex at birth 2 National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Transgender Equality, Executive Summary, Injustice at Every Turn Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, February 3, 2011, available at"} |
7,446 | Rosalyn Templeton | Montana State University - Northern | [
"7446_101.pdf",
"7446_102.pdf",
"7446_103.pdf",
"7446_104.pdf",
"7446_105.pdf"
] | {"7446_101.pdf": "Share \uf39e \ue61b \uf09e Directory Photos About Contact Advertise Free Trial Subscribe Sign In News you can use Sexual harassment claim against ex-provost surfaces John Paul Schmidt | Last updated Jun 06, 2014 11:25am6 \uf0c9 Home Local All Agendas and Notices Church Community Corrections News Record Senior News Obituaries Sports Opinion All Column Letters State News Calendar Classifieds Publications Directory Photos About Contact Advertise Free Trial Subscribe Sign In \uf002 Search Submit 2/16/25, 10:11 Sexual harassment claim against ex-provost surfaces - Havre Weekly Chronicle 1/6 \u2039 \u203a Then-Montana State University-Northern Provost Rosalyn Templeton repeatedly touched Dean Randy Bachmeier inappropriately over the course of three years. When Bachmeier filed a sexual harassment claim against Templeton with the Montana Human Relations Bureau, Northern Chancellor Jim Limbaugh retaliated by, in effect, barring Bachmeier from being considered as Templeton's replacement, according to Bachmeier's statement. Those were the findings of a Human Relations Bureau investigator. The investigator found there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the process, and a hearing will be held at Northern June 16 to 18. Paperwork detailing the allegations was made public after hearing officer Terry Spear ruled in favor of a request from the Havre Daily News, filed by the newspaper's attorney, Mike Meloy of Helena. Meloy's request, filed in February, was opposed by attorneys for the Montana University System and Templeton. Templeton allegedly sexually harassed Bachmeier by supposedly intimately touching his back, shoulders and leg intermittently from 2010 to 2013. The complaint against Templeton was made in May, months before she resigned in August. Limbaugh was unavailable for comment, his secretary said. The Havre Daily News couldn't find contact information for Templeton. But Kevin McRae, the deputy commissioner for communications and human resources for the commissioner of higher education, which is representing Northern in the case, said that the university refutes the charges made by Bachmeier, the dean of extended studies. \"After the investigation we've done, we certainly respect all our employees, but we do confidently and firmly deny the charge because we believe we can show that the Montana State University-Northern work environment, including the environment for Mr. Bachmeier, is a nondiscriminatory, reasonable, appropriate environment that he has worked in the past and continues to work in,\" McRae said. He added that all the upcoming hearing is designed for is to allow the people involved in the situation to each tell their side of the story and bring out evidence. Sexual harassment complaint Eric Seidle Cowan Hall stands at the forefront of Montana State University-Northern campus Wednesday afternoon after a portion of the final investigative report involving Rosalyn Templeton was cleared as a public record. 2/16/25, 10:11 Sexual harassment claim against ex-provost surfaces - Havre Weekly Chronicle 2/6 Templeton was hired as provost in June 2010, thereby becoming Bachmeier's supervisor. In October 2010, Templeton allegedly began to touch Bachmeier intimately at work, according to Bachmeier's statement. In the first instance, Templeton is said to have begun rubbing Bachmeier's upper leg with the palm of her hand during a meeting between the two. Bachmeier reports that he was shocked at Templeton's behavior and stood, causing her hand to fall from his leg. \"Templeton's behavior of touching Bachmeier occurred intermittently and continuously from 2010 to 2013,\" Bachmeier's statement in the investigative report says. According to the report: In response to these advances, Bachmeier began to avoid contact and proximity with Templeton, going as far as moving his office into the basement of Cowan Hall in 2012 to get farther away from her. During meetings, he would not sit next to her and also avoided meeting alone with Templeton. He generally avoided circumstances in the workplace that would allow Templeton to make advances toward him. On April 30, 2013, Bachmeier was required to meet Templeton in her office. \"Templeton began stroking Bachmeier's arm in a sexual manner,\" the prosecution's statement says. Until this date, Bachmeier had used nonverbal cues to show Templeton her advances were unwanted. At the April 30 meeting, Bachmeier asked Templeton to \"please stop.\" Templeton allegedly did stop and appeared agitated, ended the meeting abruptly. The next time Bachmeier saw her was within a few hours, when Templeton and Dean Christine Cremean came into his office. Templeton, appeared upset, he said, and began chastising Bachmeier for approving a travel form, which was later found in the investigation to have been in accordance with policy. \"Templeton implied Bachmeier had not completed the form correctly, and advised him discipline might be warranted,\" the prosecutor's statement says. Templeton dropped the issue after Bachmeier told her he had followed proper procedure by going through Cremean, and Cremean confirmed it to be true. On May 1, 2013, Templeton approached Bachmeier about a problem she had with a faculty hiring. Though she had approved the hire the day prior, she accused Bachmeier of undermining her authority. The final instance before Bachmeier took place five days later, May 6, 2013, at a dinner at Limbaugh's residence. In a food line, Templeton stood behind Bachmeier and began touching his shoulders and back intimately. May 7, 2013, the day after, Bachmeier filed an internal complaint with Northern about Templeton's actions. Northern's investigation found that no sexual harassment had occurred. Templeton's resignation Templeton's resignation was announced by MSU-Northern Aug. 21. The same day, Limbaugh contacted members of the university administration for feedback on how to fill the position. Cremean suggested Bachmeier as a candidate, but Limbaugh allegedly \"replied that it wouldn't look good for someone who had filed a complaint to get the position,\" the report said. On Sept. 3, Limbaugh issued an initial notice of vacancy for the position, which required any interested candidates to hold the rank of associate or full professor. Bachmeier, who had neither, asked for the notice to be modified Sept. 5 so he may apply for the position. The changes he sought were for the notice to ask that candidate possess the credentials that would merit them for consideration of the positions of associate or full professor. After Bachmeier sent the request to Limbaugh, Limbaugh did modify the notice Sept. 10 - to only allow candidates who were full professors. Due to this change, Bachmeier's application was not considered. Defendant's statement In the defendant's statement in the investigation, Templeton admitted to using \"touching as a means of communicating with others in the workplace,\" but denied that the touching was sexual. She admitted also that she had touched men as well as women, but that the touching was a pat on the arm or the back. \"The touching is a means of providing a sense of reassurance or comfort,\" the defendant's statement says. Templeton said in her statement that Bachmeier asked her to stop touching him in their April 30, 2013, meeting. She said she did confront Bachmeier with Cremean that day and that she confronted him again May 1, 2013 \"because she believed Bachmeier ignored her instructions regarding the hiring of a particular faculty member.\" After her resignation, Limbaugh decided Northern should consider the option of replacing Templeton with an interim provost, but did not recall seeking recommendations for candidates from anyone. Limbaugh denied in the statement that he ever said it would not look good for someone who filed a complaint to fill the position. Limbaugh also stated that the change to the notice of vacancy to only consider full professors came after Montana State University President Waded Cruzado asked to delay the posting until she could review it. After a discussion between Limbaugh and Cruzado, the modified notice was posted. Rebuttal to defendant Bachmeier's rebuttal to the Limbaugh's statement included that he wanted the notice to be amended \"to include experience that merits the title of associate or full professor because the original language establishes a requirement based on a title rather than the necessary skills and abilities to perform the duties of the position.\" Limbaugh provided the final copy of the notice to Cruzado and told her that he was to post the position later that day. 2/16/25, 10:11 Sexual harassment claim against ex-provost surfaces - Havre Weekly Chronicle 3/6 On Sept. 9, Limbaugh emailed academic leadership to say all changes to the notice had been considered and rejected. He then emailed Kathy Jaynes, the human resources director, to post the notice as is. More than an hour later, Limbaugh emailed Cruzado a copy of the notice and wrote: \"There's allegedly a controversy that is about to surface here because I've said the position requires a doctorate and earned tenure. Said controversy is all woven into a pre- existing issue with an employee who has had an ongoing issue with the incumbent provost can discuss confidentially with you via phone if you desire more information,\" the investigator's report said. The defendant's rebuttal states that it is suspicious that \"Limbaugh identified a potential controversy before it occurred.\" Investigation In the midst of the investigation, Bachmeier was asked why he did not say anything to Templeton for years before the meeting where he asked her to \"please stop\" touching him have a hard time talking about things like this ... it's very hard to talk about being sexually harassed by a woman and have people believe you,\" he said. When Templeton was released, Limbaugh announced that the duties of the provost would be split between himself, Cremean and Greg Kegel, Northern's dean of the College of Technical Sciences policy states that in the absence of the chancellor, Bachmeier's position is fifth in line of succession,\" the investigation report says. \"Kegel is sixth in line, and Cremean is seventh in line. Bachmeier asserts his exclusion from provost duties is further evidence of Limbaugh's retaliatory behavior.\" In the investigation report, Templeton asserts that no one, including Bachmeier, ever asked her to stop touching them. When the investigator asked Templeton to describe the meeting in which Bachmeier allegedly told her to stop, she said she did not recall such a meeting. At Limbaugh's dinner at his residence, Templeton said she did not touch his back and shoulders intimately. \"Templeton testified she was standing in line behind Bachmeier, getting ice cream,\" the report says. \"Templeton quickly patted Bachmeier on the shoulder and commented, 'Take two scoops, it's really good.'\" Most Popular For the Record, Feb. 13, 2025 Feb 12, 2025 Obituary - Harold 'Alan' Peterson Feb 12, 2025 Obituaries - Roderick S. Snyder Feb 12, 2025 Newspaper fought to get records opened John Paul Schmidt The Havre Daily News\u2019 attempt to get ahold of information regarding the Randy Bachmeier, dean of extended studies at Montana State University-Northern, sexual harassment complaint against former provost Rosalyn Templeton met some opposition from the university. \u201cWe felt the public had a right to know the details,\u201d Havre Daily News Publisher Stacy Mantle said. \u201cIt\u2019s a public institution and it\u2019s in the public\u2019s interest.\u201d The newspaper made a request for the information in January after learning the case was filed with the Montana Human Rights Bureau. Attorneys for Templeton and the Montana University system opposed releasing the investigation report, contending they had a right to privacy. The Havre Daily News then hired Peter Michael Meloy of Meloy Law Firm to represent it in trying to prove the public\u2019s right to know about the case at the taxpayer-supported university outweighed the privacy rights \u201cThe public\u2019s right to know, in these cases, is always the right to know what happened to cause the public employer to be expending public money defending against the discrimination claim,\u201d hearing officer Terry Spear said. Monday, Spear ruled in the newspaper\u2019s favor, and the investigative report was released. Further documents in the case will be released Monday of next week. The hearing that is open to the public on the case will be held at Northern June 16 to 18. Reader Comments(6) Log in to add your comment writes: 2/16/25, 10:11 Sexual harassment claim against ex-provost surfaces - Havre Weekly Chronicle 4/6 Crazy..... 06/09/2014, 9:10 am Justsayin writes: Tixie, you need to let the hearing officer judge if it's ridiculous Human Right's investigator already deemed it not to be. 06/06/2014, 9:08 pm yep writes: Yep Willy agree. It is a waste of time to try and post any comments on any stories. They ignore 9 out of ten of mine 06/06/2014, 8:48 pm tixie writes: Bachmeier obviously has an axe to grind. Ridiculous. 06/06/2014, 4:01 pm Willy writes love how you guys fight to get something to put in the paper such as this, but then you censor the comments. You guys would be livid if you were censored. It is a two way street that goes both ways. 06/06/2014, 3:10 pm wow writes: Wow........ 06/06/2014, 11:43 am Sections Local Obituaries Sports Opinion State News Calendar Classifieds Publications Newspaper Contact Subscribe About Photos Website Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sitemap *By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. *Do not sell or share my personal information. Connect With Us 119 2nd Street Havre 59501 Ph: (406) 265-6795 Email: [email protected] \u00a9 2025 Havre Weekly Chronicle Follow Us \uf39e \ue61b 2/16/25, 10:11 Sexual harassment claim against ex-provost surfaces - Havre Weekly Chronicle 5/6 \uf09e Powered by Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation \u00a9 Copyright 2025 2/16/25, 10:11 Sexual harassment claim against ex-provost surfaces - Havre Weekly Chronicle 6/6", "7446_102.pdf": "MSU-Northern administrator testifies about harassment The Associated Press Published 11:27 a.m June 23, 2014 \u2013 An administrator at Montana State University-Northern testified that the school\u2019s former provost touched him inappropriately over a three-year period and that the university retaliated against him after he filed a discrimination complaint hearing officer with the Montana Human Rights Bureau held a hearing in Havre last week in MSU-Northern Dean Randy Bachmeier\u2019s complaint about former Provost Rosalyn Templeton. Some school administrators backed up Bachmeier\u2019s claims, while others said Templeton\u2019s behavior was not sexual in nature. Templeton\u2019s attorney, Betsy Griffing of Missoula, did not return a phone call from The Associated Press on Monday seeking comment. An internal investigation found no evidence to support Bachmeier\u2019s sexual harassment complaint, school officials said. Bachmeier has said he finally told Templeton stop touching him in April 2013, after which he was excluded from meetings with other deans. He also said Templeton issued two formal reprimands against him within a 24-hour period. He filed his formal complaint with the Human Rights Bureau on May 8, 2013. Chancellor James Limbaugh said he\u2019d received numerous complaints about Templeton\u2019s management and that she was \u201cshort, moody and difficult to talk with,\u201d but he said he was unaware of Bachmeier\u2019s issues with Templeton until he filed the sexual harassment complaint. Templeton announced in August 2013 that she would resign effective in January 2014. Due to Bachmeier\u2019s complaint and others, and \u201cthat perceived her continued presence on campus was harmful to the institution made the decision that she needed to leave 2/16/25, 10:11 MSU-Northern administrator testifies about harassment 1/2 immediately, so we could begin, as say, the process of healing,\u201d Limbaugh said in his deposition in the case. Templeton was relieved of her duties on campus in October to help cool the \u201ctoxic\u201d environment at Northern, but not due to the sexual harassment complaint, Limbaugh said. The provost job posting initially said associate or full professors were eligible to apply, but was changed a day later to say only full professors would be considered. Bachmeier alleged that change was meant to make him ineligible to apply. Montana State University President Waded Cruzado testified last week that the change was her decision and not related to Bachmeier\u2019s case. Templeton had been scheduled to testify during the hearing in Havre, but other testimony ran long. Templeton is now scheduled to testify July 15 in Helena. Bachmeier is seeking $100,000 in emotional damages and $50,000 for being blocked from applying for the provost\u2019s position. 2/16/25, 10:11 MSU-Northern administrator testifies about harassment 2/2", "7446_103.pdf": "599c-bcea-daad337ec686.html Northern dean wins $75K in retaliation case May 14, 2015 HAVRE, Mont state hearings officer has awarded $75,000 in damages for emotional distress to a dean at Montana State University-Northern who said he was retaliated against after he told the former provost to stop touching him and filed a sexual harassment complaint. Hearings officer Terry Spear rejected the claim by Randy Bachmeier that he had been sexually harassed by Provost Rosalyn Templeton. But Spear said a reprimand Bachmeier received a day after telling Templeton to stop touching him was retaliatory as were efforts by Chancellor James Limbaugh to make it clear that Bachmeier was not qualified to apply for the provost's job after Templeton resigned. Spear's ruling, issued Wednesday, also orders MSU-Northern not to retaliate against any employee who files a sexual harassment complaint, as long as the complaint isn't frivolous. Both sides have 14 days to appeal. 2/16/25, 10:12 Northern dean wins $75K in retaliation case | Archives | montanarightnow.com 1/2 Information from: Havre Daily News, Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 2/16/25, 10:12 Northern dean wins $75K in retaliation case | Archives | montanarightnow.com 2/2", "7446_104.pdf": "Montana university sexual harassment case set to begin Published June 13, 2014 By Keith Button Contributing Editor Flickr user prizrak2084 Dive Brief: The hearing for a sexual harassment case involving a former provost at Montana State University-Northern who is accused of inappropriately touching her male colleagues is set to begin on Monday. The university\u2019s dean of extended learning, Randy Bachmeier, is accusing the former provost, Rosalyn Templeton, of repeatedly touching him in a sexual manner. He also accuses the university of retaliating against him for his complaints, not giving him fair consideration for the interim provost job when Templeton left Montana Department of Labor and Industry official has concluded \u201creasonable cause\u201d exists to believe unlawful discrimination occurred. Dive Insight: Last summer, unsurprisingly, the university\u2019s internal investigation determined that no sexual harassment occurred. Templeton submitted a letter of resignation in October 2013, effective January, and was asked not to come in to work for the rest of her stint by the university\u2019s chancellor, James Limbaugh. While 2/16/25, 10:12 Montana university sexual harassment case set to begin | Higher Ed Dive 1/2 the university is arguing that Templeton\u2019s touching was appropriate, Limbaugh says that Templeton once touched him on the back in a way that made him think briefly that it was his wife. Brahmeier claims that the chancellor sent an email to Templeton that \u201cstrongly encouraged\u201d her to stop touching people at the school. In depositions, several other administrators said that Templeton made their workplace uncomfortable. 2/16/25, 10:12 Montana university sexual harassment case set to begin | Higher Ed Dive 2/2", "7446_105.pdf": "MSU-Northern sexual harassment complaint to be heard The Associated Press Havre Daily News Published 9:34 a.m June 12, 2014 \u2013 The Montana Human Rights Bureau will hear next week a sexual-harassment complaint filed by a Montana State University-Northern dean that accuses the school\u2019s former provost of inappropriate touching. Randy Bachmeier, the dean of extended studies, says in his complaint former provost Rosalyn Templeton inappropriately touched his leg, arm, shoulder and back several times between 2010 and 2013. Templeton denied the allegations in documents related to the investigation that were obtained by the Havre Daily News. She said she used touching to communicate with others, such as a pat on the arm or back, but said it was not sexual. \u201cThe touching is a means of providing a sense of reassurance or comfort,\u201d Templeton\u2019s statement said human rights bureau investigator found sufficient evidence to proceed with the complaint, and a hearing will be held at the Havre campus beginning Monday. The investigator also found that university officials may have retaliated against Bachmeier\u2019s complaint, which was filed in May 2013, by passing him over when Templeton resigned in August. The Montana Board of Regents is representing Northern in the case. Regents spokesman Kevin McRae said the university\u2019s own investigation found no wrongdoing and the school refutes the charges. \u201cWe believe we can show that the Montana State University-Northern work environment, including the environment for Mr. Bachmeier, is a nondiscriminatory, reasonable, 2/16/25, 10:12 MSU-Northern sexual harassment complaint to be heard 1/2 appropriate environment that he has worked in the past and continues to work in,\u201d McRae said. Bachmeier alleges in the documents that Templeton at different times rubbed his upper leg with her palm, stroked his arm in a sexual manner and touched his shoulders and back inappropriately. He said he asked her to stop and went out of his way to avoid her. The university did not publicly release a reason for Templeton\u2019s resignation in August. Another dean suggested Bachmeier as a candidate to replace Templeton, but Chancellor Jim Limbaugh allegedly said \u201cIt wouldn\u2019t look good for someone who had filed a complaint to get the position,\u201d the investigator\u2019s report said. Limbaugh denied making the statement. The vacancy announcement allowed only those candidates who were full professors, which Bachmeier was not. Limbaugh said the requirement came after a discussion between himself and Montana State University President Waded Cruzado. 2/16/25, 10:12 MSU-Northern sexual harassment complaint to be heard 2/2"} |
7,711 | Vishal Lamba | University of Florida | [
"7711_101.pdf",
"7711_101.pdf"
] | {"7711_101.pdf": "pharmacy professor arrested on stalking charge Staff report Published 11:44 a.m June 15, 2016 Updated 4:27 p.m June 15, 2016 University of Florida professor has been arrested on a cyberstalking charge, according to a police report. Vishal Lamba, 45, a professor in the College of Pharmacy, is accused of stalking a woman who used to work for him, according to the University of Florida Police report. The woman told UPD\u2019s victim\u2019s advocate office on Tuesday that Lamba had been communicating with her through email and text messages after she told him to stop, the report said. She told investigators that the professor\u2019s actions caused her to quit her job. Lamba continued to try to contact her, she told police, causing her distress and leading her to have her mother accompany her to various locations. The woman also said Lamba once followed her car and made contact with her father, believing that the woman was in the car. While being arrested, Lamba tensed his arms and resisted being handcuffed, the report said. Lamba, who was hired in 2014, has been placed on administrative leave and is in the process of having him trespassed, according to spokeswoman Janine Sikes. Lamba will not be allowed on campus until the case is resolved or it is determined he is not a threat, she said. Lamba was arrested on charges of cyberstalking and resisting arrest. He was being held Wednesday in the Alachua County jail on $5,000 bond."} |
7,286 | Abdollah Dashti | College of William and Mary | [
"7286_101.pdf"
] | {"7286_101.pdf": "By By | | [email protected] [email protected] UPDATED: UPDATED: August 18, 2019 at 1:36 August 18, 2019 at 1:36 In the wake of an alleged sex scandal involving a professor and student at the In the wake of an alleged sex scandal involving a professor and student at the College of William and Mary, top school officials stressed Thursday they will College of William and Mary, top school officials stressed Thursday they will not tolerate such relationships and will take severe action against those who not tolerate such relationships and will take severe action against those who violate the school\u2019s policy. violate the school\u2019s policy. However, officials would not speculate on what action might be taken against However, officials would not speculate on what action might be taken against Abdollah Dashti, an assistant anthropology professor charged by police with Abdollah Dashti, an assistant anthropology professor charged by police with making obscene phone calls to a student with whom he allegedly had a six- making obscene phone calls to a student with whom he allegedly had a six- month affair. Dashti is also under investigation in connection with a timecard month affair. Dashti is also under investigation in connection with a timecard fraud case involving that same student and another William and Mary fraud case involving that same student and another William and Mary student who served as his office assistant last fall. student who served as his office assistant last fall. \u201cI\u2019m not going to speculate on that,\u201d William and Mary Provost Gillian Cell said \u201cI\u2019m not going to speculate on that,\u201d William and Mary Provost Gillian Cell said of possible action against the professor. \u201cWe need to know the results of all of of possible action against the professor. \u201cWe need to know the results of all of the investigations first.\u201d the investigations first.\u201d But Cell stressed that the school takes relationships between students and But Cell stressed that the school takes relationships between students and faculty very seriously. She said the amount of advisement and the quality of faculty very seriously. She said the amount of advisement and the quality of teaching that students receive are what separates William and Mary from teaching that students receive are what separates William and Mary from other universities in the country. other universities in the country 2/16/25, 10:12 \u2013 Daily Press 1/4 \u201cWe devote a great deal of time and care to that,\u201d Cell said. \u201cBut we also \u201cWe devote a great deal of time and care to that,\u201d Cell said. \u201cBut we also expect that faculty members respect their students and maintain an expect that faculty members respect their students and maintain an appropriate and professional faculty-student relationship. We won\u2019t tolerate appropriate and professional faculty-student relationship. We won\u2019t tolerate anything that is detrimental to that relationship.\u201d anything that is detrimental to that relationship.\u201d Cell said the administration became aware of the alleged Dashti situation Cell said the administration became aware of the alleged Dashti situation about three weeks ago. William and Mary police conducted an investigation about three weeks ago. William and Mary police conducted an investigation and turned over their findings to the prosecutor\u2019s office, she said. Cell said and turned over their findings to the prosecutor\u2019s office, she said. Cell said she could not comment further on the case because of state confidentiality she could not comment further on the case because of state confidentiality laws regarding personnel. laws regarding personnel. The 52-year-old Dashti was charged last week with making two obscene The 52-year-old Dashti was charged last week with making two obscene phone calls to a 21-year-old student who told police she had been phone calls to a 21-year-old student who told police she had been romantically involved with the professor and became pregnant. Police don\u2019t romantically involved with the professor and became pregnant. Police don\u2019t know what happened with the pregnancy, but the other student involved in know what happened with the pregnancy, but the other student involved in the fraud case told the Daily Press Wednesday that Dashti asked her to the fraud case told the Daily Press Wednesday that Dashti asked her to submit a time card for hours she hadn\u2019t worked and give the money to his submit a time card for hours she hadn\u2019t worked and give the money to his alleged student lover. alleged student lover. The student employee said she was friends with the other student and the The student employee said she was friends with the other student and the other woman told her the money was to help pay for an abortion. However, other woman told her the money was to help pay for an abortion. However, she said Dashti told her the money was for overtime his alleged student lover she said Dashti told her the money was for overtime his alleged student lover was owed from the previous school year. was owed from the previous school year. The student employee said her friend wasn\u2019t a student of Dashti\u2019s at the time The student employee said her friend wasn\u2019t a student of Dashti\u2019s at the time of their love affair, but the woman had taken one of his classes in the past and of their love affair, but the woman had taken one of his classes in the past and worked for him last year. She said the professor was careful to keep the affair worked for him last year. She said the professor was careful to keep the affair private. private. The Daily Press is not publishing the name of the student who accused the The Daily Press is not publishing the name of the student who accused the professor of making obscene phone calls to protect her privacy as the victim professor of making obscene phone calls to protect her privacy as the victim in the case. It is not publishing the name of the other student because it in the case. It is not publishing the name of the other student because it could indirectly identify the victim. could indirectly identify the victim. The alleged victim could not be reached for comment. Reached at his The alleged victim could not be reached for comment. Reached at his apartment Wednesday, Dashti told a reporter, \u201cI\u2019m very innocent.\u201d He said the apartment Wednesday, Dashti told a reporter, \u201cI\u2019m very innocent.\u201d He said the accusations were not true. accusations were not true. Deputy Commonwealth\u2019s Attorney Rich Rizk said the entire fraud case is still Deputy Commonwealth\u2019s Attorney Rich Rizk said the entire fraud case is still under investigation and no decision has been made about whether to charge under investigation and no decision has been made about whether to charge anyone involved. anyone involved. 2/16/25, 10:12 \u2013 Daily Press 2/4 The current charges against Dashti are misdemeanors that each carry a The current charges against Dashti are misdemeanors that each carry a maximum of 12 months in jail and up to a $2,500 fine. He is scheduled to be maximum of 12 months in jail and up to a $2,500 fine. He is scheduled to be tried July 3 in General District Court. tried July 3 in General District Court. William and Mary President Timothy J. Sullivan, who is out of town, released a William and Mary President Timothy J. Sullivan, who is out of town, released a statement Thursday through the college\u2019s Office of University Relations. In statement Thursday through the college\u2019s Office of University Relations. In that statement, Sullivan said \u201cnothing is more important to this institution that statement, Sullivan said \u201cnothing is more important to this institution than the maintenance of an appropriate student- faculty relationship.\u201d than the maintenance of an appropriate student- faculty relationship.\u201d Sullivan said faculty members must demonstrate respect for students and Sullivan said faculty members must demonstrate respect for students and \u201cadhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors.\u201d \u201cadhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors.\u201d He did not mention Dashti\u2019s case specifically, but the president pledged to He did not mention Dashti\u2019s case specifically, but the president pledged to take action against faculty who violate the school\u2019s policy on romantic take action against faculty who violate the school\u2019s policy on romantic relationships with their students. relationships with their students. \u201cWe will be fair when investigating allegations of misconduct, but when \u201cWe will be fair when investigating allegations of misconduct, but when misconduct is found, the consequences will be severe \u2014 as they should be,\u201d misconduct is found, the consequences will be severe \u2014 as they should be,\u201d Sullivan said. Sullivan said. William and Mary\u2019s policy on \u201camorous relations,\u201d made news last fall when a William and Mary\u2019s policy on \u201camorous relations,\u201d made news last fall when a former English teacher wrote a first-person piece in the October issue of former English teacher wrote a first-person piece in the October issue of Magazine describing his life on campus as a \u201cprofessor of desire.\u201d Magazine describing his life on campus as a \u201cprofessor of desire.\u201d Former writer-in-residence Sam Kashner wrote that several female students Former writer-in-residence Sam Kashner wrote that several female students made passes at him and one eventually led to an affair with a married made passes at him and one eventually led to an affair with a married student. That student\u2019s husband later committed suicide, according to student. That student\u2019s husband later committed suicide, according to Kashner\u2019s article. But a Williamsburg man said Kashner\u2019s article sounded very Kashner\u2019s article. But a Williamsburg man said Kashner\u2019s article sounded very similar to a 1994 affair between his sister-in- law and a different English similar to a 1994 affair between his sister-in- law and a different English professor. The man said Kashner was not the professor involved and his professor. The man said Kashner was not the professor involved and his brother committed suicide. Kashner maintains his story was about his own brother committed suicide. Kashner maintains his story was about his own experience. experience. At the time, college officials dismissed Kashner\u2019s article as fiction, but they At the time, college officials dismissed Kashner\u2019s article as fiction, but they determined the college\u2019s policy on student-faculty amorous relationships was determined the college\u2019s policy on student-faculty amorous relationships was \u201cinadequate\u201d and in need of changes committee with the college\u2019s Board of \u201cinadequate\u201d and in need of changes committee with the college\u2019s Board of Visitor\u2019s was asked to study the policy report from that committee is Visitor\u2019s was asked to study the policy report from that committee is expected to be presented to the board in September. expected to be presented to the board in September. The college\u2019s current policy advises against faculty members having amorous The college\u2019s current policy advises against faculty members having amorous relations with students they evaluate, grade or supervise. Violating the policy relations with students they evaluate, grade or supervise. Violating the policy can lead to punishment that involves anything from a reprimand to can lead to punishment that involves anything from a reprimand to termination. The policy does not address relationships between faculty and termination. The policy does not address relationships between faculty and students they don\u2019t grade or supervise. students they don\u2019t grade or supervise. 2/16/25, 10:12 \u2013 Daily Press 3/4 2001 2001 \ue907 \ue907May May \ue907 \ue90725 25 Originally Published: Originally Published: May 25, 2001 at 12:00 May 25, 2001 at 12:00 While most students have left the campus for summer break, those still in While most students have left the campus for summer break, those still in Williamsburg Thursday said they were surprised to hear of another alleged Williamsburg Thursday said they were surprised to hear of another alleged sex scandal involving a professor and student. But students said they don\u2019t sex scandal involving a professor and student. But students said they don\u2019t believe these types of relationships are common. believe these types of relationships are common was surprised, especially in lieu of the article that came out about Kashner was surprised, especially in lieu of the article that came out about Kashner,\u201d said Brian Holinka, a William and Mary graduate student who also works as a said Brian Holinka, a William and Mary graduate student who also works as a teaching assistant. teaching assistant. Holinka said he\u2019s never seen anything on campus that resembles the sexual Holinka said he\u2019s never seen anything on campus that resembles the sexual atmosphere between professor and students that Kashner described in his atmosphere between professor and students that Kashner described in his October article. October article. \u201cThere\u2019s nothing like that,\u201d Holinka said think people are here to learn and \u201cThere\u2019s nothing like that,\u201d Holinka said think people are here to learn and not to throw themselves at professors.\u201d not to throw themselves at professors.\u201d Staff writer Patti Rosenberg contributed to this report. Staff writer Patti Rosenberg contributed to this report. Brian Whitson can be reached at 221-7220 or by email at Brian Whitson can be reached at 221-7220 or by email at [email protected] [email protected] 2/16/25, 10:12 \u2013 Daily Press 4/4"} |
7,705 | John Haegert | University of Evansville | [
"7705_101.pdf",
"7705_102.pdf",
"7705_103.pdf",
"7705_104.pdf",
"7705_105.pdf",
"7705_106.pdf"
] | {"7705_101.pdf": "Home About Report Employment Zone Subscribe Advertise Contact enter search terms Enrollments Faculty Milestones Appointments Awards Grants Gender Gap Leadership Degrees Books Professional Schools In Memoriam Indiana Supreme Court Backs University\u2019s Firing of a Tenured Professor in Sexual Harassment Case Posted on Nov 15, 2012 | Comments 0 The Indiana Supreme Court ruled this week that the University of Evansville had the right to fire a tenure professor who was accused of violating the university\u2019s sexual harassment policy. John Haegert served on the English department faculty at the university from 1979 to 2004. He received tenure in 1982. According to the published decision in the court case, \u201con August 25, 2004, an English department colleague was in the department lounge interviewing a prospective student and her parents. Haegert walked into the lounge accompanied by a female student, said \u201cHi, Sweetie\u201d to his faculty colleague, walked up to her \u2014 standing with his belt buckle at her eye-level, about a foot from her face \u2014 and stroked his fingers under her chin and along her neck.\u201d After a formal complaint was filed, the university conducted an investigation and subsequently fired Haegert. The investigation found that a number of women students alleged that they had similar experiences with Haegert but none filed a formal complaint. Haegert in turn filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the university. Haegert lost the original case but won an appeal with the court concluding that \u201cthe University failed to carry its burden of proof with respect to the sexual harassment complaint.\u201d But the Supreme Court ruled that the university was in its rights to fire Haegert under the terms of his employment contract which included a stipulation that employees adhere to the sexual harassment policy as outlined in the Faculty Manual. The applicable passage in the Faculty Manual defines sexual harassment as: \u201cAny unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors, reference to gender or sexual orientation, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual\u2019s work performance or educational experience, creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or academic environment and when this conduct has no germane or legitimate relationship to the subject matter of a course.\u201d The court ruled that the university was within its rights to fire Haegert because he did not adhere to this provision. Filed Under: Sexual Assault/Harassment Tags: University of Evansville \uf202 \uf203 \uf410 2/16/25, 10:13 Indiana Supreme Court Backs University\u2019s Firing of a Tenured Professor in Sexual Harassment Case : Women In Academia Report 1/4 Comments (0) Leave a Reply Name (required) Email (will not be published) (required) Submit Comment Subscribe Archives Tags Subscribe Jobs for Women In Academia Follow @WIAJobs for the latest job listings Latest Job Listings Dean of the College of Health Sciences Touro University California Instructional Professor in the Social Sciences Core \u2013 Social Science Inquiry (Open Rank) University of Chicago Vice Provost for Student Success and Dean for the Division of Undergraduate Academic Affairs University of Maryland, Baltimore County 2/16/25, 10:13 Indiana Supreme Court Backs University\u2019s Firing of a Tenured Professor in Sexual Harassment Case : Women In Academia Report 2/4 Instructional Professor (Open Rank), Center for Spatial Data Science University of Chicago Community Education Supervisor 2 University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Recent News Three Women College Presidents Announce Their Resignations The Afghan Women\u2019s Scholars Program at the University of New Haven Receives a Major Financial Boost In Memoriam: Mala Htun, 1969-2025 Eight Women Professors Appointed to New Roles in Academia Priyamvada Natarajan Honored for Career Contributions to Black Hole and Dark Matter Research Six Women Selected for Dean Appointments at Universities Evelina Fedorenko Receives National Award for Outstanding Research on the Brain\u2019s Language Network New Administrative Appointments for Fifteen Women in Higher Education New Novel by Colorado State University Professor Ramona Ausubel Receives National Book Foundation Award New Endowed Academic Appointments for Eight Women Scholars In Memoriam: Jenijoy La Belle, 1943-2025 Women Represent Just One Fifth of Academic Journal Editors in Finance and Economics Jeannette Nu\u00f1ez to Lead Florida International University Are Women More Talkative Than Men? Elizabeth Cantwell Named First Woman President of Washington State University Hospitals Can Reduce Their Rate of C-Section Births by Adequately Staffing Their Team of Labor and Delivery Nurses Penn State\u2019s Danielle Conway Appointed President-Elect of the Association of American Law Schools In Memoriam: Banu Onaral, 1949-2024 The University of Rochester Appoints Four Women to Named Professorships Online Articles of Interest to WIAReport Readers Archives Select Month 2/16/25, 10:13 Indiana Supreme Court Backs University\u2019s Firing of a Tenured Professor in Sexual Harassment Case : Women In Academia Report 3/4 Women In Academia Report \u00a9 2025. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | p: (570) 392-6797 | e: [email protected] 2/16/25, 10:13 Indiana Supreme Court Backs University\u2019s Firing of a Tenured Professor in Sexual Harassment Case : Women In Academia Report 4/4", "7705_102.pdf": "v. McMULLAN (2011) Court of Appeals of Indiana. John HAEGERT, Appellant\u2013Plaintiff, v. Margaret McMULLAN, Appellee\u2013Defendant. No. 82A04\u20131008\u2013CT\u2013470. Decided: September 19, 2011 Darlene Robinson, Oakland City, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Kenneth J. Yerkes, Hannesson I. Murphy, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee John Haegert (\u201cHaegert\u201d) appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Margaret McMullan (\u201cMcMullan\u201d) in an action filed by Haegert against her alleging defamation, tortious breach of Haegert's employment contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Haegert raises the following restated issue for our review: whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of McMullan. We affirm Haegert joined the University of Evansville's (\u201cthe University\u201d) faculty in 1979, received tenure there in 1982, and, in 1992, became a full professor of English specializing in, among other things, American Literature and Twentieth\u2013Century British Literature. McMullan joined the University's faculty in 1990, and was a member of the University's English Department specializing in creative writing. In the summer of 2000, the University promoted McMullan, then an assistant professor, to acting chair of the English Department. She was promoted to permanent department chair in 2002, and as such was responsible \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 1/17 for Haegert's teaching performance evaluation. She also was responsible for coordinating student recruiting and overseeing the pairing of English majors with faculty advisors specializing in the student's primary area of interest. McMullan asked Mike Carson (\u201cCarson\u201d), the previous department chair, and two other professors to advise students whose focus was on literature. Haegert had asked McMullan if he could advise literature students, but on the advice of and information received from Carson and Stuart Dorsey (\u201cDorsey\u201d), the University's Vice President of Academic Affairs, that Haegert was a poor advisor, McMullan declined to allow him to advise students. In 2002, McMullan received informal complaints from female students about some of the language Haegert used and inappropriate touching. When McMullan became the department chair Carson gave her his files containing notes about and evaluations of professors in the department. McMullan maintained those files and also made notes of unusual or significant incidents that were reported to her that might be relevant to faculty members' evaluations. Notes about those informal complaints were maintained in McMullan's \u201canecdotal file\u201d on Haegert. During approximately the same time period, the University's Affirmative Action Officer, Jennifer Graban (\u201cGraban\u201d), received informal complaints from students about Haegert's use of terms of endearment and hugging of female students. As no formal complaints had been lodged against Haegert, Graban could not commence an investigation into the complaints. Graban, however, believed that Haegert should be notified about the informal complaints so that he could adjust his behavior. Both McMullan and Graban had conversations with Haegert about the informal complaints. McMullan and Graban both believed that Haegert was agitated by this information. The University's tenure contracts incorporate the University's Faculty and Administrator Manual (\u201cthe Manual\u201d) by reference, and the Manual is amended from time-to-time. In March 2004, the University and Haegert entered into an employment contract for the 2004\u20132005 academic year, and Haegert agreed to abide by the rules and obligations imposed by the University, which included the University's no-tolerance harassment and sexual harassment policies. Haegert was aware that violation of this tenure contract would be cause for the University to terminate his employment. Neither the faculty tenure contract nor the Manual contained a provision giving faculty members the right to advise or recruit students. Faculty members whose employment had been terminated were not given the right, by contract or the Manual, to enter the University's campus or to attend campus events. On August 25, 2004, the first day of the 2004\u20132005 academic year at the University, McMullan was seated in the English Department lounge interviewing a prospective student, Cassandra Stichter, and her parents. McMullan asserts that Haegert walked over to where McMullan was seated and stood directly in front of her with his belt at her eye level about a foot from her face, said \u201cHi, Sweetie\u201d and then \u201ctouched and moved his fingers on [McMullan's] neck and chin in a tickling gesture for a long moment while [she] was addressing the prospective family.\u201d Appellant's App. at 593. McMullan claims that she was stunned and offended by Haegert's behavior, as were the Stichter family and the female student who was meeting with Haegert. Because she was in the midst of an interview, McMullan did not 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 2/17 immediately comment on Haegert's behavior. The Stichters cut the interview short even though there were still twenty to thirty minutes of the interview remaining. Cassandra Stichter did not enroll at the University. Haegert's version of the events that transpired is quite different. Haegert asserts that on that day he was in an extremely joyful mood because he had just learned that his wife was free of cancer. He states that when he walked into the English Department lounge with a student, he was warmly greeted by McMullan. He then walked over to McMullan saying \u201cHi, Sweetie. How is my favorite chair?\u201d and gave her a chuck under the chin. Id. at 235. Haegert and the student who had accompanied him then entered his office, where he noisily dropped his briefcase. McMullan spoke with Dorsey later that day to express that she was offended by Haegert's conduct and indicated that she wanted to file a formal complaint against Haegert. Dorsey instructed McMullan to send an e-mail to him detailing her complaint. McMullan sent an e-mail to Dorsey as instructed and forwarded the same e-mail to Graban. On August 26, 2004, McMullan met with Graban and filed a formal complaint of harassment against Haegert with the University. Revisions were made to the text of the email, which was copied into the complaint form, and McMullan signed the formal complaint against Haegert. Graban immediately began an investigation into McMullan's complaint. Graban contacted the Stichter family to obtain their account of the incident in question. Ken Stichter, the prospective student's father, described Haegert's behavior during the telephone conversation, and later confirmed his description of the account, which had been reduced to writing by Graban, in a letter. Per the University's policy, Graban convened a Review Committee, comprised of herself, the current ombudsperson, and a faculty member. The Review Committee interviewed both Haegert and McMullan. Prior to McMullan's interview she refreshed her recollection of the past incidents involving Haegert by looking at her \u201canecdotal file\u201d on him, and gave the file to Graban. McMullan described the August 25, 2004 incident in detail and answered the Review Committee's questions about prior incidents where Haegert's behavior had been questioned. During Haegert's interview, he admitted to calling McMullan \u201cSweetie\u201d and rubbing her under her chin. He minimized the importance and significance of the incident. When asked by the Review Committee about the prior informal student complaints, Haegert denied any wrongdoing with either students or McMullan. The Review Committee unanimously concluded that Haegert's behavior with respect to the August 25, 2004 incident violated the University's no-tolerance sexual harassment policy, also concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the alleged violation. The Review Committee then forwarded its report of the investigation to University President Stephen Jennings (\u201cJennings\u201d). 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 3/17 Jennings met with Haegert in an effort to resolve the matter informally, but Haegert rejected the efforts made to reach an informal resolution. Jennings then brought the formal complaint before the University's Faculty Professional Affairs Committee (\u201cFPAC\u201d), which was comprised of approximately twelve elected faculty representatives. Haegert submitted an e-mail to FPAC. The unanimously concluded, however, that the facts surrounding McMullan's complaint constituted adequate cause to terminate Haegert's employment with the University. After receiving the FPAC's findings, Jennings decided to terminate Haegert's employment because of the August 25, 2004 incident involving McMullan. Haegert appealed the finding of sexual harassment and his termination with the Faculty Appeals Committee (\u201cFAC\u201d). The held an evidentiary hearing of Haegert's appeal at which both Haegert and the University were represented by counsel. Each party had the ability to call and examine witnesses and present evidence. The University was represented by Tom Magan (\u201cMagan\u201d), who met with McMullan prior to the evidentiary hearing. Magan requested that McMullan supply to him her \u201canecdotal file\u201d on Haegert, and McMullan complied with his request. McMullan was called as a witness at the evidentiary hearing by both the University and Haegert. Magan did not introduce McMullan's \u201canecdotal file\u201d as evidence during the hearing. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the unanimously concurred with the decision to terminate Haegert's employment with the University. Jennings then notified Haegert that his termination had been upheld, and that he was banned from the University's campus and events. Haegert appealed the FAC's decision to the University's Board of Trustees and had his counsel prepare a brief for the Board of Trustees on his behalf. The Board of Trustees unanimously concurred with the decision to terminate Haegert's employment concluding that he had violated the University's harassment policy. On May 5, 2005, Haegert filed a complaint against McMullan alleging defamation, tortious breach of Haegert's employment contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. McMullan moved for summary judgment on all counts, and the trial court allowed the parties to brief the issues and held oral argument. McMullan's motion for summary judgment was granted as to all counts. Haegert now appeals Our standard of review of a summary judgment order is well-settled: summary judgment is appropriate if the \u201cdesignated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). Relying on specifically designated evidence, the moving party bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law Tek v. Hitachi Ltd., 734 N.E.2d 584, 586 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). If the moving party meets these two 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 4/17 requirements, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to set forth specifically designated facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id genuine issue of material fact exists where facts concerning an issue that would dispose of the litigation are in dispute or where the undisputed material facts are capable of supporting conflicting inferences on such an issue. Gilman v. Hohman, 725 N.E.2d 425, 428 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Even if the facts are undisputed, summary judgment is inappropriate where the record reveals an incorrect application of the law to the facts. Id trial court's grant of summary judgment is clothed with a presumption of validity, and the party that lost in the trial court has the burden of demonstrating that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous. City of Indianapolis v. Byrns, 745 N.E.2d 312, 316 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). On appeal, we are bound by the same standard as the trial court, and we consider only those matters that were designated at the summary judgment stage. Interstate Cold Storage v. Gen. Motors Corp., 720 N.E.2d 727, 730 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). We do not reweigh the evidence, but we liberally construe all designated evidentiary material in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Estate of Hofgesang v. Hansford, 714 N.E.2d 1213, 1216 (Ind.Ct.App.1999 grant of summary judgment may be affirmed upon any theory supported by the designated materials. Bernstein v. Glavin, 725 N.E.2d 455, 458 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). We first consider the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of McMullan regarding Haegert's defamation claim. Defamation is that which tends to \u201cinjure reputation or to diminish esteem, respect, good will, or confidence in the plaintiff, or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the plaintiff.\u201d McQueen v. Fayette Cnty. Sch. Corp., 711 N.E.2d 62, 65 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). To recover in an action for defamation, \u201cthat which caused the alleged defamation must be both false and defamatory.\u201d Id. Moreover, a plaintiff must establish the basic elements of defamation: (1) a communication with a defamatory imputation; (2) malice; (3) publication; and (4) damages. Id. The determination of whether a communication is defamatory is a question of law for the court. Id. Furthermore, a plaintiff who sues for defamation must set out the alleged defamatory statement in the complaint. Trail v. Boys & Girls Clubs of Nw. Ind., 845 N.E.2d 130, 136\u201337 (Ind.2006). Haegert states in his complaint that \u201cMcMullan impugned the character of [Haegert] when she made false statements to no fewer than 30 people regarding [Haegert].\u201d Appellant's App. at 20. No specific statements were identified. Our Supreme Court has stated as follows: But even under notice pleading, a plaintiff must still set out the operative facts of the claim. Indeed hornbook law stresses the necessity of including the alleged defamatory statement in the complaint. There is sound reason for this policy, as the absence of a statement in the complaint works a detriment on both the court and the defendant. The court is handicapped without the statement since, without it, the court cannot actually determine if the statement is legally defamatory. The defendant is placed on an 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 5/17 unfair footing since the absence of the statement denies her the opportunity to prepare appropriate defenses. Id. at 136\u201337 (internal citations omitted). Haegert argues in his brief that [McMullan] claimed not to know what statements [Haegert] alleged are defamatory. That claim is spurious and deceitful. [McMullan] does not have to \u201cguess\u201d what statements she placed in her file which defamed [Haegert]: She knows. Appellant's Br. at 24. Again, the specific statements that are alleged to be defamatory have not been sufficiently identified by Haegert in his complaint. On this basis, we conclude that the trial court correctly granted McMullan's motion for summary judgment as to the count alleging defamation. We note, however, that Haegert appears to be arguing that statements contained in McMullan's \u201canecdotal file\u201d were defamatory and were shared with employees of the University, ultimately leading to Haegert's dismissal. Again, no specific statements were alleged to be defamatory, but rather the entire anecdotal file appears to have been alleged to contain defamatory statements. When McMullan became the department chair her predecessor gave her his files containing notes about and evaluations of professors in the department. McMullan maintained those files and also made notes of unusual or significant incidents that were reported to her that might be relevant to faculty members' evaluations. \u201c[C]omplaints made by a current student pursuant to a university anti-harassment policy are protected by an absolute privilege and cannot serve as the basis for civil liability to a person who is the subject of the complaint.\u201d Hartman v. Keri, 883 N.E.2d 774, 775 (Ind.2008). We believe that it would not be a difficult stretch to find in the present case that a complaint made by a faculty member against another faculty member pursuant to a university's no-tolerance harassment policy is protected by an absolute privilege and cannot serve as the basis for civil liability to a person who is the subject of the complaint. Indeed, other jurisdictions find parent complaints of sexual harassment by teachers are protected from civil liability by an absolute privilege. See Reichardt v. Flynn, 374 Md. 361, 823 A.2d 566 (2003) (parents' complaints of sexual harassment by high school coach to principal and public school officials); Brody v. Montalbano, 87 Cal.App.3d 725, 151 Cal.Rptr. 206 (Cal.Ct.App.1978) (parents' complaints against junior high school teacher to board of education); Weisman v. Mogol, 118 Misc.2d 911, 462 N.Y.S.2d 383 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1983) (parents' complaints against high school teacher to board of education). However, without reaching that conclusion, we find that McMullan nonetheless is protected from civil liability by a qualified privilege. Our supreme court has stated the following about the publication component of defamation claims: 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 6/17 In an action for defamation, the plaintiff must show that the defamatory matter was \u201cpublished,\u201d that is, communicated to a third person or persons. There is substantial conflict among other jurisdictions over whether or not intracompany documents can satisfy the publication element of a defamation claim\u2024 In selecting the better view for Indiana, we find guidance in the values embodied in our state constitution. Our state expressly recognizes the particular value of an individual's interest in reputation and accords it specific protection. In Article I, section 12, the Indiana Constitution declares, in part: All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law (emphasis added). Analogously, our state constitutional free speech provision expressly emphasizes the need for accountability. No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible. Ind. Const. art I, \u00a7 9 (emphasis added)\u2024 Upon employment, an individual does not relinquish the value of a good reputation. To the contrary, a person's suitability for continued employment and advancement at work may be substantially influenced by the reputation one earns. When intracompany communications injure an employee's occupational reputation, the result may be among the most injurious of defamations. We cannot deprive access to the courts for an employee who suffers very real and significant injuries as a result of intracompany defamatory falsehoods which would otherwise be actionable. Refusing to characterize such communication as a publication for a defamation action is an unacceptable legal fiction that interferes with an Indiana employee's constitutional right to a remedy for injury to reputation. We hold that employee evaluation information communicated intracompany to management personnel may be considered published for purposes of a defamation action. * * * To accommodate the important role of free and open intracompany communications and legitimate human resource management needs, the qualified privilege is available to protect personnel evaluation information communicated in good faith. Qualified privilege is a defense to a defamation action and applies to \u201ccommunications made in good faith on any subject matter in which the party making the communication has an interest or in reference to which he has a duty, either public or private, either legal, moral, or social, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty.\u201d Absent a factual dispute, whether a statement is protected by a qualified privilege is a question of law. Intracompany communications regarding the fitness of an employee are protected by the qualified privilege. 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 7/17 statement otherwise protected by the doctrine of qualified privilege may lose its privileged character upon a showing of abuse wherein: (1) the communicator was primarily motivated by ill will in making the statement; (2) there was excessive publication of the defamatory statements; or (3) the statement was made without belief or grounds for belief in its truth. Once the communication is established as qualifiedly privileged, the plaintiff then has the burden of overcoming that privilege by showing that it has been abused. Bals v. Verduzco, 600 N.E.2d 1353, 1354\u201356 (Ind.1992) (some internal citations and quotations omitted). Neither party contends that the anecdotal file was not published. Haegert argues that McMullan has failed to establish how the statements in her anecdotal file are entitled to a qualified privilege. To support that argument, Haegert cites to Bals for the proposition that only personnel evaluation information communicated in good faith is entitled to the qualified privilege. Id. at 1356. We do not believe that Bals should be read that narrowly. Bals also cited to Chambers v. American Trans Air, Inc., 577 N.E.2d 612 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) for the proposition that a qualified privilege is a defense to a defamation action and applies to \u201ccommunications made in good faith on any subject matter in which the party making the communication has an interest or in reference to which he has a duty, either public or private, either legal, moral, or social, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty.\u201d Id. at 615 (quoting Elliott v. Roach, 409 N.E.2d 661, 672 (Ind.Ct.App.1980)) (emphasis added). There is no dispute that Haegert was an employee of the University and that McMullan, as the English Department Chair, was Haegert's supervisor. Likewise, it is undisputed that McMullan was responsible for evaluating Haegert's work performance. McMullan believed that as department chair she was required to maintain files on the faculty she supervised and made notes of any unusual or significant incidents reported to her that might be relevant to a faculty member's performance evaluation. The incidents noted in McMullan's anecdotal file on Haegert, were mostly informal student complaints, which were not used in Haegert's performance evaluations, per the University's policy. However, when the August 25, 2004 incident occurred, and McMullan pursued her formal harassment complaint, per University policy with Graban, she provided her anecdotal file to her. Thus, we conclude that McMullan's communication about the anecdotal file to Graban was entitled to a qualified privilege. Furthermore, to the extent any portion of the information in the anecdotal file was testified to during the proceedings regarding the harassment complaint, that testimony is also entitled to a qualified privilege. Last, because McMullan provided the file to the University's attorney at his request as part of the investigation of her formal harassment complaint, that too was entitled to a qualified privilege. This evidence also shows that McMullan did not abuse that qualified privilege. Haegert speculates that McMullan was motivated by ill will to compile falsehoods against him. However, the evidence shows that McMullan believed she was required to maintain files on English Department faculty members and make 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 8/17 notes of any unusual or significant incidents reported to her that might be relevant to a faculty member's performance evaluation. McMullan maintained files on all faculty members under her supervision, not just Haegert. Furthermore, McMullan testified that she believed in the veracity of the notes contained in Haegert's file. In addition, Haegert has failed to establish how he was injured by the contents of McMullan's file, as Haegert's termination was based solely upon the August 25, 2004 incident involving McMullan. We conclude that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment as to Haegert's defamation claim. The trial court also granted summary judgment in favor of McMullan as to Haegert's claim of tortious breach of Haegert's employment contract. Haegert argues that McMullan tortiously interfered with his contract by initiating and participating in the University's harassment investigation leading to Haegert's suspension, termination, and ban from campus, and by denying him the opportunity to recruit and advise literature students. \u201cIndiana has long recognized that intentional interference with a contract is an actionable tort, and includes an intentional, unjustified interference by third parties with an employment contract.\u201d Winkler v. V.G. Reed & Sons, Inc., 638 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind.1994) (citing Bochnowski v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan, 571 N.E.2d 282, 284 (Ind.1991)) (emphasis supplied). This cause of action recognizes the public policy that contract rights are property, which are entitled to enforcement and protection from, under proper circumstances, those who tortiously interfere with rights. Id. In order to recover for tortious interference with a contractual relationship, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that a valid and enforceable contract exists; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the existence of the contract; (3) defendant's intentional inducement of breach of the contract; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting from defendant's wrongful inducement of the breach. Id. at 1235. To reiterate briefly here, in summary judgment proceedings, a moving party bears the burden of proving the non-existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Winkler, 638 N.E.2d at 1235. This burden may be met if the movant demonstrates that the undisputed material facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff's claim. Id. If the movant meets this burden, the non-movant may not rest upon his pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. Prior to addressing Haegert's argument on this issue, we address McMullan's first assertion that she was entitled to summary judgment as to this claim because she was not a third party, and thus could not be liable under this theory. McMullan contends that her actions occurred as agent of the University in her position as the English Department Chair and as Haegert's supervisor. She claims that she was acting within the scope of her duties for the University by overseeing recruitment, pairing students with professor supervisors, and doing her part to prevent harassment at the University. She argues that she was acting within the scope of those duties when Haegert harassed her and she participated in the investigation of the formal harassment complaint. 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 9/17 In Levee v. Beeching, 729 N.E.2d 215 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), we cited to the Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 766 and 766A to aid our discussion and decision of a tortious interference with an employment contract. In Levee we stated as follows: Comment b to \u00a7 766 provides that \u201cthere is a general duty not to interfere intentionally with another's reasonable business expectancies of trade with third persons.\u201d (Emphasis added). Comment a to \u00a7 766A indicates that liability will attach where one intentionally interferes with a plaintiff's performance of his own contract, \u201ceither by preventing that performance or making it more expensive or burdensome.\u201d (Emphasis added). Thus, where a third party's conduct substantially and materially impairs the execution of an employment contract, frustrating an employee's expectations under her contract and making performance of her contractual duties more burdensome, the inducement of breach element of a claim for tortious interference with a contractual relationship is satisfied. 729 N.E.2d at 222. In claims involving officers or directors of a corporation alleging tortious interference with the corporation's contracts, liability will not be found where the directors and officers are acting as agents of the corporation when acting in the scope of their official capacity. Trail, 845 N.E.2d at 138\u201339. It would not be a stretch in the case at bar to agree with McMullan that she cannot be liable for the actions alleged to have constituted tortious interference with Haegert's contract, because they were done in the scope of her employment with the University and as its agent. Because she is not a third party, she could not be liable under this theory. Nonetheless, the trial court correctly determined that summary judgment in favor of McMullan was appropriate as McMullan's actions were justified. Assuming without deciding that McMullan is a third party, we turn now to address whether she acted with justification. In determining whether a defendant's conduct is justified, the Restatement recommends the consideration of the following factors: \u201c(a) the nature of the defendant's conduct; (b) the defendant's motive; (c) the interests of the plaintiff with which the defendant's conduct interferes; (d) the interests sought to be advanced by the defendant; (e) the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the defendant and the contractual interests of the plaintiff; (f) the proximity or remoteness of the defendant's conduct to the interference; and (g) the relations between the parties.\u201d Winkler, 638 N.E.2d at 1235 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 767 (1977)). Although the weight to be given each consideration may differ from case to case, the central question to be answered is whether the defendant's conduct has been fair and reasonable under the circumstances. Zemco Mfg., Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 759 N.E.2d 239, 252 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). The absence of justification is established by showing \u201cthat the interferer acted intentionally, without a legitimate business purpose, and the breach is malicious and exclusively directed to the injury and damage of another.\u201d Bilimoria Computer Sys v. America Online, Inc., 829 N.E.2d 150, 156\u201357 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 10/17 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). \u201cThe existence of a legitimate reason for the defendant's actions provides the necessary justification to avoid liability.\u201d Id. at 157. From the materials designated to the trial court, the inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances is that McMullan's actions that were at issue were justified. McMullan maintained a personal file on every English Department faculty member to assist her in evaluating their performance. Informal student complaints that were contained in the file were not used in Haegert's evaluation per University policy. McMullan turned over the anecdotal file to Graban and Magan in connection with the investigation of her harassment complaint against Haegert. McMullan consistently stated that she wanted to stop Haegert's pattern of harassing students and faculty of the University. We find that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of McMullan as to this claim. Haegert also alleged that McMullan had engaged in intentional infliction of emotional distress. Again, the trial court granted summary judgment in McMullan's favor. The Supreme Court first recognized intentional infliction of emotional distress as a separate cause of action in Cullison v. Medley, 570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind.1991). In order to establish a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: \u201c(1) engages in extreme and outrageous conduct (2) which intentionally or recklessly (3) causes (4) severe emotional distress to another.\u201d Curry v. Whitaker, 943 N.E.2d 354, 361 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). It is the intent to harm the plaintiff emotionally that constitutes the basis of the tort, and the requirement to prove the elements of the tort are rigorous. Id. As noted in Curry, we have quoted with approval the following comment from the Restatement. The cases thus far decided have found liability only where the defendant's conduct has been extreme and outrageous. It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by \u201cmalice,\u201d or by a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the act, and lead him to exclaim, \u201cOutrageous!\u201d Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747, 752\u201353 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 46 cmt. d (1965)). Intentional infliction of emotional distress is established in cases \u201cwhere [the] conduct exceeds all bounds typically tolerated by a decent society and causes mental distress of a very serious kind.\u201d Curry, 943 N.E.2d at 361. \u201cIn the appropriate case, the question can be decided as a matter of law.\u201d Id. The present case is such a case. 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 11/17 There is no properly designated evidence in the record to establish that McMullan intended to cause Haegert emotional distress. McMullan acted according to the scope of her responsibilities at the University, and filed a harassment complaint when she believed the University's zero-tolerance policy had been violated. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of McMullan on Haegert's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Affirmed. KIRSCH, Judge. VAIDIK, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur. Was this helpful? Yes No Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 12/17 v. McMULLAN (2011) Docket No: No. 82A04\u20131008\u2013CT\u2013470. Decided: September 19, 2011 Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana. Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 For Legal Professionals 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 13/17 Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 14/17 Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 \uf105 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 15/17 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 16/17 US: \uf09a \uf16a \uf16d By Name Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/16/25, 10:13 v. McMULLAN (2011) | FindLaw 17/17", "7705_103.pdf": "\ue031 Save 50% on bar prep products through February 16. Save your bacon and 50% with discount code: \u201cpass50\" Free Case Briefs for Law School Success Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville 977 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. 2012) Let us know what you think about this case brief Facts John Haegert, a tenured professor at the University of Evansville, was involved in an incident with Margaret McMullan, the English Department Chair, in which he allegedly harassed her by making inappropriate physical contact and remarks in front of a prospective student and her family. This led to a formal complaint and a series of investigations by the University, culminating in Haegert\u2019s dismissal due to violations of Learn more \ue002 \ue03cSearch for case brief name or citation Facts Issue Holding Reasoning In-Depth Discussion Contractual Term 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 1/11 the University's sexual harassment policy. Haegert filed a lawsuit claiming breach of his employment contract and tenure agreement, which the trial court ruled in favor of the University. Issue The principal issue was whether Haegert's actions justified the University's decision to rescind his tenure and dismiss him, constituting a breach of his employment contract, and whether the University followed proper procedures in handling the complaint and his subsequent dismissal. Holding The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the University, determining that the University acted within its rights under the terms of Haegert's employment contract, and that the procedures in the contract were adequately followed throughout the investigation and dismissal process. Reasoning The court found that the University's Faculty Manual provided a clear definition and procedural framework for handling cases of harassment, which was adhered to during the process. The manual allowed for Haegert's dismissal for harassment, based on the evidence presented by the complaint process, which included witness testimony that substantiated the harassment claims. Therefore, the University did not breach the contract in its handling of the complaint or Haegert's dismissal. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the contract's stipulations took precedence over the standards used in Title workplace harassment claims, and that the procedures followed met the contractual and due process requirements. Samantha P. Consultant, 1L and Future Lawyer I\u2019m a 45 year old mother of six that decided to pick up my dream to become an attorney at FIVE. Studicata just brought tears in my eyes. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 2/11 Alexander Law Student Your videos helped me graduate magna from Law this month! John B. St. Thomas University College of Law can say without a doubt, that absent the Studicata lectures which covered very nearly everything had in each of my classes probably wouldn't have done nearly as well this year. Studicata turned into arguably the single best academic purchase I've ever made would recommend Studicata 100% to anyone else going into their 1L year, as Michael's lectures are incredibly good at contextualizing and breaking down everything from the most simple and broad, to extremely difficult concepts (see property's RAP) in a way that was orders of magnitude easier than my professors; and even other supplemental sources like Barbri's 1L package. Studicata\u2019s free lectures on YouTube save lives. In-Depth Discussion Contractual Terms and Faculty Manual The court's analysis heavily emphasized the contractual obligations defined in the Faculty Manual, which was incorporated into Haegert\u2019s employment contract. The Faculty Manual detailed the University's harassment policies, including definitions and procedures for addressing complaints. The court particularly noted that the manual outlined both harassment and sexual harassment as grounds for dismissal, particularly when such conduct interfered with an individual's work environment, as was alleged in Haegert\u2019s case. This framework was crucial in determining the validity of the complaint against Haegert and the subsequent actions taken by the University. See for yourself \ue002 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 3/11 Differentiation from Title Standards Throughout its reasoning, the court differentiated the contractual framework from Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It pointed out that Title standards for workplace harassment claims were not applicable in this scenario because the matter revolved around a breach of contract, not a federal discrimination or harassment claim. This clarification was necessary to prevent the misapplication of external legal standards over the agreed terms established between Haegert and the University. Evaluation of Procedural Compliance The court meticulously reviewed the procedural compliance with the Faculty Manual during the investigation and dismissal processes. It affirmed that every procedural step, from the initial complaint to the final decision by the University's Board of Trustees, adhered to the guidelines. The systematic examination included validating the Review Committee's role, the Faculty Professional Affairs Committee's informal inquiry, and the formal hearing by the Faculty Appeals Committee, all of which underscored the University's adherence to its established procedures. Assessment of Due Process In evaluating due process claims, the court found that Haegert was provided with adequate notice and multiple opportunities to present his case. The various panels and committees constituted independent bodies that reviewed the evidence. In recognizing the University's substantial compliance with its own policies, the court concluded that Haegert's right to due process, as outlined in his employment agreement, was not violated. Impact of McMullan\u2019s Complaint and Evidence The evidence provided by McMullan, including witness testimony, played a pivotal role in the proceedings. The court took note of the substantiated claims presented during the formal investigations and hearings. Despite arguments about the admissibility of McMullan's anecdotal file, the court deemed the evidence appropriate given the informal procedural context established by the Faculty Manual. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 4/11 Finality and Enforceability of Contractual Agreement Ultimately, the court's reasoning highlighted the enforceability and finality of the contractual obligations. The decision illustrated that the Faculty Manual's stipulations were definitive in the adjudication process, reinstating the presumption that contractual agreements\u2014when clearly expressed and agreed upon\u2014are binding and enforceable. By focusing on the contract's explicit terms, the court's decision reaffirmed the University's right to govern its employment relationships under the conditions mutually agreed upon with its faculty members. Cold Calls We understand that the surprise of being called on in law school classes can feel daunting. Don\u2019t worry, we've got your back! To boost your confidence and readiness, we suggest taking a little time to familiarize yourself with these typical questions and topics of discussion for the case. It's a great way to prepare and ease those nerves.. 1. What was the main incident that led to Haegert's dismissal from the University of Evansville? The main incident involved Haegert making inappropriate physical contact and remarks to Margaret McMullan, the English Department Chair, in front of a prospective student and her family. 2. What was the primary issue at hand in Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville? The primary issue was whether Haegert's actions justified the University's From law school to the bar exam, we have your back Get started for free \ue002 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 5/11 decision to rescind his tenure and dismiss him, and whether the University followed proper procedures in handling the complaint and his dismissal. 3. What was the court's holding in Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville? The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the summary judgment in favor of the University, stating that the University acted within its rights under the terms of Haegert's employment contract and that the procedures outlined in the contract were followed. 4. Why did the court reject the application of Title standards in this case? The court rejected Title standards because the case was about a breach of contract, not a federal discrimination or harassment claim under Title VII. 5. What does the Faculty Manual say about the conditions under which a faculty member can be dismissed for harassment? The Faculty Manual defines both harassment and sexual harassment as grounds for dismissal, especially if the conduct interferes with an individual's work environment. 6. Did Haegert receive due process according to the court's evaluation? Yes, the court found that Haegert was given adequate notice and multiple opportunities to present his case, complying with the due process requirements in his employment agreement. 7. How did the court address Haegert's claims about procedural breaches? The court thoroughly reviewed the procedural compliance and found that the University adhered to the guidelines in the Faculty Manual throughout the process, dismissing Haegert's procedural breach claims. 8. What role did McMullan's anecdotal file play in the court's decision? While the use of McMullan\u2019s anecdotal file was contested, the court deemed the evidence appropriate given the informal procedural context guided by the Faculty Manual. 9. What did the court say about the Faculty Manual's precedence over Title standards? 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 6/11 The court emphasized that the Faculty Manual\u2019s stipulations took precedence over Title standards as the case involved breach of contract rather than discrimination. 10. What was the relevance of the witness testimony provided during the investigation and hearings? Witness testimony substantiated the harassment claims against Haegert, which was crucial to the University's decision to dismiss him. 11. What opportunity did Haegert have to challenge the evidence against him? Haegert had the opportunity to challenge the evidence and present his defense before multiple panels and committees during the investigation and hearings. 12. How did the court view the University's adherence to the Faculty Manual during the dismissal process? The court found that the University followed the procedural and policy guidelines set forth in the Faculty Manual closely, ensuring compliance at every step. 13. Did the court find any merit in Haegert's claim of his right to academic freedom being violated? No, the court found no supporting evidence or contractual basis for Haegert's claim that his right to academic freedom was violated. 14. Was there any misclassification of the complaint against Haegert according to the court? The court found that even though there was a distinction between harassment and sexual harassment in the terminology, it did not affect the fundamental nature of the complaint and the applicability of dismissal procedures. 15. What was the court's stance on the public statement allegedly made by the University regarding standards? The court clarified that despite a contention about a public statement, the 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 7/11 Let us know what you think about this case brief procedures adhered to the Guidelines as relevantly adopted by the University. 16. What legal standards did the court primarily rely on in reaching its decision? The court relied on the contractual terms defined in the Faculty Manual rather than federal discrimination standards. 17. Why did the court emphasize the enforceability of the Faculty Manual's provisions? The court emphasized enforceability to reinforce that the mutually agreed contractual terms were binding and, when clearly formulated, definitive of the employment relationship. 18. How did the University's authorities communicate to Haegert about his dismissal process? The University authorities provided written notices at multiple stages, including reasons for dismissal and summaries of the findings against Haegert. 19. Did Haegert file any lawsuits other than the breach of contract claim? Yes, in addition to the breach of contract claim, Haegert also filed a lawsuit against McMullan alleging defamation, tortious breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 20. What were the court's findings regarding the alleged procedural irregularities during the investigations? The court found that any procedural concerns were addressed adequately and that the University's procedures were consistent with contractual obligations. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 8/11 Search for another case brief Most Searched: Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey Roe v. Wade Griswold v. Connecticut Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. Popular Briefs Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997 (1974) \ue03cSearch for case brief name or citation 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 9/11 fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. \[email protected] Log in \ue002 Case Briefs Law School Video Courses Studicata Bar Review Bar Exam Video Courses Outlines & Study Aids Help Center Privacy Policy Terms of Service Submit Review 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 10/11 \u00a9 Copyright 2024 Studicata NCBE\u00ae, MBE\u00ae, MEE\u00ae, MPT\u00ae and UBE\u00ae are trademarks of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville - Case Brief Summary for Law School Success 11/11", "7705_104.pdf": "v (2011) Court of Appeals of Indiana. John HAEGERT, Appellant\u2013Plaintiff, v EVANSVILLE, Appellee\u2013Defendant. No. 82A01\u20131008\u2013PL\u2013369. Decided: September 19, 2011 Darlene Robinson, Oakland City, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Kenneth J. Yerkes, Hannesson I. Murphy, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee. OPINION1 The Vanderburgh Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the University of Evansville (\u201cthe University\u201d) in an action filed by John Haegert (\u201cHaegert\u201d), alleging that the University's decision to terminate him for violation of its sexual harassment policy was a breach of his tenure contract. Haegert appeals from the trial court's order, arguing that the trial court erroneously entered summary judgment in favor of the University and erroneously denied his motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion Haegert joined the University's staff in 1979, received tenure there in 1982, and, in 1992, became a full professor of English, specializing in, among other things, American Literature and Twentieth\u2013Century British Literature. Margaret McMullan (\u201cMcMullan\u201d) joined the University's faculty in 1990, and was a member of the University's English Department, specializing in creative writing. In the summer of 2000, the University promoted McMullan, then an assistant professor, to acting chair of the English Department. She was promoted to permanent department chair in 2002, and as such was responsible \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 1/19 for Haegert's teaching performance evaluation. She also was responsible for coordinating student recruiting and overseeing the pairing of English majors with faculty advisors specializing in the student's primary area of interest. McMullan asked Mike Carson (\u201cCarson\u201d), the previous department chair, and two other professors to advise students whose focus was on literature. Haegert had asked McMullan if he could advise literature students, but on the advice of and information received from Carson and Stuart Dorsey (\u201cDorsey\u201d), the University's Vice President of Academic Affairs, that Haegert was a poor advisor, McMullan declined to allow him to advise students. In 2002, McMullan received informal complaints from female students about some of the language Haegert used in the classroom and inappropriate touching of students. When McMullan became the department chair, Carson gave her his files containing notes about and evaluations of professors in the department. McMullan maintained those files and also made notes of unusual or significant incidents that were reported to her that might be relevant to faculty members' evaluations. Notes about those informal complaints were maintained in McMullan's \u201canecdotal file\u201d on Haegert. During approximately the same time period, the University's Affirmative Action Officer, Jennifer Graban (\u201cGraban\u201d), received informal complaints from students about Haegert's use of terms of endearment and hugging of female students. As no formal complaints had been lodged against Haegert, Graban could not commence an investigation into the complaints. Graban, however, believed that Haegert should be notified about the informal complaints so that he could adjust his behavior. Both McMullan and Graban had conversations with Haegert about the informal student complaints. McMullan and Graban both believed that Haegert was agitated by this information and was more concerned with finding out which students had complained than with adjusting his behavior. The University's tenure contracts incorporate by reference the University's Faculty and Administrator Manual (\u201cthe Manual\u201d), and the Manual is amended from time-to-time. In March 2004, the University and Haegert executed a tenure contract for the 2004\u20132005 academic year, and Haegert agreed to abide by the rules and obligations imposed by the University, which included the University's no-tolerance harassment and sexual harassment policies. Haegert was aware that violation of this tenure contract would be cause for the University to terminate his employment. Neither the faculty tenure contracts nor the Manual contained a provision giving faculty members the right to advise or recruit students. Faculty members whose employment had been terminated were not given the right, by contract or the Manual, to enter the University's campus or to attend campus events. On August 25, 2004, the first day of the 2004\u20132005 academic year at the University, McMullan was seated in the English Department lounge interviewing a prospective student, Cassandra Stichter, and her parents. McMullan asserts that Haegert walked over to where McMullan was seated and stood directly in front of her with his belt at her eye level about a foot from her face, said \u201cHi, Sweetie\u201d and then \u201ctouched and moved his fingers on [McMullan's] neck and chin in a tickling gesture for a long moment while [she] was addressing the prospective family.\u201d Appellant's App. at 474 (emphasis in original). 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 2/19 McMullan claims that she was stunned and offended by Haegert's behavior, as were the Stichter family and the female student who had accompanied Haegert into the lounge. Because she was in the midst of an interview, McMullan did not immediately comment on Haegert's behavior. The Stichters cut the interview short even though there were still twenty to thirty minutes of the interview remaining. Cassandra Stichter did not enroll at the University. Haegert's version of the events that transpired is quite different. Haegert asserts that on that day he was in an extremely joyful mood because he had just learned that his wife was free of cancer. He states that when he walked into the English Department lounge with a student, he was warmly greeted by McMullan. He then walked over to McMullan saying \u201cHi, Sweetie. How is my favorite chair?\u201d and gave her a chuck under the chin. Id. at 91. Haegert and the student who had accompanied him then entered his office, where he noisily, but accidentally, dropped his briefcase. McMullan spoke with Dorsey later that day to express that she was offended by Haegert's conduct and indicated that she wanted to file a formal complaint against Haegert. Dorsey instructed McMullan to send an e-mail to him detailing her complaint. McMullan sent an e-mail to Dorsey as instructed and forwarded the same e-mail to Graban. On August 26, 2004, McMullan met with Graban and filed a formal complaint of harassment against Haegert with the University. Revisions were made to the text of the e-mail, which was copied into the complaint form, and McMullan signed the formal complaint against Haegert. Graban immediately began an investigation into McMullan's complaint. Graban contacted the Stichter family to obtain their account of the incident in question. Ken Stichter, the prospective student's father, described Haegert's behavior during the telephone conversation, and later confirmed his description of the account, which had been reduced to writing by Graban, in a letter. Haegert was notified that a formal complaint had been filed by McMullan against him and he was placed on administrative leave with pay pending the outcome of the investigation. Graban convened a Review Committee, comprised of herself, the current ombudsperson, and a faculty member. The Review Committee interviewed both Haegert and McMullan. Prior to McMullan's interview she refreshed her recollection of past incidents involving Haegert by looking at her \u201canecdotal file\u201d on him, and gave the file to Graban. McMullan described the August 25, 2004 incident in detail and answered the Review Committee's questions about prior incidents where Haegert's behavior had been questioned. During Haegert's interview, he admitted calling McMullan \u201cSweetie\u201d and chucking her under her chin. His version minimized both the importance and significance of the incident. When asked by the Review Committee about the prior informal student complaints, Haegert denied any wrongdoing with either students or McMullan. 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 3/19 The Review Committee unanimously concluded that Haegert's behavior with respect to the August 25, 2004 incident violated the University's no-tolerance sexual harassment policy, also concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the alleged violation. The Review Committee then forwarded its report of the investigation to University President Stephen Jennings (\u201cJennings\u201d). Jennings met with Haegert in an effort to resolve the matter informally, but Haegert rejected the efforts made to reach an informal resolution, which included the opportunity to retire. Jennings then brought the formal complaint before the University's Faculty Professional Affairs Committee (\u201cFPAC\u201d), which was comprised of approximately twelve elected faculty representatives, none of whom had served on the Review Committee. Haegert submitted an e-mail to in his defense. The unanimously concluded, however, that the facts surrounding McMullan's complaint constituted adequate cause to terminate Haegert's employment with the University. After receiving the FPAC's findings, Jennings decided to terminate Haegert's employment because of the August 25, 2004 incident involving McMullan. Haegert appealed the finding of sexual harassment and his termination with the Faculty Appeals Committee (\u201cFAC\u201d). The held an evidentiary hearing of Haegert's appeal at which both Haegert and the University were represented by counsel. Each party had the ability to call and examine witnesses and present evidence. The University was represented by Tom Magan (\u201cMagan\u201d), who met with McMullan prior to the evidentiary hearing. Magan requested that McMullan supply to him her \u201canecdotal file\u201d on Haegert, and McMullan complied with his request. McMullan was called as a witness at the evidentiary hearing by both the University and Haegert. Magan did not introduce McMullan's \u201canecdotal file\u201d as evidence during the hearing. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the unanimously concurred with the decision to terminate Haegert's employment with the University. Jennings then notified Haegert that his termination had been upheld, that he was banned from the University's campus and events, and that his pay and benefits would terminate effective March 31, 2005. Haegert appealed the FAC's decision to the University's Board of Trustees, and had his counsel prepare a brief for the Board of Trustees on his behalf. The Board of Trustees unanimously concurred with the decision to terminate Haegert's employment concluding that he had violated the University's harassment policy. On August 25, 2005, Haegert filed a complaint alleging breach of contract and tortious breach of contract against the University. The University filed a motion for summary judgment on January 12, 2009. Haegert filed his own motion for summary judgment the following day. On September 13, 2009, Haegert filed a motion to strike and brief in support regarding alleged hearsay relied upon by the University in its motion for summary judgment. 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 4/19 On June 11, 2010, the trial court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment, and on July 2, 2010, made the following minute entry: The Court having had these matters under consideration, now enters the following rulings: (1) Deft University of Evansville's Motion for Summary Judgment on Pltf's Tortious Breach of Contract claim is granted. (2) Pltf's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Formal entry to be furnished by Counsel for Deft. Id. at 2. On July 8, 2010, the trial court made the following entry: The Court intended to enter summary judgment on the breach of contract claim in its earlier ruling. Id. at 1. Then on July 15, 2010, the trial court entered an order, which reads as follows (7\u20132\u201310) This matter having come before the Court on Defendant University of Evansville's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court, after having reviewed same, hereby finds that said Motion is meritorious and should be granted that Plaintiff's claims should be, and hereby are, dismissed with prejudice and summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendant, University of Evansville, on this 15 day of July, 2010. Signed J. Douglas Knight JUDGE, Vanderburgh Circuit Court Id. at 1. Haegert now appeals Haegert appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the University and denying his motion for summary judgment. Our standard of review of a summary judgment order is well- settled: summary judgment is appropriate if the \u201cdesignated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). Relying on specifically designated evidence, the moving party bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law Tek v. Hitachi Ltd., 734 N.E.2d 584, 586 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). If the moving party meets these two requirements, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to set forth specifically designated facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id genuine issue of material fact exists where facts concerning an issue that would dispose of the litigation are in dispute or where the undisputed material facts are capable of supporting conflicting inferences on 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 5/19 such an issue. Gilman v. Hohman, 725 N.E.2d 425, 428 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Even if the facts are undisputed, summary judgment is inappropriate where the record reveals an incorrect application of the law to the facts. Id trial court's grant of summary judgment is clothed with a presumption of validity, and the party that lost in the trial court has the burden of demonstrating that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous. City of Indianapolis v. Byrns, 745 N.E.2d 312, 316 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). On appeal, we are bound by the same standard as the trial court, and we consider only those matters that were designated at the summary judgment stage. Interstate Cold Storage v. Gen. Motors Corp., 720 N.E.2d 727, 730 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). We do not reweigh the evidence, but we liberally construe all designated evidentiary material in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Estate of Hofgesang v. Hansford, 714 N.E.2d 1213, 1216 (Ind.Ct.App.1999 grant of summary judgment may be affirmed upon any theory supported by the designated materials. Bernstein v. Glavin, 725 N.E.2d 455, 458 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Generally, the construction of a written contract is a question of law for which summary judgment is particularly appropriate. Trs. of Ind. Univ. v. Cohen, 910 N.E.2d 251, 257 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). Contract interpretation presents a question of law subject to de novo review. Id contract will be found to be ambiguous only if reasonable persons would differ as to the meaning of its terms. Id. When reasonable persons would find a contract susceptible of more than one construction, an ambiguity exists, which should be resolved by the trier of fact. Id. When the language of a written contract is not ambiguous, its meaning is a question of law for which summary judgment is particularly appropriate. Id. The essential elements of a breach of contract action are the existence of a contract, the defendant's breach thereof, and damages. Ruse v. Bleeke, 914 N.E.2d 1, 11 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). Neither side challenges the existence of the employment contract between Haegert and the University. Rather, Haegert alleges that the University breached the contract and owes him damages for that breach. In particular, Haegert claims that the University breached its contract by: (1) re-characterizing McMullan's complaint against him as a complaint of sexual harassment; (2) violating his right to academic freedom; (3) unilaterally cancelling his 2004\u201305 contract and summarily dismissing him; (4) denying him tenure, a property right, without due process; (5) failing to follow the University's procedure for investigation of sexual harassment claims; (6) failing to follow the University's procedure for terminating tenured faculty members; (7) depriving him of his right as a member of the public to have access to the University's campus and University events; and (8) failing to pay his salary for the 2004\u20132005 academic year. Because we find the issue to be dispositive here, we consider Haegert's argument that the entry of summary judgment in favor of the University was erroneous as the University failed to follow its own procedure for terminating tenured faculty members in the course of its investigation of McMullan's harassment claim against him. Haegert argues that the University breached his employment contract by 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 6/19 denying him the procedures described in (American Association of University Professors) publications. The Manual provides as follows regarding the dismissal of a faculty member with continuous tenure: 3. a. In cases pertaining to the dismissal of a faculty member with continuous tenure, or with a special or probationary appointment before the end of the specified term, the Faculty Professional Affairs Committee will conduct an informal inquiry as specified by the Faculty Bylaws and in conformity with the 1982 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure (with revisions). The Committee may, failing to effect an adjustment, determine whether in its opinion dismissal proceedings should be undertaken, without its opinion being binding upon the President. Subsequently, a dismissal will be preceded by a statement of reasons, and the individual concerned will have the right to be heard by the Faculty Appeals Committee serving as the duly elected faculty formal hearing committee. 8. Having exhausted all other avenues of appeal, the faculty member can ultimately ask that the Board of Trustees consider the grievance. This may be done by submitting a request in writing to the President who shall forward it to the chair of the Board of Trustees with a copy of the previous actions. The chair shall arrange for the case to be heard after all pertinent information has been studied. The faculty member will be permitted to appear in person and give whatever evidence desired in support of the appeal. Upon conclusion of its deliberation, the Board of Trustees shall decide whether to affirm or deny the appeal and shall so inform the faulty member in writing. Appellee's App. at 165\u201366 (emphasis in original). The Faculty Bylaws contained in Manual provide in relevant part that In all matters pertaining to academic freedom, tenure, and professional ethics, and to assure academic due process, the University adheres to the guidelines (AAUP, Policy on Documents & Reports, Eighth Edition, 1995, Washington, D.C.: AAUP) which include the following: \u201c1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments\u201d \u201cStatement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings\u201d (1958) \u201cStatement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Nonrenewal of Faculty Appointments\u201d (1989) \u201cRecommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure\u201d (1982). Id. at 98. The Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, (last visited on July 21, 2011), contains the following statement of the burden of proof involved in the dismissal of a tenured professor: 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 7/19 (8) The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the institution and will be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole. Appellant's App. at 673 (emphasis supplied). We conclude that the University did not satisfy this burden of proof prior to terminating Haegert's employment. This case is unique factually because it involves the allegation of sexual harassment by a subordinate of a superior. McMullan, as the chairperson of the department, faced no retribution for reporting Haegert's conduct. In fact, she was responsible for evaluating Haegert's work performance and for supervising him. Our research has led us to only one case holding that a supervisor could be victimized by a subordinate through sexual harassment in the form of hostile work environment, although there may be others. See Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W.Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741 (W.Va.1995) (West Virginia Human Rights Act imposes a duty on employers to keep workplaces free of sexual harassment from whatever source, co-worker, subordinates, customers, or superior). It should also be noted that officials from the University stated that the sole reason Haegert's employment was terminated was because of the August 25, 2004 incident involving McMullan. The incident was investigated as sexual harassment in the form of hostile work environment. The Manual describes the following procedure for filing a formal claim of harassment or sexual harassment and the investigative, hearing, and review processes. B. Formal Harassment Complaint Procedure The formal complaint procedure is initiated by a person, here termed the complainant, containing the relevant allegations against a person, here termed the respondent, and requesting an investigation under the procedures provided below. The policy coordinator, if other than the AAO, forwards the complaint to the AAO. Neither the complainant nor the respondent may be represented by legal counsel. \u2024 If the respondent is not a student, the will coordinate the procedure. In all cases the is the official legally responsible for the investigation. If either the complainant or the respondent is not a student, the AAO, or in the absence of the AAO, the appropriate policy coordinator, shall adhere to the following procedure: 1). Convene a committee to review the charge and hear evidence and testimony during the investigation; 2). Serve as Chair of the committee and coordinator of the investigation; 3). Inform the complainant and the respondent of the committee's identity and charge, providing the respondent with a copy of the formal complaint; 4). Ensure that the investigation is conducted in a timely manner. The review committee shall consist of the AAO, faculty and/or student ombudsperson, if a faculty or student is involved, a representative of the appropriate group if a staff member or administrator is involved, and one policy coordinator. Policy coordinators will assist the complainant and/ or respondent 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 8/19 through the investigation process as needed. All officials involved in the investigation process will be trained in harassment issues. The will have the discretion to add an additional member to the committee of investigation if deemed appropriate. Appellee's App. at 132\u201333. The University's policy on sexual harassment contains examples of sexually harassing behavior which include but are not limited to: \u2014Physical assault \u2014Unwelcome sexual advances, including unwanted touching, flirting, fondling, hugging, patting, pinching, or leering \u2014Verbal abuse or degrading propositions of a sexual nature including sexually-oriented jokes, kidding or teasing sexually suggestive environment that interferes with the accomplishment of studies or work Id. at 130, 464 S.E.2d 741. One of the problems with the treatment of sexual harassment is the failure to distinguish between assault and trivial behavior. This problem is magnified by zero-tolerance policies such as the one here, where the consequence for any of a range of behaviors can result in the termination of one's employment. In Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 365, 103 Cal.Rptr. 3rd 19 (Cal.Ct.App.2009), the California Court of Appeals discussed what conduct constituted the hostile work environment form of sexual harassment, and noted that the California Supreme Court had held that such harassment was actionable only if the harassing behavior is pervasive or severe. Id. at 28. (emphasis in original). That language appears to be an acknowledgement of the need to distinguish between the degrees of behavior falling between assault, arguably sexual harassment per se, and trivial behavior indicating a moral lapse, potentially worthy of disciplinary warnings, or other penalties. The Haberman court also relied on Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963 (Cal.2009), a case worth discussing here. In Hughes, the defendant was a trustee of a $350 million trust provided by the plaintiff's late ex-husband for the benefit of their son. 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d at 968. The plaintiff made a request of the trustees for $160,000 for a two-month rental of a beach house. Id. That request was unanimously rejected by the trustees, but a decision was made to authorize an $80,000, one-month rental. Id. Approximately two weeks later, the defendant called the plaintiff to invite her son to accompany him and his son to a private showing at a museum. Id. During the course of the conversation, the defendant referred to the plaintiff as \u201csweetie\u201d and \u201choney\u201d and told her that he thought of her \u201cin a special way, if 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 9/19 you know what mean.\u201d Id. at 969. The plaintiff inquired as to why her two-month rental request had been denied. Id. The defendant told the plaintiff that he could be persuaded to change his vote if she were \u201cnice\u201d to him, and also said, \u201cYou know everyone always had a thing for you. You are one of the most beautiful, unattainable women in the world. Here's my home telephone number and call me when you're ready to give me what want.\u201dId. The plaintiff took her son to the private showing at the museum where she encountered the defendant who was there with his son. Id. The defendant greeted the plaintiff's son and then told the plaintiff, \u201cI'll get you on your knees eventually. I'm going to fuck you one way or another.\u201d Id. The plaintiff sued the defendant for sexual harassment in the context of relationships between providers of professional services and their clients. Id. The California Supreme Court applied the same legal principles of sexual harassment law in the workplace to that claim and held that although the remark at the museum was vulgar and highly offensive, it was not a threat to commit an assault on the plaintiff. Id. at 975. To be pervasive, the sexually harassing conduct must consist of more than a few isolated incidents, and to be severe, an isolated incident may qualify if it consists of a physical assault or the threat thereof. Id. at 974\u201375. The court used a reasonable person standard when assessing the severity of the conduct and concluded that the conduct was not actionable. Id. at 975. In the present case, while Haegert's comments and behavior might be characterized by some as inappropriate, vis-\u00e0-vis a co-worker, the complained of comments and behavior in this one incident do not constitute actionable sexual harassment in the form of hostile work environment. McMullan acknowledged that she did not tell Haegert that prior chin-chucking was unwelcome, and she never told him to stop engaging in that conduct with her. Instead, McMullan claimed that Haegert should have known that his conduct was unwelcome because of the look on her face, or her stony silence. Haegert had been put on notice by the University that he was not to use terms of endearment with his female students, and was not to hug or touch female students. However, prior to the University's investigation of McMullan's formal complaint, Haegert had not been put on notice that McMullan found his conduct to be offensive and unwelcome. The University, therefore, did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Haegert had committed sexual harassment in the form of hostile work environment. Because the University did not meet its burden of proving that Haegert had committed sexual harassment in the form of hostile work environment, we find that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the University and dismissing with prejudice Haegert's complaint against the University. We therefore reverse the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the University, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to (1) reverse the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the University of Evansville on grounds that it did not establish by clear and 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 10/19 convincing evidence that John Haegert committed sexual harassment in the form of hostile work environment and (2) remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Simply put believe that this case is governed by the terms and conditions of Haegert's employment contract with the University. That is, it is undisputed that Haegert's employment contract incorporated a zero-tolerance harassment and sexual harassment policy and that Haegert was aware that a violation of his employment contract was cause for termination. According to Haegert's employment contract, the University bore the burden of proving a violation by clear and convincing evidence. Contrary to my colleagues, however believe that the University has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Haegert's August 25, 2004, incident with Margaret McMullan in the English Department lounge violated this policy. And because believe that Haegert has received all the due process to which he was entitled would affirm the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the University. Haegert's employment contract with the University incorporated the Faculty and Administrator Manual, which provided that he could be terminated for violating the University's harassment and sexual harassment policies: \u201cHarassment of any kind is unacceptable at the University of Evansville and is in conflict with the policies and interests of the institution.\u201d Appellee's App. p. 127; see also id. at 128, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963 (\u201cSexual harassment is an especially sensitive and problematic form of harassment\u2024 The University of Evansville specifically prohibits sexual harassment\u2024 Sexual harassment violates the dignity of individuals and will not be tolerated.\u201d). Harassment was defined in the Manual as \u201cverbal or physical conduct which has the intent or effect of unreasonably interfering with the individual's or group's educational and/or work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational and work environment on or off campus.\u201d Id. at 127, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963. Sexual harassment was further defined as: [A]ny unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors, reference to gender or sexual orientation, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * * * 2. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or educational experience, creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or academic environment and when this conduct has no germane or legitimate relationship to the subject matter of a course. The courts recognize two types of sexual harassment, \u201cquid pro quo\u201d and \u201chostile environment.\u201d \u2024 Hostile environment occurs when unwelcome sexual conduct from any employee, student, or faculty member interferes with job or academic performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work or learning environment. 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 11/19 Sexual harassment can occur between a student and a faculty member, employee or another student; between an employee and a supervisor; between co-workers or faculty colleagues; between faculty and staff or between any one of these individuals and a university customer, vendor, or contractor. Id. at 129, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963. The Manual provided the following examples of sexual harassment: \u2022 Physical assault \u2022 Unwelcome sexual advances, including unwanted touching, flirting, fondling, hugging, patting, pinching, or leering \u2022 Verbal abuse or degrading propositions of a sexual nature, including sexually-oriented jokes, kidding, or teasing sexually suggestive environment that interferes with the accomplishment of studies or work Id. at 129\u201330, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963. Because the Manual governs both the substance and procedures for any sexual harassment claim occurring at the University believe that the majority's reliance on the California case of Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963 (Cal.2009), is neither instructive nor controlling. This is because in Hughes, the harassment laws at issue were Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act\u2014not an employment contract. Here, the evidence shows that on August 25, 2004, English Department Chair and Haegert's supervisor, McMullan, was sitting in the English Department lounge interviewing a prospective student, Cassandra Stitcher, and her family. After entering the lounge, Haegert approached McMullan, positioned his body next to her so that his belt was at eye level, said \u201cHi, Sweetie,\u201d stroked her neck and chin while she was addressing the prospective family, and left. The Stitchers cut the interview short, and Cassandra did not enroll at the University. According to Cassandra's father, he was \u201cshocked\u201d when Haegert \u201cfondled\u201d and \u201ctickled\u201d McMullan's chin, which he found to be \u201cinappropriate\u201d and \u201cunprofessional.\u201d Id. at 5, 13, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963. Cassandra's father thought Haegert was \u201ca lousy guy\u201d and \u201ca pig.\u201d Id. at 5, 13, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963 believe that the University has proved by clear and convincing evidence that this incident violates the University's zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy. Haegert's actions of putting his pelvis in McMullan's face coupled with stroking her neck and chin and calling her \u201cSweetie\u201d while she was interviewing a prospective student and her family constitutes unwelcome verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature which creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Notably, the Manual gave examples of sexual harassment which include this very situation. And am not alone in 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 12/19 reaching the conclusion that Haegert violated the University's sexual harassment policy. As detailed below, several University committees, the University Board of Trustees, and the trial court unanimously reached the same conclusion. After McMullan filed a formal sexual harassment complaint with Jennifer Graban, the University's Affirmative Action Officer, Graban convened a Review Committee, which was comprised of herself, the current ombudsperson, and a faculty member. The Review Committee interviewed Haegert and McMullan and unanimously concluded that Haegert's behavior violated the University's no-tolerance sexual harassment policy. The Review Committee then forwarded its report to University President Jennings. President Jennings brought the complaint before the University's Faculty Professional Affairs Committee (\u201cFPAC\u201d), which was comprised of approximately twelve elected faculty representatives. The unanimously concluded that the facts constituted adequate cause to terminate Haegert's employment with the University. After receiving FPAC's findings, President Jennings decided to terminate Haegert's employment because of the August 25, 2004, incident involving McMullan. Haegert appealed the finding of sexual harassment and his termination with the Faculty Appeals Committee (\u201cFAC\u201d). The held an evidentiary hearing at which both Haegert and the University were represented by counsel. Each party had the ability to call and examine witnesses and present evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the unanimously concurred with the decision to terminate Haegert's employment with the University. President Jennings notified Haegert that his termination had been upheld, he was banned from the University campus and events, and his pay and benefits would terminate effective March 31, 2005. Haegert appealed the FAC's decision to the University's Board of Trustees and submitted a brief on his behalf. The Board of Trustees unanimously concurred with the decision to terminate Haegert's employment for violating the University's sexual harassment policy. Based on these facts believe that Haegert was afforded all the procedural review to which he was entitled and that he was terminated consistent with his employment contract would therefore defer to the considered judgment of the multiple layers of review that Haegert has already received and affirm the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the University. KIRSCH, Judge. MATHIAS, J., concurs. VAIDIK, J., dissents with separate opinion. Was this helpful? Yes No 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 13/19 Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law v (2011) Docket No: No. 82A01\u20131008\u2013PL\u2013369. Decided: September 19, 2011 Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana. Need to find an attorney? 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 14/19 Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 For Legal Professionals 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 15/19 Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * \uf105 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 16/19 Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 17/19 Find a lawyer Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 18/19 Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles By Name Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/16/25, 10:13 v (2011) | FindLaw 19/19", "7705_105.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville Supreme Court of Indiana. Nov 13, 2012 977 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. 2012) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Take care of legal research in a matter of minutes with CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free No. 82S01\u20131204\u2013PL\u2013235. 2012-11-13 John HAEGERT, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v EVANSVILLE, Appellee (Defendant below). Darlene Robinson, Oakland City, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Kenneth J. Yerkes, Paul L. Jefferson, Hannesson I. Murphy, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee. Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/39 *928 Darlene Robinson, Oakland City, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Kenneth J. Yerkes, Paul L. Jefferson, Hannesson I. Murphy, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee. William M. Waltz, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Inc. Bryan H. Babb, Gregory W. Guevara, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, Indiana Legal Foundation, Inc. Anthony C. Maidenberg, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Independent Colleges of Indiana, Inc. 928 On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 82A01\u20131008\u2013PL\u2013369 DAVID, Justice. An encounter between a tenured professor at a private university and his department head turned into a formal complaint of harassment against the professor. After extensive internal proceedings, the professor's tenure was rescinded and he was dismissed from the university's faculty. He filed suit claiming breach of his employment contract and tenure agreement, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the university. We affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History John Haegert joined the University of Evansville's faculty in 1979 and received his tenure in 1982 as a professor in the English Department. Margaret McMullan, a creative writing professor, chaired the English Department from 2000 to *929 2005. On August 25, 2004, McMullan was in the English Department lounge interviewing a prospective student and her parents. Haegert walked into the lounge accompanied by a female student, said \u201cHi, Sweetie\u201d to McMullan, walked up to her\u2014standing with his belt 929 1 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/39 buckle at her eye-level, about a foot from her face\u2014and stroked his fingers under her chin and along her neck. 1 McMullan joined the faculty in 1990, was named acting Department Chair in 2000, and was promoted to permanent Department Chair in 2003. She voluntarily stepped down from the position in 2005 to focus on writing novels. As will be explained in greater detail below, this encounter triggered a formal complaint by McMullan against Haegert through the University's disciplinary review process. The outcome of that process was Haegert's dismissal from the University, two lawsuits, and this appeal. A. Haegert's Employment Contract The terms of Haegert's appointment were, like all other tenured professors, governed by a yearly tenure contract with the University. Haegert's tenure contract for the 2004\u20132005 academic year, executed on March 30, 2004, incorporated by reference the University's Faculty and Administrator Manual (\u201cFaculty Manual\u201d), containing various University policies, terms, and conditions. The Faculty Manual also incorporated a number of national academic standards drafted by the American Association of University Professors and others (collectively, the Guidelines\u201d). Under his contract, Haegert agreed \u201cto perform the duties in accordance with standards of performance established by the University and to abide by and to fulfill all duties, responsibilities, and obligations imposed by the Board's governing rules or by the University.\u201d (App. at 448.) Failure to do so would be considered \u201ccause for the University to terminate the appointment.\u201d (App. at 448.) Of particular importance to this case are several provisions within the Faculty Manual expressing the University's policy (and corresponding disciplinary procedures) with respect to harassment and sexual harassment. Harassment is defined by the Faculty Manual as \u201cverbal or physical conduct which has the intent or effect of unreasonably interfering with the individual's or group's education and/or work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational and work environment on or 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/39 off campus.\u201d (Supp. App. at 127.) The Faculty Manual's definition of sexual harassment is a variation of that used by the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and incorporates two forms of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment. In the latter regard, sexual harassment is defined as: 2 2 Haegert asserts that the University \u201cspecifically adopted the definition of sexual harassment as formulated by the EEOC.\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 21 (emphasis added).) This is not correct. The Faculty Manual makes clear that \u201c[t]he definition of sexual harassment as formulated by the has been adapted for our educational environment.\u201d (Supp. App. at 128 (emphasis added).) This may perhaps explain why Haegert seeks to apply case law arising from claims; case law that, as we discuss below, is irrelevant to the issue at hand. [A]ny unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors, reference to gender or sexual orientation, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * *930 930 2. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or educational experience, creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or academic environment and when this conduct has no germane or legitimate relationship to the subject matter of a course. (Supp. App. at 129.) In short, a \u201c[h]ostile environment occurs when unwelcome sexual conduct from any employee, student, or faculty member interferes with job or academic performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work or learning environment.\u201d (Supp. App. at 129.) Examples of sexual harassment identified in the Faculty Manual include: \u2022 Physical assault \u2022 Unwelcome sexual advances, including unwanted touching, flirting, fondling, hugging, patting, pinching, or leering 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/39 \u2022 Verbal abuse or degrading propositions of a sexual nature including sexually-oriented jokes, kidding or teasing sexually suggestive environment that interferes with the accomplishment of studies or work (Supp. App. at 130.) Despite the more detailed definition of sexual harassment and particular examples provided, allegations of both harassment and sexual harassment are investigated and adjudicated using the same procedures outlined in the Faculty Manual. These procedures begin with a recommendation to pursue informal resolution of the complaint; ideally with direct communication between the complainant and the alleged harasser. This is to avoid formal intervention on matters that may arise from mere misunderstanding, ignorance, or misinterpretation. However, \u201c[a] complainant is not required to seek informal resolution to complaints prior to seeking a formal resolution.\u201d (Supp. App. at 131 person seeking to file a formal complaint of harassment must do so within 180 days of the most recent alleged conduct. Such a complainant is advised to consult the University's Affirmative Action Officer (AAO) or a policy coordinator and discuss what happened, whether investigation is warranted, and the complaint procedure. If the complainant elects to proceed, a formal complaint is filed by providing the or policy coordinator with a signed, written complaint containing the allegations and requesting an investigation. 3 4 3 The \u201cis the University official legally responsible for the investigation of harassment charges.\u201d (Supp. App. at 128.) 4 \u201cPolicy coordinators serve as a resource to assist the AAO, complainant, and other individuals through the investigation process. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Chief Student Affairs Officer serve as policy coordinators.\u201d (Supp. App. at 128.) Policy coordinators also investigate complaints when the is unavailable to do so. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/39 When the alleged harasser (now the respondent) is a faculty member, the is to convene a review committee to investigate the complaint, chaired by the and including the faculty ombudsperson, a representative of the appropriate staff or administrator group, and a policy coordinator. The committee is charged with investigating the complaint to determine (1) whether the conduct occurred as alleged; and (2) whether that conduct constitutes harassment. The Review Committee has thirty days to complete its investigation and review, after which the provides the President of the University with a written recommendation that either there is, or is not, sufficient evidence supporting the alleged *931 violation. These findings and recommendation shall also be sent to the complainant and respondent. If the alleged conduct is found to have occurred and constitute harassment, the \u201cwill impose formal sanctions in accordance with University policy.\u201d (Supp. App. at 135.) These may include, without limitation, a formal warning, suspension, or termination. \u201cEvery precaution will be taken to ensure that the harassment is stopped immediately.\u201d (Supp. App. at 135.) 931 5 5 Or, alternatively, that the parties involved have settled. Faculty members have a right to an appeals process by way of a written appeal to the Faculty Appeals Committee (FAC). The will go over the Review Committee's proceedings, call witnesses (if necessary) to provide further information, and make a written recommendation to the and President as to its findings within thirty days. Whether an appeal is sought or not, the President's decision will be communicated, in writing, to both the complainant and respondent. 6 6 The serves as \u201can appeals board for all cases concerning the well-being of faculty members in accordance with [American Association of University Professors] Guidelines.\u201d (Supp. App. at 107.) It consists of a full- time faculty member from each Academic Governance Unit, elected from the tenured faculty, and a Chairperson appointed by the Faculty Senate's Executive Committee. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/39 The Faculty Manual also provides an additional procedure specifically for when dismissal of a tenured faculty member is considered. In such cases, the Faculty Professional Affairs Committee (FPAC) will conduct an \u201cinformal inquiry\u201d into the matter and \u201cdetermine whether in its opinion dismissal proceedings should be undertaken, without its opinion being binding upon the President.\u201d (Supp. App. at 165.) Any dismissal following this inquiry is preceded by a statement of reasons, and appeal may be had to the FAC. \u201cThe President, however, will normally not reach a decision until the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Faculty Appeals Committee have made their recommendations.\u201d (Supp. App. at 165.) 7 7 The is a standing faculty committee \u201cresponsible for all matters concerning the professional employment, evaluation, and development of faculty.\u201d (Supp. App. at 108.) Like the FAC, it consists of a full-time faculty member from each Academic Governance Unit and a Chairperson; it also has as a non voting member the Vice President for Academic Affairs. As a final resort, the faculty member can submit a request to the University's Board of Trustees, asking for its consideration. The Board of Trustees studies \u201call pertinent information\u201d and decides whether to uphold or reverse the appeal. (Supp. App. at 166.) B. McMullan's \u201cAnecdotal File\u201d Haegert's August 25, 2004, encounter with McMullan was not the first instance in which his conduct had been complained of, investigated, or addressed\u2014and for similar circumstances. In early 2002, both McMullan and the University's AAO, Jennifer Graban, received independent informal complaints from several female students expressing concern about Haegert's behavior towards women. These complaints all followed the same themes: derogatory comments about women, explicit commentary, and inappropriate touching. The complainants particularly referenced his use of words like \u201cSweetie,\u201d \u201cHoney,\u201d \u201cBabe,\u201d and \u201cHon\u201d; called his language *932 \u201ccrude and scary\u201d; and said they felt uncomfortable when Haegert would hug them or other female students. (App. at 353, 354, 357, 364, 366\u201368.) 8 932 8 Graban became aware of the complaints after being approached by the Faculty Ombudsman, who reported speaking to a faculty member claiming 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/39 to have overheard complaints made by students about Haegert. Graban asked McMullan to meet with Haegert concerning his behavior, and McMullan did so. During this meeting, McMullan advised Haegert that several students had reported feeling uncomfortable when he touched them or other female students, and that the behavior had to stop. Haegert responded that he was \u201cnot a molester\u201d or \u201ca dirty old man,\u201d and that he had \u201ca very rich, very fulfilling sex life.\u201d (App. at 133, 401.) After he left the meeting with McMullan, Haegert went to see Graban, who also cautioned him against touching or hugging his students because it was making students uncomfortable. According to Graban, Haegert was very agitated, angry, and loud. He admitted to using terms like \u201cHon\u201d and \u201cSweetie\u201d in addressing female students, but insisted it was part of his personality. (App. at 43.) He again reiterated that he was not a molester or dirty old man and had no intention of altering his teaching style, but Graban advised him that this language could offend people. Haegert concluded the meeting by saying \u201cThank you, Sweetheart.\u201d (App. at 58.) McMullan received a formal complaint from a different student later that month, alleging the same behavior from Haegert. McMullan forwarded the complaint to Graban, but ultimately the student opted to withdraw the complaint and not renew it. Graban advised Haegert of this complaint in August of 2002, but Haegert again appeared unreceptive to changing his behavior. 9 9 The student was a senior and indicated to Graban that she was concerned for the grade she might receive from Haegert if she pursued a formal complaint; after she graduated, the student indicated that she just wanted to move on from the University and not revisit the issue. McMullan kept notes on all of these complaints\u2014along with notes of other encounters she personally had with Haegert\u2014in what came to be referred to as her \u201canecdotal file\u201d on Haegert. The file included any information she deemed important in her evaluation of faculty in the English Department, including negative incidents, awards, grants, and letters. She kept such a file on every member of the faculty that she evaluated. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/39 C. The Road to Haegert's Termination The August 25, 2004, encounter was the last straw for McMullan. She felt like the time had come to file a formal complaint; that Haegert's behavior was not going to change despite warnings from herself and Graban. Furthermore, this encounter had occurred in front of a prospective student and her parents\u2014independent witnesses who could corroborate the conduct and its impact. McMullan first went to Stuart Dorsey, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and informed him that she wished to file a formal complaint. She subsequently emailed Dorsey and Jean Beckman, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, with a summary of the encounter and her complaint. Later that evening, she forwarded the email to Graban in accordance with the formal complaint provisions in the Faculty Manual, requesting an investigation. The next morning, McMullan met with Graban and Dorsey. Graban typed out the formal complaint as McMullan recounted the events, McMullan made changes to the draft complaint, and she then signed the final version.*933 933 The final \u201cComplaint of Harassment\u201d stated the following allegation of misconduct: While talking with a prospective student and her parents here in the English department offices just had what consider a disturbing encounter with John Haegert was well into (in the middle of) my visit with the prospective family when John (Haegert) came in to the waiting area. He said very loudly to me, \u201cHi Sweetie,\u201d and he came over and touched and moved his fingers on my neck and chin in a tickling gesture for a long moment while was addressing the prospective family. This embarrassed everyone in the room. No one said a thing\u2014the prospective family, the one freshman sitting there (a girl) and the girl student who walked in with John.... The prospective student's father cleared his throat and said they had to be going had 20\u201330 minutes left with them. The meeting was over. In my 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/39 opinion, they will not be sending their daughter to and she wants to come. This behavior is unacceptable and cannot happen again. (App. at 474 (emphasis in original).) Dorsey informed Haegert of the formal complaint and relieved him of his teaching duties, placing him on administrative leave with pay and enjoining him from coming onto campus without an escort until the complaint was resolved. He also provided Haegert a copy of the complaint and the University's harassment policy. Graban immediately commenced an investigation, beginning by contacting the family of the prospective student present during the encounter. The prospective student's father described Haegert's conduct as \u201cfondling under [McMullan's] chin .... tickling her.\u201d (Supp. App. at 13, 16.) He was \u201cshocked,\u201d felt the behavior was \u201cinappropriate,\u201d and said \u201c[i]f you were in a break room together and you walked in, you would have wondered what had been going on.\u201d (Supp. App. at 13, 16.) He \u201cthought that he was probably a pig ... a lousy guy ... the guy was just a pig.\u201d (Supp. App. at 13, 16 (emphasis in original).) He also said \u201c[i]t was obvious that Ms. McMullan was extremely uncomfortable with the contact.\u201d (Supp. App. at 16.) Graban then assembled a three-person Review Committee consisting of herself, the Faculty Ombudsman, and a neutral faculty member. The Review Committee called McMullan and Haegert as witnesses, but neither McMullan nor Haegert was permitted an advocate at this stage. McMullan recited the details of the encounter as presented in her complaint; she described the touch as lasting for a \u201clingering or long moment,\u201d and said she was \u201cembarrassed and humiliated.\u201d (Supp. App. at 14.) In response to questions from the committee, she stated that this was not her first such encounter with Haegert and recited several prior occasions where his conduct or comments made her feel uncomfortable. At some point around this time, McMullan provided Graban with her anecdotal file. For his part, Haegert testified that he \u201cregarded the greeting as harmless, inconsequential, very brief, and that certainly\u2014certainly it did not meet the seriousness with which the University was apparently taking [the] matter.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/39 (App. at 100.) He said that McMullan had given him a warm greeting and he was in an \u201cextremely joyous\u201d mood that day, but did not deny his words or actions. (App. at 100; Supp. App. at 17.) In fact, he demonstrated by rubbing Graban's left cheek/chin. He also recalled McMullan's and Graban's February and August 2002 warnings, but \u201chis *934 feeling was that it is not really a problem.\u201d (Supp. App. at 17.) 934 On September 15, 2004, the Review Committee submitted its report to the University President, Dr. Stephen Jennings. After summarizing the evidence, the report concluded that \u201cbased on the incident that took place on August 25, 2004, as stated in the complaint, the behavior described is in violation of the University of Evansville sexual harassment policy.\u201d (Supp. App. at 9.) The Review Committee also found \u201csufficient evidence supporting the alleged violation.\u201d (Supp. App. at 9.) The report enclosed summaries of the testimony, the prospective student's family's account, and the complaint. It also included a number of other items as additional exhibits, including McMullan's anecdotal file and Graban's notes from her meetings with Haegert in February and August 2002. No dissenting votes were indicated. Jennings then attempted to resolve the situation informally by meeting with Haegert. Jennings indicated to Haegert that there was a strong possibility that he would seek termination through the FPAC, and offered Haegert the option of an early retirement instead. Haegert declined Jennings's offer. On November 18, 2004, Jennings spoke before the as \u201can informal consultation by the administration regarding the potential dismissal of a tenured faculty member.\u201d (App. at 218\u201319.) Jennings was considering\u2014but had not yet decided upon\u2014dismissal of Haegert and planned to recommend this sanction to the FPAC. His determination was based on this not having been the first instance of Haegert acting inappropriately, the nature of McMullan's supervisory relationship with Haegert, and an assessment that Haegert's behavior had created a hostile environment for McMullan, other faculty, and students within the English Department. 10 10 No member of the had served on the earlier Review Committee. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/39 The also heard testimony from Graban, who provided the members with copies of McMullan's anecdotal file. Dorsey also testified and recommended dismissal. McMullan did not testify or provide any statement beyond what was already contained in the Review Committee's report, but Haegert submitted a lengthy email to the in his defense. In it, he lodged a number of procedural complaints but raised no substantive defenses to his conduct. The concluded that \u201cthis case does clearly meet the definition of sexual harassment, that procedures had been followed correctly, and that the University must uphold a high standard of conduct.\u201d (App. at 465.) \u201cSince there is an unambiguous finding of sexual harassment, and since other efforts at resolution have failed, the committee concludes that University policy has been followed and that the facts of this case constitute adequate cause for dismissal.\u201d (App. at 465.) 11 11 This language was modified in a formal resolution, concluding that the \u201cconcurs with the findings of the Review Committee Report's conclusion (dated 9, September, 2004.) that there is an unambiguous finding of sexual harassment, and since other efforts at resolution have failed, this Committee, serving in an informal, advisory capacity, concludes that the facts of this case constitute an adequate cause for the initiation of formal dismissal procedures.\u201d (App. at 386.) Following the FPAC's conclusion, Jennings decided to dismiss Haegert from the University faculty, effective December 31, 2004. Jennings cited Haegert's \u201cviolation of the University's Sexual Harassment Policy\u201d as having \u201cirreparably damaged your capacity to serve the Department of *935 English as well as the University as a teacher and a colleague.\u201d (App. at 454.) Jennings also notified Haegert of his right to appeal the termination decision to the FAC. 935 Haegert chose to appeal the findings of sexual harassment and his termination to the hearing before the was scheduled for March 23, 2005. Four months prior to the hearing, Haegert was provided with all of the material reviewed by the prior to its finding\u2014including McMullan's anecdotal file. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/39 The hearing was a formal hearing, with both Haegert and the University represented by counsel; both sides were permitted to submit opening and closing statements, call and cross-examine sworn witnesses, and present evidence. The committee members were also permitted to ask questions. To the extent they arose, evidentiary issues were resolved by an independent attorney retained by the FAC, and the hearing was transcribed total of eight witnesses were called: McMullan, Haegert, Graban, Dorsey, the student who was with Haegert on August 25, 2004, and also Deborah Howard, Larry Caldwell, and William Pollard. Haegert also introduced a number of letters of support from different individuals. Graban, Dorsey, and McMullan all presented testimony consistent with the evolution of the complaint procedure thus far. The student testified that Haegert was in high spirits that day, and said \u201chello\u201d to McMullan, but could not recall anything about the encounter beyond that \u201cbecause [she] didn't see it or because it was not something that struck [her] as unusual.\u201d (App. at 630, 632.) She said that she had seen Haegert greet people in similar fashions, including using similar language; she also testified in support of Haegert's character as a professor. (App. at 631\u201332.) Howard, the Chair of the University's Department of Law, Politics, and Society, testified as to the development of the University's sexual harassment policy. Caldwell, President of the AAUP's University of Evansville Chapter, presented testimony tending to undermine McMullan's credibility and motives and bolster Haegert's credentials. Pollard, a former professor in the University's English Department, presented similar testimony. Haegert testified as he had previously: that he was in an exceptional mood that day and had no ill intent toward McMullan, but he did not deny the conduct occurred as described. McMullan's anecdotal file was not introduced into evidence. The next day, the transmitted a letter to Jennings finding that Haegert \u201cis guilty of sexual harassment as defined by the University Faculty and Administrator Manual.\u201d (Supp. App. at 276.) It unanimously concurred in Jennings's decision to terminate Haegert, but recommended a severance agreement be offered. On March 29, 2005, Jennings sent Haegert another 12 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/39 letter restating the termination for cause, denying application for emeritus status, and permanently banning Haegert from University property and University functions. He informed Haegert that he had the right to appeal to the University's Board of Trustees. 12 Haegert rejected this severance package. Haegert submitted a written brief to the University's Board of Trustees, raising his procedural grievances, alleging \u201ca cynical use of alleged sexual harassment as the means to eliminate Professor Haegert's dissenting voice and reconfigure the department in favor of Creative Writing,\u201d and denying that he had any sexual intent towards McMullan on August 25, 2004; *936 but he again did not deny that the encounter occurred. (Supp. App. at 361\u201367.) He enclosed a number of letters of support from both faculty and students. The University submitted a responsive brief that included the complaint, all findings and recommendations from the Review Committee, the FPAC, and the FAC. It included the evidence presented to the Review Committee, but did not include McMullan's anecdotal file. 936 The Board of Trustees' Executive Committee denied Haegert's appeal. It considered \u201cthe relevant documents, the Faculty Appeals Committee hearing transcript, the President's letter of termination, and [the parties'] well-written briefs.\u201d (Supp. App. at 279.) Based on that review, it upheld the FAC's decision and concurred with Haegert's dismissal. \u201cJohn Haegert received substantial due process with the procedures adopted by the University community and obviously engaged in harassment in violation of the Harassment Policy agreed upon by the faculty.\u201d (Supp. App. at 279.) D. Haegert's Litigation On August 25, 2005, Haegert filed a complaint against the University of Evansville, alleging multiple breaches of his employment contract. He also filed a complaint against McMullan, alleging defamation, tortious breach of his employment contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Haegert v. McMullan, 953 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). Parties filed motions for summary judgment in both actions, and the trial court consolidated the two cases for oral arguments. 13 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/39 13 At different points in his complaint, Haegert labels the breaches as \u201ctortious breach.\u201d (App. at 20\u201321.) However, Indiana does not recognize a distinct cause of action for \u201ctortious breach of contract.\u201d See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 759 N.E.2d 1162, 1166 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). The trial court granted the University's motion for summary judgment and denied Haegert's. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the University failed to carry its burden of proof with respect to the sexual harassment complaint. Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 955 N.E.2d 753, 760 (Ind.Ct.App.2011), reh'g denied. Specifically, the court looked to a pair of California cases tending to show that a plaintiff filing a claim against an employer for sexual harassment must show that the harassing behavior was pervasive or severe in order for the claim to be actionable as a hostile work environment. See id. at 761\u201362. It found this showing was not made in Haegert's case \u201cby clear and convincing evidence.\u201d Id. at 762. 14 14 It also granted McMullan's motion on all counts. See McMullan, 953 N.E.2d at 1229. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a separate opinion. Id. at 1226. Judge Vaidik dissented, believing that the University had shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Haegert's conduct on August 25, 2004, constituted a single incident of sexual harassment, and furthermore, under the terms of Haegert's employment contract, no greater showing was needed to support his dismissal. Id. at 762\u201365 (Vaidik, J., dissenting). We granted transfer, 967 N.E.2d 1033 (Ind.2012) (table), thereby vacating the decision of the Court of Appeals, Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). II. Standard of Review The grant of summary judgment is only appropriate when the moving party affirmatively shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact with regard to a particular issue or claim. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); *937 Town of Avon v. W. Cent. Conservancy Dist., 957 N.E.2d 598, 602 (Ind.2011). If this burden has been met, the non-moving party must come forward with designated evidence showing that a genuine issue of material fact does exist. Id. All designated evidence and reasonable inferences are viewed in a light most 937 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/39 favorable to the non-moving party; any doubts are resolved against the moving party. Id. An appellate court reviews these cases through the same lens. We will affirm an award of summary judgment on any theory supported by the record. Woodruff v. Ind. Family & Soc. Servs. Admin., 964 N.E.2d 784, 790 (Ind.2012). When the facts are undisputed, reversal is only appropriate if the trial court incorrectly applied the law to those facts. Id. III. Discussion At the outset, we emphasize that this is not a case in which an employee is suing his or her employer based on allegations of discrimination on the basis of sex or cultivating a hostile work environment through the tolerance of sexual harassment. This case is properly defined as involving an employee fired by his employer pursuant to terms, procedures, and policies laid out in his employment contract. As such, cases applying Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964\u2014or state-law equivalents\u2014do not constitute an appropriate legal foundation for its resolution. Instead, our rules governing the construction, interpretation, and breach of contracts govern this action, and we will go outside the terms of the relevant contract only when absolutely necessary. 15 15 See, e.g., Haegert, 955 N.E.2d at 761\u201362 (citing Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 365, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 19 (2009)) and Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963 (2009)); (Appellant's Br. at 21\u2013 22 (citing Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986), Patton v. Keystone Co., 455 F.3d 812 (7th Cir.2006), and Coolidge v. Consol. City of Indianapolis, 505 F.3d 731 (7th Cir.2007)); (Appellant's Reply Br. at 5.) \u201cIndiana courts recognize the freedom of parties to enter into contracts and, indeed, presume that contracts represent the freely bargained agreement of the parties.\u201d Fresh Cut Inc. v. Fazli, 650 N.E.2d 1126, 1129 (Ind.1995). Thus, when the terms of a contract are drafted in clear and unambiguous language, we will apply the plain and ordinary meaning of that language and enforce the contract according to those terms. Sheehan Const. Co., Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 935 N.E.2d 160, 169 (Ind.2010). This approach best effectuates the 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 16/39 primary goal in appellate review of contract cases: \u201cto ascertain and give effect to the mutual intention of the parties.\u201d Hutchinson, Shockey, Erley & Co. v. Evansville\u2013Vanderburgh Cnty. Bldg. Auth., 644 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 (Ind.1994). This also makes contract cases particularly suited for summary judgment. To prevail on a claim for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a contract, the defendant's breach of that contract, and damages resulting from the breach. Neither party disputes the existence of Haegert's employment contract or its contents, but Haegert claims the University breached its contract by rescinding his tenure and terminating his employment. He claims damages in the form of lost employment, livelihood, damage to reputation, and physical and mental distress. Specifically, Haegert claims the University breached his employment contract by: (A) turning McMullan's complaint into a sexual harassment complaint; (B) previously violating a protected right to academic freedom; (C) refusing to allow him *938 to teach after he had been dismissed; (D) depriving him of tenure without the process afforded to him in the contract; (E) terming McMullan's complaint a sexual harassment complaint and then failing to follow the procedure governing sexual harassment complaints; (F) failing to follow the process required for dismissal of a tenured faculty member; (G) restricting his rights as a member of the public to come onto University property or attend University events; and (H) refusing to pay his salary from when he was dismissed until the end of that academic year. (Appellant's Br. at 14\u201320.) 938 Aside from a few miscellaneous issues, we view this panoply of allegation as distilling into two primary (and significant) points of contention: (1) was Haegert's conduct on August 25, 2004, actionable as harassment or sexual harassment, and therefore subject to sanction by dismissal and rescission of his contract; and (2) if so, did the University follow the proper procedures for doing so, as set forth in Haegert's contract. A. Preliminary Issues few particular claims stand out as not being ultimately dispositive of the primary issues in this case, but nevertheless needing to be addressed. We 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 17/39 present them early because they tend to weave in and out of Haegert's more substantive arguments, and might otherwise muddy up a straightforward claim. 1. The (Re) Classification of McMullan's Complaint As an initial matter, Haegert claims the University improperly reclassified McMullan's complaint as one of sexual harassment. (Appellant's Br. at 15, 21.) It is true that McMullan's formal complaint says \u201cComplaint of Harassment,\u201d whereas Dorsey's letter to Haegert informing him of the complaint terms it \u201ca formal charge of sexual harassment,\u201d and the Review Committee's report is labeled as being in response to \u201cMcMullan's Complaint of Sexual Harassment.\u201d Nevertheless, we fail to see how this constitutes a breach of Haegert's employment contract. Haegert says this matters because McMullan could not claim quid pro quo sexual harassment as she was his superior, and also that \u201cMcMullan could make no claim of a sexually hostile environment since she had only an isolated incident that he touched her under the chin.\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 21.) Therefore, he says, he was \u201caccused and found guilty of sexual harassment without any plausible showing of legally actionable sexual harassment or even any complaint that would support such a claim.\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 22.) In support of this theory he cites a number of federal cases analyzing Title claims. But, as we pointed out above, those cases\u2014and the standards they set forth for defining sexual harassment claims against employers in the civil rights context\u2014are wholly irrelevant to this action. Whether Haegert's conduct constituted sexual harassment\u2014or harassment\u2014such that he could be dismissed is an issue that is properly defined only by the terms of his employment contract, and we answer that question below. What's more, the terms of Haegert's contract make clear that this is a distinction without any appreciable difference. As the Faculty Manual states, \u201c[h]arassment of any kind is unacceptable at the University,\u201d and \u201c[s]exual harassment is an especially sensitive and problematic form of harassment.\u201d (Supp. App. at 127\u201328 (emphasis added).) Just because McMullan's complaint classified Haegert's conduct as being a harassment, and Dorsey's letter and the Review Committee report later classified it as sexual harassment,*939 does not mean it is not still harassment. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 18/39 939 And regardless, the Faculty Manual states that \u201cthe guidelines and procedures for both reporting and investigating sexual harassment are the same as those for reporting and investigating any form of harassment.\u201d (Supp. App. at 128 (emphasis added).) Whether these guidelines and procedures were properly followed is likewise discussed below, but there simply is no merit to Haegert's contention that he was denied \u201cthe procedure to which he would have been entitled if there had actually been an allegation of sexual harassment,\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 16), because there was no such distinct procedure. 2. Haegert's \u201cRight\u201d to Advise Students Second, Haegert claims that the University had previously violated his right to academic freedom, as it was set forth in his employment contract. (Appellant's Br. at 15.) He claims he sought assistance from the University in putting a stop to \u201cMcMullan's campaign against John Haegert's exercise of the academic freedom [the University] promised him,\u201d and that \u201cagents\u201d of the University \u201caided\u201d McMullan in ending Haegert's employment. (Appellant's Br. at 15.) This was apparently motivated by McMullan's difference of opinion \u201cconcerning the best direction for the department.\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 15.) 16 16 The prior decade had apparently been one of upheaval and schism for the English Department, with some of the faculty aiming to steer the department away from Creative Writing (McMullan's specialty) and towards English Language and Literature (Haegert's specialty). In that regard, the sexual harassment complaint is presented as an attempt to silence a voice for the English Language and Literature assemblage \u201cand to gain thereby a measure of deferred gratification regarding the disputes of a previous epoch.\u201d (App. at 577.75.) The substantive portion of this allegation appears to be that Haegert believed he was entitled to advise students in the English Department by virtue of his tenure contract. However, he points us to no clause or term of the Faculty Manual or his contract which conveys that right, nor could we find one anywhere in the record bald assertion that Haegert thinks \u201cit is both a right and a responsibility of individual faculty members to advise 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 19/39 students,\u201d and that the University's failure to provide him with the opportunity to do so is \u201ca violation not simply of [his] academic freedom but also of [his] academic responsibility\u201d is not an actionable claim for breach of his employment contract. (App. at 131.) As to the other side of this allegation\u2014the implication of a nefarious plot, orchestrated by McMullan and aided and abetted by the University, to seize power within the English Department\u2014this likewise has no merit. It ignores that a single, stand-alone action by an individual can be sufficient to constitute harassment and/or sexual harassment and lead to dismissal, regardless of any other influences on (or by) the complainant. 3. Haegert's Campus Ban Third, Haegert mentions in several places that he was improperly prohibited from entering onto University property: first in his initial suspension after the filing of the formal complaint, in which he could not enter without an escort, and second in his ultimate termination and permanent ban from University facilities, grounds, and venues. (Appellant's Br. at 16, 20; Supp. App. at 57, 277.) Haegert claims that \u201cthe only policy of [the Faculty Manual] that might be used to justify a banishment is the policy on Workplace Violence,\u201d *940 and Haegert \u201cwas not then, nor later, accused of violent behavior or charged by [the University] or Margaret McMullan with violent behavior.\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 16.) 940 17 17 This is a facetious attempt to misdirect our attention; nothing in the workplace violence policy discusses bans from University property whatsoever, much less in a way that would lead to a comparison between workplace violence claims and harassment claims. But again, Haegert points to no provision in his employment contract guaranteeing a right of entry onto University property while under investigation for harassment or following termination. There can be no breach of a provision that does not exist. And certainly the University, as a private institution, has the authority to deny entry to individuals who have no contractual interest in the property. SeeInd.Code \u00a7 35\u201343\u20132\u20132. After his termination, this category of individuals would include Haegert. 18 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 20/39 18 In fact, the Faculty Manual requires University supervisors to \u201ctake necessary corrective action\u201d as soon as they are made aware of potential harassment, (Supp. App. at 131), and the formal complaint procedure requires discussion of \u201c[p]rotection of the complainant against any retaliatory action,\u201d (Supp. App. at 132.) Under either of these provisions, a limited-access ban pending investigation might conceivably be appropriate. 4. Graban's Notes and the Impact of McMullan's \u201cAnecdotal File\u201d Fourth, Haegert repeatedly complains that McMullan's anecdotal file was inappropriately used against him. (Appellant's Br. at 15, 16\u201317, 18, 19, 21, 23\u2013 26.) He contends that this file was \u201clargely undated fabrications based on hearsay, double and triple hearsay,\u201d that he was not informed of its existence, and thus he was never made aware of all the evidence against him in a way that he could contest it. (Appellant's Br. at 23\u201325.) He also argues that Graban kept \u201cnotes of hearsay reports by unnamed students\u201d who had complained of Haegert's behavior in 2002. (Appellant's Br. at 17.) He says these notes were kept in violation of the Faculty Manual's provisions regarding informal complaints and, like the anecdotal file, were used against him \u201cto fabricate a \u2018history\u2019 of \u2018sexual harassment,\u2019 to find him \u2018guilty\u2019 of sexual harassment, and to have him fired.\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 17.) The Faculty Manual provides that a complainant who is uncomfortable personally confronting an alleged harasser may contact the supervisor for the alleged harasser, who will attempt to resolve the issue informally. \u201cSuch informal procedures are to be kept strictly confidential and, in the interests of future confidentiality, the supervisor is not to maintain written records of the discussions.\u201d (Supp. App. at 131.) This process applies \u201cprovided the supervisor does not serve as either a policy coordinator or as the (in such cases, the University Ombudsman should be contacted).\u201d (Supp. App. at 131.) However, even when a formal complaint is lodged with the AAO, and informal resolution is sought in conjunction with the formal process, that informal resolution is also subject to the confidentiality requirements. It therefore appears that Haegert is correct, and to the extent Graban and McMullan kept notes regarding the informal resolution of complaints made 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 21/39 by students, their doing so violated the Faculty Manual's policy on harassment. However, that Graban and McMullan may have erred does not necessarily turn their misconduct into an actionable breach of Haegert's employment contract.*941 941 For one thing, the Faculty Manual's confidentiality provision would not apply to the portions of the anecdotal file containing McMullan's own observations of prior encounters between herself and Haegert, and describing the effect of his conduct on her. For example, the file includes a letter from McMullan to Beckman in which McMullan says Haegert's presence \u201cis disruptive, often threatening, unpleasant, and rude ... my only alternative to writing this letter is to go ahead and just give [Haegert] a 5 and expect another chuck under the chin,\u201d (App. at 409) and \u201c[t]his is 2002. We don't live in a world where teachers can say and do the things [Haegert] says and does.\u201d (App. at 410.) Similarly, a February 2001 notation says Haegert walked up to McMullan, in front of colleagues, and \u201cchucked me under the chin for 3 long beats and said, \u2018You gave me just the schedule wanted sweetheart.\u2019 \u201d (App. at 422.) There is also a description of a \u201c[v]ery awkward\u201d and \u201c[v]ery uncomfortable\u201d encounter in which Haegert came to McMullan's office, sat next to her, and described his view on a fellow professor's tenure vote by saying gotta tell you can't support her for tenure, and geez, she's a bitch now, what will she be later?\u201d (App. at 424.) Haegert then said \u201cOK, my dear,\u201d and reached over and held McMullan's hand in her lap, then withdrew it, brushing her knee. (App. at 424.) Nor would the Faculty Manual's provision apply to a record of a 2001 encounter in which McMullan was kneeling to put a letter into a file and Haegert walked over, stood over her, and tousled her hair. She noted that this made her feel \u201cembarrassed that my colleague would do such a thing to another colleague.\u201d (App. at 425.) Likewise, the confidentiality provision would not apply to the portion of the anecdotal file describing incidents in which Haegert demonstrated hostility or disrespect toward students and colleagues. One such example is a 2002 encounter in which Haegert described a student to McMullan as \u201cmine,\u201d 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 22/39 saying, \u201c[y]es, indeed she was mine my dear. Oh yes, she was mine.\u201d (App. at 411.) Another example would be the description of a 1998 dinner attended by a prospective faculty member, McMullan, Haegert, Caldwell, and an administrator. During this dinner, Haegert \u201ckept caressing [the prospective faculty member's] arm. He said, \u2018How do you teach, my dear? Do you seduce your students? Or are [you (sic.) ] more militant? Do you demand.\u2019 \u201d (App. at 434.) There is also a report by another professor that Haegert took him by the collar and pushed him against the wall in front of several students, and one detailing Haegert making a fist during a departmental meeting as if to hit a colleague, and then punching a wall. (App. at 420, 432.). And there is a note about an October 2001 encounter in which Haegert came to McMullan's office, sat at a chair next to her desk, described a student by saying \u201cShe's a bitch c- - -.\u201d (App. at 423.) Using similar language, Haegert also once described McMullan's Feminine Perspectives class to her as \u201cC- - - Lit.\u201d (App. at 423.) All of those portions of the file were perfectly permissible under the Faculty Manual's confidentiality provisions, and all of them\u2014if taken as true\u2014are indicative of a pattern of behavior that would be highly relevant to the University's decision-making process with respect to a proper sanction for Haegert. Also, it is not clear that the Faculty Manual's confidentiality provision necessarily translates into Haegert's desired exclusionary rule prohibiting admission of that documentation during a subsequent *942 investigation. Rather, the Review Committee \u201cshall have broad access to all potentially relevant documentation,\u201d and its proceedings \u201care not those of a court of law.\u201d (Supp. App. at 133.) The proceeding is similarly \u201cinformal,\u201d and the proceeding, while formalized, \u201cwill not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence, and may admit any evidence which is of probative value in determining the issues involved.\u201d (App. at 673.) Certainly nothing in the Faculty Manual or Guidelines prohibited McMullan or Graban from testifying about those events in response to questioning by those panels, and we do not find anything inappropriate about the related documentation 942 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 23/39 being made available to the Review Committee, Jennings, the FPAC, the FAC, and the Board of Trustees.19 19 For that matter, the University is correct in pointing out that at his hearing, Haegert benefited from these loose evidentiary standards as well. Haegert presented, and admitted into evidence, a number of letters and statements from non-testifying individuals\u2014all of which would have been hearsay in a court of law. All of these statements were admitted\u2014like the anecdotal file could have been\u2014in response to the question of whether dismissal was appropriate, not a question as to the validity of the underlying harassment complaint. (App. at 638 (\u201cThis is testimony by these people without cross-examination, admittedly without cross-examination, but we are offering it as evidence on the issue of the discharge.\u201d).) Finally, to succeed in his claim that McMullan's and Graban's conduct breached his employment contract, Haegert would have to show that this breach was a \u201csubstantial factor\u201d contributing to his damages. See Parke State Bank v. Akers, 659 N.E.2d 1031, 1034 (Ind.1995). But as we discuss in greater detail below, the undisputed evidence shows that the Review Committee did not consider the anecdotal file in its deliberation\u2014instead, it based its recommendation entirely off of the testimony provided by the witnesses and assessed only the August 25, 2004, encounter. The same was true at every subsequent proceeding, including the more formalized hearing. In fact, the University deliberately omitted McMullan's anecdotal file from the hearing because it believed the committee \u201cshould hear the evidence for themselves\u201d and not simply review the Review Committee. (App. at 600.) Instead it was Haegert, not the University, who attempted to introduce the contents of the anecdotal file at the hearing. Furthermore, the evidence shows that Jennings, the ultimate decision- maker as to whether Haegert should be dismissed or not, reached his decision based solely on the August 25, 2004, encounter. He believed that particular encounter \u201creached the level of the magnitude of a serious enough complaint\u201d that dismissal was warranted. (App. at 210.) 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 24/39 Accordingly, to the extent we might assume McMullan's anecdotal file and Graban's notes constituted a breach of Haegert's employment contract, the designated evidence shows that it was not a substantial factor leading to his termination. B. Haegert's Actions Violated the Terms of His Employment Contract With those matters resolved, we move on to the more critical issues. The first question is whether Haegert's conduct constituted harassment or sexual harassment under the terms of his employment contract such that the University could dismiss him. The Faculty Manual's definition of harassment includes \u201cverbal or physical *943 conduct which has the intent or effect of unreasonably interfering with the individual's ... work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational and work environment on or off campus.\u201d (Supp. App. at 127.) 943 Sexual harassment includes \u201cany unwelcome sexual advance ... reference to gender ... or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature\u201d when \u201c[s]uch conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance ... creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or academic environment and when this conduct has no germane or legitimate relationship to the subject matter of a course.\u201d (Supp. App. at 129.) It specifically includes instances \u201cwhen unwelcome sexual conduct from any ... faculty member interferes with job or academic performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work or learning environment.\u201d (Supp. App. at 129.) Examples include \u201c[u]nwelcome sexual advances, including unwanted touching, flirting, [and] fondling,\u201d as well as \u201c[a] sexually suggestive environment that interferes with the accomplishment of studies or work.\u201d (Supp. App. at 130.) Here, the designated evidence shows that on August 25, 2004, Haegert entered the English Department lounge while McMullan was interviewing a prospective student and her family. He walked up to McMullan, touched her neck, chin, or face in some way and for some duration, and said \u201cHi, Sweetie.\u201d The evidence also shows that the encounter offended both 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 25/39 McMullan and was viewed as inappropriate by the prospective student's family, to the extent that the family terminated the interview and left the University. Haegert does not contest that the encounter occurred, and obviously could not contest its impact on McMullan or its perception by others, leaving only the question of whether his actions constituted harassment or sexual harassment under the terms of his employment contract. To that, Haegert's defense largely revolved around him saying he was simply in a joyous mood that day, and that he viewed the whole matter as harmless or inconsequential. But the Faculty Manual makes clear that it is not only the intent behind the conduct that matters, it is also the effect of the conduct. In that regard, the record clearly shows that the effect of Haegert's verbal and physical conduct unreasonably interfered with McMullan's work and job performance and created an offensive work environment by making her uncomfortable and disrupting the work she was doing trying to recruit a potential student to the University. Moreover, and again irrespective of his intent, his conduct nearly directly mirrors the Faculty Manual's stated examples of what constitutes sexual harassment. This is what every adjudicatory body found throughout Haegert's dismissal process, and there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support such findings. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the question of whether Haegert's conduct on August 25, 2004, was properly found to satisfy both the broad definition of harassment and the more particularized definition of sexual harassment spelled out in his employment contract. Likewise, there is no genuine issue of material fact that under the express terms of his contract, the spectrum of sanctions available to the University subsequent to a finding of even a single incident of harassment (including sexual harassment) includes termination and dismissal Haegert's Dismissal Process Complied With His Employment Contract The question that remains is whether the University breached Haegert's employment*944 contract by denying him procedural entitlements afforded 944 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 26/39 under the contract's terms. We approach this question by dividing his dismissal process into steps: the filing of McMullan's complaint, the Review Committee proceeding, the proceeding, the proceeding, and the Board of Trustees proceeding. 1. The Filing of McMullan's Complaint The Faculty Manual provides that a formal complaint is initiated when the complainant files with the a written and signed complaint containing the relevant allegations and requesting a formal investigation. Here, McMullan met with Graban and conveyed her wish to file a formal complaint against Haegert following the August 25, 2004, encounter. Graban typed up the complaint form as McMullan talked, and McMullan made edits as necessary. The final version was completed and signed by McMullan, and submitted to Graban. Haegert claims that Graban \u201chelped [McMullan] draft her statement which does not allege sexual harassment.\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 16.) We have already discussed the irrelevance of the harassment/sexual harassment distinction, and the Faculty Manual does not prohibit the from physically typing the allegations into a University form. Ultimately, what was submitted as the formal complaint was, in fact, a written document, signed by McMullan, containing her allegations and requesting an investigation. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the University breached Haegert's employment contract at this stage of his dismissal process. It did not. 2. The Review Committee Proceedings After a formal complaint is filed, the Faculty Manual requires the to convene a committee to review the charge and hear evidence and testimony, chair the committee and coordinate the investigation, inform the complainant and the respondent of the committee's identity, and provide the respondent with a copy of the formal complaint. Neither party may be represented by legal counsel at this stage, but policy coordinators will assist them as needed. The committee's task is to \u201cconduct a thorough investigation of the allegations\u201d in order to determine whether the conduct 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 27/39 occurred as alleged and, if so, whether it constituted harassment. (Supp. App. at 133.) Here, Graban conducted a preliminary investigation by interviewing the prospective student's family. She then convened the Review Committee and it heard testimony from McMullan and Haegert, along with reviewing a written statement from the prospective student's family. Graban had access to McMullan's anecdotal file and offered it to the other members of the Review Committee, but they declined. They did, however, directly question McMullan as to whether this was the first such incident involving Haegert. The Review Committee unanimously found that Haegert's conduct did occur as alleged, and that it constituted sexual harassment. Haegert first claims that Graban's interview of the prospective student's family was improper as it occurred prior to her convening the Review Committee. (Appellant's Br. at 16.) But the Faculty Manual makes clear that the is \u201clegally responsible for the investigation,\u201d and she is the \u201ccoordinator of the investigation.\u201d (Supp. App. at 133.) Nothing in the Faculty Manual requires her to wait until after the Review Committee is convened to begin assembling evidence. In fact the Faculty Manual requires her to \u201c[e]nsure that *945 the investigation is conducted in a timely manner.\u201d (Supp. App. at 133.) Specifically, the investigation must be completed within ten days of the formal complaint's filing. (Supp. App. at 133.) In light of these requirements, not only is Haegert's claim unsupported by any term of his employment contract, it seems completely contrary to the objective of the contract: to conduct these types of investigations in an expeditious manner. 945 Haegert also claims that the Review Committee inappropriately had access to McMullan's anecdotal file, and that the file was not made available to him prior to or during the Review Committee proceedings. (Appellant's Br. at 17.) But the undisputed evidence shows that though McMullan presented the anecdotal file to Graban, the other two Review Committee members refused to look at it in the course of the proceeding, wanting \u201cto base [their] decision on the incident described here, and that was it.\u201d (Supp. App. at 299\u2013300.) And Graban, as AAO, was already aware of the prior complaints from Haegert's students because she was the one who gave him the warnings. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 28/39 Furthermore, there is nothing inappropriate about Graban offering this evidence to the Review Committee, as the Faculty Manual provides that the Review Committee shall have \u201cbroad access to all potentially relevant information.\u201d (Supp. App. at 133 (emphasis added).) \u201cThe proceedings are not those of a court of law.\u201d (Supp. App. at 133.) Regardless, it is clear that the Review Committee decided the anecdotal file was not regarded as relevant, and the makes available to the complainant and respondent only that documentation \u201cthat is regarded as relevant to the complaint.\u201d (Supp. App. at 133 (emphasis added).) Haegert also alleges that he \u201cwas not assigned a \u2018policy coordinator\u2019 as suggested by [the Faculty Manual],\u201d and that he was denied in his request to have Caldwell represent him at the Review Committee proceedings. (Appellant's Br. at 17.) The Faculty Manual provides that either the complainant or respondent \u201cmay choose to have an additional policy coordinator present for support or in the absence of a female policy coordinator, may request another female administrator to be present.\u201d (Supp. App. at 133.) \u201cPolicy coordinators will assist the complainant and/or respondent through the investigation process as needed.\u201d (Supp. App. at 133.) However, this language does not assign a policy coordinator to Haegert as he suggests. Also, the Faculty Manual only names two individuals as policy coordinators: the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Chief Student Affairs Officer. Only \u201c[i]n special circumstances, such as when a female complainant requests a female coordinator,\u201d may the appoint a \u201cspecial policy coordinator.\u201d (Supp. App. at 128.) Caldwell was a Professor of English and President of the AAUP's University of Evansville Chapter, not one of the designated policy coordinators, and Haegert made no claim of \u201cspecial circumstance\u201d to justify designation of a \u201cspecial policy coordinator.\u201d Next, Haegert claims the University improperly denied him access to the Review Committee's report. (Appellant's Br. at 18.) He asserts that he \u201chad not received a copy of the committee report, nor had he been permitted to review it in the office of the since he was, without any cause whatever, temporarily banned from campus on August 26, 2004, under threat of prosecution for criminal trespass, and subsequently banned permanently.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 29/39 (Appellant's Br. at 18.) But the Faculty Manual only requires that the Review Committee's \u201caction or recommendation\u201d *946 be communicated in writing to the complainant, and here Graban sent Haegert a letter on September 16, 2004, notifying him that the Review Committee found sufficient evidence to support McMullan's allegation, that the conduct as alleged constituted sexual harassment, and that the Review Committee forwarded its report to Jennings. 946 Moreover, while the Faculty Manual does require that the full report, including all available evidence and testimony, be kept on file in the AAO's office, it does not provide a right of access to either the complainant or respondent. Even if it did, Haegert's initial ban from campus was not an absolute ban. It was qualified by prohibiting entry \u201cunless accompanied by security staff,\u201d (Supp. App. at 57), and Haegert does not point us to any designated evidence showing that he tried to access the full Review Committee report and was denied. Haegert also claims that the Review Committee report was submitted to Jennings without a recommended sanction. (Appellant's Br. at 17.) However, this is not required in the Faculty Manual. What the Faculty Manual provides is that \u201c[i]f harassment is found, the AAO/policy coordinator, in consultation with the appropriate administrator, will impose formal sanctions in accordance with University policy.\u201d (Supp. App. at 135.) Here, Jennings made the decision to consider termination (if informal resolution proved impossible) after receiving the Review Committee's report from Graban. We think this comports with the Faculty Manual's provisions. Finally, Haegert claims the University denied his right to appeal until after December 9, 2004. (Appellant's Br. at 18.) We take this to mean that he believes he had the right to appeal the Review Committee's recommendation, in addition to his right to appeal Jennings's termination decision. He is probably correct in his interpretation of the Faculty Manual. After the portion addressing available sanctions, the Faculty Manual's formal complaint procedure provides that \u201c[e]ach respondent has the right to engage in the appeals process. Faculty members may make a written appeal to the Faculty Appeals Committee.\u201d (Supp. App. at 135.) It also says 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 30/39 that appeals must be completed within thirty days. This language certainly does indicate that a respondent to a harassment complaint has the right to a direct hearing on any Review Committee recommendation\u2014and he or she probably has that right exclusive of the right to appeal any subsequent termination dismissal. Once again, though, Haegert presents no evidence showing he tried to exercise that right and was denied. He was provided a copy of the policies governing harassment complaints and a timely copy of the Review Committee's recommendation but apparently chose not to appeal that recommendation. This decision is not a breach of his employment contract. Accordingly, we again find that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the University breached Haegert's employment contract at this stage of his dismissal process. It did not. 3. The Proceedings Haegert's employment contract requires that the conduct \u201can informal inquiry\u201d in any case in which a tenured faculty member faces dismissal. (Supp. App. at 165.) The should \u201cdetermine whether in its opinion dismissal proceedings should be undertaken, without its opinion being binding upon the President.\u201d (Supp. App. at 165.) This *947 coincides with Guidelines. Here, Jennings informed Haegert that he was considering dismissal and intended to seek the advice of the FPAC. After conducting its inquiry, the unanimously affirmed the Review Committee's finding of sexual harassment and concluded that dismissal was appropriate. 947 Haegert's complaint with respect to the proceeding seems to be that he \u201cwas not allowed to attend, was not allowed to be represented, and was not told about the fabricated \u2018evidence\u2019 against him [i.e. McMullan's anecdotal file].\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 19\u201320.) But neither the Faculty Manual nor the Guidelines provide a faculty member with the right to attend this proceeding, or the right to be represented by anyone in their stead. Nevertheless, Haegert submitted a lengthy email to the in his own defense, and that email was considered along with the other evidence. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 31/39 To the extent Haegert is asserting that his anecdotal file was used against him to establish a pattern of misconduct before the FPAC, we do not see the evidence the same way. The minutes indicate that the committee was aware of the anecdotal file and that it had been available to the Review Committee. But it was also aware that this was not the first instance of Haegert's questionable behavior because the Review Committee had questioned McMullan about that very matter, and that questioning was contained in the Review Committee report. Regardless, the determined that \u201c this case does clearly meet the definition of sexual harassment,\u201d and \u201cthe facts of this case constitute adequate cause for dismissal.\u201d (App. at 465 (emphasis added).) We therefore find that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the University breached Haegert's employment contract at this stage of his dismissal process. It did not. 4. The Proceeding According to the Faculty Manual, after the completes its inquiry and submits its opinion to the University President, any dismissal must be \u201cpreceded by a statement of reasons,\u201d and the faculty member has the right to be heard by the FAC. (Supp. App. at 165.) The Guidelines phrase the process as requiring \u201ca statement of charges, framed with reasonable particularity by the president,\u201d and also say that \u201c[a] dismissal ... will be preceded by a statement of reasons and the individual concerned will have the right to be heard initially by [the FAC].\u201d (App. at 672.) The is tasked to \u201ccollect evidence, hold hearings, and otherwise inquire into the faculty member's grievance so as to make a written recommendation to the President with regard to the disposition of the case.\u201d (Supp. App. at 165.) The Guidelines require a level of formality at this stage, including representation for the respondent, transcription of the hearing, and the presentation and cross-examination of witnesses. Though strict rules of evidence do not apply, the Guidelines encourage \u201c[e]very possible effort ... to obtain the most reliable evidence available.\u201d (App. at 673.) The University bears the burden of proof at this proceeding, and must show \u201cby clear and convincing evidence in the record 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 32/39 considered as a whole\u201d that adequate cause for dismissal exists. (App. at 673.) In this instance, after the rendered its findings to Jennings, affirming the Review Committee's recommendation and concurring with dismissal as a sanction, Jennings notified Haegert in writing of the FPAC's conclusions and that he was therefore dismissed from the University's *948 faculty. Haegert appealed this decision to the FAC, before whom Haegert presented evidence, cross-examined the University's witnesses, and was afforded every procedural right guaranteed by Guidelines. The unanimously concurred with Jennings's decision. 948 Haegert argues that \u201c[a]fter dismissal is recommended, the faculty member whose tenure has been revoked has the right to appeal to [the FAC] prior to termination.\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 19 (emphasis in original).) But in his case, he claims, the University \u201cdenied Haegert such appeal instead dismissing him prior to allowing him that appeal.\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 19.) Although the Faculty Manual only says that \u201cthe President ... will normally not reach a decision until the Vice President for Academic Affairs and [the FAC] have made their recommendations.\u201d (Supp. App. at 165 (emphasis added)), the Guidelines certainly seem to support Haegert's contention that he was entitled to appeal the decision to dismiss him prior to the actual dismissal. However, Jennings's letter to Haegert notifying him of his dismissal was sent on December 9, 2004, with an effective dismissal date of December 31, 2004; and it expressly noted his right to appeal that decision to the FAC. Haegert in fact availed himself of this right, notifying Jennings of this less than a week later and requesting a hearing prior to December 31, 2004. For reasons that are not clear from the record, this hearing was not held until March 2005. But what is clear from the record is that his appeal tolled his actual dismissal. Haegert was maintained on the University payroll until the completed its deliberations and submitted its findings to Jennings. His pay, benefits, and tenured status were maintained until March 31, 2005. The evidence also reflects that a contrary decision by the during this period 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 33/39 would have caused Jennings to rescind his dismissal decision. Thus, there is no merit to Haegert's claim that he was denied his right to appeal to the prior to dismissal. We also find no merit to Haegert's claim that \u201c[a]t no time prior to his dismissal did President Jennings ever inform Haegert in writing of any reason for removal of his tenure and discharge.\u201d (Appellant's Br. at 19.) As an initial matter, we point out that neither the Faculty Manual nor the Guidelines require the University President to be the one to provide a statement of reasons for dismissal. The Faculty Manual requires only that a dismissal be preceded \u201cby a statement of reasons,\u201d (Supp. App. at 165), and the Guidelines require \u201ca statement of charges, framed with reasonable particularity by the president or the president's delegate.\u201d (App. at 672 (emphasis added).) Regardless, the record reflects that Haegert was provided with the requisite statements on multiple occasions through the process\u2014by President Jennings himself. First, Jennings's December 9, 2004, letter to Haegert expressly stated that the initiating event for his termination was McMullan's complaint, a copy of which the University had already given to Haegert. The letter references the Review Committee's recommendation to Jennings, a copy of which Haegert had also been provided previously. It then quotes the FPAC's resolution that there was \u201can unambiguous finding of sexual harassment,\u201d and informs Haegert that \u201c[t]he basis for [his dismissal] is that this violation of the University's Sexual Harassment Policy has irreparably damaged your capacity to serve the Department of English as well as the University as a teacher and colleague.\u201d (Supp. App. at 418.)*949 949 Second, Haegert also received a copy of the FAC's March 24, 2005, letter to Jennings, finding Haegert \u201cguilty of sexual harassment as defined by the [Faculty Manual].\u201d (Supp. App. at 419) This finding was reiterated in Jennings's subsequent letter terminating Haegert's employment effective March 31, 2005. Thus, Haegert's claim that \u201cat no time\u201d did he receive the required statement of reasons is not supported in any way by the evidence. Finally, Haegert claims that \u201c[o]n March 25, 2005, [the University] made a public statement that standards are not relevant to Haegert's case.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 34/39 (Appellant's Br. at 20.) This appears to be a reference to an interaction between the University's counsel, Thomas Magan, and Haegert's counsel, Virginia O'Leary, at the hearing. As far as we can understand this argument, the \u201cpublic statement\u201d came at a time when O'Leary was questioning Caldwell about the procedures applied in Haegert's case and whether they were, in his opinion as Chapter President, sufficient. Magan objected, saying We're here not to determine how we got here; we're here to make an independent judgment of what's going on. The procedures are what the procedures are. We don't have\u2014this guy doesn't\u2014he's not an administrative person; he's not part of any of the faculty committees that have ruled on this. They've all done what they thought was appropriate, and to have him opine on something just out in left field has nothing to do with anything; or to say what somebody from the may have said based on whatever he told them, that has nothing to do with it. The University policies are what we're applying here, not some person remote from here. (App. at 644.) O'Leary continued on with her questioning and Magan objected again, and the following interaction ensued: MR. MAGAN: But we all understand, because we've already had testimony on it, it's not what the says; it's what the faculty decides and puts in their handbook. They may be informed by what the suggests; they may adopt an policy, but it's the University and the internal faculty\u2014 what you sign up for when you sign for tenure is the rules set by your peers in your particular institution, not all institutions. And so these people MS. O'LEARY: And the University of Evansville subscribes to policies. MR. MAGAN: But it's how they interpret those policies, not how somebody else interprets those policies. (App. at 644.) Ultimately, O'Leary's line of questioning was ruled irrelevant by the FAC's independent attorney. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 35/39 To the extent Haegert is claiming this interaction means the University was refusing to apply the Guidelines in his case, our review of his dismissal procedures indicates otherwise. The evidence shows compliance with the Guidelines and the Faculty Manual at every stage of the proceeding. In fact, the above interaction was followed by an interjection from a seated member of the FAC, pointing out that the University \u201cadopted certain policies. They're in the red book that we've adopted in here, formally adopted. They're in the faculty members' red Faculty Manual. This hearing really has followed those guidelines. As a matter of fact, it's an extension of those guidelines ... that are being applied here.\u201d (App. at 645 (emphasis added).) We find again that there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the University breached Haegert's*950 employment contract at this stage of his dismissal process. It did not. 950 5. The Board of Trustees Proceeding We arrive at last to the final stage in Haegert's dismissal process: his appeal to the University's Board of Trustees. Both the Faculty Manual and the Guidelines grant a faculty member the right to file a final appeal to the University's governing board. Haegert exercised this right, submitting a written brief and evidence that the Board of Trustees considered in addition to the record from prior proceedings. It nevertheless found that Haegert \u201cobviously engaged in harassment in violation of the Harassment Policy agreed upon by the faculty,\u201d and denied his appeal. (Supp. App. at 279.) Haegert has alleged no particularized claims implicating a breach of his employment contract arising from this specific proceeding, and we do not find any of his generalized claims supported by this portion of the record. Accordingly, we find that there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the University breached Haegert's employment contract at this stage of his dismissal process. It did not. D. Haegert Was Afforded Due Process Finally, we address an issue that underpins and intertwines with Haegert's entire complaint. This is his contention that his tenured-professor status was a property right, and that the University deprived him of that property 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 36/39 without affording him the process he was promised. Largely because we find that the University complied with the provisions of Haegert's employment contract, we resolve this issue against him as well. 20 20 Haegert's complaint is styled as a breach of contract, and he raises no independent claim under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment. Because the University is a private institution, it is debatable just how far a formalized due process claim could carry Haegert. See37 A.L.R. Fed. 601 (1978) (discussing the challenge of discerning Fourteenth Amendment protections available in actions by private institutions of higher education). However, even assuming for the sake of argument that Haegert's dismissal process was subject to the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, we find its requirements satisfied. \u201cThe essential requirements of due process ... are notice and an opportunity to respond. The opportunity to present reasons, either in person or in writing, why proposed action should not be taken is a fundamental due process requirement.\u201d Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (identifying requirements for tenured public employee). The employee \u201cis entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story.\u201d Id. Here, Haegert received notice of McMullan's complaint, and the potential for disciplinary action up to and including dismissal, no later than the day after the complaint was filed. He then had four separate opportunities, before four distinct and neutral panels, to tell his side of the story. Each of these opportunities afforded him the opportunity to present arguments and evidence, both in person and in writing, as to why he did not commit harassment (or sexual harassment), and why dismissal was not an appropriate sanction. The third of these opportunities\u2014the hearing\u2014was a formalized process *951 with many of the procedural protections afforded to litigants in a court proceeding, and before which he had full access to every aspect of the University's evidence related to the August 25, 2004, encounter and 951 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 37/39 McMullan's anecdotal file. And only the last of these four opportunities\u2014 the Board of Trustees appeal\u2014was actually post-termination. Despite all this, he failed to persuade any individual, at any stage of the process. It is hard to imagine what additional process the University might have provided Haegert. As we have said before, \u201c[a]t least in the context of educational institutions, as long as the process is reasonably transparent and fair and affords the subject an opportunity to respond ... the ultimate issue focuses less on the particular process and more on the recognition of the institution's interest in assuring a proper educational environment.\u201d Hartman v. Keri, 883 N.E.2d 774, 777\u201378 (Ind.2008). Certainly Haegert was entitled to the extensive process laid out in his tenure contract, but that process was fully afforded to him and more than adequately provided him with the essential requisites of notice and an opportunity to respond. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. DICKSON, C.J., RUCKER, MASSA, and RUSH, JJ., concur. About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 38/39 Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:13 Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 | Casetext Search + Citator 39/39", "7705_106.pdf": "Tenured professor\u2019s sexual harassment firing upheld by Indiana Supreme Court Published Nov. 14, 2012 Roger Riddell Senior Editor Sam Howzit ive Summary: The Indiana Supreme Court Tuesday upheld the University of Evansville\u2019s decision in 2004 to fire tenured professor John Haegert after he was accused of violating the institution\u2019s sexual harassment policy. Court documents say that English department chair Margaret McMullan was speaking with a prospective student and her parents in 2004 when Haegert, who had been with the private university since 1979, entered the department\u2019s lounge and stroked McCullan\u2019s face and neck while calling her \u201cSweetie.\u201d Haegert argued that he was only in an \u201cextremely joyous\u201d mood on that particular day and \u201cregarded the greeting as harmless, inconsequential and very brief,\u201d but court documents showed that several female students had filed similar (but informal) complaints about Haegert since 2002. From the article: Indiana\u2019s highest court on Tuesday upheld the University of Evansville\u2019s decision to fire a tenured professor accused of 2/16/25, 10:13 Tenured professor's sexual harassment firing upheld by Indiana Supreme Court | Higher Ed Dive 1/2 violating its sexual harassment policy. John Haegert, a professor at the private university since 1979, was fired in 2004 following an incident involving a female tenured professor. Margaret McMullan, then chair of the English department, was speaking with a prospective student and her parents in August 2004 when Haegert entered the department lounge and began to stroke the professor on her face and neck, calling her \u201cSweetie,\u201d according to court documents. ... 2/16/25, 10:13 Tenured professor's sexual harassment firing upheld by Indiana Supreme Court | Higher Ed Dive 2/2"} |
7,401 | Emil Tonkovich | Kansas University | [
"7401_101.pdf",
"7401_102.pdf",
"7401_103.pdf",
"7401_104.pdf"
] | {"7401_101.pdf": "Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Krepps, John G. Montgomery, Phyllisnolan, Frank C. Sabatini, Sidney Warner, Gene A. Budig,delbert M. Shankel, P. Delbert Brinkman, David E.shulenburger, Robert H. Jerry, Ii, Sidney A. Shapiro,reginald L. Robinson, A. Kimberly Dayton, Elinor P.schroeder, Ellen E. Sward, Sandra C. Mckenzie, Ann Victoriathomas, Rose A. Marino, H. Rutherford Turnbull, Iii, Nancyann Dahl, E.p. Johnsen, John Michel, Delores Ringer, Androbert Hemenway, Individually and in Their Officialcapacities, Defendants- appellants, 159 F.3d 504 (10th Cir. 1998) 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 1/39 Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 159 F.3d 504 (10th Cir. 1998) Oct. 26, 1998 Timothy Mustaine (James M. Armstrong and Mary Kathleen Babcock with him on brief), Foulston & Siefkin, L.L.P., Wichita, KS, for Defendant-Appellant in Case No. 96-3402. William Scott Hesse, Assistant Attorney General (Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General, Kevin D. Case, Assistant Attorney General on brief), Topeka, KS, for Defendants-Appellants in Case No. 96-3403. Andrew F. Sears (Robert F. Bennett and David C. Wetzler with him on brief), Bennett Lytle Wetzler Martin & Pishny, L.C., Prairie Village, KS, for Defendants-Appellants in Case No. 96-3404. John I. O'Connor, Advocates Group, Pittsburg, KS, for Defendant-Appellant in Case No. 96-3405. Thomas A. Hamill (Kathryn Gardner with him on brief), Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Swartz, Overland Park, KS, for Defendants-Appellants in Case No. 96-3406. Michael Evan Jaffe (James H. Hulme, Eric B. Bruce, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Washington DC, and Bruce D. Mayfield, Overland Park, KS, with him on brief), Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellants in Case No. 96-3407. Jeffrey A. Chanay (J. Phillip Gragson and Gail D. Edson with him on brief), Entz & Chanay, P.A., Topeka, KS, for Defendants-Appellants in Case No. 96-3408. Richard P. Hutchison, Landmark Legal Foundation, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff- Appellee. Before HENRY, McWILLIAMS, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. HENRY, Circuit Judge. 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 2/39 This is a consolidation of seven separate appeals spawned by one district court case. Professor Emil Tonkovich, a law professor at the University of Kansas School of Law (\"the Law School\"), filed a complaint challenging his dismissal, alleging under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 that the University violated his First Amendment speech rights, and his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. He also alleged several state claims, which are not before us. Although the district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity with respect to the First Amendment claim, it denied the motions to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claims. The defendants appeal this partial denial of their motions to dismiss, asserting their entitlement to qualified and absolute immunity. Because we resolve these appeals on qualified immunity grounds, we need not reach the issue of absolute immunity. Even taking Professor Tonkovich's allegations as true, they are insufficient to show that the defendants subjected him, or caused him to be subjected, to the violation of a clearly established right of constitutional dimension. Thus, we reverse the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection claims. On appeal from a motion to dismiss, we must accept all of the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268, 114 S. Ct. 807, 127 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1994). However, we need not accept conclusory allegations. Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 1984). We must liberally construe the pleadings and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Id. Accordingly, the facts recited herein are gleaned from Professor Tonkovich's first amended complaint. As we analyze the issues presented by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which we shall discuss below in greater detail, we are guided by the Supreme Court's statement of our task: An appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant's claim of immunity need not consider the correctness of the plaintiff's version of the facts, nor even determine whether the plaintiff's allegations actually state a claim. All it need determine is a question of law: whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.... Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 527-28, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 86 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1985). Professor Tonkovich was employed as a faculty member at the Law School beginning in August 1981. In 1986, he became a tenured faculty member. In 1991, a graduating law student (\"the Law Student\") complained that, during her first year of law school, Professor Tonkovich had engaged in a sexual act with her after discussing her grades. Officials in the Chancellor's office conducted an investigation, enlisting the assistance of various Law School faculty members and the Dean of the Law School. 1 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 3/39 During the investigation, the Chancellor's office issued written findings and recommendations regarding the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken in Professor Tonkovich's case period of settlement negotiations ensued. Eventually, the Chancellor filed official written charges against Professor Tonkovich. An evidentiary hearing was conducted before a standing University Hearing Committee, which issued its decision and recommendation to the Chancellor, who dismissed Professor Tonkovich from the faculty in 1993. Professor Tonkovich then took an appeal to the Board of Regents. What follows are the details of the events surrounding Professor Tonkovich's dismissal, which form the basis of his claims. In May 1991, just after her graduation from the Law School, the Law Student went to Robert Jerry, Dean of the Law School, and complained that Professor Tonkovich had made a pass at her in the fall of 1988. Dean Jerry informed Professor Tonkovich that a female student had complained about his conduct. However, he did not name the student, nor did he provide any details about the nature of the allegation. Professor Tonkovich denied misconduct and asked to confront his accuser. During July and August 1991, Professor Tonkovich repeatedly requested that Dean Jerry disclose the name of his accuser and the nature of the allegation, but the Dean refused to do so. In August 1991, the Law Student filed a formal written statement with Vice Chancellor P. Delbert Brinkman, alleging that in July 1988, when she was a first-year law student, she had engaged in a sexual act with Professor Tonkovich, who was her professor at the time, and that the act was preceded by a discussion of law school grades. That same day, a local television news crew came to the Law School. The station later aired a segment about allegations of sexual misconduct against various law professors, who were not named. Later that day, Professor Tonkovich learned the name of his accuser. Shortly after the Law Student filed her written statement, Law Professor Elinor Schroeder told Vice Chancellor Brinkman that some faculty members thought the Law Student was unstable and that the accusations were part of a conspiracy against Professor Tonkovich. The University established September 6, 1991 as the deadline for submitting complaints against Professor Tonkovich. Professor Tonkovich's response, filed on September 9th, denied the Law Student's allegation and denied sexually harassing any student. Two days later, he submitted an affidavit of Jean Younger, one of the Law Student's classmates. Ms. Younger had hosted the party that preceded the alleged sexual activity. Ms. Younger stated (and later testified at the hearing) that at the party, the Law Student was flirting with Professor Tonkovich. 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 4/39 The following is Professor Tonkovich's version of the events that took place on the evening of the party. The Law Student followed him around the party for approximately five hours. She flirted with him, but he did not return her flirtations. When Professor Tonkovich left the party, she followed him out. She asked him for a ride home, claiming she was too drunk to drive. However, she did not appear too drunk to drive. He agreed to drive her home, but he was concerned that she had romantic intentions. He suggested that they go for a drive. He drove her to the campus police department parking lot where they got out and took a walk. During their walk, she attempted to kiss him. When they returned to the car, she attempted to sit in the driver's seat with him. When Professor Tonkovich said they should go, she became upset. He then drove her back to her car, dropped her off, and left. He did not have sex with her, nor did he discuss grades with her. During the course of the investigation, in September 1991, Dean Jerry issued a memorandum to the Law School faculty, stating that the guidelines of the Association of American Law Schools apply to the faculty. In particular, Dean Jerry pointed out the guideline concerning the inappropriateness of a professor engaging in sexual conduct with a student enrolled in his or her class. Dean Jerry's memo stated that the guidelines were relevant to the ethics provision of the University's Faculty Code of Conduct (\"Faculty Code\"). The Faculty Code in effect at the time the Law Student filed her statement, and at the time of the alleged incident, did not expressly prohibit sexual relations between a professor and a student enrolled in his or her class. The Faculty Code did, however, prohibit a professor from exploiting a student for the professor's private advantage. During Professor Tonkovich's tenure, six members of the Law School faculty had dated students. Several days after Dean Jerry issued this memo, Professor Tonkovich received Vice Chancellor Brinkman's written findings. Based on the Law Student's allegation, Vice Chancellor Brinkman found that Professor Tonkovich had violated the Faculty Code's ethics provision. Vice Chancellor Brinkman recommended a one-year paid teaching suspension for this violation. When Professor Tonkovich received the written findings, he was warned that repeating such behavior in the future would be cause for his dismissal from the University. Several days later, Executive Vice Chancellor Delbert Shankel formally adopted Vice Chancellor Brinkman's written findings. Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel informed Professor Tonkovich that if past misconduct were brought to the University's attention, it might be cause for further disciplinary action. The next day, Chancellor Gene Budig adopted Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel's decision. On October 4th, Professor 2 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 5/39 Tonkovich formally requested a hearing before the Committee on Tenure and Related Problems (\"the Hearing Committee\"). Shortly after Professor Tonkovich requested a hearing, General Counsel to the Board of Regents called the Hearing Committee's chairman, Professor William Lawrence. During their conversation, they discussed recusals from the committee. After this conversation, Professor Lawrence and two other members of the standing committee recused themselves. Three other professors were substituted. The conversation, the recusals, and the substitutions occurred without Professor Tonkovich's knowledge. Professor H. Rutherford Turnbull, III, a substituted member, became the new chairman. Other members of the Hearing Committee were Professors Nancy Ann Dahl, E.P. Johnsen, John Michel, and Delores Ringer. None of the Hearing Committee members were members of the Law School faculty. Mr. Turnbull and one of the other substituted members of the Hearing Committee, Professor Dahl, eventually voted with the 3-2 majority in favor of Professor Tonkovich's dismissal. In October 1991, a few weeks after Professor Tonkovich requested a hearing, the University's newspaper, the University Daily Kansan, reported that a University employee (not a party to this appeal) had referred to Professor Tonkovich as a \"faggot\" in his conversations with reporters. As a result of this and the publicity generated when the local television station had aired its news segment, Professor Tonkovich requested an investigation into how the information was leaked to the press. The University denied his request. On October 31, 1991, Law School faculty members Sidney Shapiro, A. Kimberly Dayton, Reginald Robinson, Ellen Sward, Elinor Schroeder, and Sandra McKenzie signed a letter (\"the Letter\") asking that students report any misconduct or sexual harassment by faculty members. Professor Shapiro drafted the Letter at the request of a University administrator. The Letter did not mention Professor Tonkovich by name. After Dean Jerry approved the Letter, it was distributed to students. Professor Tonkovich did not know of the Letter or that the University was soliciting additional complaints against him. Throughout the solicitation process, various people, including Professors Shapiro and Schroeder, told others that the Law Student's allegations against Professor Tonkovich included an allegation of rape. In December 1991, Professors Shapiro, Robinson, Dayton, and Sward met with Chancellor Budig, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel, and Ann Victoria Thomas, University General Counsel, to discuss the case against Professor Tonkovich. During December 1991 and January 1992, some of these law professors accompanied students (\"the complainants\") to 3 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 6/39 the University's Office of Academic Affairs, where the complainants presented allegations regarding Professor Tonkovich to University officials. Associate Vice Chancellor David Shulenburger interviewed these complainants, and, after completing the interviews, he recommended Professor Tonkovich's dismissal, which is the sanction Professor Tonkovich ultimately faced when the charging documents were filed. Professor Tonkovich requested copies of the complainants' written statements. Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel told Professor Tonkovich that the complainants had not provided written statements. University Associate General Counsel Rose A. Marino denied having any knowledge of written statements submitted by complainants. As the investigation progressed, in December 1991, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel and Vice Chancellor Brinkman told Professor Tonkovich that if he did not \"resign quietly,\" he would be suspended from teaching, and a letter would be placed in his file to the effect that he posed a risk of substantial harm to students. Professor Tonkovich, who had continued teaching pending his administrative hearing, refused to resign. The University placed him on teaching leave. Shortly thereafter, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel and Vice Chancellor Brinkman communicated with Professor Tonkovich's attorney, stating that there were no terms acceptable to the University that would allow Professor Tonkovich to continue as a faculty member. Several weeks later, in March 1992, Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Dean Jerry sent Professor Tonkovich a letter, reminding him that Board of Regents regulations did not allow payment of salary when a faculty member was dismissed for moral turpitude. This letter also informed Professor Tonkovich that Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Dean Jerry were recommending that he be charged with moral turpitude, which carried a sanction of dismissal. The following day, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel concurred in Vice Chancellor Brinkman's and Dean Jerry's recommendation. In March 1992, Professor Tonkovich filed a complaint against various University administrators. He requested a stay in the investigation, recusal of the administrators, and appointment of independent investigators. The University denied his requests. On April 17, 1992, Chancellor Budig filed the University's formal written complaint against Professor Tonkovich. The complaint set forth charges of ethics violations, sexual harassment, and moral turpitude. The complaint contained a proposed sanction of dismissal. One week after the University filed the complaint, the University newspaper ran an article about the Law Student's allegation against Professor Tonkovich. The article named Professor Tonkovich but did not name the Law Student. 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 7/39 Certain charges in the complaint were based upon allegations made by the additional student complainants. Several of the female students who were named in the allegations submitted affidavits that the allegations were false and that Professor Tonkovich had done nothing improper. These same students also submitted a letter requesting that the allegations involving them be dismissed. Nevertheless, the University prosecuted these charges. After receiving the formal complaint, Professor Tonkovich made repeated discovery requests, including requests for written statements from the complainants, which the University initially denied. However, on July 24, 1992, the Hearing Committee ordered discovery. Although the written complainants' statements that Professor Tonkovich had requested were not disclosed at this time, Professor Tonkovich was given summaries of them. The University did not produce an alleged tape-recorded interview between University officials and the Law Student that served as the basis of the article printed by the University newspaper shortly after the University filed its complaint against Professor Tonkovich. In addition, many of the University's witnesses, including the Law Student, declined to be interviewed by Professor Tonkovich's attorney prior to testifying. On August 27, 1992, the administrative hearing concerning the University's complaint against Professor Tonkovich began. Ms. Marino prosecuted the case on behalf of the University, presenting witnesses in support of the allegations in the complaint. Professor Tonkovich was present and represented by an attorney, who cross-examined the University's witnesses and presented witnesses on Professor Tonkovich's behalf. The Hearing Committee presided. The hearing was conducted in public at Professor Tonkovich's request. The hearing lasted until May 12, 1993, with sessions held once a week during the school year. At the hearing, during his cross-examination of one of the University's witnesses, Professor Tonkovich learned that at least one of the complainants had, indeed, provided a written statement. At Professor Tonkovich's request, the Hearing Committee sent a letter to the Law School faculty seeking any written statements. None were forthcoming. When Professor Tonkovich called Professor Dayton as a witness, she testified that she had received a written statement from a complainant but that she had discarded it. Professor Robinson also testified that he received approximately five written statements from complainants. He further testified that he received the statements in sealed envelopes, that he never opened them, and that he later threw them away week after she testified, Professor Dayton sent a letter to the Hearing Committee stating that she possessed the written statements of four complainants. She proceeded to turn 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 8/39 these statements over to the Hearing Committee. Among them was a statement addressed to Professor Robinson. The Hearing Committee denied Professor Tonkovich's request to recall Professor Dayton as a witness. At Professor Tonkovich's request, the Hearing Committee sent certified letters to all of the complainants who had previously testified, asking them to produce their written statements. Two of the complainants, whose allegations the Hearing Committee ultimately found to constitute Faculty Code violations, did not respond to the request, nor did they return to testify. The Hearing Committee did not compel these witnesses to return to testify, nor did it strike the earlier testimony of these complainants. Professor McKenzie, who had openly dated a law student, declined Professor Tonkovich's request to testify at his hearing. The Hearing Committee did not compel her to testify. However, according to Professor Tonkovich, three law professors who had signed the Letter testified as \"expert\" witnesses on behalf of the University: Professor Schroeder testified about sexual harassment; Professor Sward testified about faculty ethics; and Professor Shapiro testified about due process. On the day before the Law Student was scheduled to testify, Ms. Marino proposed an evidentiary rule prohibiting counsel from inquiring about witnesses' prior sexual conduct. The Hearing Committee adopted this rule. It also adopted a sequestration rule to prevent witnesses who were scheduled to testify from hearing other witnesses' testimony. When cross-examining Ms. Younger, Professor Tonkovich's first witness, Ms. Marino asked if she had ever been sexually intimate with a professor. Ms. Marino also read a transcript of the Law Student's testimony to another University witness who was scheduled to testify. During the 1992-93 academic year, the year in which the hearing took place, Dean Jerry gave Professor Tonkovich a negative annual evaluation and the lowest merit salary increase on the entire Law School faculty. According to Professor Tonkovich, in the previous ten years, he had received excellent evaluations and average or above average salary increases. On May 19, 1993, one week after the hearing concluded, Andrew Ramirez, an attorney representing a University witness, sent a letter to the parties. The letter stated that his client had spoken with Mr. Turnbull several weeks after she testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of their conversation, Mr. Turnbull stated to her admire your courage in coming forward.\" On July 30, 1993, the Hearing Committee issued its opinion. By a 3-2 vote, the Hearing Committee recommended that Professor Tonkovich be dismissed. As to the Law Student's allegation, the Committee found that she and Professor Tonkovich had engaged in a sexual 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 9/39 act that was preceded by a discussion of grades. The Committee further found that Professor Tonkovich did not intend to intimidate the Law Student by discussing grades but that she was, nonetheless, intimidated because of the inherent power differential between a student and a professor. The committee concluded that this constituted unethical conduct in violation of the Faculty Code. The Committee also concluded that Professor Tonkovich's behavior constituted sexual harassment in violation of Title and Title and, as unlawful conduct, constituted moral turpitude under the Faculty Code. The Hearing Committee also found that Professor Tonkovich had violated the ethical provisions of the Faculty Code with another student. This occurred when Professor Tonkovich held a female student's hand while asking her who her favorite professor was. The Committee concluded that although this conduct was unethical, it did not constitute sexual harassment. The Committee further found that Professor Tonkovich's social behavior with respect to various other law students was negligent and constituted unethical conduct under the Faculty Code. On August 3, 1993, Chancellor Budig accepted the Hearing Committee's recommendation and dismissed Professor Tonkovich. The following day, Professor Tonkovich appealed his dismissal to the Kansas Board of Regents (\"the Regents\"). At this time, the Regents consisted of Robert Caldwell, Tom Hammond, John Hiebert, Karen Krepps, John Montgomery, Phyllis Nolan, Frank Sabatini, and Sidney Warner. On September 15, 1994, the Regents upheld Professor Tonkovich's dismissal. Pursuant to the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions, Kan. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 77-601 et seq., Professor Tonkovich had the opportunity to file an action in Kansas state district court for judicial review of the University's decision. See id. at \u00a7 77- 609. However, he decided to forego this route, and on April 27, 1995, he filed suit in federal court against the University of Kansas, the University Board of Regents, and approximately thirty-four other defendants in their individual and official capacities, alleging violations of \u00a7 1983 and various state laws. In his first amended complaint, Professor Tonkovich averred three \u00a7 1983 counts (for violations of his due process, free speech, and equal protection rights), and four state law counts (for breach of employment contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with business relationship, and intentional infliction of emotional distress). All defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) and 12(b) (6), asserting various defenses such as Eleventh Amendment immunity, absolute immunity, and qualified immunity. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. We shall relate only the district court's rulings with respect to qualified immunity. 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 10/39 On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court treated the issues of procedural due process, free speech, and equal protection. The court found that all of the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's First Amendment free speech claim. However, the court ruled that the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process and equal protection claims. Many of the defendants have attempted to appeal not only the district court's denial of their qualified immunity motions but also the district court's denial of their motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). We believe that these defendants have misunderstood this court's limited jurisdiction at this stage of the litigation. Thus, at this juncture, we embark on a brief discussion of our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. \"The courts of appeals ... shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States....\" 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1291 denial of a motion to dismiss ordinarily may not be appealed because it is not a final decision.\" Eastwood v. Department of Corrections, 846 F.2d 627, 629 (10th Cir. 1988). However, the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified or absolute immunity is immediately appealable under the Cohen collateral order doctrine. See Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 530, 105 S. Ct. 2806 (qualified immunity); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 742, 102 S. Ct. 2690, 73 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1982) (absolute immunity). In holding the issue of immunity to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine, \"the Court has recognized that a question of immunity is separate from the merits of the underlying action for purposes of the Cohen test even though a reviewing court must consider the plaintiff's factual allegations in resolving the immunity issue.\" Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, ---- n. 5, 117 S. Ct. 1800, 1804 n. 5, 138 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1997). Although to a certain extent a qualified immunity analysis overlaps with a 12(b) (6) analysis, we do not have jurisdiction to review the merits of Professor Tonkovich's lawsuit at this time. We turn, then, to a review of the district court's rulings with respect to qualified immunity. We review de novo the denial of a motion based on qualified immunity. Walter v. Morton, 33 F.3d 1240, 1242 (10th Cir. 1994); Eastwood, 846 F.2d at 629. \"Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, 'government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' \" Ramirez v. Oklahoma Dep't of Mental Health, 41 F.3d 584, 592 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982)); 4 5 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 11/39 cf. Harris v. Board of Educ. of the City of Atlanta, 105 F.3d 591, 595 (11th Cir. 1997) (\"In all but the most exceptional cases, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from the burdens of civil trials and from liability for damages.\"). The key to the qualified immunity inquiry is the \"objective reasonableness of the official's conduct in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.\" Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706, 727 (10th Cir. 1989) (quotations omitted), modified on other grounds, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir. 1991). Hearkening back to its pronouncement in Siegert v. Gilley, the Supreme Court has recently stated that the better approach to resolving cases in which the defense of qualified immunity is raised is to determine first whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all. Normally, it is only then that a court should ask whether the right allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time of the events in question. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, ---- n. 5, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1714 n. 5, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1998) (citing Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S. Ct. 1789, 114 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1991 necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is 'clearly established' at the time the defendant acted is the determination of whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all.\")). Thus, we use a two-part framework to analyze the issue of qualified immunity. Latta v. Keryte, 118 F.3d 693, 697-98 (10th Cir. 1997). First, we determine whether the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right. Id. at 698. If the answer is yes, then we determine whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his or her conduct violated that right. Id. Ordinarily, in order for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a law is clearly established, \"there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.\" Medina v. City and County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987) (a right is clearly established if the contours of the right are \"sufficiently clear [so] that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right plaintiff \"must do more than identify in the abstract a clearly established right and allege that the defendant has violated it.\" Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 645 (10th Cir. 1988 plaintiff \"must articulate the clearly established constitutional right and the defendant's conduct which violated the right with specificity.\" 6 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 12/39 Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1535 (10th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted); see also Walter, 33 F.3d at 1242 (\"the plaintiff ... has the burden to show with particularity facts and law establishing the inference that the defendants violated a constitutional right.\"). \"If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant's conduct that violated clearly established law.\" Mick v. Brewer, 76 F.3d 1127, 1134 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing Albright, 51 F.3d at 1535). Although of necessity we must consider Professor Tonkovich's factual allegations in resolving the immunity issues, we reiterate that this appeal comes to us on a partial denial of the defendants' motions to dismiss, as opposed to motions for summary judgment. The district court did not, nor shall we, consider whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Thus, we do not face the appellate jurisdictional problem that may be entangled with a qualified immunity analysis on summary judgment. Cf. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20, 115 S. Ct. 2151, 132 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1995) (holding that \"a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a 'genuine' issue of fact for trial\") (emphasis added). Instead, as stated above, we must accept the plaintiff's version of the facts as true. With this in mind, we proceed to analyze the issue of qualified immunity with respect to each separate cause of action under \u00a7 1983, i.e., alleged violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection rights. A. Are the Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Professor Tonkovich's Procedural Due Process Claim? Because Professor Tonkovich was a tenured professor, he possessed a property interest deserving of procedural due process protections. Brenna v. Southern Colo. State College, 589 F.2d 475, 476 (10th Cir. 1978); see also Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-77, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). In Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 535, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1985), the Supreme Court examined the issue of \"what pretermination process must be accorded a public employee who can be discharged only for cause.\" In deciding this issue, the Court balanced the competing interests at stake: \"the private interest in retaining employment, the governmental interest in the expeditious removal of unsatisfactory employees and the avoidance of administrative burdens, and the risk of an erroneous termination.\" Id. at 542-43, 105 S. Ct. 1487 (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976)). The Court concluded that prior to termination, something less than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient. Id. at 545, 105 S. Ct. 1487. Thus, the Court held that a \"tenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 13/39 employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story.\" Id. at 546, 105 S. Ct. 1487. The holding in Loudermill rested partially on the availability of a full post-termination hearing under applicable state law. Id.; see also Langley v. Adams County, Colo., 987 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1993) (\"Under Loudermill, the adequacy of pre-termination procedures must be examined in light of available post-termination procedures.\"); Calhoun v. Gaines, 982 F.2d 1470, 1476 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that \"Loudermill established that some form of pretermination hearing, plus a full-blown adversarial post-termination hearing\" are required when a property interest in continued employment is at stake 'full post-termination hearing' is understood to include the right to representation by an attorney and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.\" Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475, 480 (10th Cir. 1994 fundamental principle of procedural due process is a hearing before an impartial tribunal. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46-47, 95 S. Ct. 1456, 43 L. Ed. 2d 712 (1975 tribunal is not impartial if it is biased with respect to the factual issues to be decided at the hearing.\" Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). However, \"a substantial showing of personal bias is required to disqualify a hearing officer or tribunal in order to obtain a ruling that a hearing is unfair.\" Corstvet v. Boger, 757 F.2d 223, 229 (10th Cir. 1985). Moreover, \" [b]ecause honesty and integrity are presumed on the part of a tribunal, there must be some substantial countervailing reason to conclude that a decisionmaker is actually biased with respect to factual issues being adjudicated.\" Mangels v. Pena, 789 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). It is worth noting briefly that, in addition to being governed by constitutional law, Professor Tonkovich's claims are also governed by 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 itself. Thus, Professor Tonkovich must satisfy the elements of that statute, which states, in part, Every person who ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ... shall be liable to the party injured.... 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 (emphasis added). The plain wording of the statute contains an element of causation. In other words, a defendant may not be held liable under \u00a7 1983 unless he or she subjected a citizen to the deprivation, or caused a citizen to be subjected to the deprivation. See 1A Martin A. Schwartz & John E. Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims and Defenses \u00a7 6.3 (3d ed.1997). 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 14/39 Professor Tonkovich argues that the University's policies require the following procedural safeguards: (1) notice; (2) discovery; (3) presentation of evidence; (4) confrontation and cross-examination; and (5) an impartial hearing committee. He argues that in denying him these safeguards, the defendants violated his clearly established procedural due process rights. At this juncture, we shall discuss each defendant's (or defendant group's) arguments with respect to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim. Professor Tonkovich takes issue with the following actions of Dean Jerry: (1) his initial handling of the Law Student's complaint; (2) his attempt to pass a rule, after the fact, prohibiting student/faculty sexual relations; (3) his denial of a request for a leak investigation; (4) his role in the settlement process; and (5) his negative annual evaluation of Professor Tonkovich. Dean Jerry argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim because he is not responsible for any alleged defects in the process afforded Professor Tonkovich. In other words, he argues that nothing he did violated any of Professor Tonkovich's clearly established procedural due process rights. We agree. As for Dean Jerry's handling of the Law Student's initial complaint, Professor Tonkovich appears to argue that he did not receive proper notice of the charges against him because Dean Jerry would not immediately disclose the name of the accuser and the details of the allegation. However, Professor Tonkovich does not allege that it was Dean Jerry's duty to notify him of the charges. Moreover, Chancellor Budig did give Professor Tonkovich notice in plenty of time to prepare his defense in response to the charges. Professor Tonkovich next argues that his procedural due process rights were violated because the dean never disclosed the \"blatantly false\" statements that the Law Student allegedly made to a judge for whom she worked. Aple's Brief at 60. According to Professor Tonkovich, the Law Student told the judge who was her employer the following: (1) she had nonconsensual sex with her professor; (2) she told Dean Jerry about it; and (3) the Dean was not responsive. Professor Tonkovich argues that the statement the Law Student made to her employer was false because she had only told Dean Jerry that a professor had made a pass at her. We fail to see how Dean Jerry's failure to relate this conversation to Professor Tonkovich violated Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. As we have discussed, Professor Tonkovich received sufficient notice of the charges against him, and, in addition, he had the opportunity to cross-examine the Law Student at his hearing. As for the remaining allegations involving Dean Jerry, Professor Tonkovich has failed to explain how any of them might constitute a denial of his procedural due process rights. That is, he has failed to demonstrate how attempting to pass a new faculty code rule, 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 15/39 denying a request for a leak investigation, taking part in settlement negotiations, and rendering an unfavorable annual evaluation had anything to do with whether Professor Tonkovich received the process that he was due-notice, an explanation of the charges against him, and an opportunity to respond. Nor has Professor Tonkovich pointed to any clearly established law that stands for the proposition that the sorts of actions taken by Dean Jerry might form the basis of a procedural due process claim. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in denying Dean Jerry's motion to dismiss Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 2. Appeal of Regents (Case No. 96-3403) and Hearing Committee (Case No. 96-3404) The Regents and the Hearing Committee members argue that because Professor Tonkovich failed to exercise his right to judicial review he should not now be heard to complain of the violation of his procedural due process rights. In other words, they argue that because Professor Tonkovich was entitled to seek judicial review of the University's decision under Kansas law, Kan. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 77-601 et seq., the state provided even more process than an administrative hearing and an appeal to the Board of Regents. Thus, they argue, his procedural due process claim must fail. We reject the argument that Professor Tonkovich's failure to seek judicial review in state court precludes his procedural due process claim. It is beyond dispute that a plaintiff need not exhaust state administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court under \u00a7 1983. Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 516, 102 S. Ct. 2557, 73 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1982). However, as we shall discuss below, the availability of an action for judicial review is relevant to the question of what process the state afforded Professor Tonkovich. Professor Tonkovich argues that the Regents and the Hearing Committee members denied him his procedural due process right to an impartial tribunal. He also takes issue with the Hearing Committee members' failure to: (1) order discovery; (2) compel witnesses to appear and testify; and (3) mention evidence favorable to him in their findings. We shall address each contention in turn. Professor Tonkovich first argues that he was denied the right to an impartial tribunal because the Hearing Committee members were not professional hearing officers, they were employed by the University, and they were subordinates of the Chancellor. Furthermore, he argues that the fact that various members of the standing committee recused themselves, and that other members were substituted, demonstrates that the resulting Hearing Committee was biased. In support of this claim, he points to Mr. Turnbull's 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 16/39 statement to a witness to the effect that he admired her courage in coming forward to testify. First of all, while the Due Process Clause certainly requires a hearing before an impartial tribunal, Professor Tonkovich has pointed to no law, clearly established or otherwise, that procedural due process includes a right to professional hearing officers or hearing officers not employed by the governmental body or agency taking the adverse action. As to the recusals, one of the substituted Hearing Committee members, Mr. Michel, actually voted against Professor Tonkovich's dismissal. This alone takes the wind out of the sails of Professor Tonkovich's recusal argument. Furthermore, even assuming Mr. Turnbull stated to a witness admire your courage in coming forward,\" that does not establish the required \"substantial showing of personal bias.\" Corstvet, 757 F.2d at 229. The Hearing Committee members argue that there is nothing indicating that they had a personal or financial stake in the decision, which might create a conflict of interest, nor are there sufficient allegations to support charges of personal animosity on the part of its members. See Hortonville Joint School Dist. Number 1 v. Hortonville Educ. Ass'n, 426 U.S. 482, 491-92, 496, 96 S. Ct. 2308, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1976) (basing, in part, its holding that school board dismissing striking teachers did not violate Due Process Clause on fact that these indicia of bias were lacking). In short, they argue that Professor Tonkovich's complaint contains only conclusory allegations of bias, without alleging factual support. We agree. We simply do not think that Professor Tonkovich has sufficiently alleged personal bias requiring disqualification of the Hearing Committee members under the Due Process Clause. As to the Regents, Professor Tonkovich similarly levels accusations of bias against them. He argues that the Regents' bias violated his procedural due process rights. In support of this argument, he states that the Regents made erroneous and prejudicial decisions and that they deferred to the findings of the Hearing Committee. As with the Hearing Committee, these conclusory assertions are insufficient to allege bias constituting a violation of Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. Professor Tonkovich next takes issue with what he claims is the Hearing Committee's failure to order discovery. He claims that this led to a denial of his right to cross-examine the witnesses against him. In particular, he argues that he never was able to discover a tape-recording of an alleged interview between the Law Student and University administrators. This, he argues, amounted to a denial of his right to cross-examine the Law Student. 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 17/39 Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich argues that he was unable to discover all of the statements that various complainants had submitted during the investigation. As he points out, the Hearing Committee specifically requested, through certified return-receipt mailings, that the complainants produce their statements and return to testify. However, two of the complainants neither produced their statements nor returned to testify. Thus, he argues, he was denied the right to cross-examine these two complainants. Professor Tonkovich also complains that all of the complainants, including the Law Student, refused to allow Professor Tonkovich's attorney to interview them prior to the hearing. First of all, we note that the Hearing Committee ultimately did order discovery prior to Professor Tonkovich's administrative hearing. The fact that Professor Tonkovich was unable to discover every piece of evidence is of no consequence as a matter of procedural due process. The Due Process Clause does not guarantee that parties to an adversarial proceeding may discover every piece of evidence they desire. Indeed, civil litigants in federal court do not have a claim for a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights every time a federal district judge or a federal magistrate rules against them in a discovery dispute. Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich has not adequately alleged that he was denied the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. As we have discussed, he had notice of the charges, and of his accusers, well before the hearing. He was able to cross-examine each of them, albeit not in exactly the way he would have liked. On these facts, we cannot say that the cross-examinations violated Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights simply because he did not have access to several of the witnesses' prior statements. As his complaint admits, the University did provide him with summaries of the complainants' statements. Importantly, Professor Tonkovich has also cited no clearly established legal authority for the proposition that the Due Process Clause requires that he be allowed to interview adverse witnesses prior to a hearing. Professor Tonkovich next argues that the Hearing Committee members violated his procedural due process rights by failing to compel the return of various witnesses who had previously testified. The Hearing Committee members argue that they did not have the authority to compel the attendance of witnesses. They did, however, attempt to assist Professor Tonkovich with the re-appearance of witnesses by sending certified return- receipt mail, as Professor Tonkovich himself acknowledges in his complaint. Professor Tonkovich has cited no law, clearly established or otherwise, which states that an administrative tribunal runs afoul of the Due Process Clause for its failure to compel the attendance of witnesses when it lacks subpoena power. See Workman, 32 F.3d at 480 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 18/39 (stating that, under the facts of that case, \" [t]he lack of subpoena power available to the plaintiff or the unavailability of some witnesses does not ... create unconstitutional process.\"). Even if the Hearing Committee did have subpoena power, a reasonable person in the place of a Hearing Committee member would not know that he or she was violating someone's procedural due process rights for failing to compel the appearance of witnesses under these circumstances. Professor Tonkovich next argues that the Hearing Committee should have mentioned in its findings various pieces of evidence favorable to his side of the case. For example, Professor Tonkovich takes issue with the Hearing Committee's failure to mention the discrepancy between what the Law Student told the judge who employed her and what she told Dean Jerry. Professor Tonkovich claims that the Committee's failure to mention such evidence violated his procedural due process rights. We disagree. The Hearing Committee handed down extensive findings and conclusions after a hearing spanning approximately nine months. Under the circumstances, the fact that the Committee did not mention every possible fact in its resolution of the case does not implicate due process. Professor Tonkovich also claims that the Hearing Committee itself admitted that the proceedings against him were unfair because it recommended additional procedures for future disciplinary proceedings. Taking into consideration the procedures afforded Professor Tonkovich, the fact that the Hearing Committee members made recommendations concerning future disciplinary proceedings does not convince us that they violated his procedural due process rights. In sum, the Regents and the Hearing Committee members argue that under Loudermill, Professor Tonkovich was entitled only to notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence against him, and an opportunity to respond. They argue that the allegations in Professor Tonkovich's own complaint establish that he received this and much more. We agree. Therefore, the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim against the Regents and the Hearing Committee members on the basis of qualified immunity. Professor McKenzie (Case No. 96-3405) The only allegations against Professor McKenzie in particular were that she signed the Letter, she refused to testify, and she dated a student. None of these allegations, she argues, are sufficient to establish that she violated a constitutional right. We agree. As we shall discuss at length below, when the Law School faculty members signed the Letter, they did not thereby violate Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. As 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 19/39 to the remaining allegations against Professor McKenzie-that she refused to testify on Professor Tonkovich's behalf and that she dated a student-we fail to see how these might form the basis of a procedural due process claim. Professor McKenzie neither subjected Professor Tonkovich, nor caused Professor Tonkovich to be subjected, to the deprivation of his procedural due process rights. Thus, the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 4. Appeal of the University General Counsel (Case No. 96-3406) The specific allegations against General Counsel Thomas are that she gave an opinion as to the applicability of the University's statute of limitations, and she attended two meetings to discuss Professor Tonkovich's case. Essentially, he seems to be complaining that she did her job. Ms. Thomas argues that neither of these actions can be said to have violated Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. We agree. The allegations against Associate General Counsel Marino, who prosecuted the case on behalf of the University, are that she denied the existence of the complainants' statements and that she violated two of the Hearing Committee's evidentiary rulings. Specifically, she asked a witness about her sexual involvement with law professors, and she read a portion of the Law Student's testimony to another witness who was scheduled to testify. Associate General Counsel Marino argues that even if some of these actions constituted infractions of a University policy or rule, this is not enough to rise to the level of a deprivation of a federal constitutional right. We note that a university's failure to follow its established guidelines in overseeing a grievance \"does not in and of itself implicate constitutional due process concerns.\" Purisch v. Tennessee Technological University, 76 F.3d 1414, 1423 (6th Cir. 1996); cf. Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 1988) (a violation of state law, by itself, does not rise to the level of a federal constitutional deprivation, and, thus, is not cognizable under \u00a7 1983). The federal courts, and not the University of Kansas, are responsible for establishing the contours of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, even taking Professor Tonkovich's allegations against Ms. Marino as true, as we must, we do not think they are sufficient to establish the violation of his procedural due process rights. While Ms. Marino's failure to adhere to certain evidentiary rules was perhaps not a model of prosecutorial conduct, nothing that she did changes the fact that Professor Tonkovich received notice, an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal, and various post-termination remedies. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in denying Ms. Thomas's and Ms. Marino's motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 20/39 5. Appeal of Law School Faculty Members (Case No. 96-3407) The Law School faculty members argue that they were not even in a position from which they could afford or deny procedural protections to Professor Tonkovich. Thus, they argue, they cannot be said to have violated his due process rights. We disagree with the notion that a faculty member, by virtue of his or her position within a university, may never effect a procedural due process violation. However, in this case, nothing the Law School faculty members did caused a deprivation of Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. The specific allegations against the Law School faculty members are as follows: (1) they signed the Letter soliciting additional complaints; (2) they met with University administrators to discuss the case; (3) they accompanied students who submitted complaints to administrators; (4) two of them stated they heard that the Law Student's complaint contained an allegation of rape; (5) some of them refused to disclose, and one of them intentionally destroyed, complainant statements; and (6) they testified as witnesses at Professor Tonkovich's hearing. The faculty members argue that Professor Tonkovich has failed to point to any clearly established law that stands for the proposition that any of these actions might form the basis of a procedural due process claim. We shall first address the Law School faculty members' role in authoring, signing, and distributing the Letter, which Professor Tonkovich continually refers to as the \"secret\" solicitation process. See, e.g., Aple's Brief at 7, 31, 43. Professor Tonkovich cites no clearly established Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent standing for the proposition that when a university is investigating a complaint of sexual misconduct against a professor, the university must disclose, during the investigatory process, every complaint it solicits and the means it uses to solicit those complaints. In fact, there is precedent in this circuit that arguably supports a contrary proposition. In Derstein v. Kansas, 915 F.2d 1410 (10th Cir. 1990), the plaintiff, a tenured court employee who could be terminated only for just cause, was fired after an investigation revealed that he had sexually harassed various fellow employees. The plaintiff was told neither that an investigation was underway nor that complaints against him were being solicited court personnel officer conducted the investigation by tape-recording interviews with various court employees and then transcribing the tapes. After the investigation was complete the plaintiff was told that he would have ten days to resign or be terminated. Id. at 1412. He was also advised that he could appeal the decision and that a hearing would be afforded at that time. At the end of the ten-day period, the plaintiff received a termination letter, which specified the nature of the charges against him 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 21/39 and his right to appeal. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, which was denied as frivolous. At no time during the administrative proceedings did the employer provide the plaintiff with transcripts of the tape-recorded interviews. Id. The plaintiff then filed a \u00a7 1983 action. After a bench trial, the district court held that the pretermination proceedings deprived the plaintiff of a property interest without due process of law. Id. at 1411. We reversed, holding that the pretermination procedures comported with Loudermill 's requirements. Id. at 1413. We stated that the fact that the plaintiff \"may not have known in advance about [the personnel officer's] internal investigation [and that he] did not receive more facts or a copy of the transcript at the pretermination hearing is not significant.\" Id. at 1413. Likewise, in the case at bar, the fact that University administrators conducted an investigation without Professor Tonkovich's knowledge does not implicate procedural due process because he ultimately received notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to respond in the hearing that took place over a period of nine months. We noted that the plaintiff in Derstein never contested the factual basis for the sexual harassment charges, i.e., he did not deny that the conduct occurred. Under those circumstances, we held that the appeal to an appeals board constituted a sufficient post- termination procedure, even though the appeals board did not grant the plaintiff a full evidentiary hearing. We found that this post-termination proceeding, in combination with the pretermination procedures, afforded the plaintiff all of the process he was due. In Professor Tonkovich's case, he obviously did contest the factual basis for the charges against him; however, he also received a full-blown evidentiary hearing. The fact that University officials and faculty members did not keep Professor Tonkovich apprised every step along the way of the investigation does not amount to a violation of his procedural due process rights. Professor Tonkovich next complains that when the Law School faculty members met with University administrators to discuss his case, and when they accompanied the complainants to meet with administrators, they violated his procedural due process rights. We fail to see how either of these actions might form the basis of a procedural due process claim in the absence of allegations that these actions interfered with Professor Tonkovich's receiving notice of the charges or with his ability to respond to those charges. Professor Tonkovich has not cited any law, clearly established or otherwise, that would support the proposition that in taking part in the investigation as the Law School faculty members here did, their actions ran afoul of the Due Process Clause. 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 22/39 Next, Professor Tonkovich argues that two of the Law School faculty members violated his procedural due process rights when they repeated information they had heard, namely, that the allegations against Professor Tonkovich included an allegation of rape. Assuming, as we must, that the allegation is false, it still does not implicate procedural due process. While the statements may be actionable under state tort law, they do not rise to the level of depriving Professor Tonkovich of federal procedural due process rights. There is no allegation that the statements made by the professors had anything to do with whether Professor Tonkovich received notice of the charges against him or had a meaningful opportunity to respond, which is what procedural due process requires. Finally, Professor Tonkovich takes issue with the Law School faculty members' role in testifying at his hearing and in discarding or denying the existence of the written complainant statements. Once again, he cites no clearly established law that stands for the proposition that taking such actions implicates procedural due process. As we have discussed, Professor Tonkovich received summaries of the statements, and he was able to cross-examine the complainants; therefore, the fact that several professors were not forthcoming with written statements does not amount to a violation of Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. Although such conduct on the part of the professors is not to be lauded, it simply does not rise to a level sufficient to implicate procedural due process concerns. Furthermore, we fail to see how the professors' acts in testifying at Professor Tonkovich's hearing--and thereby being subjected to cross- examination--violated his procedural due process rights. For all of these reasons, the district court should have granted the Law School faculty members' motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 6. Appeal of the Chancellor's Office (Case No. 96-3408) The Chancellor's office staff members argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim because Professor Tonkovich received all of the process he was due. Furthermore, they argue that Professor Tonkovich failed to show that any of their actions constituted violations of a clearly established right. The specific allegations against staff members of the Chancellor's office are as follows: (1) they extended the investigation after having set a deadline for filing complaints against Professor Tonkovich; (2) Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel at first recommended a one-year paid suspension, but as the investigation progressed, they increased the proposed sanction to dismissal; (3) Associate Vice Chancellor Shulenberger interviewed the complainants; (4) Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel denied that the complainants had submitted written statements; (5) during settlement negotiations, Vice 8 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 23/39 Chancellor Brinkman and Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel recommended that Professor Tonkovich resign quietly, and they stated that there were no terms acceptable to the University for Professor Tonkovich to continue as a faculty member; and (6) Chancellor Budig prosecuted charges even after several students stated that the charges were groundless. Professor Tonkovich's argument that extending the investigation and increasing the proposed sanction violated his procedural due process rights must fail. Neither the length of the investigation nor the decision to increase the proposed sanction deprived Professor Tonkovich of his rights to notice and an opportunity to respond. It is not as if the sanction he faced was changed during the course of or after his hearing. Well before his hearing began, he understood that he faced dismissal from the Law School faculty. Additionally, the fact that Professor Tonkovich initially responded in writing to the Law Student's charges, when he faced only suspension, is not significant because that was not his only opportunity to respond. Ultimately, after the investigation was complete, he was informed of all of the charges against him and given ample opportunity to respond to all of them. Professor Tonkovich next argues that Associate Vice Chancellor Shulenberger violated his procedural due process rights when he interviewed the complainants. Professor Tonkovich wholly fails to allege how these interviews deprived him of his rights to notice or an opportunity to respond. Furthermore, he cites no clearly established law standing for the proposition that during the course of an investigation of a university professor, a university administrator violates the professor's procedural due process rights by interviewing students with complaints. Next Professor Tonkovich complains of Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel's denial of the existence of written complainant statements. We have already discussed the failure to reveal the complainants' statements in the context of the Hearing Committee, Ms. Marino, and the Law School faculty members. For similar reasons, the fact that Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel denied that the complainants had submitted written statements does not implicate Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. Although such conduct on the part of any university employee is not to be commended, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. As previously discussed, the University provided summaries of the statements prior to his hearing, and Professor Tonkovich had the opportunity to cross- examine each of the complainants. Professor Tonkovich next argues that Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel violated his procedural due process rights when they took part in settlement negotiations. Specifically he points to their actions in recommending that he 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 24/39 resign quietly and in stating that there were no terms acceptable to the University for Professor Tonkovich to continue as a faculty member. Professor Tonkovich fails to allege, however, how these actions caused the deprivation of his procedural due process rights. He does not allege, for example, that in pressuring him to resign quietly or in stating that there were no acceptable terms to the University, Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel somehow prevented him from receiving notice of the charges against him or an opportunity to respond. Finally, Professor Tonkovich argues that Chancellor Budig violated his procedural due process rights by including in the formal complaint allegations that several law students thought were groundless. We fail to see how this implicates Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights in the absence of an allegation that he was not given notice of these charges or an opportunity to respond to them. It is hardly the role of a law student to decide which allegations to include in a charging document against a faculty member. Professor Tonkovich was free to call these students as witnesses in his defense, and his complaint indicates that these students did submit affidavits stating their positions. For all of these reasons, the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim against the staff members of the Chancellor's office on qualified immunity grounds. After considering the arguments of the parties, we turn our attention briefly to the district court's disposition of the qualified immunity issue as it relates to Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim. The district court concluded that Professor Tonkovich's hearing was a combined pre and post-termination hearing. Aplts' App. vol. IV, doc. 18 at 1345-46. However, Professor Tonkovich was not dismissed until after the hearing was complete and the Hearing Committee handed down its findings and conclusions. During the course of his hearing, although he was on teaching leave, his employment with the University had not been terminated. Thus, we think the district court was technically incorrect on this point. The evidentiary hearing was, in actuality, a pretermination hearing that afforded Professor Tonkovich more process than he was due prior to being terminated. In addition, the district court failed to consider that Professor Tonkovich had the opportunity to appeal to the Board of Regents and then, finally, to file an action for judicial review in state district court state court proceeding for judicial review of the University's action would have afforded Professor Tonkovich the opportunity to present evidence as to the alleged \"unlawfulness of [the] procedure or of [the] decision-making process.\" See Kan. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 77-619(a) (2). Furthermore, on judicial review, the state district court would have had the power to order the University to take a specific action, enjoin the University from enforcing an action, or 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 25/39 render appropriate declaratory relief. See id. at \u00a7 77-622(b). Although, as we have stated, exhaustion is not a prerequisite to bringing a \u00a7 1983 claim, the fact that Professor Tonkovich did have the opportunity for an additional post-termination hearing, regardless of whether he exercised this right, is germane to our inquiry into what process the state afforded him. The district court further concluded that the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity in part because Professor Tonkovich received inadequate notice of the charges against him due to the fact that the University increased the stakes as the investigation progressed. We think this conclusion is incorrect for at least two reasons. First of all, the fact remains that approximately four months before the hearing, the University filed a written complaint against Professor Tonkovich. Thus, well in advance, the Chancellor informed Professor Tonkovich in writing as to the charges and the penalty he faced. Second, the district court failed to consider which of the individual defendants was responsible for giving Professor Tonkovich notice of the charges. Surely, for example, the Law School faculty members cannot be said to have violated Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights by failing to give him notice of the charges, because they had no duty to give him notice; moreover, none of their actions deprived him of notice. As we have stated, under Loudermill, before he was terminated, Professor Tonkovich was entitled to notice, an explanation of the charges against him, and an opportunity to respond. Professor Tonkovich's own complaint reflects that, prior to his termination, he received these protections and much more full-blown evidentiary hearing clearly meets the dictates of Loudermill. Taking into consideration Professor Tonkovich's pretermination hearing, in combination with the various post-termination proceedings afforded by the state, we conclude that Professor Tonkovich was afforded all of the process that he was due, and perhaps more than what Loudermill requires. Because we have found that Professor Tonkovich received all of the process that he was due, we must reject his claim for deprivation of a liberty interest, as well. In order to demonstrate the infringement of a liberty interest in one's good name, one must show that: (1) the defendant made a statement impugning his or her good name, reputation, honor, or integrity; (2) the statement was false; (3) the defendant made the statement in the course of termination proceedings or the statement foreclosed future employment opportunities; and (4) the statement was published. Workman, 32 F.3d at 481 (internal citations omitted). In such a case, the Due Process Clause requires an adequate name-clearing hearing. Id. at 480. We acknowledge that Professor Tonkovich did, indeed, have a liberty interest in his reputation, deserving of due process protection. However, even if the University infringed that interest, when, for example, two of the faculty members stated that they heard that the 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 26/39 Law Student accused Professor Tonkovich of rape, we conclude that the University provided him with an adequate name-clearing hearing. Thus, there is perhaps a tort claim, but there is no constitutional violation. After carefully considering Professor Tonkovich's allegations, the defendants' arguments, and the relevant law, we hold that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim. We do not necessarily condone each of the procedures that the University followed in the course of Professor Tonkovich's disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, as we have discussed, every alleged procedural error does not necessarily implicate due process. Although Professor Tonkovich may or may not have valid claims based on violations of state law, he has failed to meet his burden on qualified immunity as it relates to his federal procedural due process claim. We turn now to a discussion of Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. B. Are the Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Professor Tonkovich's Substantive Due Process Claim? At the outset, we must address the district court's supposed failure to consider the defendants' entitlement to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. The district court stated that after an extensive review of the record, it could not \"locate the individual defendants' argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's substantive due process claim.\" Aplts' App. vol. IV, doc. 18 at 1350. Therefore, the court stated that it was declining to address the issue. Id. Although all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss Professor Tonkovich's due process claim based on qualified immunity, they did not separately address substantive due process. However, they all argued, in more or less general terms, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Professor Tonkovich failed to allege specific facts showing that they had violated any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. See, e.g., Aplts' App. vol. I, doc. 3 at 172 (plaintiff's failure to allege that Hearing Committee members violated clearly established right entitles them to qualified immunity); id., doc. 4 at 216-17 (plaintiff's failure to identify clearly established right entitles Board of Regents to qualified immunity); id., doc. 5 at 248 (doctrine of qualified immunity bars suit against Law School faculty members because their conduct had no effect on plaintiff's constitutional rights); id. vol. II, doc. 7 at 679 (Dean Jerry entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights); see also id. vol. III, doc. 9 at 996 (plaintiff's failure to allege that Chancellor's office staff members violated clearly established due process rights entitled them to qualified immunity). 9 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 27/39 Our review of count one of Professor Tonkovich's first amended complaint indicates that Professor Tonkovich himself did not delineate his due process claim as containing both a procedural and a substantive component. On the contrary, count one is entitled \"42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment Due Process).\" Id. vol. I, doc. 1 at 79. Nowhere in his complaint does Professor Tonkovich argue that the defendants violated his substantive due process rights. He simply refers to \"due process,\" which, under the circumstances, the defendants could reasonably interpret in various ways. Professor Tonkovich has the burden to identify the rights that he alleges the defendants violated. See Walter, 33 F.3d at 1242. Thus, the defendants should not be required to guess whether Professor Tonkovich pled a substantive due process claim, a procedural due process claim, or both. At this stage of the litigation, Professor Tonkovich argues that his substantive due process claim is based on the allegation that he did not have fair warning of prohibited conduct and is further based \"on the defendants' other arbitrary and wrongful actions.\" Aple's Brief at 36. However, Professor Tonkovich did not articulate his \"no fair warning\" argument before the district court in his response to the defendants' motions to dismiss. Instead, he argued that his substantive due process claim was based on the fact that the defendants had deprived him of liberty and property. Aplts' App. vol. III, doc. 10 at 1102-03. Such an argument applies equally in the procedural due process arena as it does in the substantive, for there can be no violation of one's procedural due process rights without a deprivation of life, liberty, or property. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, \u00a7 1. Moreover, in the portion of his response addressing substantive due process, Professor Tonkovich referred to the defendants denying him an impartial tribunal, arguably a procedural due process topic, rather than a substantive one. Aplts' App. vol. III, doc. 10 at 1103. Our point here is that Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim lacked crisp contours during the district court proceedings. And even now, as mentioned above, Professor Tonkovich argues that his substantive due process claim is based, in part, on a host of allegedly arbitrary and wrongful actions of the defendants, some of which implicate procedural due process concerns. Because of the overlap inherent in the way Professor Tonkovich pled his due process claim, we think that the district court read the defendants' motions to dismiss too narrowly. In other words, we think that the defendants' motions to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity were sufficient to put the district court on notice that they were asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity with respect to Professor Tonkovich's entire \u00a7 1983 due process claim. Furthermore, because the substantive due process claim is based, in part, on allegedly arbitrary actions that may be fairly characterized as implicating procedural due process rights, we think the district court's treatment of the due process claim with respect to qualified immunity is of 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 28/39 sufficient breadth to allow us to review the issue of qualified immunity as it relates specifically to substantive due process. We turn now to that portion of our task. Because Professor Tonkovich was a tenured professor, the law in this Circuit is that he possessed \"a property interest deserving of ... substantive protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.\" Brenna, 589 F.2d at 476. Substantive due process requires that the termination of a tenured professor's property interest not be \"arbitrary, capricious, or without a rational basis.\" Id. at 477. The Supreme Court has \"emphasized time and again that [t]he touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government....\" Lewis, at ----, 118 S. Ct. at 1716 (quotation omitted). In Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567 (10th Cir. 1995), we stated that \"the standard for judging a substantive due process claim is whether the challenged government action would 'shock the conscience of federal judges.' \" Id. at 573 (quoting Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 126, 112 S. Ct. 1061, 117 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1992)) (quotation omitted). To satisfy this standard, \"a plaintiff must do more than show that the government actor intentionally or recklessly caused injury to the plaintiff by abusing or misusing government power.\" Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 574. Instead, a plaintiff \"must demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking.\" Id. We acknowledged that \" [t]he level of conduct required to satisfy this additional requirement cannot precisely be defined, but must necessarily evolve over time from judgments as to the constitutionality of specific government conduct.\" Id. Recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the \"shocks the conscience\" test in Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043, which involved a substantive due process claim brought under \u00a7 1983 against a municipality after a high-speed police chase killed a sixteen-year-old boy. The Court noted that \" [w]hile due process protection in the substantive sense limits what the government may do in both its legislative and its executive capacities, criteria to identify what is fatally arbitrary differ depending on whether it is legislation or a specific act of a governmental officer that is at issue.\" Id. at --- -, 118 S. Ct. at 1716 (citations omitted). The Court went on to state that \"for half a century now we have spoken of the cognizable level of executive abuse of power as that which shocks the conscience.\" Id. at ----, 118 S. Ct. at 1717. Accordingly, when a plaintiff brings a substantive due process challenge to executive action, \"the threshold question is whether the behavior of the governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.\" Id. at ---- n. 8, 118 S. Ct. at 1717 n. 8. Professor Tonkovich argues that the \"shocks the conscience\" standard does not apply to this case because the defendants' conduct was intentional. He argues that the defendants' 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 29/39 actions should be measured instead against a generic standard of arbitrariness. However, in the alternative, he argues that the defendants' conduct was, indeed, shocking to the conscience. There is some indication that the \"shocks the conscience\" standard and the \"arbitrariness\" standard are used interchangeably. See, e.g. Collins, 503 U.S. at 128, 112 S. Ct. 1061 (stating that the Court is not persuaded that the defendants' actions \"can properly be characterized as arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense\"). Justice Scalia's reading of the majority opinion in Lewis is that the shocks-the-conscience test \"is the measure of arbitrariness when what is at issue is executive rather than legislative action.\" Lewis, 523 U.S. at ----, 118 S. Ct. at 1724 (Scalia, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). In any event, we express no opinion on whether the \"shocks the conscience\" standard applies to this case because regardless of whether we use that standard or we simply inquire whether the defendants' actions were arbitrary or lacking a rational basis, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. As we shall discuss in greater detail below, the defendants' actions were not arbitrary, did not lack a rational basis, and were not shocking to the conscience. As we have discussed, Professor Tonkovich claims that the defendants violated his substantive due process rights by their failure to warn him of prohibited conduct and by their other arbitrary and wrongful actions. At this juncture, we shall discuss each defendant's (or defendant group's) arguments with respect to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. Professor Tonkovich argues that Dean Jerry violated his substantive due process rights because the memorandum he issued to faculty falsely asserted that student/faculty sex was unethical under the Faculty Code. Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich argues, Dean Jerry violated his substantive due process rights by proposing a rule, with retroactive application, prohibiting sexual relations between professors and students enrolled in their courses. Since the Law School faculty did not approve Dean Jerry's proposed rule, the argument goes, Professor Tonkovich was arbitrarily charged with violating a nonexistent rule. In response, Dean Jerry argues that Professor Tonkovich did indeed have fair warning that his conduct was prohibited because at the time he allegedly engaged in a sexual act with one of his students after discussing law school grades with her, it was clearly unethical, under existing University policy, for a professor to exploit a student for his own private advantage. We acknowledge that the allegations against Professor Tonkovich required Dean Jerry and other University officials to confront a difficult question: when does sexual contact between 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 30/39 participants in an unequal power relationship become exploitative? However, the fact that reasonable minds might not agree with the way in which the majority of the Hearing Committee, the Chancellor, and the Regents resolved that question is insufficient to support a substantive due process claim. In this regard, we note that the Seventh Circuit has rejected a claim similar to Professor Tonkovich's claim that he did not have fair warning that his conduct was prohibited. In Korf v. Ball State Univ., 726 F.2d 1222 (7th Cir. 1984), a tenured professor who allegedly sexually harassed various students filed a \u00a7 1983 suit after he was discharged from the faculty. He alleged that his substantive due process rights were violated because he did not have adequate notice that consensual sexual relations between faculty members and students were prohibited. Id. at 1226. The court noted that, after an investigation and a hearing, a committee found that the plaintiff had engaged in unethical behavior by exploiting students for his private advantage. Thus, consensual sexual relations were not at issue. The court stated that \" [c]ommon sense, reason and good judgment should have made [the plaintiff] cognizant of the fact that his conduct could and would be cause for termination.\" Id. at 1227. Likewise, in the case at bar, if common sense, reason, and good judgment were not adequate to notify Professor Tonkovich, certainly the Faculty Code's prohibition against exploiting students concretely notified him that he could be terminated for having sex with one of his students after discussing her grades. Next, Professor Tonkovich argues that Dean Jerry violated his substantive due process rights by initially withholding the name of Professor Tonkovich's accuser and the nature of the accusation. However, Professor Tonkovich has cited no law, and certainly no clearly established law, supporting his argument that he had a substantive due process right to know the name of his accuser on the day she lodged her complaint. Furthermore, as we have discussed, Professor Tonkovich knew the name of his accuser and the nature of her allegation well before he had the opportunity to cross-examine her. Finally, Professor Tonkovich argues that Dean Jerry violated his substantive due process rights by giving him an unearned negative annual evaluation and the lowest merit salary increase on the entire law school faculty. In light of the fact that Professor Tonkovich was embroiled in a scandal involving sexual misconduct with one of his students, we cannot say that Dean Jerry's action in this respect was completely arbitrary or irrational. Professor Tonkovich certainly has not cited any clearly established law that would lead us to such a conclusion. For these reasons, the district court erred in denying Dean Jerry's motion to dismiss the substantive due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 2. Appeal of Regents (Case No. 96-3403) and Hearing Committee (Case No. 96-3404) 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 31/39 Professor Tonkovich argues that the Regents and the Hearing Committee members violated his substantive due process rights by making erroneous findings that he engaged in unethical conduct. Furthermore, he argues, they violated his substantive due process rights by voting for his dismissal, a sanction that he claims lacks a rational basis. The Regents and the Hearing Committee members argue that the fact that they did not agree with Professor Tonkovich on every issue and did not ultimately find in his favor cannot form the basis of a substantive due process claim against them. They argue that even assuming, for purposes of argument, their decisions in finding that he committed the charged conduct and voting for his dismissal were wrong, these actions do not rise to the level of a substantive due process violation. We agree. Indeed, \" [t]he Due Process Clause is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions.\" Collins, 503 U.S. at 129, 112 S. Ct. 1061 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, the district court erred in denying the Regents' and the Hearing Committee members' motions to dismiss the substantive due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. Professor McKenzie (Case No. 96-3405) Professor McKenzie is entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim for the same reasons that she is entitled to qualified immunity on his procedural due process claim. That is, in merely signing the Letter, refusing to testify, and dating a student, Professor McKenzie neither subjected Professor Tonkovich, nor caused Professor Tonkovich to be subjected, to a deprivation of his substantive due process rights. Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich has cited no clearly established law standing for the proposition that taking any of these actions violates one's substantive due process rights. 4. Appeal of the University General Counsel (Case No. 96-3406) We have already discussed the specific allegations against Ms. Thomas and Ms. Marino. Professor Tonkovich has failed to cite any clearly established law that would lead us to believe that any of the actions they took or failed to take caused the deprivation of his substantive due process rights. For this reason, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Marino are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. 5. Appeal of Law School Faculty Members (Case No. 96-3407) Professors Shapiro, Robinson, Dayton, Schroeder, and Sward argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim because the allegations against them do not show a violation of a constitutional right at all, much less a clearly established right. We have already discussed the specific allegations against the Law School faculty members, and we will not repeat them here. We agree that Professor 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 32/39 Tonkovich has pointed to no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent establishing that any of their actions could constitute a violation of one's substantive due process rights. We shall, however, address two specific allegations. Professor Tonkovich claims that two of the Law School faculty members violated his substantive due process rights by stating that the Law Student had accused him of rape. However, \" [a] substantive due process violation must be something more than an ordinary tort to be actionable under \u00a7 1983.\" Abeyta v. Chama Valley Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 19, 77 F.3d 1253, 1257 (10th Cir. 1996). Professor Tonkovich may have a cause of action against these professors or against the University under state law, but he has failed to meet his burden on qualified immunity as to a federal constitutional claim. As to Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim based on a lack of fair warning of prohibited conduct, the Law School faculty members argue that this claim contains no allegations addressed specifically to them. That is, they argue that Professor Tonkovich did not allege that they had a duty to warn him of what kind of conduct the Faculty Code prohibited. Additionally, they argue, Professor Tonkovich was put on notice that exploiting a student for his own benefit was a violation of the Faculty Code. We agree. For these additional reasons, the Law School faculty members are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. 6. Appeal of the Chancellor's Office (Case No. 96-3408) Professor Tonkovich argues that the University violated his substantive due process rights by ignoring its six-month statute of limitations for sexual harassment charges. However, as counsel for the Board of Regents pointed out at oral argument, the charges against Professor Tonkovich were not solely based on sexual harassment. Professor Tonkovich was charged with violating an ethical provision of the Faculty Code. Even if a claim of sexual harassment was time-barred, the claim of an ethical violation was not. We cannot say that it was unconstitutionally arbitrary for the University to proceed with the prosecution, even though some of the charges involved sexual misconduct. Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich has failed to cite clearly established law demonstrating that a reasonable University official in the Chancellor's position would have known that going forward with the prosecution would have violated Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process rights. Next Professor Tonkovich claims that the staff members of the Chancellor's office violated his substantive due process rights by attempting to discourage him from exercising his right to a hearing. Specifically, he claims that after he requested a hearing, University administrators warned him that past conduct might be cause for future disciplinary action. In addition, the University increased the possible sanction from a one-year paid teaching 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 33/39 suspension to dismissal. He claims that he was fired for asserting his innocence and demanding a hearing. We note that as the investigation progressed, the complaints against Professor Tonkovich mounted. There was nothing unconstitutionally arbitrary about extending the investigation or about changing the proposed disciplinary action. Professor Tonkovich next argues that Chancellor Budig violated his substantive due process rights because the charges against him and the recommended sanction lacked a rational basis. However, after the investigation was completed, the University had its side of the story, and Professor Tonkovich had his side of the story. Even taking Professor Tonkovich's version of the facts as true, as we must, we cannot say that the charges and the penalty he faced were unconstitutionally arbitrary. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the substantive due process claim against the staff members of the Chancellor's office on qualified immunity grounds. After carefully considering Professor Tonkovich's allegations and each of the defendants' arguments, we conclude that the district court erred in denying the defendants' motions to dismiss any \"substantive due process\" claim Professor Tonkovich may have asserted. Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process argument on appeal takes up almost nineteen pages in his brief but contains very little legal authority. Pages and pages of facts are no substitute for citations to clearly established law. Nor can they meet Professor Tonkovich's burden on qualified immunity. We hold that each of the individual defendants is entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's \u00a7 1983 claim based on a violation of his substantive due process rights. C. Are the Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Professor Tonkovich's Equal Protection Claim? According to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, \"No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\" U.S. Const. amend. XIV, \u00a7 1. This Clause \"embodies a general rule that States must treat like cases alike but may treat unlike cases accordingly.\" Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, ----, 117 S. Ct. 2293, 2297, 138 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1997). Unless a legislative classification or distinction burdens a fundamental right or targets a suspect class, courts will uphold it if it is rationally related to a legitimate end. Id. Professor Tonkovich does not allege that a fundamental right is at stake, nor does he allege that he is a member of a suspect class. Thus, in order to prevail on his equal protection claim, he must show that the University treated him differently than others \"similarly situated ... and that this different treatment lacked a rational basis.\" Landmark Land Co. of Oklahoma v. Buchanan, 874 F.2d 717, 722 (10th Cir. 1989); see also 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 34/39 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439-40, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985). Professor Tonkovich alleges that the defendants violated his equal protection rights because the University has not penalized other professors, much less dismissed them, for dating their students. He points out that not only did other law professors openly date students but that the Law School actually promoted social activities between professors and students. The district court concluded that \" [a]llegations that these defendants disciplined plaintiff for a faculty-student relationship, without similar discipline for other professors who had relationships with students, establish a possible violation of plaintiff's right to equal protection.\" Aplts' App. vol. IV, doc. 18 at 1356. There are at least two crucial problems with the district court's conclusion. First, as many defendants have pointed out, Professor Tonkovich has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that he is similarly situated to law professors who dated students. Professor Tonkovich was not charged with dating a student. He was charged with exploiting a student for his own private advantage by engaging one of his students in a discussion of grades and then having sexual relations with her. Although we must accept as true Professor Tonkovich's claim that he did not engage in the charged behavior, see Aplts' App. vol. I, doc. 1 at 60, we must also accept as true the fact that this is part of what the University prosecuted him for and found him guilty of, see id. at 57-58. In any event, Professor Tonkovich does not allege that he was dating the Law Student, or any of his other students. Second, the district court's conclusion is infirm because it lumps all of \"these defendants\" together despite the fact that each of the defendants had different powers and duties and took different actions with respect to Professor Tonkovich. Although the district court acknowledged that it must identify on the record defendants' conduct that violated clearly established law, see Aplts' App. vol. IV, doc. 18 at 1342, it wholly failed to identify specific actions taken by particular defendants that could form the basis of an equal protection claim. For example, the district court did not point to any particular action taken by a Law School faculty member that can be said to have caused a deprivation of Professor Tonkovich's equal protection rights. In this way, the district court erred in failing to grant the Law School faculty members qualified immunity. It is not necessary for us, however, to consider the specific allegations against each defendant because at the heart of any equal protection claim must be an allegation of being treated differently than those similarly situated. Professor Tonkovich would have had to allege that other professors who had sex with a student, in a manner that exploited the 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 35/39 student, were not treated the way he was treated by University officials. Therefore, we conclude that the district court erred when it ruled that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's equal protection claim. We hold that each of the individual defendants is entitled to qualified immunity as to Professor Tonkovich's \u00a7 1983 claim based on a violation of his right to equal protection of the laws. Professor Tonkovich argues that the reasonable inference to be drawn from all of the allegations in his complaint is that the defendants engaged in concerted action with the common goal of terminating his employment with the University. Professor Tonkovich claims that the reason the University handled his case the way it did and the reason he was ultimately dismissed is because of his outspoken political conservatism and because he supported an unpopular candidate during a divisive dean search at the Law School. By raising the specter of a conspiracy, he attempts to avoid a grant of qualified immunity to the individual defendants. It is true that on a motion to dismiss, we must draw all reasonable inferences in Professor Tonkovich's favor. Swanson, 750 F.2d at 813. However, we do not think that Professor Tonkovich has properly pled a claim that the individual defendants acted in concert to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Put differently, we do not think that such an inference is reasonable. At oral argument, counsel for the Law School faculty members and counsel for Ms. Thomas and Ms. Marino argued that Professor Tonkovich did not allege a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1985 in his complaint. Counsel for Professor Tonkovich conceded that Professor Tonkovich did not plead a \u00a7 1985 claim. However, he claims that he has met his burden of showing that the defendants violated clearly established rights under \u00a7 1983. For example, he argues, the fact that some of the Law School faculty members met with certain administrators during the investigatory process and then signed the Letter soliciting complaints from students is enough to show that the faculty members were acting in concert with the administrators to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Allegations of conspiracy may, indeed, form the basis of a \u00a7 1983 claim. Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 1994). However, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing an agreement and concerted action amongst the defendants. Id. \"Conclusory allegations of conspiracy are insufficient to state a valid \u00a7 1983 claim.\" Id. (quotation omitted). Professor Tonkovich presents us with nothing more than conclusory allegations. We do not think it is reasonable to infer, for example, that because certain Law School faculty members met with certain administrators during the investigation, they were conspiring 10 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 36/39 with one another and with the Hearing Committee who ultimately found against Professor Tonkovich. Furthermore, there is no indication that the Hearing Committee members or the Regents were even aware of the divisive dean search or of the candidate whom Professor Tonkovich supported. Professor Tonkovich has simply failed to carry his burden of alleging the facts necessary to support his claim of conspiracy on qualified immunity. Ironically, Professor Tonkovich has said both too much and too little. His complaint certainly does not follow the dictates of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief ... shall contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim....).\" He pled facts extensively and repetitively in a 101-page complaint. However, as we have noted, facts by the truckload are simply not enough to meet a plaintiff's burden on qualified immunity. At the same time, we are certainly less than sanguine about some of the alleged actions taken by various University officials. In addition, the allegations of various violations of University policy cause us some discomfort. We do not know if we would have reached the same result that the Hearing Committee reached, by a close 3-2 vote. However, as we stated earlier, \" [t]he Due Process Clause is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions.\" Collins, 503 U.S. at 129, 112 S. Ct. 1061 (quotation omitted). As noted legal scholar Alexander Bickel observed, \" [T]he highest morality almost always is the morality of process.\" Alexander Bickel, The Morality of Consent 123 (1975). The process described in Professor Tonkovich's complaint, a hearing spanning nine months in conjunction with two post-termination remedies, clearly comports with the process required by the law of our land. The Due Process Clause does not guarantee that the University of Kansas would reach a result with which Professor Tonkovich agreed. In summary, we conclude that the district court erred when it denied the defendants' motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity. We hold that each of the individual defendants is entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's remaining \u00a7 1983 claims, i.e., violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection rights. We the district court's ruling to the contrary and the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the remaining \u00a7 1983 claims against the individual defendants on qualified immunity grounds and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 7 1 11 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 37/39 As the district court noted, \" [Professor Tonkovich's] 101-page amended complaint is the antithesis of the 'short and concise' pleading requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).\" Aplts' App. vol. IV, doc. 18 at 1313. Indeed, it reads like an amalgamation of a complaint and a response to a motion for summary judgment 2 As discussed below, and as alleged in Professor Tonkovich's complaint, the committee that ultimately presided over the administrative hearing did not adopt this version of the facts 3 We do not consider the Law School faculty members' argument that digital penetration constitutes rape under the law of Kansas, because that allegation is not contained within Professor Tonkovich's complaint 4 Although the district court found that Professor Tonkovich had stated a substantive due process claim, it did not address the issue of qualified immunity as it relates specifically to that claim. We shall discuss that below 5 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S. Ct. 1221, 93 L. Ed. 1528 (1949) 6 On the other hand, if the plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, then we need not proceed to the second inquiry (whether the right is clearly established). See Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 1998) (\"If a plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a violation of any constitutional right, it is axiomatic that the plaintiff likewise has failed to allege the violation of a 'clearly established right.' \") (emphasis in original); Taylor v. Meacham, 82 F.3d 1556, 1564 (10th Cir.) (\"Having concluded that no constitutional right was violated, ... we proceed no further on the qualified immunity issue.\"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 186, 136 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1996) In some cases, \"the threshold 'constitutional violation' analysis may run together with the 'clearly established' analysis,\" Derda v. City of Brighton, Colo., 53 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1995). In those cases, the two-part Siegart inquiry is difficult to apply. See id. 7 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 38/39 Case No. 96-3403, the appeal filed by the Board of Regents, and Case No. 96-3404, the appeal filed by the Hearing Committee, were consolidated for briefing purposes; therefore, in the ensuing discussions, we shall treat those two cases as one separate appeal 8 We shall discuss the allegation of rape with respect to Professor Tonkovich's liberty interest below 9 We express no opinion as to whether the professors' statements did, indeed, infringe Professor Tonkovich's liberty interest. As we have already noted, in order to infringe one's liberty interest, the defendant must, among other things, make a false statement impugning the plaintiff's reputation. See Workman, 32 F.3d at 481. At this stage, we are constrained to accept Professor Tonkovich's version of the facts 10 As noted above, the district court ruled that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's First Amendment claim based on these allegations 11 Finally, we deny Professor Tonkovich's pending motion for leave to file a sur-reply Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 2/16/25, 10:15 Emil A. Tonkovich, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Kansas Board of Regents, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond,john B. Hiebert, Karen Kr\u2026 39/39", "7401_102.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents United States District Court, D. Kansas Feb 25, 2000 Civil Action No. 95-2199 (D. Kan. Feb. 25, 2000) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Delegate legal research to CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free Civil Action No. 95-2199 February 25, 2000 VanBEBBER, United States District Judge This case is before the court on the following motions: Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/16/25, 10:15 Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, Civil Action No. 95-2199 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/9 Defendants Thomas and Marino's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 199); Defendant Professor Sandra McKenzie's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 191); Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 192), filed on behalf of the defendants Caldwell, Hammond, Hiebert, Krepps, Montgomery, Nolan, Sabatini, and Warner; Hearing Committee's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 194), filed on behalf of the defendants Turnbull, Dahl, Johnsen, Michel, and Ringer; Motion to Dismiss All Claims Against Defendants Kimberly Dayton, Reginald Robinson, Elinor Schroeder, Sidney Shapiro and Ellen Sward for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 196); Motion to Dismiss All Claims of Plaintiff Against Defendant Robert E. Hemenway and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction as to Defendants Robert E. Hemenway, Gene A. Budig, Delbert M. Shankel, P. Delbert Brinkman and David E. Shulenburger (Doc. 201); and Defendant Robert Jerry's Motion to Dismiss, With Supporting Brief (Doc. 203). With the exception of that part of the motion filed on behalf of defendant Hemenway which seeks dismissal of the federal claims against him for failure to state a claim, all of the pending motions under consideration seek dismissal of pendent claims asserted in plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has filed a consolidated response (Doc. 205) to the motions, and various replies have been filed by defendants. The court has carefully reviewed the motions, response, replies, and supporting memoranda, as well as the court file and the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit inTonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, 159 F.3d 504 (10th Cir. 1998), and for the reasons set out in this Memorandum and Order sustains the motions as delineated. 2/16/25, 10:15 Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, Civil Action No. 95-2199 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/9 This is an action brought by plaintiff, Emil Tonkovich, who was a professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, in which he alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 that the University and the named individual defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with his dismissal from the law school faculty. He asserted violation of his First Amendment free speech rights, and his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. Jurisdiction in this court under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4) was based on plaintiff's constitutional claims pursued under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983. In addition to the federal jurisdictional claims, plaintiff asserted pendent state claims for breach of an employment agreement, for breach of an implied duty of good faith dealing, for tortious interference with a business relationship, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff invoked the supplemental jurisdiction of this court over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(a). By its previous Memorandum and Order of November 21, 1996 (Doc. 140), this court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's First Amendment claim. The dismissal was based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal of his First Amendment claim. This court, also in its previous order, dismissed all claims against the University and the Kansas Board of Regents, as well as all claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities, with the exception of defendant Hemenway, on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Some state law claims against individual defendants in their individual capacities were also dismissed. Plaintiff did not appeal any aspect of the court's previous order. This court denied the defendants' motions with respect to plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims against them in their individual capacities. The motions asserted the defense of qualified immunity. The defendants took seven separate appeals to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals were consolidated, and the Court of Appeals reversed this court's denial of the defendants' motions to dismiss. The case was remanded to this court with instructions to dismiss the remaining claims of plaintiff under 18 2/16/25, 10:15 Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, Civil Action No. 95-2199 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/9 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 on qualified immunity grounds, and to conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The \u00a7 1983 claims to be dismissed were noted by the Court of Appeals to be plaintiff's claims of \"violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection rights.\" Id. at 534. Pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals, on April 7, 1999, this court entered its order (Doc. 187) dismissing all \u00a7 1983 claims against the individual defendants, but did not address the \u00a7 1983 claims against defendant Hemenway in his official capacity. The present posture of the case is that all federal jurisdictional claims against every defendant except Chancellor Hemenway in his official capacity have now been dismissed. The remaining federal claims against Chancellor Hemenway in his official capacity seek injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement of plaintiff as a tenured professor of law. The claims are set forth in Counts and of plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Count alleges a claim for violation of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Court of Appeals has found the claim to involve both procedural and substantive due process. Id. Count alleges a claim for violation of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. Before resolving any other of the motions pending as set out above, the court will address that portion of defendant Hemenway's motion (Doc. 201) and supporting memorandum (Doc. 202) in which he asserts that he is entitled to dismissal of plaintiff's \u00a7 1983 claims against him in his official capacity because Counts and of plaintiff's Amended Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The standards for dismissal applicable to motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) are relevant to the determination. The court may not dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the theory of recovery that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). \"All well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, must be taken as true.\"Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 1984). Here, plaintiff has pleaded his evidence in minute detail. He has alleged with microscopic specificity each step and stage of the administrative 2/16/25, 10:15 Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, Civil Action No. 95-2199 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/9 Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 526. proceedings at the University of Kansas which resulted in his dismissal. The Court of Appeals noted this in its opinion. See Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 509, n. 1. In its statement of the case, the Court of Appeals drew its lengthy statement of the facts of the case from plaintiff's 101-page Amended Complaint. Id. at 509-15. This court, on remand, has reviewed once more the detailed facts set out in plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and accepts the allegations of facts as true. Having done so, this court comes to the same conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals: that plaintiff received all of the process, both procedural and substantive, to which he was due, and that the allegations of the Amended Complaint do not sustain a claim for violation of his equal protection rights. 1 1 In determining that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against defendant Hemenway for violation of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, this court finds it difficult to improve upon the following language of the Court of Appeals: \"[B]efore he was terminated, Professor Tonkovich was entitled to notice, an explanation of the charges against him, and an opportunity to respond. Professor Tonkovich's own complaint reflects that, prior to his termination, he received these protections and much more full-blown evidentiary hearing clearly meets the dictates of Loudermill.2 Taking into consideration Professor Tonkovich's pretermination hearing, in combination with the various post-termination proceedings afforded by the state, we conclude that Professor Tonkovich was afforded all of the process that he was due, and perhaps more than what Loudermill requires.\" 2 Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). This court also concludes that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for violation of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights against defendant Hemenway. Once again, the language of the Court of Appeals in its opinion is appropriate for adoption by this court as follows: 2/16/25, 10:15 Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, Civil Action No. 95-2199 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/9 Id. at 532. Such allegations are not contained in plaintiff's Amended Complaint. [At] the heart of any equal protection claim must be an allegation of being treated differently than those similarly situated. Professor Tonkovich would have had to allege that other professors who had sex with a student, in a manner that exploited the student, were not treated the way he was treated by University officials. Having concluded that all of plaintiff's remaining \u00a7 1983 claims against the defendant Hemenway are to be dismissed, the court turns to the various motions to dismiss filed on behalf of each of the defendants. Each of the motions asserts that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The motions are made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Because the court has now determined that all federal or constitutional claims have been and are to be dismissed in this case, the court agrees with defendants. Original subject matter jurisdiction no longer exists under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331 or 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1343. The only remaining claims are plaintiff's pendent state claims set out in Counts IV, V, VI, and of the Amended Complaint. Count contains a state claim for breach of an employment contract; Count is a state claim for breach of an implied duty of good faith dealing; Count is for tortious interference with a business relationship; and Count is a state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The only basis for the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state claims is the supplemental jurisdiction provided for in 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(a). The statute provides that in civil actions where district courts have original jurisdiction, they shall have supplemental jurisdiction over related pendent claims. However, subsection (c)(3) of \u00a7 1367 provides that the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Inasmuch as this court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The exercise of pendent jurisdiction is a matter of discretion. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). No discovery has been undertaken in this case. There is no reason that the state claims cannot be properly conducted in state court. In the exercise of its discretion, the 2/16/25, 10:15 Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, Civil Action No. 95-2199 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/9 proper course is for this court to dismiss Counts IV, V, VI, and without prejudice. Gold v. Local 7 United Food Commercial Workers Union, 159 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir. 1998). Insofar as any of the pending motions seek a determination of the merits of the claims in the pendent state claim counts, they are denied. The court is dismissing those claims without prejudice that Defendant Professor Sandra McKenzie's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 191) is granted on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and is denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal of pendent state claims other than without prejudice that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 192) filed on behalf of the defendants Caldwell, Hammond, Hiebert, Krepps, Montgomery, Nolan, Sabatini, and Warner is granted on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and is denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal of pendent state claims other than without prejudice that the Hearing Committee's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 194) filed on behalf of the defendants Turnbull, Dahl, Johnsen, Michel, and Ringer is granted on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and is denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal of pendent state claims other than without prejudice that the Motion to Dismiss All Claims Against Defendants Kimberly Dayton, Reginald Robinson, Elinor Schroeder, Sidney Shapiro and Ellen Sward for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 196) is granted on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and is denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal of pendent state claims other than without prejudice that Defendants Thomas and Marino's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 199) is granted on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and is denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal of pendent state claims other than without prejudice that the Motion to Dismiss All Claims of Plaintiff Against Defendant Robert E. Hemenway and Motion to 2/16/25, 10:15 Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, Civil Action No. 95-2199 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/9 Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction as to Defendants Robert E. Hemenway, Gene A. Budig, Delbert M. Shankel, P. Delbert Brinkman and David E. Shulenburger (Doc. 201) is granted as to all \u00a7 1983 claims against defendant Hemenway; is granted on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and is denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal of pendent state claims other than without prejudice that Defendant Robert Jerry's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 203) is granted on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and is denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal of pendent state claims other than without prejudice that the claims alleged in Counts IV, V, VI, and of plaintiff's Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice that all claims in this action having been dismissed by the court, this case is closed. Defendants shall recover their costs. The clerk is directed to mail copies of this order to counsel of record ORDERED. About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram 2/16/25, 10:15 Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, Civil Action No. 95-2199 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/9 Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:15 Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, Civil Action No. 95-2199 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/9", "7401_103.pdf": "10TH v (2001) United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Emil A. TONKOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v REGENTS; University of Kansas; James Turner; William R. Docking; Kenneth C. Havner; and Robert V. Talkington, Defendants, Robert C. Caldwell; Tom E. Hammond; John B. Hiebert; Karen Krepps; John G. Montgomery; Phyllis Nolan; Frank C. Sabatini; Sidney Warner; Gene A. Budig; Delbert M. Shankel; P. Delbert Brinkman; David E. Shulenburger; Robert H. Jerry, II; Sidney A. Shapiro; Reginald L. Robinson; A. Kimberly Dayton; Elinor P. Schroeder; Ellen E. Sward; Sandra C. Mckenzie; Ann Victoria Thomas; Rose A. Marino; H. Rutherford Turnbull, III; Nancy Ann Dahl; E.P. Johnsen; John Michel; and Delores Ringer, Individually and in Their Individual Capacity; and Robert Hemenway, Chancellor, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-3136. Decided: June 20, 2001 Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. Emil A. Tonkovich, pro se (Richard P. Hutchison of Landmark Legal Foundation, Kansas City, Missouri, on the briefs). William Scott Hesse, Assistant Attorney General, State of Kansas, Topeka, KS, (Timothy B. Mustaine of Foulston & Siefkin L.L.P., Wichita, KS, for Appellee Jerry; Bruce D. Mayfield, Overland Park, KS, and Michael Evan Jaffe of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, for Appellees Dayton, Robinson, Schroeder, Shapiro, and Sward; Tammy M. Samogye of Lathrop & Gage L.C., Overland Park, KS, for Appellees Turnbull, Dahl, Johnsen, Michel, and Ringer; Thomas A. Hamill of Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Swartz, L.L.P., Overland Park, KS, for Appellees Marino and Thomas; Jeffrey A. \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/16/25, 10:15 v (2001) | FindLaw 1/10 Chanay of Entz & Chanay, Topeka, Kansas, for Appellees Brinkman, Budig, Hemenway, Shankel, and Shulenberger; John I. O'Connor of The Advocates Group, Pittsburg, KS, for Appellee MacKenzie; Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General for the State of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Appellees Caldwell, Hammond, Hiebert, Krepps, Montgomery, Nolan, Sabatini, and Warner, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees. Following a lengthy administrative hearing process, Plaintiff was fired from his tenured teaching position at the University of Kansas School of Law for allegedly engaging in a sex act with one of his students after discussing grades. He subsequently sued the University, the Board of Regents, and numerous University administrators and professors in their official and individual capacities, asserting violations of state law and 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983. His \u00a7 1983 claim specifically alleged, in relevant part, that Defendants, individually and collectively, had violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive and procedural due process and equal protection. Plaintiff sought both monetary and equitable relief. In 1996, the district court dismissed the \u00a7 1983 claims against the University, the Board of Regents, and the administrators and professors in their official capacities, except the University Chancellor, on Eleventh Amendment grounds. The individual Defendants then sought qualified immunity from the federal claims, which this court eventually granted in Tonkovich v. Kansas Board of Regents, 159 F.3d 504 (10th Cir.1998) [hereinafter Tonkovich ], based on the fact that Plaintiff had not alleged any conduct that constituted due process or equal protection violations. This court remanded the case to the district court for dismissal of the individual Defendants and for additional proceedings consistent with the opinion. See id. at 534. The district court accordingly dismissed the individual Defendants. This left Plaintiff with only one remaining federal cause of action: his \u00a7 1983 claim for reinstatement against the University Chancellor in his official capacity. The Chancellor moved to dismiss the equity claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and all the individual Defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims for lack of federal jurisdiction. Based on the Tonkovich holdings, the district court ruled that Plaintiff had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted against the Chancellor and dismissed the \u00a7 1983 reinstatement claim. Lacking a cognizable federal claim, the court also dismissed the pendent state law claims. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing the reinstatement claim against the Chancellor, in dismissing the state law claims, and in declining to recuse himself as requested by Plaintiff in 1995. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1291. We first address the district court's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's \u00a7 1983 due process- and equal protection-based reinstatement claim against the University Chancellor. We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir.1999). In assessing whether the complaint sufficiently articulates a claim for 2/16/25, 10:15 v (2001) | FindLaw 2/10 which relief may be granted, we must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and view them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See id. If, after doing so, \u201cit appears beyond doubt that\u201d Plaintiff \u201ccan prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief,\u201d then dismissal is required. Id. (quotation and citation omitted). In Tonkovich I, this court discussed Plaintiff's copious complaint in minute detail. See Tonkovich I, 159 F.3d at 510-15. We do not think it necessary to do so again. Although Tonkovich dealt with qualified immunity, its analysis and, more importantly, its holding are germane to our Rule 12(b)(6) inquiry. The relevance becomes apparent upon comparing the two analyses. First, both analytical frameworks employ the same factual lens: \u201c[A]ll of the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint [are accepted] as true.\u201d Id. at 510 (quotations and citation omitted). Second, the qualified immunity inquiry itself- whether Defendants (1) violated (2) clearly established law-requires a court to confront an obvious Rule 12(b)(6) issue: whether Plaintiff has alleged a legal violation at all. Put more specifically, both analyses require the court to determine whether Plaintiff has argued facts that, if proven, would demonstrate illegal conduct by Defendants for which relief may be granted. Significantly, the Tonkovich court granted the individual Defendants qualified immunity because it concluded that Plaintiff's complaint did not indicate that any of the Defendants even violated his procedural or substantive due process or equal protection rights. See id. at 526 (discussing lack of procedural due process violations); id. at 529-32 (discussing lack of substantive due process violations); id. at 532-33 (discussing Plaintiff's failure to even allege a proper equal protection claim). In short, the court took Plaintiff's factual allegations as true and still determined that none of his asserted rights had been violated. Stare decisis, see United States v. Meyers, 200 F.3d 715, 720 (10th Cir.2000), and the law of the case doctrine, see McIlravy v. Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., 204 F.3d 1031, 1034 (10th Cir.2000), compel us to follow Tonkovich I. That panel's holding plainly dictates the conclusion that Plaintiff \u201ccan prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief\u201d and that the complaint must therefore be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).1 Sutton, 173 F.3d at 1236. Nonetheless, Plaintiff maintains that the district court erred in dismissing his reinstatement claim against the University Chancellor. He argues that Tonkovich does not control his appeal for two reasons. First, Plaintiff contends that Tonkovich did not address important aspects of his substantive and procedural due process claims or his equal protection claim and thus cannot provide the basis for dismissing those claims. We disagree. Based on our review of Plaintiff's briefs, the complaint, and Tonkovich I, we conclude that Tonkovich adequately addressed all of Plaintiff's federal claims with possibly one minor exception. Tonkovich mentioned the underlying facts, see Tonkovich I, 159 F.3d at 514, but arguably never analyzed Plaintiff's substantive due process claim that he was accused of and fired for conduct (besides the sexual encounter) that had not theretofore been prohibited. See Aplt. Br., at 33-36. This conduct included holding a student's hand while asking her who her favorite teacher was and \u201cnegligent\u201d social interaction with students. See id.; see also Tonkovich I, 159 F.3d at 514. 2/16/25, 10:15 v (2001) | FindLaw 3/10 Even if this conduct was not prohibited, Plaintiff's claim does not warrant reinstatement because the record plainly shows that Plaintiff would have been fired solely for his student sexual encounter. Any additional findings of misbehavior were simply meant to further justify the University's decision. Indeed, the faculty hearing committee, which conducted the administrative proceedings and possessed independent authority to recommend whatever sanction it thought appropriate, expressly stated that a majority of the committee was \u201cespecially persuaded to reach the dismissal recommendation because of the gravity of the [sex] act that Professor Tonkovich committed in dealing with [the student] and because [the majority of the committee] believe [s] that the [sex] act and grades discussions accompanied each other.\u201d Appellee's App. at 190-91. In sum, Plaintiff's allegation that he was fired for holding another student's hand or for \u201cnegligent\u201d social behavior with students completely lacks record support and therefore cannot sustain his claim for reinstatement. Second, Plaintiff asserts that Tonkovich does not mandate dismissal because it dealt solely with the conduct of each individual Defendant whereas his remaining equitable reinstatement claim hinges on Defendants' collective misfeasance. However, this argument ignores the scope of Tonkovich \u2018s holding. The panel held that not one Defendant violated any of Plaintiff's asserted federal rights. Short of reconsidering and rejecting Tonkovich I, we fail to see how we could nevertheless find collective wrongdoing warranting the extraordinary remedy of reinstatement. In summary, we agree with the district court that the thorough holdings of Tonkovich require dismissal of Plaintiff's reinstatement claim against the University Chancellor. Plaintiff next argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing without prejudice the state law claims against the individual Defendants. Title 28, section 1367 of the United States Code states that \u201cdistrict courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim \u2024 [if] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.\u201d 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c). In the instant case, the district court dismissed all of the \u00a7 1983 claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Section 1367 thus expressly grants the court discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims as well. Plaintiff has provided no authority, and next to no argument, suggesting how the district court abused its discretion. In fairness, such an argument would be exceedingly difficult to make in the case at hand, where, given the relative lack of pretrial proceedings-including a total absence of discovery- considerations of \u201c \u2018judicial economy, convenience, and fairness' \u201d do not favor \u201c \u2018retaining jurisdiction.\u2019 \u201d Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hosp. ., 58 F.3d 533, 541 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting Thatcher Enter. v. Cache County Corp., 902 F.2d 1472, 1478 (10th Cir.1990)). Instead, it appears that Plaintiff primarily relies on the position that the \u00a7 1983 reinstatement claim should never have been dismissed in the first place, thus negating the need to dismiss the state law claims. However, we have already affirmed the dismissal of the reinstatement claim and can see no reason in the record why the state law claims were not properly dismissed too. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (\u201cCertainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.\u201d); see also 2/16/25, 10:15 v (2001) | FindLaw 4/10 Bateman v. City of West Bountiful, 89 F.3d 704, 709 n. 5 (10th Cir.1996); Doe v. Bagan, 41 F.3d 571, 577 (10th Cir.1994). Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the district judge abused his discretion by refusing to recuse himself, and Plaintiff asks this court to reassign the case on remand to a district court judge outside the District of Kansas. However, our conclusion that Plaintiff's federal and state claims no longer belong in federal court renders the recusal issue, with its request for prospective relief, moot 1. The fact that Tonkovich disavowed any intent to review the merits of the case, 159 F.3d at 515-16, does not alter our conclusion. The panel did not do a Rule 12(b)(6) review of the merits, despite acknowledging its relation to a qualified immunity analysis, because the court lacked jurisdiction to do so. Id. However, that does not devalue Tonkovich I's relevance to a subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) analysis such as this. Indeed, in light of the law of the case doctrine, it would be ludicrous to argue that we are free to construe the same aspects of Plaintiff's complaint differently than did Tonkovich I, although we address essentially the same issue. McKAY, Circuit Judge. Was this helpful? Yes No 2/16/25, 10:15 v (2001) | FindLaw 5/10 Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law v (2001) Docket No: No. 00-3136. Decided: June 20, 2001 Court: United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/16/25, 10:15 v (2001) | FindLaw 6/10 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 For Legal Professionals 2/16/25, 10:15 v (2001) | FindLaw 7/10 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * \uf105 2/16/25, 10:15 v (2001) | FindLaw 8/10 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/16/25, 10:15 v (2001) | FindLaw 9/10 Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles By Name Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/16/25, 10:15 v (2001) | FindLaw 10/10", "7401_104.pdf": "10TH v (1998) United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Emil A. TONKOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v REGENTS, Robert C. Caldwell, Tom E. Hammond, John B. Hiebert, Karen Krepps, John G. Montgomery, Phyllis Nolan, Frank C. Sabatini, Sidney Warner, Gene A. Budig, Delbert M. Shankel, P. Delbert Brinkman, David E. Shulenburger, Robert H. Jerry, Ii, Sidney A. Shapiro, Reginald L. Robinson, A. Kimberly Dayton, Elinor P. Schroeder, Ellen E. Sward, Sandra C. McKenzie, Ann Victoria Thomas, Rose A. Marino, H. Rutherford Turnbull, III, Nancy Ann Dahl, E.P. Johnsen, John Michel, Delores Ringer, and Robert Hemenway, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants- Appellants. Nos. 96-3402, 96-3403, 96-3404, 96-3405, 96-3406, 96-3407, 96-3408. Decided: October 26, 1998 Before HENRY, McWILLIAMS, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. Timothy Mustaine (James M. Armstrong and Mary Kathleen Babcock with him on brief), Foulston & Siefkin, L.L.P., Wichita, KS, for Defendant-Appellant in Case No. 96-3402. William Scott Hesse, Assistant Attorney General (Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General, Kevin D. Case, Assistant Attorney General on brief), Topeka, KS, for Defendants-Appellants in Case No. 96- 3403. Andrew F. Sears (Robert F. Bennett and David C. Wetzler with him on brief), Bennett Lytle Wetzler Martin & Pishny, L.C., Prairie Village, KS, for Defendants-Appellants in Case No. 96-3404. John I. O'Connor, Advocates Group, Pittsburg, KS, for Defendant-Appellant in Case No. 96-3405. Thomas A. Hamill (Kathryn Gardner with him on brief), Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Swartz, Overland Park, KS, for Defendants-Appellants in Case No. 96- \uf002 / / / / Find a Lawyer Legal Forms & Services \uf107 Learn About the Law \uf107 Legal Professionals \uf107 Blogs 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 1/39 3406. Michael Evan Jaffe (James H. Hulme, Eric B. Bruce, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Washington DC, and Bruce D. Mayfield, Overland Park, KS, with him on brief), Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellants in Case No. 96-3407. Jeffrey A. Chanay (J. Phillip Gragson and Gail D. Edson with him on brief), Entz & Chanay, P.A., Topeka, KS, for Defendants-Appellants in Case No. 96-3408. Richard P. Hutchison, Landmark Legal Foundation, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee. This is a consolidation of seven separate appeals spawned by one district court case. Professor Emil Tonkovich, a law professor at the University of Kansas School of Law (\u201cthe Law School\u201d), filed a complaint challenging his dismissal, alleging under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 that the University violated his First Amendment speech rights, and his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. He also alleged several state claims, which are not before us. Although the district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity with respect to the First Amendment claim, it denied the motions to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claims. The defendants appeal this partial denial of their motions to dismiss, asserting their entitlement to qualified and absolute immunity. Because we resolve these appeals on qualified immunity grounds, we need not reach the issue of absolute immunity. Even taking Professor Tonkovich's allegations as true, they are insufficient to show that the defendants subjected him, or caused him to be subjected, to the violation of a clearly established right of constitutional dimension. Thus, we reverse the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection claims A. Legal Standard On appeal from a motion to dismiss, we must accept all of the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994). However, we need not accept conclusory allegations. Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir.1984). We must liberally construe the pleadings and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Id. Accordingly, the facts recited herein are gleaned from Professor Tonkovich's first amended complaint.1 As we analyze the issues presented by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which we shall discuss below in greater detail, we are guided by the Supreme Court's statement of our task: An appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant's claim of immunity need not consider the correctness of the plaintiff's version of the facts, nor even determine whether the plaintiff's allegations actually state a claim. All it need determine is a question of law: whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions\u2024 Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 527-28, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 2/39 B. Overview Professor Tonkovich was employed as a faculty member at the Law School beginning in August 1981. In 1986, he became a tenured faculty member. In 1991, a graduating law student (\u201cthe Law Student\u201d) complained that, during her first year of law school, Professor Tonkovich had engaged in a sexual act with her after discussing her grades. Officials in the Chancellor's office conducted an investigation, enlisting the assistance of various Law School faculty members and the Dean of the Law School. During the investigation, the Chancellor's office issued written findings and recommendations regarding the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken in Professor Tonkovich's case period of settlement negotiations ensued. Eventually, the Chancellor filed official written charges against Professor Tonkovich. An evidentiary hearing was conducted before a standing University Hearing Committee, which issued its decision and recommendation to the Chancellor, who dismissed Professor Tonkovich from the faculty in 1993. Professor Tonkovich then took an appeal to the Board of Regents. What follows are the details of the events surrounding Professor Tonkovich's dismissal, which form the basis of his claims. C. Facts In May 1991, just after her graduation from the Law School, the Law Student went to Robert Jerry, Dean of the Law School, and complained that Professor Tonkovich had made a pass at her in the fall of 1988. Dean Jerry informed Professor Tonkovich that a female student had complained about his conduct. However, he did not name the student, nor did he provide any details about the nature of the allegation. Professor Tonkovich denied misconduct and asked to confront his accuser. During July and August 1991, Professor Tonkovich repeatedly requested that Dean Jerry disclose the name of his accuser and the nature of the allegation, but the Dean refused to do so. In August 1991, the Law Student filed a formal written statement with Vice Chancellor P. Delbert Brinkman, alleging that in July 1988, when she was a first-year law student, she had engaged in a sexual act with Professor Tonkovich, who was her professor at the time, and that the act was preceded by a discussion of law school grades. That same day, a local television news crew came to the Law School. The station later aired a segment about allegations of sexual misconduct against various law professors, who were not named. Later that day, Professor Tonkovich learned the name of his accuser. Shortly after the Law Student filed her written statement, Law Professor Elinor Schroeder told Vice Chancellor Brinkman that some faculty members thought the Law Student was unstable and that the accusations were part of a conspiracy against Professor Tonkovich. The University established September 6, 1991 as the deadline for submitting complaints against Professor Tonkovich. Professor Tonkovich's response, filed on September 9th, denied the Law Student's allegation and denied sexually harassing any student. Two days later, he submitted an 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 3/39 affidavit of Jean Younger, one of the Law Student's classmates. Ms. Younger had hosted the party that preceded the alleged sexual activity. Ms. Younger stated (and later testified at the hearing) that at the party, the Law Student was flirting with Professor Tonkovich. The following is Professor Tonkovich's version of the events that took place on the evening of the party. The Law Student followed him around the party for approximately five hours. She flirted with him, but he did not return her flirtations. When Professor Tonkovich left the party, she followed him out. She asked him for a ride home, claiming she was too drunk to drive. However, she did not appear too drunk to drive. He agreed to drive her home, but he was concerned that she had romantic intentions. He suggested that they go for a drive. He drove her to the campus police department parking lot where they got out and took a walk. During their walk, she attempted to kiss him. When they returned to the car, she attempted to sit in the driver's seat with him. When Professor Tonkovich said they should go, she became upset. He then drove her back to her car, dropped her off, and left. He did not have sex with her, nor did he discuss grades with her.2 During the course of the investigation, in September 1991, Dean Jerry issued a memorandum to the Law School faculty, stating that the guidelines of the Association of American Law Schools apply to the faculty. In particular, Dean Jerry pointed out the guideline concerning the inappropriateness of a professor engaging in sexual conduct with a student enrolled in his or her class. Dean Jerry's memo stated that the guidelines were relevant to the ethics provision of the University's Faculty Code of Conduct (\u201cFaculty Code\u201d). The Faculty Code in effect at the time the Law Student filed her statement, and at the time of the alleged incident, did not expressly prohibit sexual relations between a professor and a student enrolled in his or her class. The Faculty Code did, however, prohibit a professor from exploiting a student for the professor's private advantage. During Professor Tonkovich's tenure, six members of the Law School faculty had dated students. Several days after Dean Jerry issued this memo, Professor Tonkovich received Vice Chancellor Brinkman's written findings. Based on the Law Student's allegation, Vice Chancellor Brinkman found that Professor Tonkovich had violated the Faculty Code's ethics provision. Vice Chancellor Brinkman recommended a one-year paid teaching suspension for this violation. When Professor Tonkovich received the written findings, he was warned that repeating such behavior in the future would be cause for his dismissal from the University. Several days later, Executive Vice Chancellor Delbert Shankel formally adopted Vice Chancellor Brinkman's written findings. Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel informed Professor Tonkovich that if past misconduct were brought to the University's attention, it might be cause for further disciplinary action. The next day, Chancellor Gene Budig adopted Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel's decision. On October 4th, Professor Tonkovich formally requested a hearing before the Committee on Tenure and Related Problems (\u201cthe Hearing Committee\u201d). 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 4/39 Shortly after Professor Tonkovich requested a hearing, General Counsel to the Board of Regents called the Hearing Committee's chairman, Professor William Lawrence. During their conversation, they discussed recusals from the committee. After this conversation, Professor Lawrence and two other members of the standing committee recused themselves. Three other professors were substituted. The conversation, the recusals, and the substitutions occurred without Professor Tonkovich's knowledge. Professor H. Rutherford Turnbull, III, a substituted member, became the new chairman. Other members of the Hearing Committee were Professors Nancy Ann Dahl, E.P. Johnsen, John Michel, and Delores Ringer. None of the Hearing Committee members were members of the Law School faculty. Mr. Turnbull and one of the other substituted members of the Hearing Committee, Professor Dahl, eventually voted with the 3-2 majority in favor of Professor Tonkovich's dismissal. In October 1991, a few weeks after Professor Tonkovich requested a hearing, the University's newspaper, the University Daily Kansan, reported that a University employee (not a party to this appeal) had referred to Professor Tonkovich as a \u201cfaggot\u201d in his conversations with reporters. As a result of this and the publicity generated when the local television station had aired its news segment, Professor Tonkovich requested an investigation into how the information was leaked to the press. The University denied his request. On October 31, 1991, Law School faculty members Sidney Shapiro, A. Kimberly Dayton, Reginald Robinson, Ellen Sward, Elinor Schroeder, and Sandra McKenzie signed a letter (\u201cthe Letter\u201d) asking that students report any misconduct or sexual harassment by faculty members. Professor Shapiro drafted the Letter at the request of a University administrator. The Letter did not mention Professor Tonkovich by name. After Dean Jerry approved the Letter, it was distributed to students. Professor Tonkovich did not know of the Letter or that the University was soliciting additional complaints against him. Throughout the solicitation process, various people, including Professors Shapiro and Schroeder, told others that the Law Student's allegations against Professor Tonkovich included an allegation of rape.3 In December 1991, Professors Shapiro, Robinson, Dayton, and Sward met with Chancellor Budig, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel, and Ann Victoria Thomas, University General Counsel, to discuss the case against Professor Tonkovich. During December 1991 and January 1992, some of these law professors accompanied students (\u201cthe complainants\u201d) to the University's Office of Academic Affairs, where the complainants presented allegations regarding Professor Tonkovich to University officials. Associate Vice Chancellor David Shulenburger interviewed these complainants, and, after completing the interviews, he recommended Professor Tonkovich's dismissal, which is the sanction Professor Tonkovich ultimately faced when the charging documents were filed. Professor Tonkovich requested copies of the complainants' written statements. Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel told Professor Tonkovich that the complainants had not provided written statements. 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 5/39 University Associate General Counsel Rose A. Marino denied having any knowledge of written statements submitted by complainants. As the investigation progressed, in December 1991, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel and Vice Chancellor Brinkman told Professor Tonkovich that if he did not \u201cresign quietly,\u201d he would be suspended from teaching, and a letter would be placed in his file to the effect that he posed a risk of substantial harm to students. Professor Tonkovich, who had continued teaching pending his administrative hearing, refused to resign. The University placed him on teaching leave. Shortly thereafter, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel and Vice Chancellor Brinkman communicated with Professor Tonkovich's attorney, stating that there were no terms acceptable to the University that would allow Professor Tonkovich to continue as a faculty member. Several weeks later, in March 1992, Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Dean Jerry sent Professor Tonkovich a letter, reminding him that Board of Regents regulations did not allow payment of salary when a faculty member was dismissed for moral turpitude. This letter also informed Professor Tonkovich that Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Dean Jerry were recommending that he be charged with moral turpitude, which carried a sanction of dismissal. The following day, Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel concurred in Vice Chancellor Brinkman's and Dean Jerry's recommendation. In March 1992, Professor Tonkovich filed a complaint against various University administrators. He requested a stay in the investigation, recusal of the administrators, and appointment of independent investigators. The University denied his requests. On April 17, 1992, Chancellor Budig filed the University's formal written complaint against Professor Tonkovich. The complaint set forth charges of ethics violations, sexual harassment, and moral turpitude. The complaint contained a proposed sanction of dismissal. One week after the University filed the complaint, the University newspaper ran an article about the Law Student's allegation against Professor Tonkovich. The article named Professor Tonkovich but did not name the Law Student. Certain charges in the complaint were based upon allegations made by the additional student complainants. Several of the female students who were named in the allegations submitted affidavits that the allegations were false and that Professor Tonkovich had done nothing improper. These same students also submitted a letter requesting that the allegations involving them be dismissed. Nevertheless, the University prosecuted these charges. After receiving the formal complaint, Professor Tonkovich made repeated discovery requests, including requests for written statements from the complainants, which the University initially denied. However, on July 24, 1992, the Hearing Committee ordered discovery. Although the written complainants' statements that Professor Tonkovich had requested were not disclosed at this time, Professor Tonkovich was given summaries of them. The University did not produce an alleged tape-recorded interview between University officials and the Law Student that served as the basis of the article printed 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 6/39 by the University newspaper shortly after the University filed its complaint against Professor Tonkovich. In addition, many of the University's witnesses, including the Law Student, declined to be interviewed by Professor Tonkovich's attorney prior to testifying. On August 27, 1992, the administrative hearing concerning the University's complaint against Professor Tonkovich began. Ms. Marino prosecuted the case on behalf of the University, presenting witnesses in support of the allegations in the complaint. Professor Tonkovich was present and represented by an attorney, who cross-examined the University's witnesses and presented witnesses on Professor Tonkovich's behalf. The Hearing Committee presided. The hearing was conducted in public at Professor Tonkovich's request. The hearing lasted until May 12, 1993, with sessions held once a week during the school year. At the hearing, during his cross-examination of one of the University's witnesses, Professor Tonkovich learned that at least one of the complainants had, indeed, provided a written statement. At Professor Tonkovich's request, the Hearing Committee sent a letter to the Law School faculty seeking any written statements. None were forthcoming. When Professor Tonkovich called Professor Dayton as a witness, she testified that she had received a written statement from a complainant but that she had discarded it. Professor Robinson also testified that he received approximately five written statements from complainants. He further testified that he received the statements in sealed envelopes, that he never opened them, and that he later threw them away week after she testified, Professor Dayton sent a letter to the Hearing Committee stating that she possessed the written statements of four complainants. She proceeded to turn these statements over to the Hearing Committee. Among them was a statement addressed to Professor Robinson. The Hearing Committee denied Professor Tonkovich's request to recall Professor Dayton as a witness. At Professor Tonkovich's request, the Hearing Committee sent certified letters to all of the complainants who had previously testified, asking them to produce their written statements. Two of the complainants, whose allegations the Hearing Committee ultimately found to constitute Faculty Code violations, did not respond to the request, nor did they return to testify. The Hearing Committee did not compel these witnesses to return to testify, nor did it strike the earlier testimony of these complainants. Professor McKenzie, who had openly dated a law student, declined Professor Tonkovich's request to testify at his hearing. The Hearing Committee did not compel her to testify. However, according to Professor Tonkovich, three law professors who had signed the Letter testified as \u201cexpert\u201d witnesses on behalf of the University: Professor Schroeder testified about sexual harassment; Professor Sward testified about faculty ethics; and Professor Shapiro testified about due process. On the day before the Law Student was scheduled to testify, Ms. Marino proposed an evidentiary rule prohibiting counsel from inquiring about witnesses' prior sexual conduct. The Hearing Committee 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 7/39 adopted this rule. It also adopted a sequestration rule to prevent witnesses who were scheduled to testify from hearing other witnesses' testimony. When cross-examining Ms. Younger, Professor Tonkovich's first witness, Ms. Marino asked if she had ever been sexually intimate with a professor. Ms. Marino also read a transcript of the Law Student's testimony to another University witness who was scheduled to testify. During the 1992-93 academic year, the year in which the hearing took place, Dean Jerry gave Professor Tonkovich a negative annual evaluation and the lowest merit salary increase on the entire Law School faculty. According to Professor Tonkovich, in the previous ten years, he had received excellent evaluations and average or above average salary increases. On May 19, 1993, one week after the hearing concluded, Andrew Ramirez, an attorney representing a University witness, sent a letter to the parties. The letter stated that his client had spoken with Mr. Turnbull several weeks after she testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of their conversation, Mr. Turnbull stated to her admire your courage in coming forward.\u201d On July 30, 1993, the Hearing Committee issued its opinion. By a 3-2 vote, the Hearing Committee recommended that Professor Tonkovich be dismissed. As to the Law Student's allegation, the Committee found that she and Professor Tonkovich had engaged in a sexual act that was preceded by a discussion of grades. The Committee further found that Professor Tonkovich did not intend to intimidate the Law Student by discussing grades but that she was, nonetheless, intimidated because of the inherent power differential between a student and a professor. The committee concluded that this constituted unethical conduct in violation of the Faculty Code. The Committee also concluded that Professor Tonkovich's behavior constituted sexual harassment in violation of Title and Title and, as unlawful conduct, constituted moral turpitude under the Faculty Code. The Hearing Committee also found that Professor Tonkovich had violated the ethical provisions of the Faculty Code with another student. This occurred when Professor Tonkovich held a female student's hand while asking her who her favorite professor was. The Committee concluded that although this conduct was unethical, it did not constitute sexual harassment. The Committee further found that Professor Tonkovich's social behavior with respect to various other law students was negligent and constituted unethical conduct under the Faculty Code. On August 3, 1993, Chancellor Budig accepted the Hearing Committee's recommendation and dismissed Professor Tonkovich. The following day, Professor Tonkovich appealed his dismissal to the Kansas Board of Regents (\u201cthe Regents\u201d). At this time, the Regents consisted of Robert Caldwell, Tom Hammond, John Hiebert, Karen Krepps, John Montgomery, Phyllis Nolan, Frank Sabatini, and Sidney Warner. On September 15, 1994, the Regents upheld Professor Tonkovich's dismissal. D. Procedural History 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 8/39 Pursuant to the Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions, Kan. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 77- 601 et seq., Professor Tonkovich had the opportunity to file an action in Kansas state district court for judicial review of the University's decision. See id. at \u00a7 77-609. However, he decided to forego this route, and on April 27, 1995, he filed suit in federal court against the University of Kansas, the University Board of Regents, and approximately thirty-four other defendants in their individual and official capacities, alleging violations of \u00a7 1983 and various state laws. In his first amended complaint, Professor Tonkovich averred three \u00a7 1983 counts (for violations of his due process, free speech, and equal protection rights), and four state law counts (for breach of employment contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with business relationship, and intentional infliction of emotional distress). All defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (1) and 12(b)(6), asserting various defenses such as Eleventh Amendment immunity, absolute immunity, and qualified immunity. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. We shall relate only the district court's rulings with respect to qualified immunity. On the issue of qualified immunity, the district court treated the issues of procedural due process, free speech, and equal protection.4 The court found that all of the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's First Amendment free speech claim. However, the court ruled that the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process and equal protection claims. E. Jurisdiction Many of the defendants have attempted to appeal not only the district court's denial of their qualified immunity motions but also the district court's denial of their motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We believe that these defendants have misunderstood this court's limited jurisdiction at this stage of the litigation. Thus, at this juncture, we embark on a brief discussion of our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. \u201cThe courts of appeals \u2024 shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States\u2024\u201d 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1291 denial of a motion to dismiss ordinarily may not be appealed because it is not a final decision.\u201d Eastwood v. Department of Corrections, 846 F.2d 627, 629 (10th Cir.1988). However, the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified or absolute immunity is immediately appealable under the Cohen 5 collateral order doctrine. See Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806 (qualified immunity); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 742, 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (absolute immunity). In holding the issue of immunity to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine, \u201cthe Court has recognized that a question of immunity is separate from the merits of the underlying action for purposes of the Cohen test even though a reviewing court must consider the plaintiff's factual allegations in resolving the immunity issue.\u201d Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, ---- n. 5, 117 S.Ct. 1800, 1804 n. 5, 138 L.Ed.2d 108 (1997). Although to a certain extent a qualified immunity 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 9/39 analysis overlaps with a 12(b)(6) analysis, we do not have jurisdiction to review the merits of Professor Tonkovich's lawsuit at this time. We turn, then, to a review of the district court's rulings with respect to qualified immunity We review de novo the denial of a motion based on qualified immunity. Walter v. Morton, 33 F.3d 1240, 1242 (10th Cir.1994); Eastwood, 846 F.2d at 629. \u201cUnder the doctrine of qualified immunity, \u2018government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.\u2019 \u201d Ramirez v. Oklahoma Dep't of Mental Health, 41 F.3d 584, 592 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)); cf. Harris v. Board of Educ. of the City of Atlanta, 105 F.3d 591, 595 (11th Cir.1997) (\u201cIn all but the most exceptional cases, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from the burdens of civil trials and from liability for damages.\u201d). The key to the qualified immunity inquiry is the \u201cobjective reasonableness of the official's conduct in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.\u201d Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706, 727 (10th Cir.1989) (quotations omitted), modified on other grounds, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir.1991). Hearkening back to its pronouncement in Siegert v. Gilley, the Supreme Court has recently stated that the better approach to resolving cases in which the defense of qualified immunity is raised is to determine first whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all. Normally, it is only then that a court should ask whether the right allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time of the events in question. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, ---- n. 5, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 1714 n. 5, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (citing Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991 necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is \u2018clearly established\u2019 at the time the defendant acted is the determination of whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all.\u201d)). Thus, we use a two-part framework to analyze the issue of qualified immunity. Latta v. Keryte, 118 F.3d 693, 697-98 (10th Cir.1997). First, we determine whether the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right. Id. at 698. If the answer is yes, then we determine whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his or her conduct violated that right. Id.6 Ordinarily, in order for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a law is clearly established, \u201cthere must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.\u201d Medina v. City and County of 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 10/39 Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir.1992); see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (a right is clearly established if the contours of the right are \u201csufficiently clear [so] that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right plaintiff \u201cmust do more than identify in the abstract a clearly established right and allege that the defendant has violated it.\u201d Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 645 (10th Cir.1988 plaintiff \u201cmust articulate the clearly established constitutional right and the defendant's conduct which violated the right with specificity.\u201d Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1535 (10th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted); see also Walter, 33 F.3d at 1242 (\u201cthe plaintiff \u2024 has the burden to show with particularity facts and law establishing the inference that the defendants violated a constitutional right.\u201d). \u201cIf the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant's conduct that violated clearly established law.\u201d Mick v. Brewer, 76 F.3d 1127, 1134 (10th Cir.1996) (citing Albright, 51 F.3d at 1535). Although of necessity we must consider Professor Tonkovich's factual allegations in resolving the immunity issues, we reiterate that this appeal comes to us on a partial denial of the defendants' motions to dismiss, as opposed to motions for summary judgment. The district court did not, nor shall we, consider whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Thus, we do not face the appellate jurisdictional problem that may be entangled with a qualified immunity analysis on summary judgment. Cf. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (holding that \u201ca defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a \u2018genuine\u2019 issue of fact for trial\u201d) (emphasis added). Instead, as stated above, we must accept the plaintiff's version of the facts as true. With this in mind, we proceed to analyze the issue of qualified immunity with respect to each separate cause of action under \u00a7 1983, i.e., alleged violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection rights. A. Are the Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Professor Tonkovich's Procedural Due Process Claim? Because Professor Tonkovich was a tenured professor, he possessed a property interest deserving of procedural due process protections. Brenna v. Southern Colo. State College, 589 F.2d 475, 476 (10th Cir.1978); see also Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 576-77, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). In Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 535, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985), the Supreme Court examined the issue of \u201cwhat pretermination process must be accorded a public employee who can be discharged only for cause.\u201d In deciding this issue, the Court balanced the competing interests at stake: \u201cthe private interest in retaining employment, the governmental interest in the expeditious removal of unsatisfactory employees and the avoidance of administrative burdens, and 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 11/39 the risk of an erroneous termination.\u201d Id. at 542-43, 105 S.Ct. 1487 (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). The Court concluded that prior to termination, something less than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient. Id. at 545, 105 S.Ct. 1487. Thus, the Court held that a \u201ctenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story.\u201d Id. at 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487. The holding in Loudermill rested partially on the availability of a full post-termination hearing under applicable state law. Id.; see also Langley v. Adams County, Colo., 987 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir.1993) (\u201cUnder Loudermill, the adequacy of pre-termination procedures must be examined in light of available post-termination procedures.\u201d); Calhoun v. Gaines, 982 F.2d 1470, 1476 (10th Cir.1992) (holding that \u201cLoudermill established that some form of pretermination hearing, plus a full-blown adversarial post- termination hearing\u201d are required when a property interest in continued employment is at stake \u2018full post-termination hearing\u2019 is understood to include the right to representation by an attorney and the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.\u201d Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475, 480 (10th Cir.1994 fundamental principle of procedural due process is a hearing before an impartial tribunal. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46-47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975 tribunal is not impartial if it is biased with respect to the factual issues to be decided at the hearing.\u201d Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240, 1245 (10th Cir.1992) (quotation omitted). However, \u201ca substantial showing of personal bias is required to disqualify a hearing officer or tribunal in order to obtain a ruling that a hearing is unfair.\u201d Corstvet v. Boger, 757 F.2d 223, 229 (10th Cir.1985). Moreover, \u201c[b]ecause honesty and integrity are presumed on the part of a tribunal, there must be some substantial countervailing reason to conclude that a decisionmaker is actually biased with respect to factual issues being adjudicated.\u201d Mangels v. Pena, 789 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir.1986) (citation omitted). It is worth noting briefly that, in addition to being governed by constitutional law, Professor Tonkovich's claims are also governed by 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 itself. Thus, Professor Tonkovich must satisfy the elements of that statute, which states, in part, Every person who \u2024 subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen \u2024 to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws \u2024 shall be liable to the party injured\u2024 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 (emphasis added). The plain wording of the statute contains an element of causation. In other words, a defendant may not be held liable under \u00a7 1983 unless he or she subjected a citizen to the deprivation, or caused a citizen to be subjected to the deprivation. See 1A Martin A. Schwartz & John E. Kirklin, Section 1983 Litigation: Claims and Defenses \u00a7 6.3 (3d ed.1997). Professor Tonkovich argues that the University's policies require the following procedural safeguards: (1) notice; (2) discovery; (3) presentation of evidence; (4) confrontation and cross-examination; and (5) 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 12/39 an impartial hearing committee. He argues that in denying him these safeguards, the defendants violated his clearly established procedural due process rights. At this juncture, we shall discuss each defendant's (or defendant group's) arguments with respect to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim. 1. Appeal of Dean Jerry (Case No. 96-3402) Professor Tonkovich takes issue with the following actions of Dean Jerry: (1) his initial handling of the Law Student's complaint; (2) his attempt to pass a rule, after the fact, prohibiting student/faculty sexual relations; (3) his denial of a request for a leak investigation; (4) his role in the settlement process; and (5) his negative annual evaluation of Professor Tonkovich. Dean Jerry argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim because he is not responsible for any alleged defects in the process afforded Professor Tonkovich. In other words, he argues that nothing he did violated any of Professor Tonkovich's clearly established procedural due process rights. We agree. As for Dean Jerry's handling of the Law Student's initial complaint, Professor Tonkovich appears to argue that he did not receive proper notice of the charges against him because Dean Jerry would not immediately disclose the name of the accuser and the details of the allegation. However, Professor Tonkovich does not allege that it was Dean Jerry's duty to notify him of the charges. Moreover, Chancellor Budig did give Professor Tonkovich notice in plenty of time to prepare his defense in response to the charges. Professor Tonkovich next argues that his procedural due process rights were violated because the dean never disclosed the \u201cblatantly false\u201d statements that the Law Student allegedly made to a judge for whom she worked. Aple's Brief at 60. According to Professor Tonkovich, the Law Student told the judge who was her employer the following: (1) she had nonconsensual sex with her professor; (2) she told Dean Jerry about it; and (3) the Dean was not responsive. Professor Tonkovich argues that the statement the Law Student made to her employer was false because she had only told Dean Jerry that a professor had made a pass at her. We fail to see how Dean Jerry's failure to relate this conversation to Professor Tonkovich violated Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. As we have discussed, Professor Tonkovich received sufficient notice of the charges against him, and, in addition, he had the opportunity to cross-examine the Law Student at his hearing. As for the remaining allegations involving Dean Jerry, Professor Tonkovich has failed to explain how any of them might constitute a denial of his procedural due process rights. That is, he has failed to demonstrate how attempting to pass a new faculty code rule, denying a request for a leak investigation, taking part in settlement negotiations, and rendering an unfavorable annual evaluation had anything to do with whether Professor Tonkovich received the process that he was due-notice, an explanation of the charges against him, and an opportunity to respond. Nor has Professor Tonkovich pointed to any 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 13/39 clearly established law that stands for the proposition that the sorts of actions taken by Dean Jerry might form the basis of a procedural due process claim. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in denying Dean Jerry's motion to dismiss Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 2. Appeal of Regents (Case No. 96-3403) and Hearing Committee (Case No. 96-3404) 7 The Regents and the Hearing Committee members argue that because Professor Tonkovich failed to exercise his right to judicial review he should not now be heard to complain of the violation of his procedural due process rights. In other words, they argue that because Professor Tonkovich was entitled to seek judicial review of the University's decision under Kansas law, Kan. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 77-601 et seq., the state provided even more process than an administrative hearing and an appeal to the Board of Regents. Thus, they argue, his procedural due process claim must fail. We reject the argument that Professor Tonkovich's failure to seek judicial review in state court precludes his procedural due process claim. It is beyond dispute that a plaintiff need not exhaust state administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court under \u00a7 1983. Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 516, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982). However, as we shall discuss below, the availability of an action for judicial review is relevant to the question of what process the state afforded Professor Tonkovich. Professor Tonkovich argues that the Regents and the Hearing Committee members denied him his procedural due process right to an impartial tribunal. He also takes issue with the Hearing Committee members' failure to: (1) order discovery; (2) compel witnesses to appear and testify; and (3) mention evidence favorable to him in their findings. We shall address each contention in turn. Professor Tonkovich first argues that he was denied the right to an impartial tribunal because the Hearing Committee members were not professional hearing officers, they were employed by the University, and they were subordinates of the Chancellor. Furthermore, he argues that the fact that various members of the standing committee recused themselves, and that other members were substituted, demonstrates that the resulting Hearing Committee was biased. In support of this claim, he points to Mr. Turnbull's statement to a witness to the effect that he admired her courage in coming forward to testify. First of all, while the Due Process Clause certainly requires a hearing before an impartial tribunal, Professor Tonkovich has pointed to no law, clearly established or otherwise, that procedural due process includes a right to professional hearing officers or hearing officers not employed by the governmental body or agency taking the adverse action. As to the recusals, one of the substituted Hearing Committee members, Mr. Michel, actually voted against Professor Tonkovich's dismissal. This alone takes the wind out of the sails of Professor Tonkovich's recusal argument. Furthermore, even assuming 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 14/39 Mr. Turnbull stated to a witness admire your courage in coming forward,\u201d that does not establish the required \u201csubstantial showing of personal bias.\u201d Corstvet, 757 F.2d at 229. The Hearing Committee members argue that there is nothing indicating that they had a personal or financial stake in the decision, which might create a conflict of interest, nor are there sufficient allegations to support charges of personal animosity on the part of its members. See Hortonville Joint School Dist. Number 1 v. Hortonville Educ. Ass'n, 426 U.S. 482, 491-92, 496, 96 S.Ct. 2308, 49 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976) (basing, in part, its holding that school board dismissing striking teachers did not violate Due Process Clause on fact that these indicia of bias were lacking). In short, they argue that Professor Tonkovich's complaint contains only conclusory allegations of bias, without alleging factual support. We agree. We simply do not think that Professor Tonkovich has sufficiently alleged personal bias requiring disqualification of the Hearing Committee members under the Due Process Clause. As to the Regents, Professor Tonkovich similarly levels accusations of bias against them. He argues that the Regents' bias violated his procedural due process rights. In support of this argument, he states that the Regents made erroneous and prejudicial decisions and that they deferred to the findings of the Hearing Committee. As with the Hearing Committee, these conclusory assertions are insufficient to allege bias constituting a violation of Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. Professor Tonkovich next takes issue with what he claims is the Hearing Committee's failure to order discovery. He claims that this led to a denial of his right to cross-examine the witnesses against him. In particular, he argues that he never was able to discover a tape-recording of an alleged interview between the Law Student and University administrators. This, he argues, amounted to a denial of his right to cross-examine the Law Student. Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich argues that he was unable to discover all of the statements that various complainants had submitted during the investigation. As he points out, the Hearing Committee specifically requested, through certified return-receipt mailings, that the complainants produce their statements and return to testify. However, two of the complainants neither produced their statements nor returned to testify. Thus, he argues, he was denied the right to cross-examine these two complainants. Professor Tonkovich also complains that all of the complainants, including the Law Student, refused to allow Professor Tonkovich's attorney to interview them prior to the hearing. First of all, we note that the Hearing Committee ultimately did order discovery prior to Professor Tonkovich's administrative hearing. The fact that Professor Tonkovich was unable to discover every piece of evidence is of no consequence as a matter of procedural due process. The Due Process Clause does not guarantee that parties to an adversarial proceeding may discover every piece of evidence they desire. Indeed, civil litigants in federal court do not have a claim for a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights every time a federal district judge or a federal magistrate rules against them in a discovery dispute. 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 15/39 Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich has not adequately alleged that he was denied the right to cross- examine adverse witnesses. As we have discussed, he had notice of the charges, and of his accusers, well before the hearing. He was able to cross-examine each of them, albeit not in exactly the way he would have liked. On these facts, we cannot say that the cross-examinations violated Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights simply because he did not have access to several of the witnesses' prior statements. As his complaint admits, the University did provide him with summaries of the complainants' statements. Importantly, Professor Tonkovich has also cited no clearly established legal authority for the proposition that the Due Process Clause requires that he be allowed to interview adverse witnesses prior to a hearing. Professor Tonkovich next argues that the Hearing Committee members violated his procedural due process rights by failing to compel the return of various witnesses who had previously testified. The Hearing Committee members argue that they did not have the authority to compel the attendance of witnesses. They did, however, attempt to assist Professor Tonkovich with the re-appearance of witnesses by sending certified return-receipt mail, as Professor Tonkovich himself acknowledges in his complaint. Professor Tonkovich has cited no law, clearly established or otherwise, which states that an administrative tribunal runs afoul of the Due Process Clause for its failure to compel the attendance of witnesses when it lacks subpoena power. See Workman, 32 F.3d at 480 (stating that, under the facts of that case, \u201c[t]he lack of subpoena power available to the plaintiff or the unavailability of some witnesses does not \u2024 create unconstitutional process.\u201d). Even if the Hearing Committee did have subpoena power, a reasonable person in the place of a Hearing Committee member would not know that he or she was violating someone's procedural due process rights for failing to compel the appearance of witnesses under these circumstances. Professor Tonkovich next argues that the Hearing Committee should have mentioned in its findings various pieces of evidence favorable to his side of the case. For example, Professor Tonkovich takes issue with the Hearing Committee's failure to mention the discrepancy between what the Law Student told the judge who employed her and what she told Dean Jerry. Professor Tonkovich claims that the Committee's failure to mention such evidence violated his procedural due process rights. We disagree. The Hearing Committee handed down extensive findings and conclusions after a hearing spanning approximately nine months. Under the circumstances, the fact that the Committee did not mention every possible fact in its resolution of the case does not implicate due process. Professor Tonkovich also claims that the Hearing Committee itself admitted that the proceedings against him were unfair because it recommended additional procedures for future disciplinary proceedings. Taking into consideration the procedures afforded Professor Tonkovich, the fact that the Hearing Committee members made recommendations concerning future disciplinary proceedings does not convince us that they violated his procedural due process rights. 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 16/39 In sum, the Regents and the Hearing Committee members argue that under Loudermill, Professor Tonkovich was entitled only to notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence against him, and an opportunity to respond. They argue that the allegations in Professor Tonkovich's own complaint establish that he received this and much more. We agree. Therefore, the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim against the Regents and the Hearing Committee members on the basis of qualified immunity. 3. Appeal of Professor McKenzie (Case No. 96-3405) The only allegations against Professor McKenzie in particular were that she signed the Letter, she refused to testify, and she dated a student. None of these allegations, she argues, are sufficient to establish that she violated a constitutional right. We agree. As we shall discuss at length below, when the Law School faculty members signed the Letter, they did not thereby violate Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. As to the remaining allegations against Professor McKenzie-that she refused to testify on Professor Tonkovich's behalf and that she dated a student-we fail to see how these might form the basis of a procedural due process claim. Professor McKenzie neither subjected Professor Tonkovich, nor caused Professor Tonkovich to be subjected, to the deprivation of his procedural due process rights. Thus, the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 4. Appeal of the University General Counsel (Case No. 96-3406) The specific allegations against General Counsel Thomas are that she gave an opinion as to the applicability of the University's statute of limitations, and she attended two meetings to discuss Professor Tonkovich's case. Essentially, he seems to be complaining that she did her job. Ms. Thomas argues that neither of these actions can be said to have violated Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. We agree. The allegations against Associate General Counsel Marino, who prosecuted the case on behalf of the University, are that she denied the existence of the complainants' statements and that she violated two of the Hearing Committee's evidentiary rulings. Specifically, she asked a witness about her sexual involvement with law professors, and she read a portion of the Law Student's testimony to another witness who was scheduled to testify. Associate General Counsel Marino argues that even if some of these actions constituted infractions of a University policy or rule, this is not enough to rise to the level of a deprivation of a federal constitutional right. We note that a university's failure to follow its established guidelines in overseeing a grievance \u201cdoes not in and of itself implicate constitutional due process concerns.\u201d Purisch v. Tennessee Technological University, 76 F.3d 1414, 1423 (6th Cir.1996); cf. Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 17/39 1209 (10th Cir.1988) (a violation of state law, by itself, does not rise to the level of a federal constitutional deprivation, and, thus, is not cognizable under \u00a7 1983). The federal courts, and not the University of Kansas, are responsible for establishing the contours of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, even taking Professor Tonkovich's allegations against Ms. Marino as true, as we must, we do not think they are sufficient to establish the violation of his procedural due process rights. While Ms. Marino's failure to adhere to certain evidentiary rules was perhaps not a model of prosecutorial conduct, nothing that she did changes the fact that Professor Tonkovich received notice, an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal, and various post-termination remedies. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in denying Ms. Thomas's and Ms. Marino's motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 5. Appeal of Law School Faculty Members (Case No. 96-3407) The Law School faculty members argue that they were not even in a position from which they could afford or deny procedural protections to Professor Tonkovich. Thus, they argue, they cannot be said to have violated his due process rights. We disagree with the notion that a faculty member, by virtue of his or her position within a university, may never effect a procedural due process violation. However, in this case, nothing the Law School faculty members did caused a deprivation of Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. The specific allegations against the Law School faculty members are as follows: (1) they signed the Letter soliciting additional complaints; (2) they met with University administrators to discuss the case; (3) they accompanied students who submitted complaints to administrators; (4) two of them stated they heard that the Law Student's complaint contained an allegation of rape; (5) some of them refused to disclose, and one of them intentionally destroyed, complainant statements; and (6) they testified as witnesses at Professor Tonkovich's hearing. The faculty members argue that Professor Tonkovich has failed to point to any clearly established law that stands for the proposition that any of these actions might form the basis of a procedural due process claim. We shall first address the Law School faculty members' role in authoring, signing, and distributing the Letter, which Professor Tonkovich continually refers to as the \u201csecret\u201d solicitation process. See, e.g., Aple's Brief at 7, 31, 43. Professor Tonkovich cites no clearly established Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent standing for the proposition that when a university is investigating a complaint of sexual misconduct against a professor, the university must disclose, during the investigatory process, every complaint it solicits and the means it uses to solicit those complaints. In fact, there is precedent in this circuit that arguably supports a contrary proposition. In Derstein v. Kansas, 915 F.2d 1410 (10th Cir.1990), the plaintiff, a tenured court employee who could be terminated only for just cause, was fired after an investigation revealed that he had sexually harassed various fellow employees. The plaintiff was told neither that an investigation was underway nor that 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 18/39 complaints against him were being solicited court personnel officer conducted the investigation by tape-recording interviews with various court employees and then transcribing the tapes. After the investigation was complete the plaintiff was told that he would have ten days to resign or be terminated. Id. at 1412. He was also advised that he could appeal the decision and that a hearing would be afforded at that time. At the end of the ten-day period, the plaintiff received a termination letter, which specified the nature of the charges against him and his right to appeal. The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, which was denied as frivolous. At no time during the administrative proceedings did the employer provide the plaintiff with transcripts of the tape-recorded interviews. Id. The plaintiff then filed a \u00a7 1983 action. After a bench trial, the district court held that the pretermination proceedings deprived the plaintiff of a property interest without due process of law. Id. at 1411. We reversed, holding that the pretermination procedures comported with Loudermill 's requirements. Id. at 1413. We stated that the fact that the plaintiff \u201cmay not have known in advance about [the personnel officer's] internal investigation [and that he] did not receive more facts or a copy of the transcript at the pretermination hearing is not significant.\u201d Id. at 1413. Likewise, in the case at bar, the fact that University administrators conducted an investigation without Professor Tonkovich's knowledge does not implicate procedural due process because he ultimately received notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to respond in the hearing that took place over a period of nine months. We noted that the plaintiff in Derstein never contested the factual basis for the sexual harassment charges, i.e., he did not deny that the conduct occurred. Under those circumstances, we held that the appeal to an appeals board constituted a sufficient post-termination procedure, even though the appeals board did not grant the plaintiff a full evidentiary hearing. We found that this post-termination proceeding, in combination with the pretermination procedures, afforded the plaintiff all of the process he was due. In Professor Tonkovich's case, he obviously did contest the factual basis for the charges against him; however, he also received a full-blown evidentiary hearing. The fact that University officials and faculty members did not keep Professor Tonkovich apprised every step along the way of the investigation does not amount to a violation of his procedural due process rights. Professor Tonkovich next complains that when the Law School faculty members met with University administrators to discuss his case, and when they accompanied the complainants to meet with administrators, they violated his procedural due process rights. We fail to see how either of these actions might form the basis of a procedural due process claim in the absence of allegations that these actions interfered with Professor Tonkovich's receiving notice of the charges or with his ability to respond to those charges. Professor Tonkovich has not cited any law, clearly established or otherwise, that would support the proposition that in taking part in the investigation as the Law School faculty members here did, their actions ran afoul of the Due Process Clause. 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 19/39 Next, Professor Tonkovich argues that two of the Law School faculty members violated his procedural due process rights when they repeated information they had heard, namely, that the allegations against Professor Tonkovich included an allegation of rape. Assuming, as we must, that the allegation is false, it still does not implicate procedural due process.8 While the statements may be actionable under state tort law, they do not rise to the level of depriving Professor Tonkovich of federal procedural due process rights. There is no allegation that the statements made by the professors had anything to do with whether Professor Tonkovich received notice of the charges against him or had a meaningful opportunity to respond, which is what procedural due process requires. Finally, Professor Tonkovich takes issue with the Law School faculty members' role in testifying at his hearing and in discarding or denying the existence of the written complainant statements. Once again, he cites no clearly established law that stands for the proposition that taking such actions implicates procedural due process. As we have discussed, Professor Tonkovich received summaries of the statements, and he was able to cross-examine the complainants; therefore, the fact that several professors were not forthcoming with written statements does not amount to a violation of Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. Although such conduct on the part of the professors is not to be lauded, it simply does not rise to a level sufficient to implicate procedural due process concerns. Furthermore, we fail to see how the professors' acts in testifying at Professor Tonkovich's hearing-and thereby being subjected to cross-examination-violated his procedural due process rights. For all of these reasons, the district court should have granted the Law School faculty members' motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 6. Appeal of the Chancellor's Office (Case No. 96-3408) The Chancellor's office staff members argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim because Professor Tonkovich received all of the process he was due. Furthermore, they argue that Professor Tonkovich failed to show that any of their actions constituted violations of a clearly established right. The specific allegations against staff members of the Chancellor's office are as follows: (1) they extended the investigation after having set a deadline for filing complaints against Professor Tonkovich; (2) Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel at first recommended a one-year paid suspension, but as the investigation progressed, they increased the proposed sanction to dismissal; (3) Associate Vice Chancellor Shulenberger interviewed the complainants; (4) Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel denied that the complainants had submitted written statements; (5) during settlement negotiations, Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel recommended that Professor Tonkovich resign quietly, and they stated that there were no terms acceptable to the University for Professor Tonkovich to continue as a faculty member; and (6) Chancellor Budig prosecuted charges even after several students stated that the charges were groundless. 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 20/39 Professor Tonkovich's argument that extending the investigation and increasing the proposed sanction violated his procedural due process rights must fail. Neither the length of the investigation nor the decision to increase the proposed sanction deprived Professor Tonkovich of his rights to notice and an opportunity to respond. It is not as if the sanction he faced was changed during the course of or after his hearing. Well before his hearing began, he understood that he faced dismissal from the Law School faculty. Additionally, the fact that Professor Tonkovich initially responded in writing to the Law Student's charges, when he faced only suspension, is not significant because that was not his only opportunity to respond. Ultimately, after the investigation was complete, he was informed of all of the charges against him and given ample opportunity to respond to all of them. Professor Tonkovich next argues that Associate Vice Chancellor Shulenberger violated his procedural due process rights when he interviewed the complainants. Professor Tonkovich wholly fails to allege how these interviews deprived him of his rights to notice or an opportunity to respond. Furthermore, he cites no clearly established law standing for the proposition that during the course of an investigation of a university professor, a university administrator violates the professor's procedural due process rights by interviewing students with complaints. Next Professor Tonkovich complains of Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel's denial of the existence of written complainant statements. We have already discussed the failure to reveal the complainants' statements in the context of the Hearing Committee, Ms. Marino, and the Law School faculty members. For similar reasons, the fact that Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel denied that the complainants had submitted written statements does not implicate Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights. Although such conduct on the part of any university employee is not to be commended, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. As previously discussed, the University provided summaries of the statements prior to his hearing, and Professor Tonkovich had the opportunity to cross-examine each of the complainants. Professor Tonkovich next argues that Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel violated his procedural due process rights when they took part in settlement negotiations. Specifically he points to their actions in recommending that he resign quietly and in stating that there were no terms acceptable to the University for Professor Tonkovich to continue as a faculty member. Professor Tonkovich fails to allege, however, how these actions caused the deprivation of his procedural due process rights. He does not allege, for example, that in pressuring him to resign quietly or in stating that there were no acceptable terms to the University, Vice Chancellor Brinkman and Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel somehow prevented him from receiving notice of the charges against him or an opportunity to respond. Finally, Professor Tonkovich argues that Chancellor Budig violated his procedural due process rights by including in the formal complaint allegations that several law students thought were groundless. We 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 21/39 fail to see how this implicates Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights in the absence of an allegation that he was not given notice of these charges or an opportunity to respond to them. It is hardly the role of a law student to decide which allegations to include in a charging document against a faculty member. Professor Tonkovich was free to call these students as witnesses in his defense, and his complaint indicates that these students did submit affidavits stating their positions. For all of these reasons, the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the procedural due process claim against the staff members of the Chancellor's office on qualified immunity grounds. After considering the arguments of the parties, we turn our attention briefly to the district court's disposition of the qualified immunity issue as it relates to Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim. The district court concluded that Professor Tonkovich's hearing was a combined pre and post- termination hearing. Aplts' App. vol. IV, doc. 18 at 1345-46. However, Professor Tonkovich was not dismissed until after the hearing was complete and the Hearing Committee handed down its findings and conclusions. During the course of his hearing, although he was on teaching leave, his employment with the University had not been terminated. Thus, we think the district court was technically incorrect on this point. The evidentiary hearing was, in actuality, a pretermination hearing that afforded Professor Tonkovich more process than he was due prior to being terminated. In addition, the district court failed to consider that Professor Tonkovich had the opportunity to appeal to the Board of Regents and then, finally, to file an action for judicial review in state district court state court proceeding for judicial review of the University's action would have afforded Professor Tonkovich the opportunity to present evidence as to the alleged \u201cunlawfulness of [the] procedure or of [the] decision-making process.\u201d See Kan. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 77-619(a)(2). Furthermore, on judicial review, the state district court would have had the power to order the University to take a specific action, enjoin the University from enforcing an action, or render appropriate declaratory relief. See id. at \u00a7 77-622(b). Although, as we have stated, exhaustion is not a prerequisite to bringing a \u00a7 1983 claim, the fact that Professor Tonkovich did have the opportunity for an additional post-termination hearing, regardless of whether he exercised this right, is germane to our inquiry into what process the state afforded him. The district court further concluded that the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity in part because Professor Tonkovich received inadequate notice of the charges against him due to the fact that the University increased the stakes as the investigation progressed. We think this conclusion is incorrect for at least two reasons. First of all, the fact remains that approximately four months before the hearing, the University filed a written complaint against Professor Tonkovich. Thus, well in advance, the Chancellor informed Professor Tonkovich in writing as to the charges and the penalty he faced. Second, the district court failed to consider which of the individual defendants was responsible for giving Professor Tonkovich notice of the charges. Surely, for example, the Law School faculty members cannot be said to have violated Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process rights by failing 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 22/39 to give him notice of the charges, because they had no duty to give him notice; moreover, none of their actions deprived him of notice. As we have stated, under Loudermill, before he was terminated, Professor Tonkovich was entitled to notice, an explanation of the charges against him, and an opportunity to respond. Professor Tonkovich's own complaint reflects that, prior to his termination, he received these protections and much more full-blown evidentiary hearing clearly meets the dictates of Loudermill. Taking into consideration Professor Tonkovich's pretermination hearing, in combination with the various post- termination proceedings afforded by the state, we conclude that Professor Tonkovich was afforded all of the process that he was due, and perhaps more than what Loudermill requires. Because we have found that Professor Tonkovich received all of the process that he was due, we must reject his claim for deprivation of a liberty interest, as well. In order to demonstrate the infringement of a liberty interest in one's good name, one must show that: (1) the defendant made a statement impugning his or her good name, reputation, honor, or integrity; (2) the statement was false; (3) the defendant made the statement in the course of termination proceedings or the statement foreclosed future employment opportunities; and (4) the statement was published. Workman, 32 F.3d at 481 (internal citations omitted). In such a case, the Due Process Clause requires an adequate name- clearing hearing. Id. at 480. We acknowledge that Professor Tonkovich did, indeed, have a liberty interest in his reputation, deserving of due process protection. However, even if the University infringed that interest, when, for example, two of the faculty members stated that they heard that the Law Student accused Professor Tonkovich of rape, we conclude that the University provided him with an adequate name-clearing hearing. Thus, there is perhaps a tort claim, but there is no constitutional violation.9 After carefully considering Professor Tonkovich's allegations, the defendants' arguments, and the relevant law, we hold that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's procedural due process claim. We do not necessarily condone each of the procedures that the University followed in the course of Professor Tonkovich's disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, as we have discussed, every alleged procedural error does not necessarily implicate due process. Although Professor Tonkovich may or may not have valid claims based on violations of state law, he has failed to meet his burden on qualified immunity as it relates to his federal procedural due process claim. We turn now to a discussion of Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. B. Are the Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Professor Tonkovich's Substantive Due Process Claim? At the outset, we must address the district court's supposed failure to consider the defendants' entitlement to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. The district court stated that after an extensive review of the record, it could not \u201clocate the individual defendants' argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's substantive due process claim.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 23/39 Aplts' App. vol. IV, doc. 18 at 1350. Therefore, the court stated that it was declining to address the issue. Id. Although all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss Professor Tonkovich's due process claim based on qualified immunity, they did not separately address substantive due process. However, they all argued, in more or less general terms, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Professor Tonkovich failed to allege specific facts showing that they had violated any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. See, e.g., Aplts' App. vol. I, doc. 3 at 172 (plaintiff's failure to allege that Hearing Committee members violated clearly established right entitles them to qualified immunity); id., doc. 4 at 216-17 (plaintiff's failure to identify clearly established right entitles Board of Regents to qualified immunity); id., doc. 5 at 248 (doctrine of qualified immunity bars suit against Law School faculty members because their conduct had no effect on plaintiff's constitutional rights); id. vol. II, doc. 7 at 679 (Dean Jerry entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established constitutional rights); see also id. vol. III, doc. 9 at 996 (plaintiff's failure to allege that Chancellor's office staff members violated clearly established due process rights entitled them to qualified immunity). Our review of count one of Professor Tonkovich's first amended complaint indicates that Professor Tonkovich himself did not delineate his due process claim as containing both a procedural and a substantive component. On the contrary, count one is entitled \u201c42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment Due Process).\u201d Id. vol. I, doc. 1 at 79. Nowhere in his complaint does Professor Tonkovich argue that the defendants violated his substantive due process rights. He simply refers to \u201cdue process,\u201d which, under the circumstances, the defendants could reasonably interpret in various ways. Professor Tonkovich has the burden to identify the rights that he alleges the defendants violated. See Walter, 33 F.3d at 1242. Thus, the defendants should not be required to guess whether Professor Tonkovich pled a substantive due process claim, a procedural due process claim, or both. At this stage of the litigation, Professor Tonkovich argues that his substantive due process claim is based on the allegation that he did not have fair warning of prohibited conduct and is further based \u201con the defendants' other arbitrary and wrongful actions.\u201d Aple's Brief at 36. However, Professor Tonkovich did not articulate his \u201cno fair warning\u201d argument before the district court in his response to the defendants' motions to dismiss. Instead, he argued that his substantive due process claim was based on the fact that the defendants had deprived him of liberty and property. Aplts' App. vol. III, doc. 10 at 1102-03. Such an argument applies equally in the procedural due process arena as it does in the substantive, for there can be no violation of one's procedural due process rights without a deprivation of life, liberty, or property. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, \u00a7 1. Moreover, in the portion of his response addressing substantive due process, Professor Tonkovich referred to the defendants denying him an impartial tribunal, arguably a procedural due process topic, rather than a substantive one. Aplts' App. vol. III, doc. 10 at 1103. 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 24/39 Our point here is that Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim lacked crisp contours during the district court proceedings. And even now, as mentioned above, Professor Tonkovich argues that his substantive due process claim is based, in part, on a host of allegedly arbitrary and wrongful actions of the defendants, some of which implicate procedural due process concerns. Because of the overlap inherent in the way Professor Tonkovich pled his due process claim, we think that the district court read the defendants' motions to dismiss too narrowly. In other words, we think that the defendants' motions to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity were sufficient to put the district court on notice that they were asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity with respect to Professor Tonkovich's entire \u00a7 1983 due process claim. Furthermore, because the substantive due process claim is based, in part, on allegedly arbitrary actions that may be fairly characterized as implicating procedural due process rights, we think the district court's treatment of the due process claim with respect to qualified immunity is of sufficient breadth to allow us to review the issue of qualified immunity as it relates specifically to substantive due process. We turn now to that portion of our task. Because Professor Tonkovich was a tenured professor, the law in this Circuit is that he possessed \u201ca property interest deserving of \u2024 substantive protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.\u201d Brenna, 589 F.2d at 476. Substantive due process requires that the termination of a tenured professor's property interest not be \u201carbitrary, capricious, or without a rational basis.\u201d Id. at 477. The Supreme Court has \u201cemphasized time and again that [t]he touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government\u2024\u201d Lewis, at ----, 118 S.Ct. at 1716 (quotation omitted). In Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567 (10th Cir.1995), we stated that \u201cthe standard for judging a substantive due process claim is whether the challenged government action would \u2018shock the conscience of federal judges.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 573 (quoting Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 126, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992)) (quotation omitted). To satisfy this standard, \u201ca plaintiff must do more than show that the government actor intentionally or recklessly caused injury to the plaintiff by abusing or misusing government power.\u201d Uhlrig, 64 F.3d at 574. Instead, a plaintiff \u201cmust demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking.\u201d Id. We acknowledged that \u201c[t]he level of conduct required to satisfy this additional requirement cannot precisely be defined, but must necessarily evolve over time from judgments as to the constitutionality of specific government conduct.\u201d Id. Recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the \u201cshocks the conscience\u201d test in Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043, which involved a substantive due process claim brought under \u00a7 1983 against a municipality after a high-speed police chase killed a sixteen-year-old boy. The Court noted that \u201c[w]hile due process protection in the substantive sense limits what the government may do in both its legislative and its executive capacities, criteria to identify what is fatally arbitrary differ depending on whether it is legislation or a specific act of a governmental officer that is at issue.\u201d Id. at ----, 118 S.Ct. at 1716 (citations omitted). The Court went on to state that \u201cfor half a century now we have spoken of the 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 25/39 cognizable level of executive abuse of power as that which shocks the conscience.\u201d Id. at ----, 118 S.Ct. at 1717. Accordingly, when a plaintiff brings a substantive due process challenge to executive action, \u201cthe threshold question is whether the behavior of the governmental officer is so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.\u201d Id. at ---- n. 8, 118 S.Ct. at 1717 n. 8. Professor Tonkovich argues that the \u201cshocks the conscience\u201d standard does not apply to this case because the defendants' conduct was intentional. He argues that the defendants' actions should be measured instead against a generic standard of arbitrariness. However, in the alternative, he argues that the defendants' conduct was, indeed, shocking to the conscience. There is some indication that the \u201cshocks the conscience\u201d standard and the \u201carbitrariness\u201d standard are used interchangeably. See, e.g. Collins, 503 U.S. at 128, 112 S.Ct. 1061 (stating that the Court is not persuaded that the defendants' actions \u201ccan properly be characterized as arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense\u201d). Justice Scalia's reading of the majority opinion in Lewis is that the shocks-the-conscience test \u201cis the measure of arbitrariness when what is at issue is executive rather than legislative action.\u201d Lewis, 523 U.S. at ----, 118 S.Ct. at 1724 (Scalia, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). In any event, we express no opinion on whether the \u201cshocks the conscience\u201d standard applies to this case because regardless of whether we use that standard or we simply inquire whether the defendants' actions were arbitrary or lacking a rational basis, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. As we shall discuss in greater detail below, the defendants' actions were not arbitrary, did not lack a rational basis, and were not shocking to the conscience. As we have discussed, Professor Tonkovich claims that the defendants violated his substantive due process rights by their failure to warn him of prohibited conduct and by their other arbitrary and wrongful actions. At this juncture, we shall discuss each defendant's (or defendant group's) arguments with respect to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. 1. Appeal of Dean Jerry (Case No. 96-3402) Professor Tonkovich argues that Dean Jerry violated his substantive due process rights because the memorandum he issued to faculty falsely asserted that student/faculty sex was unethical under the Faculty Code. Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich argues, Dean Jerry violated his substantive due process rights by proposing a rule, with retroactive application, prohibiting sexual relations between professors and students enrolled in their courses. Since the Law School faculty did not approve Dean Jerry's proposed rule, the argument goes, Professor Tonkovich was arbitrarily charged with violating a nonexistent rule. In response, Dean Jerry argues that Professor Tonkovich did indeed have fair warning that his conduct was prohibited because at the time he allegedly engaged in a sexual act with one of his 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 26/39 students after discussing law school grades with her, it was clearly unethical, under existing University policy, for a professor to exploit a student for his own private advantage. We acknowledge that the allegations against Professor Tonkovich required Dean Jerry and other University officials to confront a difficult question: when does sexual contact between participants in an unequal power relationship become exploitative? However, the fact that reasonable minds might not agree with the way in which the majority of the Hearing Committee, the Chancellor, and the Regents resolved that question is insufficient to support a substantive due process claim. In this regard, we note that the Seventh Circuit has rejected a claim similar to Professor Tonkovich's claim that he did not have fair warning that his conduct was prohibited. In Korf v. Ball State Univ., 726 F.2d 1222 (7th Cir.1984), a tenured professor who allegedly sexually harassed various students filed a \u00a7 1983 suit after he was discharged from the faculty. He alleged that his substantive due process rights were violated because he did not have adequate notice that consensual sexual relations between faculty members and students were prohibited. Id. at 1226. The court noted that, after an investigation and a hearing, a committee found that the plaintiff had engaged in unethical behavior by exploiting students for his private advantage. Thus, consensual sexual relations were not at issue. The court stated that \u201c[c]ommon sense, reason and good judgment should have made [the plaintiff] cognizant of the fact that his conduct could and would be cause for termination.\u201d Id. at 1227. Likewise, in the case at bar, if common sense, reason, and good judgment were not adequate to notify Professor Tonkovich, certainly the Faculty Code's prohibition against exploiting students concretely notified him that he could be terminated for having sex with one of his students after discussing her grades. Next, Professor Tonkovich argues that Dean Jerry violated his substantive due process rights by initially withholding the name of Professor Tonkovich's accuser and the nature of the accusation. However, Professor Tonkovich has cited no law, and certainly no clearly established law, supporting his argument that he had a substantive due process right to know the name of his accuser on the day she lodged her complaint. Furthermore, as we have discussed, Professor Tonkovich knew the name of his accuser and the nature of her allegation well before he had the opportunity to cross-examine her. Finally, Professor Tonkovich argues that Dean Jerry violated his substantive due process rights by giving him an unearned negative annual evaluation and the lowest merit salary increase on the entire law school faculty. In light of the fact that Professor Tonkovich was embroiled in a scandal involving sexual misconduct with one of his students, we cannot say that Dean Jerry's action in this respect was completely arbitrary or irrational. Professor Tonkovich certainly has not cited any clearly established law that would lead us to such a conclusion. For these reasons, the district court erred in denying Dean Jerry's motion to dismiss the substantive due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 2. Appeal of Regents (Case No. 96-3403) and Hearing Committee (Case No. 96-3404) 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 27/39 Professor Tonkovich argues that the Regents and the Hearing Committee members violated his substantive due process rights by making erroneous findings that he engaged in unethical conduct. Furthermore, he argues, they violated his substantive due process rights by voting for his dismissal, a sanction that he claims lacks a rational basis. The Regents and the Hearing Committee members argue that the fact that they did not agree with Professor Tonkovich on every issue and did not ultimately find in his favor cannot form the basis of a substantive due process claim against them. They argue that even assuming, for purposes of argument, their decisions in finding that he committed the charged conduct and voting for his dismissal were wrong, these actions do not rise to the level of a substantive due process violation. We agree. Indeed, \u201c[t]he Due Process Clause is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions.\u201d Collins, 503 U.S. at 129, 112 S.Ct. 1061 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, the district court erred in denying the Regents' and the Hearing Committee members' motions to dismiss the substantive due process claim on qualified immunity grounds. 3. Appeal of Professor McKenzie (Case No. 96-3405) Professor McKenzie is entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim for the same reasons that she is entitled to qualified immunity on his procedural due process claim. That is, in merely signing the Letter, refusing to testify, and dating a student, Professor McKenzie neither subjected Professor Tonkovich, nor caused Professor Tonkovich to be subjected, to a deprivation of his substantive due process rights. Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich has cited no clearly established law standing for the proposition that taking any of these actions violates one's substantive due process rights. 4. Appeal of the University General Counsel (Case No. 96-3406) We have already discussed the specific allegations against Ms. Thomas and Ms. Marino. Professor Tonkovich has failed to cite any clearly established law that would lead us to believe that any of the actions they took or failed to take caused the deprivation of his substantive due process rights. For this reason, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Marino are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. 5. Appeal of Law School Faculty Members (Case No. 96-3407) Professors Shapiro, Robinson, Dayton, Schroeder, and Sward argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim because the allegations against them do not show a violation of a constitutional right at all, much less a clearly established right. We have already discussed the specific allegations against the Law School faculty members, and we will not repeat them here. We agree that Professor Tonkovich has pointed to no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 28/39 precedent establishing that any of their actions could constitute a violation of one's substantive due process rights. We shall, however, address two specific allegations. Professor Tonkovich claims that two of the Law School faculty members violated his substantive due process rights by stating that the Law Student had accused him of rape. However, \u201c[a] substantive due process violation must be something more than an ordinary tort to be actionable under \u00a7 1983.\u201d Abeyta v. Chama Valley Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 19, 77 F.3d 1253, 1257 (10th Cir.1996). Professor Tonkovich may have a cause of action against these professors or against the University under state law, but he has failed to meet his burden on qualified immunity as to a federal constitutional claim. As to Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim based on a lack of fair warning of prohibited conduct, the Law School faculty members argue that this claim contains no allegations addressed specifically to them. That is, they argue that Professor Tonkovich did not allege that they had a duty to warn him of what kind of conduct the Faculty Code prohibited. Additionally, they argue, Professor Tonkovich was put on notice that exploiting a student for his own benefit was a violation of the Faculty Code. We agree. For these additional reasons, the Law School faculty members are entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process claim. 6. Appeal of the Chancellor's Office (Case No. 96-3408) Professor Tonkovich argues that the University violated his substantive due process rights by ignoring its six-month statute of limitations for sexual harassment charges. However, as counsel for the Board of Regents pointed out at oral argument, the charges against Professor Tonkovich were not solely based on sexual harassment. Professor Tonkovich was charged with violating an ethical provision of the Faculty Code. Even if a claim of sexual harassment was time-barred, the claim of an ethical violation was not. We cannot say that it was unconstitutionally arbitrary for the University to proceed with the prosecution, even though some of the charges involved sexual misconduct. Furthermore, Professor Tonkovich has failed to cite clearly established law demonstrating that a reasonable University official in the Chancellor's position would have known that going forward with the prosecution would have violated Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process rights. Next Professor Tonkovich claims that the staff members of the Chancellor's office violated his substantive due process rights by attempting to discourage him from exercising his right to a hearing. Specifically, he claims that after he requested a hearing, University administrators warned him that past conduct might be cause for future disciplinary action. In addition, the University increased the possible sanction from a one-year paid teaching suspension to dismissal. He claims that he was fired for asserting his innocence and demanding a hearing. We note that as the investigation progressed, the complaints against Professor Tonkovich mounted. There was nothing unconstitutionally arbitrary about extending the investigation or about changing the proposed disciplinary action. 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 29/39 Professor Tonkovich next argues that Chancellor Budig violated his substantive due process rights because the charges against him and the recommended sanction lacked a rational basis. However, after the investigation was completed, the University had its side of the story, and Professor Tonkovich had his side of the story. Even taking Professor Tonkovich's version of the facts as true, as we must, we cannot say that the charges and the penalty he faced were unconstitutionally arbitrary. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the substantive due process claim against the staff members of the Chancellor's office on qualified immunity grounds. After carefully considering Professor Tonkovich's allegations and each of the defendants' arguments, we conclude that the district court erred in denying the defendants' motions to dismiss any \u201csubstantive due process\u201d claim Professor Tonkovich may have asserted. Professor Tonkovich's substantive due process argument on appeal takes up almost nineteen pages in his brief but contains very little legal authority. Pages and pages of facts are no substitute for citations to clearly established law. Nor can they meet Professor Tonkovich's burden on qualified immunity. We hold that each of the individual defendants is entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's \u00a7 1983 claim based on a violation of his substantive due process rights. C. Are the Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Professor Tonkovich's Equal Protection Claim? According to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, \u201cNo State shall \u2024 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\u201d U.S. Const. amend. XIV, \u00a7 1. This Clause \u201cembodies a general rule that States must treat like cases alike but may treat unlike cases accordingly.\u201d Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, ----, 117 S.Ct. 2293, 2297, 138 L.Ed.2d 834 (1997). Unless a legislative classification or distinction burdens a fundamental right or targets a suspect class, courts will uphold it if it is rationally related to a legitimate end. Id. Professor Tonkovich does not allege that a fundamental right is at stake, nor does he allege that he is a member of a suspect class. Thus, in order to prevail on his equal protection claim, he must show that the University treated him differently than others \u201csimilarly situated \u2024 and that this different treatment lacked a rational basis.\u201d Landmark Land Co. of Oklahoma v. Buchanan, 874 F.2d 717, 722 (10th Cir.1989); see also City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439-40, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). Professor Tonkovich alleges that the defendants violated his equal protection rights because the University has not penalized other professors, much less dismissed them, for dating their students. He points out that not only did other law professors openly date students but that the Law School actually promoted social activities between professors and students. The district court concluded that \u201c[a]llegations that these defendants disciplined plaintiff for a faculty- student relationship, without similar discipline for other professors who had relationships with students, establish a possible violation of plaintiff's right to equal protection.\u201d Aplts' App. vol. IV, doc. 18 at 1356. There are at least two crucial problems with the district court's conclusion. First, as many defendants 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 30/39 have pointed out, Professor Tonkovich has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that he is similarly situated to law professors who dated students. Professor Tonkovich was not charged with dating a student. He was charged with exploiting a student for his own private advantage by engaging one of his students in a discussion of grades and then having sexual relations with her. Although we must accept as true Professor Tonkovich's claim that he did not engage in the charged behavior, see Aplts' App. vol. I, doc. 1 at 60, we must also accept as true the fact that this is part of what the University prosecuted him for and found him guilty of, see id. at 57-58. In any event, Professor Tonkovich does not allege that he was dating the Law Student, or any of his other students. Second, the district court's conclusion is infirm because it lumps all of \u201cthese defendants\u201d together despite the fact that each of the defendants had different powers and duties and took different actions with respect to Professor Tonkovich. Although the district court acknowledged that it must identify on the record defendants' conduct that violated clearly established law, see Aplts' App. vol. IV, doc. 18 at 1342, it wholly failed to identify specific actions taken by particular defendants that could form the basis of an equal protection claim. For example, the district court did not point to any particular action taken by a Law School faculty member that can be said to have caused a deprivation of Professor Tonkovich's equal protection rights. In this way, the district court erred in failing to grant the Law School faculty members qualified immunity. It is not necessary for us, however, to consider the specific allegations against each defendant because at the heart of any equal protection claim must be an allegation of being treated differently than those similarly situated. Professor Tonkovich would have had to allege that other professors who had sex with a student, in a manner that exploited the student, were not treated the way he was treated by University officials. Therefore, we conclude that the district court erred when it ruled that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's equal protection claim. We hold that each of the individual defendants is entitled to qualified immunity as to Professor Tonkovich's \u00a7 1983 claim based on a violation of his right to equal protection of the laws Professor Tonkovich argues that the reasonable inference to be drawn from all of the allegations in his complaint is that the defendants engaged in concerted action with the common goal of terminating his employment with the University. Professor Tonkovich claims that the reason the University handled his case the way it did and the reason he was ultimately dismissed is because of his outspoken political conservatism and because he supported an unpopular candidate during a divisive dean search at the Law School.10 By raising the specter of a conspiracy, he attempts to avoid a grant of qualified immunity to the individual defendants. It is true that on a motion to dismiss, we must draw all reasonable inferences in Professor Tonkovich's favor. Swanson, 750 F.2d at 813. However, we do not think that Professor Tonkovich has properly pled 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 31/39 a claim that the individual defendants acted in concert to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Put differently, we do not think that such an inference is reasonable. At oral argument, counsel for the Law School faculty members and counsel for Ms. Thomas and Ms. Marino argued that Professor Tonkovich did not allege a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1985 in his complaint. Counsel for Professor Tonkovich conceded that Professor Tonkovich did not plead a \u00a7 1985 claim. However, he claims that he has met his burden of showing that the defendants violated clearly established rights under \u00a7 1983. For example, he argues, the fact that some of the Law School faculty members met with certain administrators during the investigatory process and then signed the Letter soliciting complaints from students is enough to show that the faculty members were acting in concert with the administrators to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Allegations of conspiracy may, indeed, form the basis of a \u00a7 1983 claim. Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.1994). However, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing an agreement and concerted action amongst the defendants. Id. \u201cConclusory allegations of conspiracy are insufficient to state a valid \u00a7 1983 claim.\u201d Id. (quotation omitted). Professor Tonkovich presents us with nothing more than conclusory allegations. We do not think it is reasonable to infer, for example, that because certain Law School faculty members met with certain administrators during the investigation, they were conspiring with one another and with the Hearing Committee who ultimately found against Professor Tonkovich. Furthermore, there is no indication that the Hearing Committee members or the Regents were even aware of the divisive dean search or of the candidate whom Professor Tonkovich supported. Professor Tonkovich has simply failed to carry his burden of alleging the facts necessary to support his claim of conspiracy on qualified immunity Ironically, Professor Tonkovich has said both too much and too little. His complaint certainly does not follow the dictates of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief \u2024 shall contain \u2024 a short and plain statement of the claim\u2024).\u201d He pled facts extensively and repetitively in a 101-page complaint. However, as we have noted, facts by the truckload are simply not enough to meet a plaintiff's burden on qualified immunity. At the same time, we are certainly less than sanguine about some of the alleged actions taken by various University officials. In addition, the allegations of various violations of University policy cause us some discomfort. We do not know if we would have reached the same result that the Hearing Committee reached, by a close 3-2 vote. However, as we stated earlier, \u201c[t]he Due Process Clause is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions.\u201d Collins, 503 U.S. at 129, 112 S.Ct. 1061 (quotation omitted). 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 32/39 As noted legal scholar Alexander Bickel observed, \u201c[T]he highest morality almost always is the morality of process.\u201d Alexander Bickel, The Morality of Consent 123 (1975). The process described in Professor Tonkovich's complaint, a hearing spanning nine months in conjunction with two post- termination remedies, clearly comports with the process required by the law of our land. The Due Process Clause does not guarantee that the University of Kansas would reach a result with which Professor Tonkovich agreed. In summary, we conclude that the district court erred when it denied the defendants' motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity. We hold that each of the individual defendants is entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's remaining \u00a7 1983 claims, i.e., violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection rights. We the district court's ruling to the contrary and the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the remaining \u00a7 1983 claims against the individual defendants on qualified immunity grounds and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.11 1. As the district court noted, \u201c[Professor Tonkovich's] 101-page amended complaint is the antithesis of the \u2018short and concise\u2019 pleading requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).\u201d Aplts' App. vol. IV, doc. 18 at 1313. Indeed, it reads like an amalgamation of a complaint and a response to a motion for summary judgment. 2. As discussed below, and as alleged in Professor Tonkovich's complaint, the committee that ultimately presided over the administrative hearing did not adopt this version of the facts. 3. We do not consider the Law School faculty members' argument that digital penetration constitutes rape under the law of Kansas, because that allegation is not contained within Professor Tonkovich's complaint. 4. Although the district court found that Professor Tonkovich had stated a substantive due process claim, it did not address the issue of qualified immunity as it relates specifically to that claim. We shall discuss that below. 5. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). 6. On the other hand, if the plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, then we need not proceed to the second inquiry (whether the right is clearly established). See Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir.1998) (\u201cIf a plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a violation of any constitutional right, it is axiomatic that the plaintiff likewise has failed to allege the violation of a \u2018clearly established right.\u2019 \u201d) (emphasis in original); Taylor v. Meacham, 82 F.3d 1556, 1564 (10th Cir.) (\u201cHaving concluded that no constitutional right was violated, \u2024 we proceed 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 33/39 no further on the qualified immunity issue.\u201d), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 871, 117 S.Ct. 186, 136 L.Ed.2d 125 (1996).In some cases, \u201cthe threshold \u2018constitutional violation\u2019 analysis may run together with the \u2018clearly established\u2019 analysis,\u201d Derda v. City of Brighton, Colo., 53 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir.1995). In those cases, the two-part Siegart inquiry is difficult to apply. See id. 7. Case No. 96-3403, the appeal filed by the Board of Regents, and Case No. 96-3404, the appeal filed by the Hearing Committee, were consolidated for briefing purposes; therefore, in the ensuing discussions, we shall treat those two cases as one separate appeal. 8. We shall discuss the allegation of rape with respect to Professor Tonkovich's liberty interest below. 9. We express no opinion as to whether the professors' statements did, indeed, infringe Professor Tonkovich's liberty interest. As we have already noted, in order to infringe one's liberty interest, the defendant must, among other things, make a false statement impugning the plaintiff's reputation. See Workman, 32 F.3d at 481. At this stage, we are constrained to accept Professor Tonkovich's version of the facts. 10. As noted above, the district court ruled that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Professor Tonkovich's First Amendment claim based on these allegations. 11. Finally, we deny Professor Tonkovich's pending motion for leave to file a sur-reply. HENRY, Circuit Judge. Was this helpful? Yes No 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 34/39 Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Go to Learn About the Law v (1998) Docket No: Nos. 96-3402, 96-3403, 96-3404, 96-3405, 96-3406, 96-3407, 96-3408. Decided: October 26, 1998 Court: United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer \uf105 Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 35/39 \uf105Practice Management \uf105Legal Technology \uf105Law Students Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Sign up \uf105 For Legal Professionals 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 36/39 Enter your email address to subscribe * Indicates required field Learn more about FindLaw\u2019s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw\u2019s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you\u2019re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Go to Learn About the Law \uf105 Get email updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Email * \uf105 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 37/39 Need to find an attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) Find a lawyer Legal issue need help near (city code or country) Bahawalpur, Punjab \uf057 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 38/39 Questions? At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Contact us. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Sign up for our consumer newsletter \uf105 Our Team Accessibility Contact Us \uf105 By Location By Legal Issue By Lawyer Profiles By Name Legal Forms & Services Learn About the Law State Laws U.S. Caselaw U.S. Codes Copyright \u00a9 2025, FindLaw. All rights reserved. Terms > | Privacy > | Disclaimer > | Cookies > 2/16/25, 10:15 v (1998) | FindLaw 39/39"} |
7,516 | Sergio Verdu | Princeton University | [
"7516_101.pdf",
"7516_102.pdf",
"7516_103.pdf",
"7516_104.pdf",
"7516_105.pdf",
"7516_106.pdf",
"7516_107.pdf"
] | {"7516_101.pdf": "Become HuffPost Member Today \u2014 And Go Ad Free! See More Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist Princeton found Sergio Verdu \"responsible for sexual harassment\" in June. By Alanna Vagianos Nov 9, 2017, 09:12 Updated Nov 15, 2017 graduate student at Princeton University says that engineering professor Sergio Verdu sexually harassed her over the course of two Go Ad-Free 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 1/34 months and, despite being found responsible, was required only to attend a training as punishment. Yeohee Im was 23 when she left her hometown of Busan, South Korea, to travel halfway across the world to work with Verdu, a renowned electrical engineering professor. In August 2015, Im enrolled in Princeton University\u2019s electrical engineering graduate program. She had recently finished her master\u2019s in South Korea and was excited to learn from Verdu, a tenured professor who had won dozens of awards for his work in the electrical engineering and information theory fields. She began working with Verdu during her second semester at Princeton in January 2016, when he became one of her thesis advisers. It wasn\u2019t until a year later, Im says, that Verdu began behaving inappropriately toward her. According to documents obtained by HuffPost, in April Im filed a sexual harassment complaint against Verdu with Princeton\u2019s Title office, which deals with issues of gender discrimination. The complaint came after two incidents in February and March, when Verdu allegedly sexually harassed Im in his home while the two were alone, touching her upper thigh and stomach during two incidents. After a two-month investigation, Princeton found Verdu \u201cresponsible for sexual harassment,\u201d but he was not suspended or terminated from his position, according to documents obtained by HuffPost. Verdu responded to the accusations in a statement to HuffPost: \u201cThe university advised me not to reply but categorically deny that there were any advances or any sexual harassment.\u201d According to Im, Verdu\u2019s punishment was to attend an \u201ceight-hour training\u201d session, and he is teaching at Princeton this semester. 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 2/34 Princeton declined to comment to HuffPost on the details of Im\u2019s case or the type of punishment Verdu received but said that \u201cwhen a member of the University community is found responsible for violating our sexual misconduct policy, a range of penalties may be imposed.\u201d After the Title investigation, Im said she began hearing about other women who Verdu had behaved inappropriately toward. The dean of faculty at Princeton, Deborah Prentice, admitted in a recording obtained by HuffPost that there was \u201ca broader set of allegations\u201d made against Verdu by other women but that no one was willing to come forward on record. Because of these other allegations and her own experiences, Im believes Princeton did not do enough to penalize Verdu. \u201cIn that moment was just panicking.\u201d Im had been to Verdu\u2019s house once before to watch a soccer game, so she didn\u2019t think much of it when he invited her over to watch a movie in February. However, she was a little nervous that he had chosen the Korean film \u201cThe Handmaiden\u201d for them to watch, which is known for its sexually explicit story. Im texted one of her classmates to get advice: \u201cMy advisor asked me to watch some movie at his place. But think he asked that only to me am not totally sure but last time he and watched soccer and no one else was there. It is weird.\u201d \u201cProf. Verdu? Um.. if it\u2019s only you two, that does not sound good..,\u201d her classmate responded. 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 3/34 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 4/34 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 5/34 Im says she emailed Verdu a few days before they were supposed to meet asking if they could watch something less sexually explicit was curious about the movie handmaiden so googled it,\u201d Im wrote to Verdu in an email obtained by HuffPost. \u201cIt seems to have explicit contents and am usually not good at watching those. How about we watch another Korean popular movie or anything else you like?\u201d 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 6/34 According to the emails, Verdu responded that he wanted to see something by that director but Netflix only offered \u201cThe Handmaiden.\u201d Im acquiesced and agreed to watch \u201cThe Handmaiden.\u201d After class on Feb. 23, Im says she approached Verdu asking when he wanted to leave to watch the film. \u201cHe led her outside of the room and suggested that they meet in the parking lot, in her opinion, because he \u2018didn\u2019t want anyone to hear,\u2019\u201d according to a Title complaint report obtained by HuffPost. When they arrived at Verdu\u2019s home, Im says they poured some drinks and turned on the movie. Im says she sat at the edge of one of the two couches in Verdu\u2019s living room. Verdu chose to sit on the same couch and sat \u201cright next to [her]\u201d with their \u201carms touching at least some of the time,\u201d according to Im. While the movie was playing, Im says Verdu asked if she had a boyfriend and put his arm around her shoulder for \u201ca short time.\u201d Im says she was very confused and started to panic. \u201cIt was happening in his home,\u201d she said. \u201cAnd right in front of me there was a photo of him and his daughter was panicking, can this be sexual harassment know that his daughter is a similar age to me was wondering, is he doing this because am a similar age to his daughter? In that moment was just panicking.\u201d After the film ended, Im headed home a little shaken and confused about what had just happened. She said she knew something felt wrong, but she didn\u2019t know what to do. Fast forward to the 2:40 mark to see Verdu featured in the welcome video for the electrical engineering graduate program. 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 7/34 week later, on March 9, Verdu reached out to Im again asking if she wanted to watch a movie titled \u201cOld Boy,\u201d which was directed by the same person who directed \u201cThe Handmaiden.\u201d During this email exchange, obtained by HuffPost, Verdu told Im to \u201cplease call me Sergio,\u201d along with a smiling emoji. Im still didn\u2019t know what to think about the previous incident, so she agreed to watch another movie with Verdu. She hoped that Verdu\u2019s behavior toward her had been a misunderstanding. \u201cThe power imbalance is extreme.\u201d On March 10, Verdu drove Im to his home, where, according to the Title complaint, they each drank two glasses of red wine. During the movie, Im says, Verdu told her she was \u201cdrinking too slowly.\u201d The Title complaint outlines what happened next, according to Im: 03:10 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 8/34 During the movie, [Verdu] \u201cmade a joke\u201d about a sex scene in the movie, saying, \u201cthat was fast,\u201d implying they had sex quickly. While they were watching the movie, his right arm was \u201cwrapped around [her] shoulders,\u201d such that his armpit was touching her shoulder, with his right hand on her shoulder. While his arm was around her shoulders, he was \u201csoftly brushing his hand up and down\u201d on her shoulder, \u201clike [people] do when they want to arouse each other.\u201d Im said she realized she had spilled some red wine on her white sweatshirt. When she attempted to get it off, Im said, Verdu came over with soap and a napkin and tried to clean it off himself. She kept telling him it was a cheap shirt and he didn\u2019t need to bother, but he proceeded to try to clean the stain on the stomach area of her shirt for \u201cmore than 30 seconds.\u201d When Im tried to move her shirt away from her stomach so Verdu wouldn\u2019t touch her stomach outside of her shirt, he put his hand inside her shirt, touching the bottom of her bra with his hand as he attempted to clean the wine stain, she said. \u201cYou don\u2019t have to do this,\u201d Im told Verdu. Then, according to Im, Verdu put his hand on her thigh next to her underwear line. He left his hand there \u201cfor a long time,\u201d Im said, around a minute. Im says she stood up in order to get out of the situation and said she needed to use the bathroom kept asking myself, is he doing this because he\u2019s from Barcelona?\u201d Im said, referring to the fact that Verdu is from Spain. \u201cIs this in Barcelona? Maybe it\u2019s different than in Korea.\u201d Genie Harrison, a sexual harassment and assault victim rights lawyer who regularly deals with Title cases, told HuffPost that Verdu\u2019s 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 9/34 actions are typical \u201cgrooming\u201d behavior, which often consists of \u201ctouching a thigh, touching a hand ... talking about his own sex life.\u201d Harrison added that Im\u2019s relationship with her professor is a precarious one because graduate professors have so much power over their students\u2019 success (as we\u2019ve seen with other graduate students and professors). \u201cThe power imbalance is extreme in a situation like this. This is her adviser who basically has control over her ability to succeed in this graduate program, and her ability to get papers published and get a job in the business world,\u201d Harrison told HuffPost. \u201cEverything is hanging on this relationship, which is unique think, to a graduate degree adviser and student. Everything is riding on this person helping you and continuing to support you in your graduate studies.\u201d \u201cIf hadn\u2019t done anything, other students would be in the same danger was.\u201d The morning after Im got home from Verdu\u2019s house she wrote him an email telling him she was not comfortable with what happened the night before. \u201cAfter came home realized wasn\u2019t comfortable with you touching my leg consider our relationship solely as advisor and student and would appreciate if you do so,\u201d she wrote think it would be nice to set some boundaries.\u201d Verdu responded that he agreed and asked if they could meet in person to discuss. 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 10/34 Although she still felt uncomfortable, Im says her relationship with Verdu was cordial and professional after their discussion, and the two continued working together. Im told another professor what had happened with Verdu a few weeks later, and that professor ended up reporting her story to Princeton\u2019s Title office. On April 13, both Im and Verdu were 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 11/34 notified that there would be a Title investigation into the two incidents. Almost two months later, on June 9, Princeton\u2019s Title office emailed Im notifying her that the investigation was complete. The panel found Verdu \u201cresponsible for sexual harassment\u201d but Verdu was not suspended or terminated. Princeton\u2019s Title coordinator, Michele Minter, sent a letter, obtained by HuffPost, to Im detailing the investigation\u2019s findings. The investigation found Verdu \u201cresponsible\u201d for violating Princeton\u2019s policy on sex discrimination and sexual misconduct and determined that \u201cdiscipline is warranted.\u201d Yeohee Im Outcome Letter by Alanna Vagianos on Scribd 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 12/34 According to Im, Verdu\u2019s \u201cdiscipline\u201d was an eight-hour training session. Im met with the Prentice; the school\u2019s Title administrator, Regan Crotty; and one of Im\u2019s other advisers and the dean of the graduate Office of the Provost 3 Nassau Hall Princeton 08544-0015 June 9, 2017 Yeohee Im (GS) [email protected] Dear Ms. Im am writing to inform you that the panel appointed to investigate and adjudicate charges against a faculty member (Respondent) under the University\u2019s policy on Sex Discrimination and Sexual Misconduct has found that he is responsible for violating this policy. Specifically, he was charged with Sexual Harassment and/or Inappropriate Conduct Related to Sex, Gender Identity, or Gender Expression. As is detailed in the panel\u2019s memorandum, the panel, based on the information before it and using the preponderance of the evidence standard, found that the Respondent engaged in unwelcome verbal or physical behavior which was directed at you based on sex that was sufficiently severe to have the effect of unreasonably interfering with your educational experience by creating a hostile or offensive environment. The panel therefore found the Respondent responsible for Sexual Harassment, which is a violation of the University\u2019s policy on Sex Discrimination and Sexual Misconduct. In accordance with our policy, the Dean of the Faculty has reviewed the case file and the panel\u2019s summary regarding its findings of fact and findings of responsibility and has determined that discipline is warranted. While the Respondent will continue in his current capacity, the University is implementing appropriate measures to ensure that such conduct does not recur. 1 You, as well as the Respondent, have the right to appeal this decision to the Committee on Conference and Faculty Appeal (CCFA) on the grounds that (1) there is substantial relevant information that was not presented, and reasonably could not have been presented during the investigation; or (2) there was procedural unfairness. You have until Monday, June 19 at 5 pm to submit your formal letter of appeal, which should be directed to the chair of the CCFA, Martha Himmelfarb, Professor of Religion, Department of Religion. If you are contemplating an appeal recommend that you contact Professor Himmelfarb as soon as possible so that she can explain the process to you. She can be reached at [email protected] or (609)-258-4486. For more information regarding the appeal process, please see Rights, Rules, Responsibilities section 1.3.13(3). 1 In addition, the No Communication Order will remain in effect and may be extended beyond the current April 13, 2018 expiration if you wish to do so. Download this 1 of 2 \ue9c6 \ue9a2 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 13/34 school, Meghan Krause, to discuss the Title office\u2019s findings. Prentice told Im that Verdu\u2019s conduct didn\u2019t call for his termination. \u201cIn connection with you, [Verdu] clearly behaved highly inappropriately, there\u2019s no question, and that\u2019s why there was a penalty,\u201d Prentice told Im in the meeting, a recording of which was obtained by HuffPost. \u201cBut when you indicated to him that he was behaving inappropriately he stopped and took no further action, so under those circumstances, and given that we were treating it as a first-time offense, it doesn\u2019t warrant his termination.\u201d While Im said she\u2019s not comfortable talking about the other allegations against Verdu, she feels that \u201che\u2019s going to do the same thing\u201d to other women. \u201cBefore shared my experience with other students, no one was able to find out that he had been charged with sexual harassment except for a few university officers,\u201d Im said. \u201cIf hadn\u2019t done anything, other students would be in the same danger was penalty should have a preventive effect. If the university had suspended him even for a short period of time, students would know he had been suspended and it would reduce the chances that any more students are harassed.\u201d Harrison told HuffPost that she wouldn\u2019t be surprised if Verdu had done this to other students. \u201cThis is believe, a really serious case,\u201d she said think that something significant should\u2019ve been done if [Im\u2019s] allegations were substantiated. In my experience, people who do this have done this before.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 14/34 When contacted by HuffPost, Princeton spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss said the university could not comment on Verdu\u2019s penalty and issued the following statement: The University takes any accusation of sexual misconduct very seriously, investigates thoroughly, and takes appropriate action based on our findings. We are committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming educational and working environment for all members of our community. When a member of the University community is found responsible for violating our sexual misconduct policy, a range of penalties may be imposed based on the facts of the case, including but not limited to warning, probation, loss of leave or other privileges, suspension and dismissal. We require counseling and training for every individual found to have violated our policy, with the goal of stopping inappropriate behavior. The details of specific Title investigations are kept confidential to respect the privacy of parties involved and the witnesses who provide information. In this case, penalties were imposed in addition to the required counseling. Importantly, in sexual misconduct cases we also focus on providing support and necessary resources to victims to facilitate their continued success at the University. Harrison believes that Princeton\u2019s disciplinary actions are \u201cwoefully insufficient.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 15/34 Suggest a correction | Submit a tip think Princeton is exposing itself to a major, major potential exposure and financial consequences if this guy does this again,\u201d she said. \u201cBecause the message to him is we\u2019re going to slap you on the wrist and we\u2019re going to keep it quiet. You\u2019re not going to lose your job. We\u2019re not going to have a big public hearing. His behavior is extremely alarming and Princeton\u2019s actions against him, to me, are woefully insufficient.\u201d After the Title investigation was completed, Im switched advisers and stopped attending Verdu\u2019s classes. She ended up changing her focus of study because she said she \u201cwould be too nervous to be in the same field as [Verdu] is.\u201d She also told HuffPost that since the harassment occurred she has begun seeing a therapist and taking antidepressants. She also said that she still has to see Verdu every day because they work in the same building. \u201cAlthough it is not easy to share how was taken advantage of am speaking out,\u201d Im said. \u201cBecause hope more people become aware of how dangerous sexual harassment is, so they can avoid the same situation hope this story can give the university a lesson on what kind of actions they have to take in order to protect victims and prevent this from happening again 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 16/34 \u2018Full Bush In Bikini\u2019 Is Trending On TikTok. Here's Why It's Thing. People Are Confessing Their Worst Valentine's Day Stories Of All Time, Proving The Holiday Isn't Always About Romance And Roses Americans' Hot Sauce Preferences, Broken Down By State New Study Reveals Parents Do Have Favorite Child. Here's Who It Is What Are 'Clitoral Legs'? This Hidden Spot Could Up-Level Your Pleasure 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 17/34 Is Bad 'Conservative Girl' Makeup Exclusively Republican Problem? Makeup Artists Have Thoughts. If You Received This Kind Of Text Recently, Do Click On The Link Park Service Literally Erases Stonewall History In 'Cruel' Act Amid Trump Crackdown After My Marriage Blew Up, My Friend Convinced Me To Go To Cougar Club. It Changed My Life. The Funniest Tweets From Parents This Week 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 18/34 The Funniest Tweets From Women This Week This Japanese Ritual May Be The Secret To Reaching Goal. Here's Why You Should Try It. Woman Jailed For Days After Being Mistaken For Thief Who Used Her Driver's License: Lawsuit Alexis Ohanian Mercilessly Skewers Right-Wing Commentator Who Called Him 'Beta' Male Your Partner Says 'They Don't Care About Valentine's Day.' Should You Believe Them? 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 19/34 7 Sneaky Phone Habits That Could Be Signs Of Anxiety I've Been In Pain For 25 Years. This Is What No One Tells You. 8 Pairs Of Period Underwear That Actually Work, According To Reviewers 'Flu A' Is Surging Right Now. Here's What Alarms Doctors The Most. Trump's Body Language During Baffling Elon Musk Press Conference Spoke Volumes, Experts Say 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 20/34 Paid Matchmaker $4K To Send Me On 4 Dates, Only To Learn What Was Doing Wrong Derms Say These Shower Water Filters Can Actually Improve Your Hair And Skin Experts Reveal The 7 Hidden iPhone Hacks That Help Them Be More Productive The Funniest Marriage Tweets To Get You Through This Week Reviewers Wore These Sandals On Vacation And Walked Comfortably For Hours 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 21/34 The Magical $20 Nail Concealer That Helped Me Slash My Mani-Pedi Budget Deb Haaland Launches Bid For New Mexico Governor Nancy Mace Makes Shocking Allegations Against Her Ex-Fianc\u00e9 Does Charging Your Phone To 100% Ruin Your Battery? Here's The Truth. The Super Bowl Halftime Show Spurred Unoriginal 'DEI' Digs \u2014 But We Know What They're Really Saying 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 22/34 Have a PhD In Perinatal Health. Here\u2019s The 1 Thing That Still Shocked Me About Giving Birth. As Trump Attacks The Community, Queer People Are Holding Tight To These Spaces Do You Dress Like An American Tourist Abroad? These Signs Are Dead Giveaway. Why Do Millennials Appear To Be Aging Slower? Here's The Answer. 5 Things Doctors Never, Ever Do During Cold And Flu Season 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 23/34 iPhones Have Built-In White Noise Feature That No One Knows About This Type Of Walking May Drastically Improve Your Heart Function Are You Being 'Spoofed'? This Specific Type Of Scam Is Hard To Catch Found Out Was Pregnant With Quintuplets. It Was The Start Of Long, Terrible Nightmare. 5 Ways 'Hidden Depression' Is Sabotaging You From Living Your Best Life 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 24/34 The Funniest Tweets From Parents This Week The Funniest Tweets From Women This Week If Your Boogers Look Like This, It's Time To See Doctor This 1 Soul-Sucking Habit Affects Pretty Much Everyone \u2014 But There's Quick Fix Got Moldy Bread? Read This Before You Even Think About Eating The Rest Of The Loaf. 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 25/34 Ariana Grande Got Unexpected Call After Oscar Nom, And Her Reaction Was Priceless Pundit Points Out Pam Bondi's 'Outrageous' Move On First Day As Spent 32 Years Believing Was Male. Then Shocking Phone Call Exploded Everything Knew Rep. Burns Nancy Mace In Personal Zinger Involving Marjorie Taylor Greene These 'Unsexy' Products Have Improved Reviewers' Lives Whole Lot 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 26/34 This Genius iPhone Hack Could Help You Instantly Free Up Storage 8 Simple Exercises That Can Do Wonders For Your Sex Life Assigns Highest Risk Level To These Recalled Chocolate Snacks Natasha Rothwell's 'How To Die Alone' Canceled After 1 Season This Filmmaker Is Finally Giving Us The Full Range Of Indigenous Identity We Deserve On-Screen 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 27/34 National Museum Covered Exhibit Honoring Women, People Of Color Amid Anti Efforts Harrison Butker Is Asked What He Thinks Of 'Gays' At Super Bowl Presser Couldn\u2019t Stop Yelling At My Kids. Then Uncovered Something Surprising From My Childhood That Was Causing It. You've Heard Of FOMO, But What Is 'FOBO'? Here's How To Spot This Damaging Issue. Trump Admin's Disturbing Changes On LGBTQ+ Health Data Are Worrying Medical Experts 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 28/34 Federal Unions Sue To Stop Trump's Sketchy 'Buyout' Program, Saying It's An Illegal Ultimatum Doctors Group Sues Federal Agencies For Scrubbing Online Health Data Crockett Calls Trump 'White Supremacist' And Says She's 'Tired Of White Tears' Letitia James Tells Hospitals To Continue Transgender Care Despite Trump Order The Funniest Marriage Tweets To Get You Through This Week 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 29/34 Sabrina Carpenter\u2019s Thirsty Move Is Golden In The Eyes Of Many Grammy Viewers Singer Goes Full Trump In Her Outfit At The Grammys: \u2018The Hat Stays On Overheard 2 Women Discuss The 'Good Old Days.' Here's The Unpleasant Truth People Seem To Forget. Make Separation Anxiety Easier On Your Pet With These Behaviorist- Recommended Tools This 1 Eating Habit Could Put You At Higher Risk Of Dementia 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 30/34 Was Willing To Do Anything To Save My Baby Nurse Made Suggestion That Almost Cost Me My Life Regret To Inform You That This Cult- Fave Light Mask Is Worth Every Penny This Common And Beloved Dog Treat Can Destroy Your Pet's Teeth 12 Mindless Habits That Are Secretly Exhausting You The Funniest Tweets From Parents This Week 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 31/34 6 'Soothing' Activities That Are Secretly Causing You More Anxiety For Black And Brown People, Here\u2019s The Key To The 'No-Makeup' Makeup Look \u2018Emilia P\u00e9rez\u2019 Star Apologizes After Slew Of Her Old Racist Tweets Resurface Jr.'s Stunning Claim About Black People And Vaccines Sparks Concern From Medical Experts More Than 650 Students In Texas Stay Home Due To Flu Outbreak. Here's What Parents Need To Know. 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 32/34 Reese Witherspoon Says 'Serious' Actor Ended Friendship Over 1 Joke At 'Classy' Ceremony Was Dreading 1 Thing About Pregnancy. Then My Biggest Fear Came True. The Funniest Tweets From Women This Week Is The 5 A.M. Productivity Trend Healthy? Here's Who Shouldn't Do It 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 33/34 Part of HuffPost Women. \u00a92025 BuzzFeed, Inc. All rights reserved. The Huffington Post 2/16/25, 10:16 Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist | HuffPost Women 34/34", "7516_102.pdf": "2022 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-27-2022 Sergio Verdu v. Princeton University Trustees Sergio Verdu v. Princeton University Trustees Follow this and additional works at: Recommended Citation Recommended Citation \"Sergio Verdu v. Princeton University Trustees\" (2022). 2022 Decisions. 756. This September is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2022 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository ________________ No. 20-1724 ________________ VERDU, Appellant v ________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-19-cv-12484) District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson ________________ Submitted under Third Circuit 34.1(a) On June 24, 2021 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 27, 2022) 2 ________________ OPINION* ________________ ROTH, Circuit Judge. Sergio Verdu served as a tenured professor in the electrical-engineering department at Princeton University before his termination in 2018. Verdu asserts that Princeton and its agents (collectively, Princeton) violated his rights when it terminated him, so he filed a complaint in the District Court asserting violations of Title and of Title and state-law claims. Princeton moved to dismiss the complaint, and the District Court granted the motion. In doing so, the District Court ruled that Verdu failed to state a plausible claim for relief under either Title or Title VII. The District Court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Verdu\u2019s state-law claims. Finding no error, we will affirm the order of the District Court. I.1 Verdu taught at Princeton for nearly thirty-five years. In April 2017, Yeohee Im, a graduate student at Princeton, reported Verdu for sexual harassment. Princeton investigated the charge and determined that Verdu had violated Princeton\u2019s sexual- misconduct policy. Princeton disciplined Verdu by putting him on probation for a year. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. 1 These facts are taken from the complaint and treated as true because, in reviewing a denial of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we accept as true all well- pleaded allegations and construe the complaints in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Lewis v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 542 F.3d 403, 405 (3d Cir. 2008). 3 According to Verdu, Im did not believe that Princeton punished Verdu sufficiently. That feeling was enhanced by Im\u2019s relationship with Paul Cuff, a former assistant professor at Princeton who held a grudge against Verdu. When Princeton denied Cuff tenure, Cuff blamed Verdu. Verdu believed that Cuff then influenced Im to engage in a public-pressure campaign against Verdu.2 Im\u2019s campaign led to calls for Verdu\u2019s termination. In September 2017, Princeton launched a second investigation into Verdu. The second investigation involved an alleged romantic relationship between Verdu and another Princeton graduate student, E.S., a student whose graduate dissertation Verdu had evaluated. According to Verdu, the second investigation was caused, at least in part, by Im\u2019s efforts to find evidence about the relationship between Verdu and E.S. At first, Verdu and E.S. denied that they had had any romantic relationship, Princeton, however, ultimately concluded that Verdu and E.S. engaged in an impermissible romantic relationship while Verdu evaluated her dissertation. Verdu later admitted that he and E.S. did engage in a romantic relationship during that period. As punishment, Princeton\u2019s president recommended that Verdu be fired. The president based his recommendation on the fact that Verdu had lied during the investigation. Verdu asserts that both investigations involved discrimination against him because of his sex. He claims that Princeton\u2019s investigations were defective because of alleged 2 Verdu alleges that Im violated numerous policies and rules at Princeton when she executed her alleged public-pressure campaign. 4 procedural anomalies, Im\u2019s public-pressure campaign, and other public pressures on Princeton to more rigorously investigate and punish any on-campus sexual misconduct. Verdu sued Princeton in the District Court. The court dismissed his suit because Verdu failed to plausibly allege his federal-law claims. Verdu\u2019s appeal is now before us. II. The District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Verdu\u2019s federal claims under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331. Although the District Court dismissed Verdu\u2019s complaint without prejudice, Verdu stood on his complaint by filing his appeal and by making certain representations in his appellate briefing. \u201cAlthough generally a plaintiff who decides to stand on the complaint does so in the district court[,] . . . we have made clear that such a course, while preferable, is not always necessary.\u201d3 When a plaintiff \u201cdeclare[s] [his] intention to stand on [his] complaint in this [C]ourt[,] . . . we thereafter treat[ ] the district court\u2019s order dismissing the complaint, albeit without prejudice, as a final order dismissing with prejudice . . . .\u201d4 Verdu unequivocally stated his intention to stand on his complaint in his briefing before us.5 Thus, we have appellate jurisdiction 3 Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 254 (3d Cir. 2001). 4 Id. (citing Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., 223 F.3d 165, 172\u201373 (3d Cir. 2000)); see also Pascack Valley Hosp. v. Local 464A Welfare Reimbursement Plan, 388 F.3d 393, 398 (3d Cir. 2004) (\u201cAt oral argument [before us], counsel for the Hospital declared the Hospital\u2019s intention to . . . stand on its complaint. Counsel\u2019s declaration is sufficient to render the District Court\u2019s order final and appealable.\u201d). 5 See, e.g., Appellant\u2019s Opening Br. at 21\u201322. Princeton does not contest whether Verdu has clearly stood on his complaint; nor does it contest our appellate jurisdiction. 5 under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1291. We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).6 III. Verdu\u2019s first contention is that the District Court erred when it dismissed his claims for relief under Title of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title provides that \u201c[n]o person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.\u201d7 In Doe v. University of the Sciences,8 we adopted a \u201cstraightforward pleading standard\u201d and held \u201cthat, to state a claim under Title IX, the alleged facts, if true, must support a plausible inference that a federally- funded college or university discriminated against a person on the basis of sex.\u201d9 Plaintiffs, of course, remain \u201cfree to characterize their claims however they wish.\u201d10 In his complaint, Verdu states three theories under which Princeton discriminated against him: erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, and retaliation. 1. Erroneous Outcome. Verdu claims that Princeton discriminated against him based on his sex by reaching the incorrect conclusion both times that it investigated him. 6 See, e.g., Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 786 n.2 (3d Cir. 2016). 7 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a). 8 961 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020). We reaffirmed that pleading standard more recently in Doe v. Princeton University, 30 F.4th 335, 343 (3d Cir. 2022). 9 Univ. of the Scis., 961 F.3d at 209. 10 Id. 6 As for the first investigation, Verdu attempts to show that Princeton discriminated against him based on his sex when it investigated and disciplined him based on (1) generalized archaic stereotypes about the sexes, (2) the history of complaints to the Department of Education\u2019s Office for Civil Rights about Princeton\u2019s purported failure to respond adequately to allegations of sexual misconduct advanced by female students and the resulting pressure on Princeton to remedy that perception, and (3) the fact that three female graduate students studying in a different department at Princeton left abruptly and, as a result, Princeton held a townhall meeting concerning systematic and long-term sexual harassment within that department. The District Court correctly found that, based on those allegations, Verdu had failed to state a plausible claim that, because of his sex, Princeton investigated and sanctioned him. Verdu\u2019s allegations simply reflect the pressure on Princeton to enforce its sexual-misconduct policy. These allegations alone are not enough to state a plausible claim against Princeton under Title IX.11 As for Princeton\u2019s second investigation of Verdu, the District Court found that Verdu\u2019s erroneous-outcome theory could not survive a motion to dismiss because he failed to sufficiently plead his innocence. As we explained in University of the Sciences, we have a standard based on the text of Title itself: \u201cthe alleged facts, if true, must 11 Id. at 210 (\u201cLike our colleagues on the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, we . . . recognize that allegations about pressure from [the Department of Education] and the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter cannot alone support a plausible claim of Title sex discrimination.\u201d (citations omitted)). 7 support a plausible inference that a federally-funded college or university discriminated against a person on the basis of sex.\u201d12 Verdu failed to satisfy that standard. On appeal, Verdu contends that his complaint alleges that the second investigation suffered from sex bias because of a purported lack of evidence of sexual misconduct, Princeton\u2019s decision to press the investigation despite E.S. not wanting one to occur, procedural irregularities in the investigation, and a variety of public pressures placed on Princeton. However, the District Court found that, in his own complaint, Verdu acknowledged that he violated Princeton\u2019s policies: \u201cPlaintiff alleges in the [c]omplaint that he and E.S. commenced a relationship in Spring 2014, that the relationship was ongoing during the period when Plaintiff evaluated E.S.\u2019s dissertation, and that [Princeton\u2019s] rules at the time prohibited \u2018sexual or romantic relation[s] involv[ing] individuals in a teacher-student relationship.\u2019\u201d13 Verdu\u2019s admission of guilt undercuts the strength of his allegations that Princeton investigated him because of his sex. As a result, Verdu\u2019s allegations concerning the second investigation also fall short. 2. Selective Enforcement. Verdu claims that both the first and second investigation suffered from sex bias because Princeton selectively enforced its policies against him. He is wrong. As for the first investigation, Verdu claims that Princeton discriminated against him based on his sex because (1) on information and belief, females are purportedly investigated less frequently than males, (2) on information and belief, females are punished less severely than males, and (3) Princeton treated his accuser, Im, 12 Id. at 209. 13 App. 15 (cleaned up); see also Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 229, 235, 298(h). 8 differently than it treated him during the first investigation. As for the allegations about how females and males are generally treated differently, those allegations are too abstract to support a claim of sex bias under Title IX.14 In addition, the purported differences in how Princeton treated Verdu and Im are too conclusory to support a plausible claim for relief.15 As for the second investigation, Verdu asserts essentially the same arguments to support his selective-enforcement theory as he asserts to support his erroneous-outcome theory. For substantially the same reasons that we reject those arguments in support of his erroneous-outcome theory, we reject them in support of his selective-enforcement theory. 3. Retaliation. Verdu challenges the District Court\u2019s order dismissing his Title retaliation claim. To state a claim for retaliation under Title IX, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that he \u201cengaged in activity protected by Title IX, that he \u201csuffered an adverse action,\u201d and that \u201cthere was a causal connection between the two.\u201d16 \u201cRetaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is another form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX\u2019s private cause of action.\u201d17 plaintiff alleging retaliation \u201cneed not prove the merits of the underlying 14 See Univ. of the Sciences, 961 F.3d at 209\u201311. 15 See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 16 See, e.g., Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 564 (3d Cir. 2017) (cleaned up); Moore v. City of Phila., 461 F.3d 331, 340\u201342 (3d Cir. 2006). 17 Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (2005). 9 discrimination complaint, but only that \u2018he was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation existed.\u2019\u201d18 The District Court found that, at a minimum, Verdu failed to allege that he engaged in activity protected by Title IX. As we explained earlier, Title protects against discrimination because of sex. In his complaint, Verdu alleges merely that he reported being subjected to a \u201chostile work environment\u201d because of Im\u2019s pressure campaign.19 Verdu\u2019s complaint never connects the purported \u201chostile work environment\u201d and Im\u2019s public-pressure campaign to any purported sex-based discrimination. For that reason, Verdu\u2019s complaint does not include plausible allegations that Verdu\u2019s conduct of reporting the alleged \u201chostile work environment\u201d is protected by Title IX.20 Thus, the District Court correctly dismissed Verdu\u2019s retaliation claim. IV. Next, Verdu challenges the District Court\u2019s dismissal of his Title claims. Title makes it unlawful \u201cfor an employer . . . to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, 18 Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Griffiths v Corp., 988 F.2d 457, 468 (3d Cir.1993)). 19 To be sure, the alleged \u201chostile work environment\u201d is related to publicity surrounding Princeton\u2019s first Title investigation into him. However, that is not a sufficient connection by itself to show that the purported \u201chostile work environment\u201d was caused by sex discrimination directed at Verdu. 20 See, e.g., Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; cf. Sitar v. Ind. DOT, 344 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that, in Title context, the plaintiff had not engaged in protected activity because she \u201ccomplained only that she felt picked on, not that she was discriminated against \u2018because of\u2019 sex or gender, which is what Title requires\u201d). 10 or privileges of employment, because of such individual\u2019s . . . sex.\u201d21 Verdu alleges that Princeton violated Title under two theories: one alleging disparate treatment and the other alleging a hostile work environment. 1. Disparate Treatment. To allege plausibly a disparate-treatment claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he is qualified for the position he sought to retain or attain, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances that may give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.22 The \u201ccentral focus of the prima facie [Title VII] case is always whether the employer is treating some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\u201d23 \u201cThe evidence most often used to establish . . . disparate treatment\u201d involves \u201ca plaintiff show[ing] that [he] was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees who are not in [his] protected class.\u201d24 The District Court found that Verdu failed to allege that he received different treatment by Princeton than a similarly situated female. He never identifies a female professor at Princeton as a comparator; at most, his complaint alleges that Im\u2014a graduate student and his accuser\u2014is a valid comparator. Although a plaintiff need not show an 21 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e\u20132(a) (emphasis added). 22 See Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205, 214 (3d Cir. 2008). 23 Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789, 798 (3d Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (cleaned up). 24 Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 366 (3d Cir. 2008); see also Simpson v. Kay Jewelers, Div. of Sterling, Inc., 142 F.3d 639, 645 (3d Cir. 1998). 11 exact match between himself and the comparator, he must show a sufficient similarity.25 Verdu, a professor, and Im, a graduate student, hold unquestionably different roles and levels of authority at Princeton. Verdu has not alleged enough commonalities to show that they are sufficiently alike to be considered valid comparators. Although on appeal Verdu contends that one can infer that Princeton discriminated against him because of his sex, none of his allegations plausibly support that contention.26 His disparate-treatment claim therefore must fail. 2. Hostile Work Environment. To allege a plausible hostile-work- environment claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he suffered intentional discrimination based on his being a part of a protected class, (2) the discrimination was severe or pervasive; (3) the discrimination had a detrimental influence on the plaintiff; (4) the discrimination would have had a detrimental influence on a reasonable person in similar circumstances; and (5) respondeat-superior liability exists.27 The District Court found that Verdu failed to allege sufficiently the first element: whether any harassment that he suffered was motivated by sex discrimination. The District Court\u2019s analysis is correct. In his complaint, Verdu explains that Im\u2019s public- pressure campaign, along with other public pressures on Princeton concerning on-campus sexual harassment, led to Verdu facing public scrutiny from his colleagues and students 25 See, e.g., Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 867 (6th Cir. 2003) (\u201cIn the context of personnel actions, the relevant factors for determining whether employees are similarly situated often include the employees\u2019 supervisors, the standards that the employees had to meet, and the employees\u2019 conduct.\u201d (cleaned up)). 26 See supra \u00a7 2. 27 See, e.g., Mandel v Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 2013). 12 at Princeton. All of that, according to Verdu\u2019s complaint, caused him stress, anxiety, elevated blood pressure; all of it also allegedly led to a \u201chostile work environment\u201d for Verdu. However, Verdu never plausibly alleges that Im\u2019s pressure campaign and the \u201chostile work environment\u201d that purportedly resulted from it were motivated by sex discrimination. If anything, Verdu alleges that Im launched her pressure campaign because she felt \u201c[d]issatisfied with [the] sanction\u201d of Verdu.28 Additionally, his complaint makes much of Im\u2019s purported relationship with Professor Cuff. According to Verdu, Cuff \u201cheld a grudge against\u201d him because Cuff blamed Verdu for his failure to obtain tenure.29 Based on Im allegedly \u201c[h]aving developed a close relationship with Cuff,\u201d she purportedly filed her grievances against Verdu based on Cuff\u2019s alleged encouragement.30 Those allegations do not relate to sex discrimination; instead, they relate to a purported feud between Cuff and Im, on one hand, and Verdu, on the other. That is not enough to allege a plausible hostile-work-environment claim based on sex discrimination. \u201cMany may suffer severe or pervasive harassment . . ., but if the reason for that harassment is one that is not proscribed by Title VII, it follows that Title provides no relief.\u201d31 Thus, the District Court properly dismissed Verdu\u2019s hostile-work- environment claim under Title VII. 28 Compl. \u00b6 12. 29 Compl. \u00b6 4. 30 Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 6\u20137. 31 See, e.g., Jensen v. Potter, 435 F.3d 444, 449 (3d Cir. 2006), overruled in part on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). 13 V. The District Court properly dismissed the federal-law claims asserted in Verdu\u2019s complaint for failure to state a claim. We will affirm the District Court\u2019s order dismissing Verdu\u2019s complaint.32 32 Having dismissed all federal-law claims and failing to find any other basis for subject- matter jurisdiction over Verdu\u2019s state-law claims, the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See, e.g., Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating that, when \u201cthe claim[s] over which the district court has original jurisdiction [are] dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.\u201d). Verdu makes no contrary argument.", "7516_103.pdf": "Sexual harassment allegations roil Princeton University Another high-profile instance of sexual harassment has rocked a major institution and students say administrators didn\u2019t act transparently or strongly enough. By Avi Wolfman-Arent \u00b7 November 27, 2017 Blair Hall on Princeton University's campus in New Jersey. (Alan Tu/WHYY) k Another high-profile instance of sexual harassment has rocked a major institution \u2014 this time Princeton University in New Jersey. And students say administrators didn\u2019t act transparently or strongly enough when disciplining the alleged perpetrator, a decorated professor b q Listen Live World Service 2/16/25, 10:17 Sexual harassment allegations roil Princeton University 1/7 Title investigation, first revealed by HuffPost, found electrical engineering professor Sergio Verdu guilty of sexually harassing one of his student advisers. Yeohee Im told HuffPost Verdu touched her thigh and stomach and invited her to watch sexually explicit films at his house. Im also said the university punished Verdu by mandating he take eight hours of sexual harassment training, but did nothing further. Princeton officials said the discipline went beyond training, but won\u2019t say how exactly Verdu was reprimanded. \u201cThe details of specific Title investigations are kept confidential to respect the privacy of parties involved and the witnesses who provide information,\u201d said university spokesman Michael Hotchkiss in an e-mail. \u201cIn this case, penalties were imposed in addition to the required counseling.\u201d Verdu denies he sexually harassed Im, but declined an interview request, also citing the confidentiality of Title inquiries cannot comment, due to university regulations on the confidentiality of these matters, beyond the fact that have denied unequivocally throughout this process that there was any sexual harassment,\u201d said Verdu in an email. More than 750 Princeton students, staff, and alum signed a petition asking the university to punish Verdu further and clarify how it adjudicates sexual harassment claims. \u201cIn particular, we note that Title infractions committed by faculty members are particularly egregious, as the influence that faculty wield over students and their future careers \u2014 particularly students within their own departments \u2014 further discourages reporting of violations and makes sexual advances more challenging to combat,\u201d the petition read resolution before Princeton\u2019s Undergraduate Student Government also calls for the university to discipline Verdu further, according to The Daily Princetonian, a campus newspaper. Alexandra Werth, a fourth-year graduate student in the electrical engineering department, said the intimate and imbalanced relationship between graduate students and their professors can leave students vulnerable. \u201cFor someone who\u2019s not in the position of power, the graduate student, it can make it very difficult to tell what\u2019s going on,\u201d said Werth. \u201cIs this proper behavior or not?\u201d Because graduate students often work in narrowly defined fields with few jobs, alienating an 2/16/25, 10:17 Sexual harassment allegations roil Princeton University 2/7 Share this adviser, Werth said, can severely damage someone\u2019s career prospects. Town hall set to air complaints Michelle Zheng, also an electrical engineering graduate student, feels the university didn\u2019t do enough to protect other students who might have worked with Verdu. If Im hadn\u2019t publicized her story through HuffPost, Zheng said, students would still be in the dark about the professor\u2019s behavior. \u201cWe should have known about this five months ago,\u201d she said. \u201cYou force your student to go public to raise awareness about this issue.\u201d Zheng said at least a couple of other students in the department cannot sleep well and are \u201cvery stressed about the incident.\u201d Student outcry over the university\u2019s handling of the Verdu case prompted Emily Carter, dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to write the community a letter. Carter condemned Verdu\u2019s behavior and acknowledged his guilt, but stood by Princeton\u2019s process for investigating and punishing the award-winning professor. \u201cAlthough am not part of the disciplinary process and am unable to disclose certain information relating to outcomes under university policy and applicable law can say that am convinced that the university promptly and properly investigates and adjudicates each case,\u201d Carter wrote. In comments to HuffPost, Im said Princeton investigators were aware of other, similar incidents involving Verdu, but that none of the other women came forward, and they were obligated to treat Verdu as a first-time offender. In a statement, Hotchkiss said those who violate the school\u2019s sexual misconduct policy can be warned, put on probation, lose leave or other privileges, be suspended, or be dismissed \u201cbased on the facts of the case.\u201d In addition to crafting their petition, students have also requested meetings with university officials. The Daily Princetonian reported that electrical engineering graduate students held a town hall Nov. 20 to air complaints. Another town hall will take place Monday at noon, according to Carter. a b d 2/16/25, 10:17 Sexual harassment allegations roil Princeton University 3/7 a e t s You may also like is your source for fact-based, in-depth journalism and information. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. Please give today. j 2 more universities to pay $35.2M to settle allegations of favoring wealthy students in admissions and financial aid Attorneys representing 200,000 students alleged that 17 schools, including Penn, favored wealthy students in financial aid and admissions decisions over a 20-year period. 4 weeks ago q Listen 1:30 6abc Princeton University offering free tuition for families making less than $100K a year School officials say 1,500 students will benefit from the income increase. 1 year ago Princeton to remove Woodrow Wilson name from public policy school Princeton announced plans to remove the name of the former president from its public policy school because of his segregationist views, reversing an earlier decision. 5 years ago 2/16/25, 10:17 Sexual harassment allegations roil Princeton University 4/7 Latest News Want a digest of WHYY\u2019s programs, events & stories? Sign up for our weekly newsletter. About Avi Wolfman-Arent Avi Wolfman-Arent is an on-air host at and the co-host of WHYY's \"Studio 2.\" b @Avi_WA d [email protected] Read more Presidents Day in Philly: What\u2019s open and what\u2019s closed 7 hours ago \u2018It\u2019s the year of the body\u2019 at Philly\u2019s Franklin Institute. \u2018Body Worlds: Vital\u2019 is on display through Sept. 1 8 hours ago Protests are set to take place on Presidents Day. Here\u2019s why 10 hours ago Enter your email here Subscribe 2/16/25, 10:17 Sexual harassment allegations roil Princeton University 5/7 Together we can reach 100% of WHYY\u2019s fiscal year goal provides trustworthy, fact-based, local news and information and world-class entertainment to everyone in our community offers a voice to those not heard, a platform to share everyone\u2019s stories, a foundation to empower early and lifelong learners and a trusted space for unbiased news. Learn more about Social Responsibility at WHYY. It\u2019s how we live. Contact Us Philadelphia 215.351.1200 [email protected] Delaware 302.516.7506 [email protected] 59% Donate i Learn about Member benefits i Ways to Donate 2/16/25, 10:17 Sexual harassment allegations roil Princeton University 6/7 Our Programs Albie\u2019s Elevator Art Outside Billy Penn Check, Please! Philly The Connection Delishtory Flicks Fresh Air Good Souls The Infinite Art Hunt Movers & Makers On Stage at Curtis Peak Travel Philadelphia Revealed PlanPhilly The Pulse Schooled The Statue Stop and Frisk: Revisit or Resist Studio 2 Things To Do Voices in the Family News Climate Desk You Oughta Know Young Creators Studio Young, Unhoused and Unseen Your Democracy Inside About Meet Our Newsroom Employment Lifelong Learning Award N.I.C.E. Initiative Contact Us Sponsorship Directions Public Files Applications Follow Us Sign up for a Newsletter i Privacy Policy Terms of Use for WHYY.org is partnered with a b \ued46 e 2/16/25, 10:17 Sexual harassment allegations roil Princeton University 7/7", "7516_104.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ Mar 30, 2020 Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2020) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Rethink the way you litigate with CoCounsel for research, discovery, depositions, and so much more. Try CoCounsel free Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) 03-30-2020 VERDU, Plaintiff, v UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. Hon. Freda L. Wolfson U.S. Chief District Judge Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 1/25 Plaintiff Sergio Verdu (\"Plaintiff\"), a former professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Princeton University (the \"University\"), was terminated from his employment with the University in September 2018. His termination followed two separate investigations by the University, which concluded that Plaintiff had violated the University's rules and policies governing sexual misconduct, prohibiting certain relationships between teachers and students, and requiring faculty members to be honest during interviews with investigators. In this action, Plaintiff sues the University, the University's Board of Trustees, and certain administrators of the University who were involved in the investigations (collectively, \"Defendants\"), claiming, among other things, that the University's proceedings were tainted with gender bias against him. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 *2 (Counts thru III) and of Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Count IV). The Complaint also asserts a host of state statutory and common law claims (Counts thru XIV). 1 2 1 The Complaint names the following administrators of the University as defendants: Christopher L. Eisgruber, Deborah A. Prentice, Regan Crotty, Toni Marlene Turano, Lisa Michelle Schreyer, Michele Minter, Claire Gmachl, Cheri Burgess, Lynn William Enquist, Susan Tufts Fiske, Carolina Mangone, Harvey S. Rosen and Irene Small. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is and PART. Plaintiff's federal claims (Counts thru IV) are dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims (Counts thru XVI) at this time. Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint to replead his federal claims, in a manner consistent with this Opinion, within forty-five (45) days. In lieu of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff may pursue his state law claims in state court 2 2 In this Background section provide a brief overview of the facts that are pertinent to this motion. In the Discussion section, infra set forth a more 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 2/25 detailed recitation of the relevant facts that are alleged by Plaintiff in support of each of his claims. Plaintiff taught at the University as a professor for nearly 35 years without incident until 2017. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 2, 49-50.) In April 2017, a twenty-five-year- old female graduate student, Yeohee Im (\"Im\"), reported to the University's Title Office that Plaintiff had sexually harassed her. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 118-119.) The University convened a Title panel (\"Panel\") to conduct an investigation pursuant to its Sexual Misconduct Policy (the \"First Investigation\"). (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 76-91, 125.) The Panel ultimately found Plaintiff responsible for sexual harassment. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 11, 164.) On June 9, 2017, the Dean of the Faculty disciplined Plaintiff for violating the Sexual Misconduct Policy by, among other things, placing him on a one-year probation. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 165, 167.) Plaintiff alleges that, following the conclusion of the First Investigation, Im believed that the sanction Plaintiff received was inadequate and, as a result, waged a public campaign against *3 him and the University. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 177-208.) In the course of Im's campaign, Plaintiff alleges that Im committed numerous violations of the University's policies. For example, Plaintiff alleges that Im disclosed confidential records to news outlets, commented on the case to journalists who published articles about it, encouraged social media posts against Plaintiff, and filed complaints with professional associations to which Plaintiff belonged. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 12, 177-226.) Plaintiff alleges that these efforts ultimately led to calls for his termination. (Id. \u00b6 13.) Plaintiff further alleges that the University refused to address Im's violations of the University's Title policies or remedy the increasingly aggressive harassment and hostile environment caused by Im's activities. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 209-211, 215.) 3 In September 2017, officials at the University told Plaintiff that it was commencing a second investigation into reports that Plaintiff may have had a romantic relationship with a different graduate student (the \"Second Investigation\"). (Id. \u00b6 239.) The student, E.S., had been a student in two of Plaintiff's classes in 2011, and Plaintiff had served as a reader on her dissertation committee in Fall 2015. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 235-236.) Witnesses reported that they had seen Plaintiff and E.S. kissing at a bar in Hong Kong during a conference, and photographs emerged of a man and woman kissing who 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 3/25 appeared to be Plaintiff and E.S. (Id. \u00b6 227.) Plaintiff alleges that Im unearthed this evidence because she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the First Investigation. (Id. \u00b6 226.) The University's Rules and Procedures of the Faculty, at the time, prohibited \"sexual or romantic relationship[s] involv[ing] individuals in a teacher- student relationship (e.g. being directly or indirectly taught, supervised or evaluated).\" (Id. \u00b6 229.) Plaintiff and E.S. both denied that any relationship had occurred during interviews with investigators. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 124, 250, 299.) Notwithstanding those denials, the investigators ultimately concluded that Plaintiff and E.S. had *4 engaged in a romantic relationship during the time when he evaluated her dissertation. (Id. \u00b6 261.) Plaintiff now admits in the Complaint that he and E.S. commenced a relationship in Spring 2014. (Compl. \u00b6 235.) That relationship was ongoing during the period when Plaintiff evaluated E.S.'s dissertation. (Id. \u00b6 298(h).) 4 On May 21, 2018, the University's President issued a memo to the University's Board of Trustees recommending that Plaintiff be dismissed. (Id. 304.) The memo concluded that Plaintiff lied during the Second Investigation; his lies were substantial and material under the University's rules and policies; the lies justified dismissal; Plaintiff also violated the University's policies on consensual relations; and neither Im nor Cuff (a former Assistant Professor who allegedly blamed his failure to obtain tenure on Plaintiff, see Compl. \u00b6 4) influenced the proceedings in a manner that could excuse Plaintiff's conduct. (See Recommendation Memo 20-3.) On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff was notified that the University had terminated his employment effective immediately. (Compl. \u00b6 324.) 3 3 Defendants attach this recommendation memo as an exhibit to their motion papers. (See Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Christine E. Gage 20-3 (\"Recommendation Memo\").) Because the Complaint quotes extensively from the recommendation memo and relies on it as the basis for multiple claims, this Court may consider the memo for the purposes of this motion to dismiss. See Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006) (\"In evaluating a motion to dismiss, we may consider documents . . . and any 'matters incorporated by reference or integral to the claim[.]'\" Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 4/25 Procedure \u00a7 1357 (3d ed. 2004)); see also Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding \"that a court may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document.\") Plaintiff alleges that, in the course of the Second Investigation, the University and its administrators violated numerous provisions of the University's Rules and Procedures of the Faculty and expanded the investigation to include baseless claims against him. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 238-331.) Plaintiff further alleges that the University and other defendants relied on gender stereotypes, *5 distorted the evidence and the applicable standards, and improperly relied upon Plaintiff's probation as a basis for his termination. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that the University and other defendants were motivated by external pressure and the need to repair the University's tarnished reputation, which resulted from: (i) numerous investigations by the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights for the University's alleged failure to properly respond to female students' claims of sexual assault and harassment (id. \u00b6\u00b6 66-73); (ii) public criticism over the alleged sexual harassment of a number of female students in the University's German Department (id. \u00b6 75); (iii) criticism of the University by Im and Cuff for the results of the First Investigation (id. \u00b6\u00b6 180-187, 191-201, 208, 216-220); and (iv) the rebirth of the #MeToo movement, which had gained momentum during the timeframe of the Second Investigation and contributed to further criticism of the University and public calls for Plaintiff's termination (id. \u00b6\u00b6 188-190, 202-207, 212-214, 221-225). 5 Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for \"failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). \"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'\" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007 claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\" Id. This \"plausibility standard\" requires that the plaintiff allege \"more than a sheer possibility 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 5/25 that a defendant has acted unlawfully,\" but it \"is not akin to a 'probability requirement.'\" Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true, it is not compelled to accept \"unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences, or a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,\" Morrow v. Balaski, *6 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). \"Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.\" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, although \"a district court . . . may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings,\" the court may consider documents that are \"integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint.\" In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). 6 A. Title Claims Counts I, II, and of the Complaint assert that the University violated Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 by discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of his gender. (See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 332-352 (Count I), \u00b6\u00b6 353- 380 (Count II), \u00b6\u00b6 381-418 (Count III).) Title states that \"[n]o person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.\" 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a). Among other things, it \"bars the imposition of university discipline where gender is a motivating factor,\" and it \"is enforceable through an implied private right of action . . . for monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.\" Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709, 714-15 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). In most Title cases, a plaintiff advances a claim under one of two theories: (1) an \"erroneous outcome\" theory; or (2) a \"selective enforcement\" theory. Doe v. The Trustees of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 270 F. Supp. 3d 799, 822 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (citation omitted); see also Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 714-16 (dividing Title *7 claims involving university disciplinary proceedings into two categories based on erroneous outcome and selective enforcement theories). Occasionally, a plaintiff will also assert a Title claim under a theory of \"retaliation\" for complaining of gender discrimination. Doe v. Mercy Catholic 4 7 5 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 6/25 Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 563-64 (3d Cir. 2017); see also Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173-74 (2005) (stating that \"[r]etaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is another form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX's private cause of action\"). Plaintiff proceeds under all three theories. (See Pl.'s Opp. at 7-20, 25-28.) 4 Count alleges a violation of Title with respect to the First Investigation. Counts and allege violations of Title with respect to the Second Investigation. 5 Although a Second Circuit case, Yusuf has been cited by numerous courts in the Third Circuit as setting the standard for Title erroneous outcome/selective enforcement claims. See, e.g., Doe v. Trustees of Princeton Univ., 2020 967860, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2020); Doe v. Rider Univ., 2020 634172, at *7 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2020); Doe v. The Trustees of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 270 F. Supp. 3d 799, 822 (E.D. Pa. 2017); Saravanan v. Drexel Univ., 2017 5659821, at *4-6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2017); see also Doe v. Princeton Univ., 790 F. App'x 379, 383-84 (3d Cir. 2019) (affirming a decision of the district court that applied the Yusuf standard to a Title claim that was advanced under a selective enforcement theory). As such apply the standard from Yusuf in this case. (1) Erroneous Outcome Under an \"erroneous outcome\" theory, a plaintiff asserts that he or she was \"innocent and wrongly found to have committed an offense.\" Yusuf., 35 F.3d at 715. An erroneous outcome challenge to university disciplinary proceedings requires a plaintiff to plead (1) \"particular facts sufficient to cast some articulable doubt on the accuracy of the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding,\" and (2) \"particular circumstances suggesting that gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding.\" Id complaint meets the first prong if it alleges \"particular evidentiary weaknesses behind the finding of an offense such as a motive to lie on the part of a complainant or witnesses, particularized strengths of the defense, or other reason to doubt the veracity of the charge.\" Id. It may also allege procedural flaws affecting the evidence. Id. \"[T]he *8 pleading burden in this regard is not heavy.\" Id. However, \"[i]f no such doubt exists based on the record before the disciplinary tribunal, the claim must fail.\" Id. 8 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 7/25 Once doubt has been cast on the accuracy of the proceedings, the plaintiff must present \"particularized allegation[s] relating to a causal connection between the flawed outcome and gender bias.\" Id. \"[A]llegations of a procedurally or otherwise flawed proceeding that has led to an adverse and erroneous outcome combined with a conclusory allegation of gender discrimination is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.\" Id. The allegations must \"go well beyond the surmises of the plaintiff as to what was in the minds of others and involve provable events that in the aggregate would allow a trier of fact to find that gender affected the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding.\" Id. at 716. Allegations that may support gender bias include \"statements by members of the disciplinary tribunal, statements by pertinent university officials, or patterns of decision-making that also tend to show the influence of gender.\" Id. at 715.6 6 In his opposition papers, Plaintiff asserts that \"[t]he second prong\u2014gender bias as a motivating factor\u2014can be met by pleading 'specific facts that support a minimal plausible inference of [gender] discrimination\" (Defs.' Opp. at 11 (quoting Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46, 56 (2d Cir. 2016 note that at least one circuit has rejected this modified pleading standard. See Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579, 5889 (6th Cir. 2018) (stating that the Second Circuit's \"modified pleading standard . . . lacks support from our precedent . . . [and] [a]ccordingly, in this Circuit, [the plaintiff] must meet the requirements of Twombly and Iqbal for each of his claims\"). The Third Circuit has not yet addressed this issue, but its precedent suggests that it would follow the Sixth Circuit in rejecting the Columbia decision. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Miami Univ., the Columbia decision was partially premised on the Second Circuit's decision in Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015). In Littlejohn, the Second Circuit reconciled Twombly and Iqbal with the Supreme Court's holding in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002). While Swierkiewicz remains good law in some circuits, the Third Circuit has explicitly held that the pleading standard set forth in Swierkiewicz is incompatible with Twombly and Iqbal. See Fowler v Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009) (claiming that Swierkiewicz \"has been specifically repudiated by both Twombly and Iqbal\"). As such, based on the Third Circuit's repudiation of Swierkiewicz adopt the Sixth Circuit's approach by applying the general Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard. 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 8/25 In this case, Plaintiff contends that the allegations in the Complaint support claims under an erroneous outcome theory with respect to both the First Investigation and the Second *9 Investigation address the sufficiency of the allegations as they relate to each of the two investigations, in turn, below. 9 First Investigation (Count I). Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to allege a Title claim based on an erroneous outcome theory as to the First Investigation, because, \"even assuming the outcome was flawed\" (i.e., the first prong), Plaintiff does not allege that the erroneous outcome was causally connected to gender bias (i.e., the second prong). (Defs.' Br. at 11- 13.) In response, Plaintiff contends that \"the Complaint properly alleges that [the University] exhibited gender bias because the infantilization of women plays into archaic gender stereotypes about women as chaste, sexually innocent, naive, lacking sexual autonomy, and needing protection from men, who are considered the sexual aggressors.\" (Pl.'s Opp. at 11-12 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 151, 343).) Plaintiff also contends that the Complaint \"alleges a considerable connection between the Im investigation and the specific pressure placed on the University to prosecute male professors and protect and believe female graduate students in the time period leading up to Ms. Im's complaint against Plaintiff.\" (Id. at 12.) In support of the latter contention, Plaintiff cites to allegations in the Complaint, which allege that, \"in addition to [the University]'s history of complaints and issues with the [Department of Education's] Office for Civil Rights for purportedly failing to sufficiently respond to allegations of sexual misconduct by female students, [the University] faced considerable pressure from its student body to remedy a perceived atmosphere of gender bias specifically against female graduate students, like Im, by male faculty, like Plaintiff.\" (Id. at 12 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 66-75, 344).) Plaintiff also cites to allegations that, during the 2016-2017 academic year, three female graduate students in the German Department left the University abruptly, prompting a town hall meeting to address systematic and long-term sexual harassment within the Department. (Id. at 15 (citing Compl. \u00b6 75).) Plaintiff avers that the town hall meeting *10 took place in May 2017, which was the same timeframe when the University's Title office was deciding Im's case against Plaintiff. (Id.) 10 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 9/25 Having considered Plaintiff's allegations cannot find that the Complaint supports a plausible inference that, because of his gender, Plaintiff was found to have violated the University's Sexual Misconduct Policy. As an initial matter note that Plaintiff has neither alleged any statements by officials showing gender bias in his disciplinary proceedings, nor has he alleged any pattern or practice designed to produce gender-specific outcomes. Instead, Plaintiff relies on allegations that the University infantilized Im during the First Investigation, for instance by faulting Plaintiff for offering Im alcohol even though she was of legal drinking age, or by faulting Plaintiff for inviting Im to his home to watch movies featuring sexual assault and full frontal nudity even though she praised these films. (See Pl.'s Opp. at 11-12 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 151, 343). However, Plaintiff fails to explain how \"infantilizing\" an accuser amounts to bias against men. These allegations do not reference gender, let alone suggest that gender was a motivating factor in the University's decision. At most, these allegations show that the University exhibited bias in favor of a younger student vis-a-vis an older professor, an inference having nothing to do with gender. 7 7 Although Defendants do not contest the first prong of the analysis in the present motion note that Plaintiff alleges facts \"sufficient to cast some articulable doubt on the accuracy of the outcome\" of the First Investigation. Yusuf., 35 F.3d at 715. Specifically, the Complaint describes numerous instances where, during the course of the First Investigation, the University's Title office allegedly withheld evidence from Plaintiff, ignored exculpatory evidence, accepted altered evidence submitted by Im, or failed to question Im's credibility or narrative. (See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 229-160.) Plaintiff's allegations about pressure allegedly faced by the University from the Office of Civil Rights and students in the German Department also do not support an inference of bias against men. Although the Third Circuit has not had occasion to address this specific issue, other courts have recognized that external pressure from campus organizations and government agencies *11 such as the Office of Civil Rights may \"provide[] a backdrop that, when combined with other circumstantial evidence of bias in [the plaintiff's] specific proceeding, gives rise to a plausible [Title IX] claim.\" Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 586 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). However, external pressure alone is not enough. Rather,\"[i]n the cases where public 11 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 10/25 pressure was found to support claims of erroneous outcome, that public pressure targeted the specific disciplinary action being challenged.\" Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2018 1521631, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2018) (emphasis added); see also Doe v. Univ. of St. Thomas, 240 F. Supp. 3d 984, 992 (D. Minn. 2017) (\"[T]his Court joins the majority of federal courts in finding a general reference to federal pressure, by itself, is insufficient to show gender bias.\"); Doe v. Univ. of Colo., 255 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1078 (D. Colo. 2017) (same); Doe v. Lynn Univ., Inc., 224 F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (same). In this case, Plaintiff does not point to any public pressure directed at any single individual involved in his specific case, and the allegations in the Complaint pertain to investigations and incidents that are unconnected to the First Investigation. Indeed, these allegations are anything but specific to Plaintiff's case: they concern federal investigations by Office of Civil Rights into the University's handling of sexual misconduct accusations by students; and criticism focused on the German Department (to which Plaintiff did not belong). Without any allegations specifically connecting the external pressure on the University to Plaintiff's specific case, there is simply no basis to plausibly infer that the outcome of the First Investigation was motivated by his gender. Second Investigation (Count III). Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot sustain a claim as to the Second Investigation based on an erroneous outcome theory because \"he admits he lied to University officials about his relationship\" with E.S. (Defs.' Br. at 14 (emphasis in original).) Defendants further argue that, \"[e]ven if [Plaintiff] disputes that his affair violated University *12 policy . . . , the admission that he violated the policy on Honesty and Cooperation in University Matters is enough to prevent him from alleging his innocence, a required element of an erroneous outcome claim.\" (Id. (citing Doe v. Rider Univ., 2018 466225, at *8 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2018)).) In his opposition brief, Plaintiff does not directly address Defendants' argument that his claim must fail based on the admission that he lied. Instead, Plaintiff points to allegations in the Complaint that show that the Second Investigation suffered from extensive procedural irregularities and was infected by gender bias. (See Pl.'s Opp. at 16-20.) 12 find that, regardless of the presence of any procedural irregularities or alleged gender bias during the Second Investigation, Plaintiff's claim under 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 11/25 an erroneous outcome theory fails for the simple reason that he has not sufficiently alleged his innocence. See Yusuf., 35 F.3d at 715 (stating that, under an erroneous outcome theory, the \"claim is that the plaintiff was innocent and wrongly found to have committed an offense\"). Indeed, rather than affirmatively alleging that Plaintiff is innocent, the allegations in the Complaint support the opposite inference: that Plaintiff was guilty of the charges for which he was ultimately terminated. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that he and E.S. commenced a relationship in Spring 2014 (see Compl. \u00b6 235), that the relationship was ongoing during the period when Plaintiff evaluated E.S.'s dissertation (see id. \u00b6 298(h)), and that the University's rules at the time prohibited \"sexual or romantic relationship[s] involve[ing] individuals in a teacher-student relationship (e.g. being directly or indirectly taught, supervised or evaluated)\" (id. \u00b6 229). Moreover, Plaintiff admits that he lied during the investigation about his relationship with E.S. (See Compl. \u00b6 124 (stating that \"Plaintiff . . . denied the relationship [with E.S.] when interviewed\" by a member of the Title panel).) It was for this very conduct\u2014engaging in a prohibited teacher-student relationship and lying to investigators\u2014that the University terminated Plaintiff's employment. (See Recommendation Memo 20-3.) *13 Because the undisputed facts, as alleged by Plaintiff, negate any inference that he was innocent, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as to the Second Investigation based on an erroneous outcome theory. 13 (2) Selective Enforcement Under a selective enforcement theory, a plaintiff \"asserts that, regardless of the student's [or faculty member's] guilt or innocence, the severity of the penalty and/or the decision to initiate the proceeding was affected by the student's [or faculty member's] gender.\" Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 715. Under a selective enforcement theory, a male plaintiff must allege that \"a female was in circumstances sufficiently similar to his own and was treated more favorably by the [educational institution].\" Tafuto v. N.J. Inst. of Tech., 2011 3163240, at *2 (D.N.J. July 26, 2011) (alteration in original). Thus, when a male professor claims that a university selectively enforced a policy against him, he must identify a female professor who received better treatment even though she \"engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 12/25 [school's] treatment of them for it.\" Saravanan v. Drexel Univ., 2017 5659821, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2017 address the sufficiency of the allegations as they relate to each of the two investigations, in turn, below. First Investigation (Count I). Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to allege selective enforcement as to the First Investigation because he has not identified any specific female who was accused of similar conduct and treated more favorably by the University. (Defs.' Br. at 9-11.) In response, Plaintiff cites to allegations in the Complaint that state, on information and belief, female respondents and faculty members are formally investigated at a lower rate and are punished less severely than similarly accused male respondents and faculty members. (Pl.'s Opp. at 8 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 161-163, 346, 348).) Plaintiff also cites to allegations in the Complaint which allege that the University treated Plaintiff differently than Im, his female accuser, during the course of *14 the First Investigation. (Pl.'s Opp. at 9 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 15, 192, 146-150, 157, 207, 210, 215, 243, 255, 265, 304, 359-360, 400, 436, 441, 454).) Plaintiff contends that his female accuser is a sufficient comparator for the purposes of pleading his claim based on selective enforcement. (Id.) 14 do not agree with Plaintiff that Im is a sufficient comparator selective enforcement claim requires a comparison between two similarly situated individuals\u2014in the instant case, a male and female professor accused of similar conduct. See, e.g., Tafuto, 2011 3163240, at *2-3; Saravanan, 2017 5659821, at *6; Rider Univ., 2020 634172, at *12. Im\u2014the student complainant against Plaintiff during the First Investigation\u2014\"is not a counterpart for the purposes of a selective enforcement claim.\" Doe v. Case W. Reserve Univ., 2015 5522001, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2015). Im was a student and Plaintiff was a professor; the University's obligations and relationship to each were fundamentally different. Further, Plaintiff's claim that the University treated Plaintiff differently during the course of the investigation is very different from Im's claim that Plaintiff sexually harassed her. \"To consider a student similarly situated, 'the individuals with whom a plaintiff seeks to be compared must have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the [school's] treatment of them for it.'\" See Saravanan, 2017 5659821, at *6 (emphasis and alteration in original) 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 13/25 (citation omitted). There is no suggestion that Im engaged in sexual harassment, sounding the death knell for Plaintiff's claim that Im is an appropriate comparator. Moreover, Plaintiff's allegations that female respondents are formally investigated at a lower rate and are punished less severely than male faculty respondents is far too general to constitute an example of \"a female [who] was in circumstances sufficiently similar to his own and [who] was treated more favorably.\" Tafuto, 2011 3163240, at *2. Because Plaintiff has failed to allege a single *15 example of a similarly situated female who was treated differently find that his claim fails under a selective enforcement theory as to the First Investigation. 15 Second Investigation (Count III). Defendants contend that Plaintiff has also failed to allege that a female professor \"was in circumstances sufficiently similar to his own and was treated more favorably\" with respect to the Second Investigation. (Defs.' Br. at 14 (quoting Tafuto, 2011 3163240, at *2).) In response, Plaintiff argues he has sufficiently alleged that the decision to initiate the Second Investigation and the severity of the resulting punishment were influenced by gender bias. (Pl.'s Opp. at 16-17.) Specifically, Plaintiff cites to allegations that suggest that the Second Investigation and decision to terminate Plaintiff were prompted by Im's campus-wide pressure campaign and by public pressure from the #MeToo movement, which had gained momentum during the timeframe of the Second Investigation. (Id. (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 188-208, 217, 222-224, 226-288, 304, 385-395, 408.) As found with respect to the First Investigation find that, regardless of whether gender bias influenced the Second Investigation, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a single comparator between two similarly situated individuals, which is required to sustain his claim under a selective enforcement theory. See, e.g., Tafuto, 2011 3163240, at *2-3; Saravanan, 2017 5659821, at *6; Rider Univ., 2020 634172, at *12. Plaintiff does not identify, for example, any female professor who was accused of engaging in a prohibited teacher-student relationship or of being dishonest during disciplinary proceedings, and who received different treatment. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to allege a claim under a selective enforcement theory as to the Second Investigation. 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 14/25 (3) Retaliation Count of the Complaint asserts a violation of Title under a theory of retaliation. To plead a case of \"retaliation\" under Title IX, a plaintiff must allege that (i) he \"engaged in activity *16 protected by Title IX,\" (ii) he \"suffered an adverse action,\" and (iii) \"there was a causal connection between the two.\" Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 564 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, 340-42 (3d Cir. 2006)). If a plaintiff fails to plead any one of the required elements, the retaliation claim must be dismissed. See Doe v. Princeton Univ., 2018 2396685, at *7. In this case, although find that the allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to meet either the first or the third element nevertheless address each of the three elements, in turn, below. 16 Protected Activity. Under Title IX, \"protected activity\" includes reporting or opposing discrimination prohibited by the statute. Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Ed., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (\"Retaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is another form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX's private cause of action plaintiff alleging retaliation \"need not prove the merits of the underlying discrimination complaint, but only that 'he was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation existed.'\" Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Griffiths v Corp., 988 F.2d 457, 468 (3d Cir.1993)). However, \"[g]eneral complaints about unfair treatment are not considered protected activity,\" and so do not suffice. Borowski v. Premier Orthopaedic & Sports Med. Ass'n, Ltd., 2014 3700342, at *5 (E.D. Pa. July 24, 2014). Instead, this element requires allegations that that the complaint was \"about conduct prohibited by\" the statute. Davis v. City of Newark, 417 F. App'x 201, 203 (3d Cir. 2011). In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he reported to the Acting Chair of Plaintiff's Department and to the University's counsel that he was being subjected to a \"hostile work environment\" as a result of Im's public campaign against him. (See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 209, 215, 361, 364.) However, Plaintiff does not aver that when he made his complaints to the Acting Chair or the University's *17 counsel, he also conveyed to them that his complaints related to a claim about sex discrimination or gender bias. The only conduct 17 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 15/25 prohibited by Title is discrimination on the basis of sex. Plaintiff's mere use of the phrase \"hostile work environment\" in his complaints does not convert those complaints into \"protected activity.\" Accordingly find that Plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong by alleging that he engaged in any activity that is protected by Title IX. Adverse Action. The second element requires Plaintiff to \"point to an employment action that is 'harmful to the point that [it] could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.'\" Clarkson v. SEPTA, 700 F. App'x 111, 115 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006)). Only actions that \"effect a material change in the terms or conditions of . . . employment\" are sufficient. Deans v. Kennedy House, Inc., 587 F. App'x 731, 734 (3d Cir. 2014). In this case, Plaintiff alleges that, in response to his complaint to the Acting Chair of Plaintiff's Department, Plaintiff was asked to step down as a co- director of an upcoming conference. (Compl. \u00b6 362.) Plaintiff also alleges that, after he complained to the University's counsel about the hostile environment, the University (i) asked Plaintiff to tender his resignation, (ii) placed him on administrative leave, (iii) publicly announced Plaintiff's administrative leave, and (iv) improperly pursued and extended the Second Investigation into Plaintiff's relationship with E.S., despite the University having initially concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a policy violation. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 364-377.) Plaintiff asserts, in his opposition, that \"[a]ll of the above actions served to prevent Plaintiff from performing his ordinary employment duties and further served to humiliate and denigrate him, which would also discourage reporting by a reasonable employee.\" (Defs.' Opp. at 27 find that the Acting Chair's mere request that Plaintiff step-down from an upcoming conference (which Plaintiff apparently declined), and the University's mere pursuit of the Second *18 Investigation, both fall short of a material change in the terms or conditions of his employment, which is necessary to constitute an adverse action. However, Plaintiff's placement on administrative leave, which was taken against Plaintiff after he complained to the University's counsel, is more akin to the type of action that constitutes a material change in employment. Based on that action find that Plaintiff has arguably satisfied the second element. Therefore will 18 8 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 16/25 turn to the issue of whether Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a causal connection between those actions and his complaints to the University's Counsel. 8 Defendants cite to two cases for the proposition that placement on administrative leave does not rise to the level of a material adverse action. (See Defs.' Br. at 20 (citing Jones v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 796 F.3d 323, 326 (3d Cir. 2015) (stating that \"[a] paid suspension pending an investigation of an employee's alleged wrongdoing does not fall under any of the forms of adverse action mentioned by Title VII's substantive provision.\") and Doe v. Princeton University, 2018 2396685, at *7 (D.N.J. May 24, 2018) (finding that \"thoroughly investigating the charges [against the plaintiff], and offering a leave of absence\" did not constitute retaliation). Because find that Plaintiff has clearly not satisfied the first and third element of his retaliation claim need not address whether the particular circumstances of his administrative leave rose to the level of a material adverse action. Causal Connection. \"[A] plaintiff may demonstrate causation in a retaliation claim by showing: (1) a close temporal relationship between the protected activity and the adverse action, or (2) that 'the proffered evidence, looked at as a whole, . . . raise[s] the inference [of causation].'\" Nuness v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 535, 563 (D.N.J. 2018) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). However, \"the mere fact that adverse employment action occurs after a complaint will ordinarily be insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's burden of demonstrating a causal link between the two events.\" Groeber v. Friedman & Schuman, P.C., 555 F. App'x 133, 136 (3d Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Any \"causal connection may be severed by the passage of a significant amount of time, or by some legitimate intervening event.\" Wiest v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 812 F.3d 319, 330 (3d Cir. 2016); cf. Hernandez v. Temple Univ. Hosp., 2019 130508, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2019) (\"[M]isconduct occurring between the dates of the *19 protected activity and adverse employment action is the type of intervening event that can destroy what otherwise would be an inference of retaliation.\") (citation omitted). 19 In this case find that the allegations in the Complaint, when taken together, negate any plausible inference that a causal connection can be drawn between Plaintiff's complaint to the University's counsel and his 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 17/25 subsequent placement on administrative leave. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified the University's counsel of his complaint about a hostile work environment on December 21, 2017, and was placed on administrative leave approximately one month later, on January 23, 2018. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 364, 366.) Despite the temporal proximity between these events, however, it is significant that, during this same time period, on December 20, 2017, the Complaint alleges that the University received an investigative report, which detailed Plaintiff's relationship with E.S. and found that Plaintiff had violated the University's policy on Consensual Relationships with Students. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 255, 261.) Although the issuance of this report was not technically an \"intervening event\" (because it occurred one day before Plaintiff complained to the University's counsel), it provides an \"obvious alternative explanation\" for why Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave. Given this obvious alternative explanation, there is nothing \"unduly suggestive\" about the fact he was placed on administrative leave just one month later. See George v. Rehiel, 738 F.3d 562, 586 (3d Cir. 2013) (stating that \"an obvious alternative explanation . . . negates any inference of retaliation\"). Therefore find that any inference that the University's decision to place him on administrative leave was caused by Plaintiff's complaint is simply not plausible in light of the contemporaneous report finding that he had violated the University's policies. In sum find that, although Plaintiff's placement on administrative leave arguably constituted an adverse action, he has failed to allege a causal connection between any protected *20 activity and that adverse action. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege a Title claim under a retaliation theory. 20 B. Title Claims Count of the Complaint asserts that the University violated Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 419-476). Title states, in relevant part, that \"[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\" 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-2(a) (emphasis added). Plaintiff 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 18/25 contends in his opposition that the Complaint sufficiently alleges a violation of Title under two separate theories of liability. First, he contends that \"he was subjected to adverse employment actions, including probation, administrative leave, and termination . . . under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of gender bias.\" (Pl.'s Opp. at 22.) Second, he contends that \"[t]he actions of [the] University in knowingly ignoring, and even permitting and encouraging, numerous actions . . . by Ms. Im directed at impugning Plaintiff's reputation and specifically at ending his career, constituted and comprised a hostile environment.\" (Pl.'s Opp. at 24 address the sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint as they relate to each of those theories, in turn, below. (1) Disparate Treatment Courts analyze claims under Title that an employee was treated differently because of his or her gender under the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this framework, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by alleging the following: \"(1) s/he is a member of a protected class; (2) s/he was qualified for the position s/he sought to attain or retain; (3) s/he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of *21 intentional discrimination.\" Semple v. Donahoe, 2014 4798727, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 25, 2014) (citing Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205, 214 (3d Cir. 2008)). At the motion to dismiss stage, a Title plaintiff does not prove a prima facie case of discrimination, because the McDonnell Douglas standard \"is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading standard.\" Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510 (2002). However, the plaintiff must still allege \"sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'\" Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twomby, 550 U.S. 570). 21 The Third Circuit has stated that the \"central focus of the prima facie [Title VII] case 'is always whether the employer is treating some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\" Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789, 798 (3d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). \"The facts necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title vary depending on the particular 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 19/25 circumstances of each case.\" Id. at 797 n. 7 (citation omitted). However, \" [t]he evidence most often used to establish this nexus is that of disparate treatment, whereby a plaintiff shows that [he] was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees who are not in plaintiff's protected class.\" Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 366 (3d Cir. 2008); see also Ewell v Properties, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 612, 624 (D.N.J. 2015) (\"An inference of discrimination may arise if similarly situated employees of a different race received more lenient treatment than that afforded plaintiff.\") (citing Simpson v. Kay Jewelers, Div. of Sterling, Inc., 142 F.3d 639, 645 (3d Cir.1998 determination of whether employees are similarly situated takes into account factors such as the employees' job responsibilities, the supervisors and decision-makers, and the nature of the misconduct engaged in.\" Wilcher v. Postmaster Gen., 441 F. App'x 879, 882 (3d Cir. 2011). *22 22 In this case, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that tend to show that Plaintiff, based on his sex, was treated differently than any similarly situated female employee of the University. The allegations in the Complaint of Plaintiff's differential treatment vis-a-vis another female employee are all directed towards the University's treatment of Im. (See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 436-438, 441-444, 450-451.) However, Im\u2014a graduate student and the accuser\u2014was not similarly situated in any relevant respects to Plaintiff\u2014a faculty member and the accused. Although Plaintiff \"is not required to show that he is identical to [his alleged] comparator,\" he must still show \"substantial similarity.\" See Houston v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 355 F. App'x 651, 654-55 (3d Cir. 2009) (stating that \"[t]o make a comparison of the plaintiff's treatment to that of an employee outside the plaintiff's protected class for purposes of a Title claim, the plaintiff must show that he and the employee are similarly situated in all relevant respects\") (citations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that he is similar in any relevant respect to Im. He also has not identified any other similarly situated female employees (professors or otherwise) who were treated differently than him in similar circumstances. Accordingly find that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled facts from which it can be inferred that Plaintiff was treated differently by his employer, the University, because of his gender.9 9 In his opposition, Plaintiff contends that his claim for disparate treatment under Title may be alleged even absent an allegation that a similarly 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 20/25 situated individual was treated more favorably than Plaintiff. (Pl.'s Opp. at 21-22.) Even if that were true, Plaintiff has still not alleged any other facts from which to infer a connection between his gender and the University's treatment of him, other than his conclusory accusation. (2) Hostile Work Environment To state a claim for hostile work environment under Title VII, the plaintiff must allege that: \"(1) he suffered intentional discrimination because of his membership in a protected class; (2) the discrimination was severe or pervasive; (3) the discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; *23 (4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in like circumstances; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability.\" Ali v. Woodbridge Twp. Sch. Dist., 2019 1930754, at *8 (D.N.J. Apr. 30, 2019) (citing Mandel v Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 2013)). \"When the workplace is permeated with 'discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,' that is 'sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment,'\" a hostile environment is created. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)). In evaluating whether a plaintiff was subjected to a hostile environment, courts look to \"all the circumstances,\" including \"the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.\" National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 116 (2002). 23 In support of his hostile work environment claims, Plaintiff points to the following allegations in the Complaint: (i) Plaintiff and Im were both employees of the University (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 478-479); (ii) the University was under considerable scrutiny in 2016-2017 regarding its perceived failure to protect female students from sexual harassment (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 71, 74-75); (iii) following the outcome of the First Investigation, Im embarked on a broad campaign to destroy Plaintiff's reputation, relying heavily on the backdrop of the #MeToo movement and focusing on the University's alleged failure to adequately punish male respondents (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 188-222); (iv) in furtherance of her campaign against Plaintiff, Im publicized numerous Title documents and information that the University had marked as 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 21/25 confidential (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 193, 200, 219-220); (v) as a result of Im's public campaign, Plaintiff was publicly criticized, mocked, and his courses were protested on campus (Compl. \u00b6 207); (vi) Im's campaign impeded Plaintiff's ability to perform his employment duties and caused him anxiety, distress, and high blood pressure (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 209, *24 215); (vii) Plaintiff reported that Im's actions were creating a \"hostile working environment\" to the Acting Chair of Plaintiff's department and to the University's counsel (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 215, 219); and (viii) the University took no actions to quell or remedy the hostile environment (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 192, 209-211; 215; 220-221). (See Pl.'s Opp. at 23-24.) 24 need not exhaustively analyze the sufficiency of Plaintiff's allegations against each of the required elements of a hostile work environment claim, because find that Plaintiff has not established a basic element of a claim. \" [H]arassment, no matter how unpleasant and ill-willed, is simply not prohibited by Title if not motivated by the plaintiff's gender (or membership in other protected groups).\" Dalton v. New Jersey, 2018 305326, at *9 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2018) (citation omitted); see also Ullrich v. U.S. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 457 F. App'x 132, 140 (3d Cir. 2012) (\"Many may suffer severe or pervasive harassment at work, but if the reason for that harassment is one that is not proscribed by Title VII, it follows that Title provides no relief.\"). Although, according to Plaintiff, Im's alleged public pressure campaign caused him a great deal of anxiety and distress find that there are insufficient allegations from which to infer that Im's public campaign (or the University's failure to quell her campaign) was motivated by gender bias. Indeed, the Complaint ascribes only two to Im, neither having to do with Plaintiff's gender: Im's dissatisfaction with the University's resolution of her report of sexual harassment, and her desire to advance the alleged vendetta of another professor in the Electrical Engineering department against Plaintiff based on departmental politics. (See Compl. \u00b6 12 (stating that Im \"embarked on a vicious, retaliatory campaign\" because she was \"[d]issatisfied with [Plaintiff]'s sanction\"); id. \u00b6\u00b6 4-7 (attributing Im's report to her \"close relationship with Cuff\"). Given these *25 motivations, which are alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint cannot sustain Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims without more 10 25 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 22/25 specific allegations that Im's conduct was motivated by Plaintiff's gender as a male. 10 In addition, importantly note that Plaintiff does not explain, in his opposition, how Im's conduct in allegedly creating a hostile work environment can be attributed to the University. C. State Law Claims Counts thru of the Complaint assert claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, for breach of contract, for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for negligence and gross negligence, and for wrongful discipline. Because the Court has found that Plaintiff has failed to state any of his federal claims, the only potential basis for this Court's jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims is supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367. Under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c)(3), a district court \"may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.\" The Third Circuit has stated that \"where the claim[s] over which the district court has original jurisdiction [are] dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.\" Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995); cf. Markowitz v. Ne. Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 106 (3d Cir. 1990) (\"[T]he rule within this Circuit is that once all claims with an independent basis of federal jurisdiction have been dismissed the case no longer belongs in federal court.\"). In this case, having dismissed all of Plaintiff's federal claims find that no considerations justify this Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and, therefore decline to exercise jurisdiction over those claims In summary find that Plaintiff has failed to state his federal claims (Counts thru IV), and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims (Counts *26 thru XVI). Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss is and PART. Plaintiff's federal 26 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 23/25 claims are dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint to replead his federal claims, in a manner consistent with this Opinion, within forty- five (45) days of the date of the Order accompanying this Opinion. If Plaintiff adequately pleads one or more of his federal claims in an amended complaint, the Court may exercise any supplemental jurisdiction at that time. In lieu of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff may pursue his state law claims in state court, and the limitations period for each of those claims is tolled, to the extent the limitations period has not already expired, for a period of thirty (30) days, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(d). DATED: March 30, 2020 /s/ Freda L. Wolfson Hon. Freda L. Wolfson U.S. Chief District Judge About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 24/25 Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:17 Verdu v. Trs. of Princeton Univ., Civ. Action No. 19-12484 (FLW) | Casetext Search + Citator 25/25", "7516_105.pdf": "Sergio Verd\u00fa Sergio Verd\u00fa (born Barcelona, Spain, August 15, 1958) is a former professor of electrical engineering and specialist in information theory. Until September 22, 2018, he was the Eugene Higgins Professor of Electrical Engineering at Princeton University, where he taught and conducted research on information theory in the Information Sciences and Systems Group. He was also affiliated with the program in Applied and Computational Mathematics. He was dismissed from the faculty following a university investigation of alleged sexual misconduct.[1] Verdu received the Telecommunications Engineering degree from the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain, in 1980 and the PhD degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1984. Conducted at the Coordinated Science Laboratory of the University of Illinois, his doctoral research was supervised by Vincent Poor and pioneered the field of multiuser detection. In 1998, his book Multiuser Detection was published by Cambridge University Press Title investigation by Princeton, made public in 2017 by the Huffington Post, determined that Verdu had violated Princeton\u2019s sexual- misconduct policy. Previously, Yeohee Im, a graduate student at Princeton, reported Verdu for sexual harassment. According to the Princeton Dean of Faculty, there were allegations that Verd\u00fa had also harassed others, but only the one student was willing to make a formal complaint. Verd\u00fa denied the findings of the investigation, stating: \"The university advised me not to reply but categorically deny that there were any advances or any sexual harassment.\"[2][3] He was subsequently dismissed from Princeton University as of September 22, 2018, following further consideration by the university, which said that \"an investigation established that Dr. Verdu violated the university's policy prohibiting consensual relations with students, and its policy requiring honesty and cooperation in university matters\".[4] Verdu appealed the decision in the District Court. According to the materials of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:[5] \"Verdu states three theories under which Princeton discriminated against him: erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, and retaliation.\" The District Court dismissed Verdu's complaint Fellow (1993)[6] for contribution to multi-user communication and information theory.[7] Sexual harassment allegations and dismissal from tenured position Awards and honors 2/16/25, 10:17 Sergio Verd\u00fa - Wikipedia 1/3 Frederick Emmons Terman Award from the American Society for Engineering Education (2000)[8 Third Millennium Medal (2000) Doctorate Honoris Causa from the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (2005) Member of the National Academy of Engineering (2007)[9] Member of the National Academy of Sciences (2014)[10] Corresponding Member of the Royal Academy of Engineering of Spain (2013) Claude E. Shannon Award from the Information Theory Society (2007)[11 Richard W. Hamming Medal (2008)[12 Award for Scientific Reviewing (2016) His papers have received several awards: 1992 Donald G. Fink Prize Paper Award[13] 1998 Information Theory Paper Award from the Information Theory Society[14] 1998 Golden Jubilee Paper Award from the Information Theory Society[15] 2000 Paper Award from the Japan Telecommunications Advancement Foundation, 2002 Leonard G. Abraham Prize from the Communications Society (together with Ralf R. M\u00fcller), for best paper in the field of communications systems[16] 2006 Communications Society & Information Theory Society Joint Paper Award from the Communications Society and the Information Theory Society[17] 2008 Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking Best Paper Award from the European Association for Signal Processing (EURASIP)[18] 2009 Stephen O. Rice Prize from the Communications Society (together with Angel Lozano and Antonia Tulino), for best paper in the field of communications theory[19] 2011 Information Theory Paper Award from the Information Theory Society[14] He served as president of the Information Theory Society in 1997. He was the founding editor- in-chief of the journal Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory. 1. U. confirms Verdu's dismissal following misconduct investigation ( m/article/2018/09/verdu-dismissed) 2. Vagianos, Alanna (November 9, 2017), \"Grad Student Says Princeton Prof Who Sexually Harassed Her Was Given Slap On The Wrist\" ( essor-sexual-harassment-not-punished_us_5a01d203e4b0368a4e872655?ncid=engmodushpmg 00000003), Huffington Post 3. Flaherty, Colleen (November 13, 2017), \"Scrutiny of Punishment for Professor Over Harassment\" ( sment), Inside Higher Education 4. Brown, Marcia (September 29, 2018), \"U. confirms Verdu's dismissal following misconduct investigation\" ( The Daily Princetonian 5. References 2/16/25, 10:17 Sergio Verd\u00fa - Wikipedia 2/3 6. \"Fellow Class of 1993\" ( ervices/membership/fellows/chronology/fellows_1993.html%23V). IEEE. Archived from the original ( on August 2, 2012. Retrieved January 3, 2011. 7 Fellows 1993 Communications Society\" ( ellows/1993). 8. \"Past Frederick Emmons Terman Award Winners\" ( s/full-list-of-awards/awards-archive/past-division-award-winners-2#Electrical_and_Computer_Engi neering_Division). American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved January 3, 2011. 9 Members Directory - Dr. Sergio Verdu\" ( 2/31004.aspx). NAE. Retrieved January 3, 2011. 10. \"National Academy of Sciences Members and Foreign Associates Elected (press release)\" (http s://web.archive.org/web/20150818062140/ pril-29-2014-NAS-Election.html). National Academy of Sciences. Archived from the original (http:// on August 18, 2015. Retrieved April 29, 2014. 11. \"Claude E. Shannon Award\" ( Information Theory Society. Retrieved January 3, 2011. 12 Richard W. Hamming Medal Recipients\" ( p://ieee.org/documents/hamming_rl.pdf) (PDF). IEEE. Archived from the original ( org/documents/hamming_rl.pdf) (PDF) on June 20, 2010. Retrieved January 5, 2011. 13 Donald G. Fink Prize Paper Award Recipients\" ( 31/ (PDF). IEEE. Archived from the original ( org/documents/fink_rl.pdf) (PDF) on November 24, 2010. Retrieved January 2, 2011. 14. \"Information Theory Paper Award\" ( Information Theory Society. Retrieved January 5, 2011. 15. \"Golden Jubilee Paper Awards\" ( Information Theory Society. Retrieved January 5, 2011. 16. \"The Communications Society Leonard G. Abraham Prize in the Field of Communications Systems\" ( Communications Society. Retrieved January 3, 2011. 17. \"ComSoc Joint Paper Award\" ( per-award Information Theory Society. Retrieved January 3, 2011. 18. \"Best Papers Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking\" ( p.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=105&Itemid=109). European Association for Signal Processing. Retrieved January 5, 2011. 19. \"The Communications Society Stephen O. Rice Prize in the Field of Communications Theory\" (htt p:// Communications Society. Retrieved January 5, 2011. Sergio Verd\u00fa ( at the Mathematics Genealogy Project Retrieved from \" External links 2/16/25, 10:17 Sergio Verd\u00fa - Wikipedia 3/3", "7516_106.pdf": "\uf002 Professor Dismissed; Misconduct Penalty Toughened By W. Raymond Ollwerther \u201971 Published Oct. 12, 2018 2 min read Sergio Verd\u00fa Electrical engineering professor Sergio Verd\u00fa, a faculty member for 34 years, was dismissed from the faculty as of Sept. 24 for violating Princeton\u2019s policies prohibiting consensual relations with students and requiring honesty and cooperation in University matters. The Board of Trustees approved the recommendation for dismissal by President Eisgruber \u201983 and Provost Deborah Prentice on Sept. 22. Privacy - Terms 2/16/25, 10:18 Professor Dismissed; Misconduct Penalty Toughened | Princeton Alumni Weekly 1/7 According to a University statement, the recommendation \u201cwas reviewed by an independent, standing committee of the faculty at the request of Dr. Verd\u00fa, and that committee agreed with the finding that Dr. Verd\u00fa violated those policies and concluded that the recommended penalty was reasonable.\u201d In a separate action on the same day Verd\u00fa\u2019s dismissal took effect, Eisgruber and Dean of the Faculty Sanjeev Kulkarni released a letter saying that effective immediately, a one-year suspension without pay will be the presumptive minimum penalty for any faculty member found to have committed sexual harassment. Suspensions will be accompanied by counseling and probation, Eisgruber and Kulkarni said, and more serious harassment cases will bring stiffer penalties that could include dismissal. Verd\u00fa\u2019s dismissal followed a separate case last year in which he was found responsible for sexual harassment after a Title complaint was filed by a graduate student, Yeohee Im, who was his advisee. The penalty assessed by Princeton \u2014 Im said it was an eight-hour training session; the University said there were \u201cother penalties\u201d it could not disclose \u2014 set off a campus outcry from students, faculty, and alumni who felt the punishment was insufficient. After that outcry, the Faculty-Student Committee on Sexual Misconduct made a number of recommendations in a May report to make Title investigation proceedings and penalties more transparent and to provide complainants with more information throughout the process. Announcing the minimum penalty last month, Eisgruber and Kulkarni released a statement saying that for too long, institutions have underestimated the prevalence and the harm of sexual harassment. \u201cWe have also been too optimistic about the power of good will or relatively light penalties to cure the problem,\u201d they said. Im said in a statement to that \u201cthere are still many fundamental changes that have to be made.\u201d Citing \u201cthe current clumsy structures of the University policy and the Title law,\u201d she said \u201cit is difficult for victims to take any further action unless they are willing to sacrifice a huge portion of their lives.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:18 Professor Dismissed; Misconduct Penalty Toughened | Princeton Alumni Weekly 2/7 This is a revised version of a story published in the Oct. 24, 2018, issue. Published in the Oct. 24, 2018, Issue \uf075 1 Response Anthony Ephremides *71 6 Years Ago An Unfair Process As a *71 graduate alumnus of the electrical engineering department feel gratitude and great respect for my alma mater. This is what led me to endow a scholarship in the department of my graduate studies that has been supporting worthy graduate students for several years. However am greatly disappointed by the dismissal process of Professor Sergio Verd\u00fa (On the Campus, Oct. 24). After what amounted to a trial by lynch mob through press articles and town hall meetings, and after bypassing the fundamental need for due process and for \u201caudiatur et altera pars\u201d [let the other side be heard], the University committed a gross injustice by dismissing from its faculty the most prominent information theorist in the world today without affording him the chance to publicly counter the allegations against him am astounded by the unfairness with which the University treated one of its most prominent faculty members. Sexual harassment is reprehensible, but casual surrender to uninformed public pressure is equally reprehensible Your name Your email 2/16/25, 10:18 Professor Dismissed; Misconduct Penalty Toughened | Princeton Alumni Weekly 3/7 Princeton Donates Laptops for Incarcerated Students And the Grammy Goes To Wrestlers\u2019 New Path to Nationals Isobel Coleman \u201987 Calls Dismantling \u2018Short-Sighted\u2019 - Select Full name and Princeton affiliation (if applicable) are required for all published comments. For more information, view our commenting policy. Responses are limited to 500 words for online and 250 words for print consideration 2/16/25, 10:18 Professor Dismissed; Misconduct Penalty Toughened | Princeton Alumni Weekly 4/7 Heather Lynch \u201900 Uses Satellites to Study Penguins Is the Proposed Endowment Tax Another Cash Grab \u2018meteor is about to hit\u2019 higher education as Republicans look to increase the tax on endowments Ryan Quigley \u201920 Returns to New Orleans for Super Bowl After Terror Attack \uf075 1 Response 2/16/25, 10:18 Professor Dismissed; Misconduct Penalty Toughened | Princeton Alumni Weekly 5/7 Newsletters. Get More From In Your Inbox The former Princeton football player was in the French Quarter when Tiger Bech \u201921 was among 14 people killed on New Year\u2019s Day Nikolche Gjorevski *12 Is Building Organoids for Biomedical Research \u2018We\u2019re interested in using these structures to study human biology and human disease\u2019 Latest News Disciplines 2/16/25, 10:18 Professor Dismissed; Misconduct Penalty Toughened | Princeton Alumni Weekly 6/7 Princetonians Opinion History Tiger Travels Books PAWcasts Games Classifieds Parents and non-alumni can receive all 11 issues of for $30 a year ($34 for international addresses About Advertising Reader Services FAQs \ue61b \uf09a \uf16d \uf08c Contact Us Alumni Association Accessibility Help Princeton.edu \u00a9 2024 The Trustees of Princeton University 2/16/25, 10:18 Professor Dismissed; Misconduct Penalty Toughened | Princeton Alumni Weekly 7/7", "7516_107.pdf": "No. 20-1724 VERDU, Appellant v Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-19-cv-12484) District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson Submitted under Third Circuit 34.1(a) On June 24, 2021 Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge and ROTH, Circuit Judges 1a (Opinion filed: September 27, 2022) OPINION* ROTH, Circuit Judge. Sergio Verdu served as a tenured professor in the electrical-engineering department at Princeton University before his termination in 2018. Verdu asserts that Princeton and its agents (collectively, Princeton) violated his rights when it terminated him, so he filed a complaint in the District Court asserting violations of Title and of Title and state-law claims. Princeton moved to dismiss the complaint, and the District Court granted the motion. In doing so, the District Court ruled that Verdu failed to state a plausible claim for relief under either Title or Title VII. The District Court then declined to exercise supplemental juris- diction over Verdu\u2019s state-law claims. Finding no error, we will affirm the order of the District Court. I.1 Verdu taught at Princeton for nearly thirty-five years. In April 2017, Yeohee Im, a graduate stu- 2a * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. 1 These facts are taken from the complaint and treated as true because, in reviewing a denial of a motion under Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and construe the complaints in the dent at Princeton, reported Verdu for sexual harassment. Princeton investigated the charge and determined that Verdu had violated Princeton\u2019s sexual-misconduct policy. Princeton disciplined Verdu by putting him on probation for a year. According to Verdu, Im did not believe that Princeton punished Verdu sufficiently. That feeling was enhanced by Im\u2019s relationship with Paul Cuff, a former assistant professor at Princeton who held a grudge against Verdu. When Princeton denied Cuff tenure, Cuff blamed Verdu. Verdu believed that Cuff then influenced Im to engage in a public- pressure campaign against Verdu.2 Im\u2019s campaign led to calls for Verdu\u2019s termination. In September 2017, Princeton launched a second investigation into Verdu. The second investigation involved an alleged romantic relationship between Verdu and another Princeton graduate student, E.S., a student whose graduate dissertation Verdu had evaluated. According to Verdu, the second investigation was caused, at least in part, by Im\u2019s efforts to find evidence about the relationship between Verdu and E.S. At first, Verdu and E.S. denied that they had had any romantic relation- ship, Princeton, however, ultimately concluded that Verdu and E.S. engaged in an impermissible romantic relationship while Verdu evaluated her 3a light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Lewis v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 542 F.3d 403, 405 (3d Cir. 2008). 2 Verdu alleges that Im violated numerous policies and rules at Princeton when she executed her alleged public-pres- sure campaign. dissertation. Verdu later admitted that he and E.S. did engage in a romantic relationship during that period. As punishment, Princeton\u2019s president rec- ommended that Verdu be fired. The president based his recommendation on the fact that Verdu had lied during the investigation. Verdu asserts that both investigations involved discrimination against him because of his sex. He claims that Princeton\u2019s investigations were defec- tive because of alleged procedural anomalies, Im\u2019s public-pressure campaign, and other public pres- sures on Princeton to more rigorously investigate and punish any on-campus sexual misconduct. Verdu sued Princeton in the District Court. The court dismissed his suit because Verdu failed to plausibly allege his federal-law claims. Verdu\u2019s appeal is now before us. II. The District Court had subject-matter jurisdic- tion over Verdu\u2019s federal claims under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331. Although the District Court dismissed Verdu\u2019s complaint without prejudice, Verdu stood on his complaint by filing his appeal and by making certain representations in his appellate briefing. \u201cAlthough generally a plaintiff who decides to stand on the complaint does so in the district court[,] . . . we have made clear that such a course, while preferable, is not always necessary.\u201d3 When a plaintiff \u201cdeclare[s] [his] intention to stand on [his] 4a 3 Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 254 (3d Cir. 2001). complaint in this [C]ourt[,] . . . we thereafter treat[ ] the district court\u2019s order dismissing the complaint, albeit without prejudice, as a final order dismissing with prejudice . . . .\u201d4 Verdu unequivo- cally stated his intention to stand on his complaint in his briefing before us.5 Thus, we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1291. We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).6 III. Verdu\u2019s first contention is that the District Court erred when it dismissed his claims for relief under Title of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title provides that \u201c[n]o person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to dis- crimination under any education program or activ- ity receiving Federal financial assistance.\u201d7 In Doe 5a 4 Id. (citing Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., 223 F.3d 165, 172\u201373 (3d Cir. 2000)); see also Pascack Valley Hosp. v. Local 464A Welfare Reimbursement Plan, 388 F.3d 393, 398 (3d Cir. 2004) (\u201cAt oral argument [before us], counsel for the Hospital declared the Hospital\u2019s intention to . . . stand on its complaint. Counsel\u2019s declaration is sufficient to render the District Court\u2019s order final and appealable.\u201d). 5 See, e.g., Appellant\u2019s Opening Br. at 21\u201322. Princeton does not contest whether Verdu has clearly stood on his com- plaint; nor does it contest our appellate jurisdiction. 6 See, e.g., Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 786 n.2 (3d Cir. 2016). 7 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a). v. University of the Sciences,8 we adopted a \u201cstraightforward pleading standard\u201d and held \u201cthat, to state a claim under Title IX, the alleged facts, if true, must support a plausible inference that a federally-funded college or university dis- criminated against a person on the basis of sex.\u201d9 Plaintiffs, of course, remain \u201cfree to characterize their claims however they wish.\u201d10 In his complaint, Verdu states three theories under which Princeton discriminated against him: erroneous outcome, selective enforcement, and retaliation. 1. Erroneous Outcome. Verdu claims that Prince- ton discriminated against him based on his sex by reaching the incorrect conclusion both times that it investigated him. As for the first investigation, Verdu attempts to show that Princeton discriminated against him based on his sex when it investigated and disci- plined him based on (1) generalized archaic stereo- types about the sexes, (2) the history of complaints to the Department of Education\u2019s Office for Civil Rights about Princeton\u2019s purported failure to respond adequately to allegations of sexual miscon- duct advanced by female students and the resulting pressure on Princeton to remedy that perception, 6a 8 961 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020). We reaffirmed that plead- ing standard more recently in Doe v. Princeton University, 30 F.4th 335, 343 (3d Cir. 2022). 9 Univ. of the Scis., 961 F.3d at 209. 10 Id. and (3) the fact that three female graduate stu- dents studying in a different department at Prince- ton left abruptly and, as a result, Princeton held a townhall meeting concerning systematic and long- term sexual harassment within that department. The District Court correctly found that, based on those allegations, Verdu had failed to state a plau- sible claim that, because of his sex, Princeton investigated and sanctioned him. Verdu\u2019s allega- tions simply reflect the pressure on Princeton to enforce its sexual-misconduct policy. These allega- tions alone are not enough to state a plausible claim against Princeton under Title IX.11 As for Princeton\u2019s second investigation of Verdu, the District Court found that Verdu\u2019s erroneous- outcome theory could not survive a motion to dis- miss because he failed to sufficiently plead his innocence. As we explained in University of the Sciences, we have a standard based on the text of Title itself: \u201cthe alleged facts, if true, must sup- port a plausible inference that a federally-funded college or university discriminated against a person on the basis of sex.\u201d12 Verdu failed to satisfy that standard. On appeal, Verdu contends that his complaint alleges that the second investigation suffered from 7a 11 Id. at 210 (\u201cLike our colleagues on the Sixth and Sev- enth Circuits, we . . . recognize that allegations about pres- sure from [the Department of Education] and the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter cannot alone support a plausible claim of Title sex discrimination.\u201d (citations omitted)). 12 Id. at 209. sex bias because of a purported lack of evidence of sexual misconduct, Princeton\u2019s decision to press the investigation despite E.S. not wanting one to occur, procedural irregularities in the investiga- tion, and a variety of public pressures placed on Princeton. However, the District Court found that, in his own complaint, Verdu acknowledged that he violated Princeton\u2019s policies: \u201cPlaintiff alleges in the [c]omplaint that he and E.S. commenced a rela- tionship in Spring 2014, that the relationship was ongoing during the period when Plaintiff evaluated E.S.\u2019s dissertation, and that [Princeton\u2019s] rules at the time prohibited \u2018sexual or romantic relation[s] involv[ing] individuals in a teacher-student rela- tionship.\u2019 \u201d13 Verdu\u2019s admission of guilt undercuts the strength of his allegations that Princeton investigated him because of his sex. As a result, Verdu\u2019s allegations concerning the second investi- gation also fall short. 2. Selective Enforcement. Verdu claims that both the first and second investigation suffered from sex bias because Princeton selectively enforced its poli- cies against him. He is wrong. As for the first investigation, Verdu claims that Princeton discrim- inated against him based on his sex because (1) on information and belief, females are purportedly investigated less frequently than males, (2) on information and belief, females are punished less severely than males, and (3) Princeton treated his 8a 13 App. 15 (cleaned up); see also Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 229, 235, 298(h). accuser, Im, differently than it treated him during the first investigation. As for the allegations about how females and males are generally treated differ- ently, those allegations are too abstract to support a claim of sex bias under Title IX.14 In addition, the purported differences in how Princeton treated Verdu and Im are too conclusory to support a plau- sible claim for relief.15 As for the second investigation, Verdu asserts essentially the same arguments to support his selective-enforcement theory as he asserts to sup- port his erroneous-outcome theory. For substan- tially the same reasons that we reject those arguments in support of his erroneous-outcome theory, we reject them in support of his selective- enforcement theory. 3. Retaliation. Verdu challenges the District Court\u2019s order dismissing his Title retaliation claim. To state a claim for retaliation under Title IX, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that he \u201cengaged in activity protected by Title IX, that he \u201csuffered an adverse action,\u201d and that \u201cthere was a causal connection between the two.\u201d16 \u201cRetaliation against a person because that person has com- plained of sex discrimination is another form of 9a 14 See Univ. of the Sciences, 961 F.3d at 209\u201311. 15 See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 16 See, e.g., Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 564 (3d Cir. 2017) (cleaned up); Moore v. City of Phila., 461 F.3d 331, 340\u201342 (3d Cir. 2006). intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX\u2019s private cause of action.\u201d17 plaintiff alleging retaliation \u201cneed not prove the merits of the underlying discrimination complaint, but only that \u2018he was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation existed.\u2019 \u201d18 The District Court found that, at a minimum, Verdu failed to allege that he engaged in activity protected by Title IX. As we explained earlier, Title protects against discrimination because of sex. In his complaint, Verdu alleges merely that he reported being subjected to a \u201chostile work environ- ment\u201d because of Im\u2019s pressure campaign.19 Verdu\u2019s complaint never connects the purported \u201chostile work environment\u201d and Im\u2019s public-pres- sure campaign to any purported sex-based discrim- ination. For that reason, Verdu\u2019s complaint does not include plausible allegations that Verdu\u2019s con- duct of reporting the alleged \u201chostile work environ- ment\u201d is protected by Title IX.20 Thus, the District 10a 17 Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (2005). 18 Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Griffiths v Corp., 988 F.2d 457, 468 (3d Cir. 1993)). 19 To be sure, the alleged \u201chostile work environment\u201d is related to publicity surrounding Princeton\u2019s first Title investigation into him. However, that is not a sufficient con- nection by itself to show that the purported \u201chostile work environment\u201d was caused by sex discrimination directed at Verdu. 20 See, e.g., Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; cf. Sitar v. Ind. DOT, 344 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that, in Title Court correctly dismissed Verdu\u2019s retaliation claim. IV. Next, Verdu challenges the District Court\u2019s dis- missal of his Title claims. Title makes it unlawful \u201cfor an employer . . . to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual\u2019s . . . sex.\u201d21 Verdu alleges that Princeton violated Title under two theories: one alleging disparate treatment and the other alleging a hostile work environment. 1. Disparate Treatment. To allege plausibly a disparate-treatment claim under Title VII, a plain- tiff must allege that (1) he is a member of a protect- ed class, (2) he is qualified for the position he sought to retain or attain, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances that may give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.22 The \u201ccentral focus of the prima facie [Title VII] case is always whether the employer is treating some people less favorably than others because of 11a context, the plaintiff had not engaged in protected activi- ty because she \u201ccomplained only that she felt picked on, not that she was discriminated against \u2018because of\u2019 sex or gender, which is what Title requires\u201d). 21 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e\u20132(a) (emphasis added). 22 See Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205, 214 (3d Cir. 2008). their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\u201d23 \u201cThe evidence most often used to establish . . . dis- parate treatment\u201d involves \u201ca plaintiff show[ing] that [he] was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees who are not in [his] protected class.\u201d24 The District Court found that Verdu failed to allege that he received different treatment by Princeton than a similarly situated female. He never identifies a female professor at Princeton as a comparator; at most, his complaint alleges that Im\u2014a graduate student and his accuser\u2014is a valid comparator. Although a plaintiff need not show an exact match between himself and the comparator, he must show a sufficient similarity.25 Verdu, a professor, and Im, a graduate student, hold unquestionably different roles and levels of author- ity at Princeton. Verdu has not alleged enough commonalities to show that they are sufficiently alike to be considered valid comparators. Although on appeal Verdu contends that one can infer that Princeton discriminated against him because of his 12a 23 Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789, 798 (3d Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (cleaned up). 24 Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 366 (3d Cir. 2008); see also Simpson v. Kay Jewelers, Div. of Sterling, Inc., 142 F.3d 639, 645 (3d Cir. 1998). 25 See, e.g., Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 867 (6th Cir. 2003) (\u201cIn the context of personnel actions, the relevant factors for determining whether employees are similarly situ- ated often include the employees\u2019 supervisors, the standards that the employees had to meet, and the employees\u2019 conduct.\u201d (cleaned up)). sex, none of his allegations plausibly support that contention.26 His disparate-treatment claim there- fore must fail. 2. Hostile Work Environment. To allege a plausi- ble hostile-work-environment claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he suffered inten- tional discrimination based on his being a part of a protected class, (2) the discrimination was severe or pervasive; (3) the discrimination had a detri- mental influence on the plaintiff; (4) the discrimi- nation would have had a detrimental influence on a reasonable person in similar circumstances; and (5) respondeat-superior liability exists.27 The District Court found that Verdu failed to allege sufficiently the first element: whether any harassment that he suffered was motivated by sex discrimination. The District Court\u2019s analysis is cor- rect. In his complaint, Verdu explains that Im\u2019s public-pressure campaign, along with other public pressures on Princeton concerning on-campus sex- ual harassment, led to Verdu facing public scrutiny from his colleagues and students at Princeton. All of that, according to Verdu\u2019s complaint, caused him stress, anxiety, elevated blood pressure; all of it also allegedly led to a \u201chostile work environment\u201d for Verdu. However, Verdu never plausibly alleges that Im\u2019s pressure campaign and the \u201chostile work environ- 13a 26 See supra \u00a7 2. 27 See, e.g., Mandel v Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 2013). ment\u201d that purportedly resulted from it were moti- vated by sex discrimination. If anything, Verdu alleges that Im launched her pressure campaign because she felt \u201c[d]issatisfied with [the] sanction\u201d of Verdu.28 Additionally, his complaint makes much of Im\u2019s purported relationship with Professor Cuff. According to Verdu, Cuff \u201cheld a grudge against\u201d him because Cuff blamed Verdu for his failure to obtain tenure.29 Based on Im allegedly \u201c[h]aving developed a close relationship with Cuff,\u201d she purportedly filed her grievances against Verdu based on Cuff\u2019s alleged encouragement.30 Those allegations do not relate to sex discrimination; instead, they relate to a purported feud between Cuff and Im, on one hand, and Verdu, on the other. That is not enough to allege a plausible hostile- work-environment claim based on sex discrimina- tion. \u201cMany may suffer severe or pervasive harassment . . . , but if the reason for that harass- ment is one that is not proscribed by Title VII, it follows that Title provides no relief.\u201d31 Thus, the District Court properly dismissed Verdu\u2019s hos- tile-work-environment claim under Title VII. 14a 28 Compl. \u00b6 12. 29 Compl. \u00b6 4. 30 Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 6\u20137. 31 See, e.g., Jensen v. Potter, 435 F.3d 444, 449 (3d Cir. 2006), overruled in part on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). V. The District Court properly dismissed the feder- al-law claims asserted in Verdu\u2019s complaint for failure to state a claim. We will affirm the District Court\u2019s order dismissing Verdu\u2019s complaint.32 15a 32 Having dismissed all federal-law claims and failing to find any other basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over Verdu\u2019s state-law claims, the District Court declined to exer- cise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See, e.g., Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995) (stating that, when \u201cthe claim[s] over which the district court has original jurisdiction [are] dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, con- venience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.\u201d). Verdu makes no contrary argu- ment JERSEY(v. Action No. 19-12484 VERDU, Plaintiff, v UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants having been opened to the Court by Linda Wong, Esq., counsel for Defendants,1 on a motion to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Sergio Verdu; it appearing that Plaintiff, through his counsel, Adrienne Levy, Esq., opposes the motion; the Court having considered the parties\u2019 submissions in connection with the motion without oral argument, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; for the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed on this date, and for good cause shown on this 30th day of March, 2020, 16a 1 The Complaint names the following defendants: The Trustees of Princeton University, the Board of Trustees of Princeton University, Christopher L. Eisgruber, Deborah A. Prentice, Regan Crotty, Toni Marlene Turano, Lisa Michelle Schreyer, Michele Minter, Claire Gmachl, Cheri Burgess, Lynn William Enquist, Susan Tufts Fiske, Carolina Mangone, Harvey S. Rosen and Irene Small that Plaintiff\u2019s federal claims (i.e., Count I, Count II, Count III, and Count of the Complaint) are dismissed, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim; and that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supple- mental jurisdiction over Plaintiff\u2019s state law claims (i.e., Count V, Count VI, Count VII, Count VIII, Count IX, Count X, Count XI, Count XII, Count XIII, Count XIV, Count XV, and of the Com- plaint); and that Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint, consistent with the Opinion filed on this date, within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order; and that, if Plaintiff adequately pleads one or more of his federal claims in an amended complaint, the Court may exercise any supplemental jurisdiction at that time; and that, in lieu of filing an amended complaint in federal district court, Plain- tiff may pursue his state law claims in state court, and the limitations period for each of those claims is tolled, to the extent the limitations period has not already expired, for a period of thirty (30) days, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(d). /s/ Freda L. Wolfson Hon. Freda L. Wolfson U.S. Chief District Judge 17a Civ. Action No. 19-12484 VERDU, Plaintiff, v UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants Plaintiff Sergio Verdu (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d), a former pro- fessor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Princeton University (the \u201cUniversity\u201d), was ter- minated from his employment with the University in September 2018. His termination followed two separate investigations by the University, which concluded that Plaintiff had violated the Universi- ty\u2019s rules and policies governing sexual miscon- duct, prohibiting certain relationships between teachers and students, and requiring faculty mem- bers to be honest during interviews with investiga- tors. In this action, Plaintiff sues the University, the University\u2019s Board of Trustees, and certain administrators of the University who were involved 18a in the investigations (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d),1 claiming, among other things, that the University\u2019s proceedings were tainted with gender bias against him. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Counts thru III) and of Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Count IV). The Complaint also asserts a host of state statutory and common law claims (Counts thru XIV). Presently before the Court is Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants\u2019 motion is and PART. Plaintiff\u2019s federal claims (Counts thru IV) are dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff\u2019s state law claims (Counts thru XVI) at this time. Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended com- plaint to replead his federal claims, in a manner consistent with this Opinion, within forty-five (45) days. In lieu of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff may pursue his state law claims in state court. 19a 1 The Complaint names the following administrators of the University as defendants: Christopher L. Eisgruber, Deb- orah A. Prentice, Regan Crotty, Toni Marlene Turano, Lisa Michelle Schreyer, Michele Minter, Claire Gmachl, Cheri Burgess, Lynn William Enquist, Susan Tufts Fiske, Carolina Mangone, Harvey S. Rosen and Irene Small. II. BACKGROUND2 Plaintiff taught at the University as a professor for nearly 35 years without incident until 2017. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 2, 49-50.) In April 2017, a twenty-five- year-old female graduate student, Yeohee Im (\u201cIm\u201d), reported to the University\u2019s Title Office that Plaintiff had sexually harassed her. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 118-119.) The University convened a Title panel (\u201cPanel\u201d) to conduct an investigation pur- suant to its Sexual Misconduct Policy (the \u201cFirst Investigation\u201d). (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 76-91, 125.) The Panel ulti- mately found Plaintiff responsible for sexual harassment. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 11, 164.) On June 9, 2017, the Dean of the Faculty disciplined Plaintiff for violat- ing the Sexual Misconduct Policy by, among other things, placing him on a one-year probation. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 165, 167.) Plaintiff alleges that, following the conclusion of the First Investigation, Im believed that the sanc- tion Plaintiff received was inadequate and, as a result, waged a public campaign against him and the University. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 177-208.) In the course of Im\u2019s campaign, Plaintiff alleges that Im committed numerous violations of the University\u2019s policies. For example, Plaintiff alleges that Im disclosed confidential records to news outlets, commented on the case to journalists who published articles about 20a 2 In this Background section provide a brief overview of the facts that are pertinent to this motion. In the Discus- sion section, infra set forth a more detailed recitation of the relevant facts that are alleged by Plaintiff in support of each of his claims. it, encouraged social media posts against Plaintiff, and filed complaints with professional associations to which Plaintiff belonged. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 12, 177-226.) Plaintiff alleges that these efforts ultimately led to calls for his termination. (Id. \u00b6 13.) Plaintiff further alleges that the University refused to address Im\u2019s violations of the University\u2019s Title policies or remedy the increasingly aggressive harassment and hostile environment caused by Im\u2019s activities. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 209-211, 215.) In September 2017, officials at the University told Plaintiff that it was commencing a second investigation into reports that Plaintiff may have had a romantic relationship with a different gradu- ate student (the \u201cSecond Investigation\u201d). (Id. \u00b6 239.) The student, E.S., had been a student in two of Plaintiff\u2019s classes in 2011, and Plaintiff had served as a reader on her dissertation committee in Fall 2015. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 235-236.) Witnesses reported that they had seen Plaintiff and E.S. kissing at a bar in Hong Kong during a conference, and photographs emerged of a man and woman kissing who appeared to be Plaintiff and E.S. (Id. \u00b6 227.) Plain- tiff alleges that Im unearthed this evidence because she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the First Investigation. (Id. \u00b6 226.) The University\u2019s Rules and Procedures of the Faculty, at the time, prohibited \u201csexual or romantic relationship[s] involv[ing] individuals in a teacher- student relationship (e.g. being directly or indirect- ly taught, supervised or evaluated).\u201d (Id. \u00b6 229.) Plaintiff and E.S. both denied that any relationship had occurred during interviews with investigators. 21a (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 124, 250, 299.) Notwithstanding those denials, the investigators ultimately concluded that Plaintiff and E.S. had engaged in a romantic relationship during the time when he evaluated her dissertation. (Id. \u00b6 261.) Plaintiff now admits in the Complaint that he and E.S. commenced a relationship in Spring 2014. (Compl. \u00b6 235.) That relationship was ongoing during the period when Plaintiff evaluated E.S.\u2019s dissertation. (Id. \u00b6 298(h).) On May 21, 2018, the University\u2019s President issued a memo to the University\u2019s Board of Trustees recommending that Plaintiff be dis- missed. (Id. 304.)3 The memo concluded that Plain- tiff lied during the Second Investigation; his lies were substantial and material under the Univer- sity\u2019s rules and policies; the lies justified dismissal; 22a 3 Defendants attach this recommendation memo as an exhibit to their motion papers. (See Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Christine E. Gage 20-3 (\u201cRecommendation Memo\u201d).) Because the Complaint quotes extensively from the recom- mendation memo and relies on it as the basis for multiple claims, this Court may consider the memo for the purposes of this motion to dismiss. See Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006) (\u201cIn evaluating a motion to dismiss, we may consider documents . . . and any \u2018matters incorporated by reference or integral to the claim[.]\u2019 \u201d Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure \u00a7 1357 (3d ed. 2004)); see also Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding \u201cthat a court may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defen- dant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plain- tiff\u2019s claims are based on the document.\u201d) Plaintiff also violated the University\u2019s policies on consensual relations; and neither Im nor Cuff (a former Assistant Professor who allegedly blamed his failure to obtain tenure on Plaintiff, see Compl. \u00b6 4) influenced the proceedings in a manner that could excuse Plaintiff\u2019s conduct. (See Recommenda- tion Memo 20-3.) On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff was notified that the University had ter- minated his employment effective immediately. (Compl. \u00b6 324.) Plaintiff alleges that, in the course of the Second Investigation, the University and its administra- tors violated numerous provisions of the Universi- ty\u2019s Rules and Procedures of the Faculty and expanded the investigation to include baseless claims against him. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 238-331.) Plaintiff fur- ther alleges that the University and other defen- dants relied on gender stereotypes, distorted the evidence and the applicable standards, and improperly relied upon Plaintiff\u2019s probation as a basis for his termination. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that the University and other defendants were motivated by external pressure and the need to repair the University\u2019s tarnished reputation, which resulted from: (i) numerous investigations by the Department of Education\u2019s Office of Civil Rights for the University\u2019s alleged failure to properly respond to female students\u2019 claims of sexual assault and harassment (id. \u00b6\u00b6 66-73); (ii) public criticism over the alleged sexual harassment of a number of female students in the University\u2019s German Department (id. \u00b6 75); (iii) criticism of the University by Im and Cuff for the results of the 23a First Investigation (id. \u00b6\u00b6 180-187, 191-201, 208, 216-220); and (iv) the rebirth of the #MeToo move- ment, which had gained momentum during the timeframe of the Second Investigation and con- tributed to further criticism of the University and public calls for Plaintiff\u2019s termination (id. \u00b6\u00b6 188- 190, 202-207, 212-214, 221-225 Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for \u201cfailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). \u201cTo survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must con- tain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to \u2018state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.\u2019 \u201d Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007 claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.\u201d Id. This \u201cplau- sibility standard\u201d requires that the plaintiff allege \u201cmore than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,\u201d but it \u201cis not akin to a \u2018probabil- ity requirement.\u2019 \u201d Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although the court must accept the allega- tions in the complaint as true, it is not compelled to accept \u201cunsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences, or a legal conclusion couched as a factu- al allegation,\u201d Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). \u201cDetermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 24a relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experi- ence and common sense.\u201d Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, although \u201ca dis- trict court . . . may not consider matters extrane- ous to the pleadings,\u201d the court may consider documents that are \u201cintegral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint.\u201d In re Burlington Coat Fac- tory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original A. Title Claims Counts I, II, and of the Complaint assert that the University violated Title of the Education Amendments of 1972 by discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of his gender. (See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 332-352 (Count I), \u00b6\u00b6 353-380 (Count II), \u00b6\u00b6 381- 418 (Count III).)4 Title states that \u201c[n]o person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.\u201d 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681(a). Among other things, it \u201cbars the imposition of university disci- pline where gender is a motivating factor,\u201d and it \u201cis enforceable through an implied private right of action . . . for monetary damages as well as injunc- 25a 4 Count alleges a violation of Title with respect to the First Investigation. Counts and allege violations of Title with respect to the Second Investigation. tive relief.\u201d Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709, 714- 15 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). In most Title cases, a plaintiff advances a claim under one of two theories: (1) an \u201cerroneous outcome\u201d theory; or (2) a \u201cselective enforcement\u201d theory. Doe v. The Trustees of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 270 F. Supp. 3d 799, 822 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (citation omitted); see also Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 714-16 (dividing Title claims involving university disciplinary pro- ceedings into two categories based on erroneous outcome and selective enforcement theories).5 Occasionally, a plaintiff will also assert a Title claim under a theory of \u201cretaliation\u201d for complain- ing of gender discrimination. Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 563-64 (3d Cir. 2017); see also Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173-74 (2005) (stating that \u201c[r]etaliation against a person because that person has com- plained of sex discrimination is another form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by 26a 5 Although a Second Circuit case, Yusuf has been cited by numerous courts in the Third Circuit as setting the stan- dard for Title erroneous outcome/selective enforcement claims. See, e.g., Doe v. Trustees of Princeton Univ., 2020 967860, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2020); Doe v. Rider Univ., 2020 634172, at *7 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2020); Doe v. The Trustees of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 270 F. Supp. 3d 799, 822 (E.D. Pa. 2017); Saravanan v. Drexel Univ., 2017 5659821, at *4-6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2017); see also Doe v. Princeton Univ., 790 F. App\u2019x 379, 383-84 (3d Cir. 2019) (affirming a decision of the district court that applied the Yusuf standard to a Title claim that was advanced under a selective enforcement theory). As such apply the standard from Yusuf in this case. Title IX\u2019s private cause of action\u201d). Plaintiff pro- ceeds under all three theories. (See Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 7-20, 25-28.) (1) Erroneous Outcome Under an \u201cerroneous outcome\u201d theory, a plaintiff asserts that he or she was \u201cinnocent and wrongly found to have committed an offense.\u201d Yusuf., 35 F.3d at 715. An erroneous outcome challenge to university disciplinary proceedings requires a plaintiff to plead (1) \u201cparticular facts sufficient to cast some articulable doubt on the accuracy of the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding,\u201d and (2) \u201cparticular circumstances suggesting that gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding.\u201d Id complaint meets the first prong if it alleges \u201cparticular evidentiary weaknesses behind the finding of an offense such as a motive to lie on the part of a complainant or witnesses, particular- ized strengths of the defense, or other reason to doubt the veracity of the charge.\u201d Id. It may also allege procedural flaws affecting the evidence. Id. \u201c[T]he pleading burden in this regard is not heavy.\u201d Id. However, \u201c[i]f no such doubt exists based on the record before the disciplinary tribunal, the claim must fail.\u201d Id. Once doubt has been cast on the accuracy of the proceedings, the plaintiff must present \u201cparticular- ized allegation[s] relating to a causal connection between the flawed outcome and gender bias.\u201d Id. \u201c[A]llegations of a procedurally or otherwise flawed proceeding that has led to an adverse and erro- 27a neous outcome combined with a conclusory allega- tion of gender discrimination is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.\u201d Id. The allegations must \u201cgo well beyond the surmises of the plaintiff as to what was in the minds of others and involve provable events that in the aggregate would allow a trier of fact to find that gender affected the out- come of the disciplinary proceeding.\u201d Id. at 716. Allegations that may support gender bias include \u201cstatements by members of the disciplinary tribu- nal, statements by pertinent university officials, or patterns of decision- making that also tend to show the influence of gender.\u201d Id. at 715.6 28a 6 In his opposition papers, Plaintiff asserts that \u201c[t]he second prong\u2014gender bias as a motivating factor\u2014can be met by pleading \u2018specific facts that support a minimal plausi- ble inference of [gender] discrimination\u201d (Defs.\u2019 Opp. at 11 (quoting Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46, 56 (2d Cir. 2016 note that at least one circuit has rejected this modi- fied pleading standard. See Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579, 5889 (6th Cir. 2018) (stating that the Second Circuit\u2019s \u201cmodi- fied pleading standard . . . lacks support from our precedent . . . [and] [a] ccordingly, in this Circuit, [the plaintiff] must meet the requirements of Twombly and Iqbal for each of his claims\u201d). The Third Circuit has not yet addressed this issue, but its precedent suggests that it would follow the Sixth Cir- cuit in rejecting the Columbia decision. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Miami Univ., the Columbia decision was partial- ly premised on the Second Circuit\u2019s decision in Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015). In Littlejohn, the Second Circuit reconciled Twombly and Iqbal with the Supreme Court\u2019s holding in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002). While Swierkiewicz remains good law in some circuits, the Third Circuit has explicitly held that the pleading standard set forth in Swierkiewicz is incompatible with Twombly and Iqbal. See Fowler v Shadyside, 578 In this case, Plaintiff contends that the allega- tions in the Complaint support claims under an erroneous outcome theory with respect to both the First Investigation and the Second Investigation address the sufficiency of the allegations as they relate to each of the two investigations, in turn, below. First Investigation (Count I). Defendants con- tend that Plaintiff has failed to allege a Title claim based on an erroneous outcome theory as to the First Investigation, because, \u201ceven assuming the outcome was flawed\u201d (i.e., the first prong), Plaintiff does not allege that the erroneous out- come was causally connected to gender bias (i.e., the second prong). (Defs.\u2019 Br. at 11-13.) In response, Plaintiff contends that \u201cthe Complaint properly alleges that [the University] exhibited gender bias because the infantilization of women plays into archaic gender stereotypes about women as chaste, sexually innocent, naive, lacking sexual autonomy, and needing protection from men, who are considered the sexual aggressors.\u201d (Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 11-12 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 151, 343).) Plaintiff also contends that the Complaint \u201calleges a consider- able connection between the Im investigation and the specific pressure placed on the University to prosecute male professors and protect and believe 29a F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009) (claiming that Swierkiewicz \u201chas been specifically repudiated by both Twombly and Iqbal\u201d). As such, based on the Third Circuit\u2019s repudiation of Swierkiewicz adopt the Sixth Circuit\u2019s approach by apply- ing the general Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard. female graduate students in the time period lead- ing up to Ms. Im\u2019s complaint against Plaintiff.\u201d (Id. at 12.) In support of the latter contention, Plaintiff cites to allegations in the Complaint, which allege that, \u201cin addition to [the University]\u2019s history of complaints and issues with the [Department of Education\u2019s] Office for Civil Rights for purportedly failing to sufficiently respond to allegations of sex- ual misconduct by female students, [the Universi- ty] faced considerable pressure from its student body to remedy a perceived atmosphere of gender bias specifically against female graduate students, like Im, by male faculty, like Plaintiff.\u201d (Id. at 12 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 66-75, 344).) Plaintiff also cites to allegations that, during the 2016-2017 academic year, three female graduate students in the Ger- man Department left the University abruptly, prompting a town hall meeting to address system- atic and long-term sexual harassment within the Department. (Id. at 15 (citing Compl. \u00b6 75).) Plain- tiff avers that the town hall meeting took place in May 2017, which was the same timeframe when the University\u2019s Title office was deciding Im\u2019s case against Plaintiff. (Id.) Having considered Plaintiff\u2019s allegations can- not find that the Complaint supports a plausible inference that, because of his gender, Plaintiff was found to have violated the University\u2019s Sexual Mis- conduct Policy.7 As an initial matter note that 30a 7 Although Defendants do not contest the first prong of the analysis in the present motion note that Plaintiff alleges facts \u201csufficient to cast some articulable doubt on the Plaintiff has neither alleged any statements by officials showing gender bias in his disciplinary proceedings, nor has he alleged any pattern or practice designed to produce gender-specific out- comes. Instead, Plaintiff relies on allegations that the University infantilized Im during the First Investigation, for instance by faulting Plaintiff for offering Im alcohol even though she was of legal drinking age, or by faulting Plaintiff for inviting Im to his home to watch movies featuring sexual assault and full frontal nudity even though she praised these films. (See Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 11-12 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 151, 343). However, Plaintiff fails to explain how \u201cinfantilizing\u201d an accuser amounts to bias against men. These allegations do not refer- ence gender, let alone suggest that gender was a motivating factor in the University\u2019s decision. At most, these allegations show that the University exhibited bias in favor of a younger student vis-a- vis an older professor, an inference having nothing to do with gender. Plaintiff\u2019s allegations about pressure allegedly faced by the University from the Office of Civil Rights and students in the German Department also do not support an inference of bias against men. Although the Third Circuit has not had occa- 31a accuracy of the outcome\u201d of the First Investigation. Yusuf., 35 F.3d at 715. Specifically, the Complaint describes numerous instances where, during the course of the First Investigation, the University\u2019s Title office allegedly withheld evidence from Plaintiff, ignored exculpatory evidence, accepted altered evidence submitted by Im, or failed to question Im\u2019s credibil- ity or narrative. (See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 229-160.) sion to address this specific issue, other courts have recognized that external pressure from cam- pus organizations and government agencies such as the Office of Civil Rights may \u201cprovide[ ] a back- drop that, when combined with other circumstan- tial evidence of bias in [the plaintiff\u2019s] specific proceeding, gives rise to a plausible [Title IX] claim.\u201d Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 586 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). However, external pressure alone is not enough. Rather,\u201c[i]n the cases where public pressure was found to sup- port claims of erroneous outcome, that public pres- sure targeted the specific disciplinary action being challenged.\u201d Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2018 1521631, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2018) (emphasis added); see also Doe v. Univ. of St. Thomas, 240 F. Supp. 3d 984, 992 (D. Minn. 2017) (\u201c[T]his Court joins the majority of federal courts in finding a gen- eral reference to federal pressure, by itself, is insufficient to show gender bias.\u201d); Doe v. Univ. of Colo., 255 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1078 (D. Colo. 2017) (same); Doe v. Lynn Univ., Inc., 224 F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (same). In this case, Plaintiff does not point to any public pressure directed at any single individual involved in his specific case, and the allegations in the Complaint pertain to investigations and incidents that are unconnected to the First Investigation. Indeed, these allegations are anything but specific to Plain- tiff\u2019s case: they concern federal investigations by Office of Civil Rights into the University\u2019s handling of sexual misconduct accusations by students; and criticism focused on the German Department (to 32a which Plaintiff did not belong). Without any allega- tions specifically connecting the external pressure on the University to Plaintiff\u2019s specific case, there is simply no basis to plausibly infer that the out- come of the First Investigation was motivated by his gender. Second Investigation (Count III). Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot sustain a claim as to the Second Investigation based on an erroneous outcome theory because \u201che admits he lied to Uni- versity officials about his relationship\u201d with E.S. (Defs.\u2019 Br. at 14 (emphasis in original).) Defendants further argue that, \u201c[e]ven if [Plaintiff] disputes that his affair violated University policy . . . , the admission that he violated the policy on Honesty and Cooperation in University Matters is enough to prevent him from alleging his innocence, a required element of an erroneous outcome claim.\u201d (Id. (citing Doe v. Rider Univ., 2018 466225, at *8 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2018)).) In his opposition brief, Plaintiff does not directly address Defendants\u2019 argument that his claim must fail based on the admission that he lied. Instead, Plaintiff points to allegations in the Complaint that show that the Second Inves- tigation suffered from extensive procedural irregu- larities and was infected by gender bias. (See Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 16-20 find that, regardless of the presence of any pro- cedural irregularities or alleged gender bias during the Second Investigation, Plaintiff\u2019s claim under an erroneous outcome theory fails for the simple rea- son that he has not sufficiently alleged his inno- cence. See Yusuf., 35 F.3d at 715 (stating that, 33a under an erroneous outcome theory, the \u201cclaim is that the plaintiff was innocent and wrongly found to have committed an offense\u201d). Indeed, rather than affirmatively alleging that Plaintiff is inno- cent, the allegations in the Complaint support the opposite inference: that Plaintiff was guilty of the charges for which he was ultimately terminated. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that he and E.S. commenced a relationship in Spring 2014 (see Compl. \u00b6 235), that the relationship was ongoing during the period when Plaintiff evaluated E.S.\u2019s dissertation (see id. \u00b6 298(h)), and that the Univer- sity\u2019s rules at the time prohibited \u201csexual or romantic relationship[s] involve[ing] individuals in a teacher-student relationship (e.g. being directly or indirectly taught, supervised or evaluated)\u201d (id. \u00b6 229). Moreover, Plaintiff admits that he lied dur- ing the investigation about his relationship with E.S. (See Compl. \u00b6 124 (stating that \u201cPlaintiff . . . denied the relationship [with E.S.] when inter- viewed\u201d by a member of the Title panel).) It was for this very conduct\u2014engaging in a prohibited teacher-student relationship and lying to investi- gators\u2014that the University terminated Plaintiff\u2019s employment. (See Recommendation Memo 20-3.) Because the undisputed facts, as alleged by Plaintiff, negate any inference that he was inno- cent, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as to the Second Investigation based on an erroneous out- come theory. 34a (2) Selective Enforcement Under a selective enforcement theory, a plaintiff \u201casserts that, regardless of the student\u2019s [or faculty member\u2019s] guilt or innocence, the severity of the penalty and/or the decision to initiate the proceed- ing was affected by the student\u2019s [or faculty mem- ber\u2019s] gender.\u201d Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 715. Under a selective enforcement theory, a male plaintiff must allege that \u201ca female was in circumstances suffi- ciently similar to his own and was treated more favorably by the [educational institution].\u201d Tafuto v. N.J. Inst. of Tech., 2011 3163240, at *2 (D.N.J. July 26, 2011) (alteration in original). Thus, when a male professor claims that a univer- sity selectively enforced a policy against him, he must identify a female professor who received bet- ter treatment even though she \u201cengaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or miti- gating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the [school\u2019s] treatment of them for it.\u201d Saravanan v. Drexel Univ., 2017 5659821, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2017 address the sufficien- cy of the allegations as they relate to each of the two investigations, in turn, below. First Investigation (Count I). Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to allege selective enforcement as to the First Investigation because he has not identified any specific female who was accused of similar conduct and treated more favor- ably by the University. (Defs.\u2019 Br. at 9-11.) In response, Plaintiff cites to allegations in the Com- plaint that state, on information and belief, female 35a respondents and faculty members are formally investigated at a lower rate and are punished less severely than similarly accused male respondents and faculty members. (Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 8 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 161-163, 346, 348).) Plaintiff also cites to allega- tions in the Complaint which allege that the Uni- versity treated Plaintiff differently than Im, his female accuser, during the course of the First Investigation. (Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 9 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 15, 192, 146-150, 157, 207, 210, 215, 243, 255, 265, 304, 359-360, 400, 436, 441, 454).) Plaintiff con- tends that his female accuser is a sufficient com- parator for the purposes of pleading his claim based on selective enforcement. (Id do not agree with Plaintiff that Im is a suffi- cient comparator selective enforcement claim requires a comparison between two similarly situ- ated individuals\u2014in the instant case, a male and female professor accused of similar conduct. See, e.g., Tafuto, 2011 3163240, at *2-3; Saravanan, 2017 5659821, at *6; Rider Univ., 2020 634172, at *12. Im\u2014the student complainant against Plaintiff during the First Investigation\u2014 \u201cis not a counterpart for the purposes of a selective enforcement claim.\u201d Doe v. Case W. Reserve Univ., 2015 5522001, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2015). Im was a student and Plaintiff was a professor; the University\u2019s obligations and relationship to each were fundamentally different. Further, Plaintiff\u2019s claim that the University treated Plaintiff differ- ently during the course of the investigation is very different from Im\u2019s claim that Plaintiff sexually harassed her. \u201cTo consider a student similarly situ- 36a ated, \u2018the individuals with whom a plaintiff seeks to be compared must have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the [school\u2019s] treatment of them for it.\u2019 \u201d See Sar- avanan, 2017 5659821, at *6 (emphasis and alteration in original) (citation omitted). There is no suggestion that Im engaged in sexual harass- ment, sounding the death knell for Plaintiff\u2019s claim that Im is an appropriate comparator. Moreover, Plaintiff\u2019s allegations that female respondents are formally investigated at a lower rate and are pun- ished less severely than male faculty respondents is far too general to constitute an example of \u201ca female [who] was in circumstances sufficiently sim- ilar to his own and [who] was treated more favor- ably.\u201d Tafuto, 2011 3163240, at *2. Because Plaintiff has failed to allege a single example of a similarly situated female who was treated differ- ently find that his claim fails under a selective enforcement theory as to the First Investigation. Second Investigation (Count III). Defendants contend that Plaintiff has also failed to allege that a female professor \u201cwas in circumstances suffi- ciently similar to his own and was treated more favorably\u201d with respect to the Second Investiga- tion. (Defs.\u2019 Br. at 14 (quoting Tafuto, 2011 3163240, at *2).) In response, Plaintiff argues he has sufficiently alleged that the decision to initiate the Second Investigation and the severity of the resulting punishment were influenced by gender bias. (Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 16-17.) Specifically, Plaintiff cites to allegations that suggest that the Second 37a Investigation and decision to terminate Plaintiff were prompted by Im\u2019s campus-wide pressure cam- paign and by public pressure from the #MeToo movement, which had gained momentum during the timeframe of the Second Investigation. (Id. (cit- ing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 188-208, 217, 222-224, 226-288, 304, 385-395, 408.) As found with respect to the First Investiga- tion find that, regardless of whether gender bias influenced the Second Investigation, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a single comparator between two similarly situated individuals, which is required to sustain his claim under a selective enforcement theory. See, e.g., Tafuto, 2011 3163240, at *2-3; Saravanan, 2017 5659821, at *6; Rider Univ., 2020 634172, at *12. Plaintiff does not identify, for example, any female professor who was accused of engaging in a prohibited teacher-student relationship or of being dishonest during disciplinary proceedings, and who received different treatment. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to allege a claim under a selective enforce- ment theory as to the Second Investigation. (3) Retaliation Count of the Complaint asserts a violation of Title under a theory of retaliation. To plead a case of \u201cretaliation\u201d under Title IX, a plaintiff must allege that (i) he \u201cengaged in activity protected by Title IX,\u201d (ii) he \u201csuffered an adverse action,\u201d and (iii) \u201cthere was a causal connection between the two.\u201d Doe v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 38a 545, 564 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, 340\u201342 (3d Cir. 2006)). If a plaintiff fails to plead any one of the required elements, the retaliation claim must be dismissed. See Doe v. Princeton Univ., 2018 2396685, at *7. In this case, although find that the allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to meet either the first or the third element nevertheless address each of the three elements, in turn, below. Protected Activity. Under Title IX, \u201cprotected activity\u201d includes reporting or opposing discrimi- nation prohibited by the statute. Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Ed., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (\u201cRetaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is another form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX\u2019s private cause of action plaintiff alleging retaliation \u201cneed not prove the merits of the underlying discrimination complaint, but only that \u2018he was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation existed.\u2019 \u201d Aman v. Cort Fur- niture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Griffiths v Corp., 988 F.2d 457, 468 (3d Cir.1993)). However, \u201c[g]eneral com- plaints about unfair treatment are not considered protected activity,\u201d and so do not suffice. Borowski v. Premier Orthopaedic & Sports Med. Ass\u2019n, Ltd., 2014 3700342, at *5 (E.D. Pa. July 24, 2014). Instead, this element requires allegations that that the complaint was \u201cabout conduct prohibited by\u201d the statute. Davis v. City of Newark, 417 F. App\u2019x 201, 203 (3d Cir. 2011). 39a In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he reported to the Acting Chair of Plaintiff\u2019s Department and to the University\u2019s counsel that he was being subject- ed to a \u201chostile work environment\u201d as a result of Im\u2019s public campaign against him. (See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 209, 215, 361, 364.) However, Plaintiff does not aver that when he made his complaints to the Act- ing Chair or the University\u2019s counsel, he also con- veyed to them that his complaints related to a claim about sex discrimination or gender bias. The only conduct prohibited by Title is discrimina- tion on the basis of sex. Plaintiff\u2019s mere use of the phrase \u201chostile work environment\u201d in his com- plaints does not convert those complaints into \u201cpro- tected activity.\u201d Accordingly find that Plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong by alleging that he engaged in any activity that is protected by Title IX. Adverse Action. The second element requires Plaintiff to \u201cpoint to an employment action that is \u2018harmful to the point that [it] could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.\u2019 \u201d Clarkson v. SEPTA, 700 F. App\u2019x 111, 115 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Burling- ton N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006)). Only actions that \u201ceffect a material change in the terms or conditions of . . . employment\u201d are sufficient. Deans v. Kennedy House, Inc., 587 F. App\u2019x 731, 734 (3d Cir. 2014). In this case, Plaintiff alleges that, in response to his complaint to the Acting Chair of Plaintiff\u2019s Department, Plaintiff was asked to step down as a co-director of an upcoming conference. (Compl. \u00b6 362.) Plaintiff also 40a alleges that, after he complained to the Universi- ty\u2019s counsel about the hostile environment, the University (i) asked Plaintiff to tender his resigna- tion, (ii) placed him on administrative leave, (iii) publicly announced Plaintiff\u2019s administrative leave, and (iv) improperly pursued and extended the Second Investigation into Plaintiff\u2019s relation- ship with E.S., despite the University having ini- tially concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a policy violation. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 364-377.) Plaintiff asserts, in his opposition, that \u201c[a]ll of the above actions served to prevent Plaintiff from per- forming his ordinary employment duties and fur- ther served to humiliate and denigrate him, which would also discourage reporting by a reasonable employee.\u201d (Defs.\u2019 Opp. at 27 find that the Acting Chair\u2019s mere request that Plaintiff step-down from an upcoming conference (which Plaintiff apparently declined), and the Uni- versity\u2019s mere pursuit of the Second Investigation, both fall short of a material change in the terms or conditions of his employment, which is necessary to constitute an adverse action. However, Plaintiff\u2019s placement on administrative leave, which was taken against Plaintiff after he complained to the University\u2019s counsel, is more akin to the type of action that constitutes a material change in employ- ment. Based on that action find that Plaintiff has arguably satisfied the second element.8 Therefore 41a 8 Defendants cite to two cases for the proposition that placement on administrative leave does not rise to the level of a material adverse action. (See Defs.\u2019 Br. at 20 (citing Jones will turn to the issue of whether Plaintiff has suffi- ciently pled a causal connection between those actions and his complaints to the University\u2019s Counsel. Causal Connection. \u201c[A] plaintiff may demon- strate causation in a retaliation claim by showing: (1) a close temporal relationship between the pro- tected activity and the adverse action, or (2) that \u2018the proffered evidence, looked at as a whole, . . . raise[s] the inference [of causation].\u2019 \u201d Nuness v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 535, 563 (D.N.J. 2018) (alteration in original) (citation omit- ted). However, \u201cthe mere fact that adverse employ- ment action occurs after a complaint will ordinarily be insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff\u2019s burden of demonstrating a causal link between the two events.\u201d Groeber v. Friedman & Schuman, P.C., 555 F. App\u2019x 133, 136 (3d Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Any \u201ccausal connection may be severed by the passage of a significant amount of time, or by some legitimate intervening event.\u201d Wiest v. Tyco Elecs. Corp., 42a v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 796 F.3d 323, 326 (3d Cir. 2015) (stating that \u201c[a] paid suspension pending an investigation of an employee\u2019s alleged wrongdoing does not fall under any of the forms of adverse action mentioned by Title VII\u2019s substan- tive provision.\u201d) and Doe v. Princeton University, 2018 2396685, at *7 (D.N.J. May 24, 2018) (finding that \u201cthorough- ly investigating the charges [against the plaintiff], and offer- ing a leave of absence\u201d did not constitute retaliation). Because find that Plaintiff has clearly not satisfied the first and third element of his retaliation claim need not address whether the particular circumstances of his administrative leave rose to the level of a material adverse action. 812 F.3d 319, 330 (3d Cir. 2016); cf. Hernandez v. Temple Univ. Hosp., 2019 130508, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2019) (\u201c[M]isconduct occurring between the dates of the protected activity and adverse employment action is the type of intervening event that can destroy what otherwise would be an infer- ence of retaliation.\u201d) (citation omitted). In this case find that the allegations in the Complaint, when taken together, negate any plau- sible inference that a causal connection can be drawn between Plaintiff\u2019s complaint to the Univer- sity\u2019s counsel and his subsequent placement on administrative leave. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified the University\u2019s counsel of his complaint about a hostile work environment on December 21, 2017, and was placed on administra- tive leave approximately one month later, on Janu- ary 23, 2018. (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 364, 366.) Despite the temporal proximity between these events, however, it is significant that, during this same time period, on December 20, 2017, the Complaint alleges that the University received an investigative report, which detailed Plaintiff\u2019s relationship with E.S. and found that Plaintiff had violated the Universi- ty\u2019s policy on Consensual Relationships with Stu- dents. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 255, 261.) Although the issuance of this report was not technically an \u201cintervening event\u201d (because it occurred one day before Plaintiff complained to the University\u2019s counsel), it provides an \u201cobvious alternative explanation\u201d for why Plain- tiff was placed on administrative leave. Given this obvious alternative explanation, there is nothing \u201cunduly suggestive\u201d about the fact he was placed 43a on administrative leave just one month later. See George v. Rehiel, 738 F.3d 562, 586 (3d Cir. 2013) (stating that \u201can obvious alternative explanation . . . negates any inference of retaliation\u201d). There- fore find that any inference that the University\u2019s decision to place him on administrative leave was caused by Plaintiff\u2019s complaint is simply not plau- sible in light of the contemporaneous report finding that he had violated the University\u2019s policies. In sum find that, although Plaintiff\u2019s place- ment on administrative leave arguably constituted an adverse action, he has failed to allege a causal connection between any protected activity and that adverse action. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to allege a Title claim under a retaliation theory. B. Title Claims Count of the Complaint asserts that the Uni- versity violated Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 419-476). Title states, in relevant part, that \u201c[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to dis- charge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compen- sation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employ- ment, because of such individual\u2019s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\u201d 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e\u2013 2(a) (emphasis added). Plaintiff contends in his opposition that the Complaint sufficiently alleges a violation of Title under two separate theories of liability. First, he contends that \u201che was subjected to adverse employment actions, including proba- 44a tion, administrative leave, and termination . . . under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of gender bias.\u201d (Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 22.) Second, he contends that \u201c[t]he actions of [the] University in knowingly ignoring, and even permitting and encouraging, numerous actions . . . by Ms. Im directed at impugning Plaintiff\u2019s reputation and specifically at ending his career, constituted and comprised a hostile environment.\u201d (Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 24 address the sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint as they relate to each of those theo- ries, in turn, below. (1) Disparate Treatment Courts analyze claims under Title that an employee was treated differently because of his or her gender under the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this framework, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by alleging the following: \u201c(1) s/he is a member of a protected class; (2) s/he was qualified for the posi- tion s/he sought to attain or retain; (3) s/he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.\u201d Semple v. Donahoe, 2014 4798727, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 25, 2014) (citing Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205, 214 (3d Cir. 2008)). At the motion to dismiss stage, a Title plaintiff does not prove a prima facie case of discrimination, because the McDonnell Douglas standard \u201cis an evidentiary standard, not 45a a pleading standard.\u201d Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510 (2002). However, the plaintiff must still allege \u201csufficient factual matter, accept- ed as true, to \u2018state a claim to relief that is plausi- ble on its face.\u2019 \u201d Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twomby, 550 U.S. 570). The Third Circuit has stated that the \u201ccentral focus of the prima facie [Title VII] case \u2018is always whether the employer is treating some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\u201d Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789, 798 (3d Cir.2003) (inter- nal quotation marks omitted). \u201cThe facts necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title vary depending on the particular circumstances of each case.\u201d Id. at 797 n. 7 (citation omitted). However, \u201c[t]he evidence most often used to establish this nexus is that of disparate treat- ment, whereby a plaintiff shows that [he] was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees who are not in plaintiff\u2019s protected class.\u201d Doe v. C.A.R.S. Prot. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 366 (3d Cir. 2008); see also Ewell v Prop- erties, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 612, 624 (D.N.J. 2015) (\u201cAn inference of discrimination may arise if simi- larly situated employees of a different race received more lenient treatment than that afforded plaintiff.\u201d) (citing Simpson v. Kay Jewelers, Div. of Sterling, Inc., 142 F.3d 639, 645 (3d Cir.1998 determination of whether employees are similarly situated takes into account factors such as the employees\u2019 job responsibilities, the supervisors and decision-makers, and the nature of the misconduct 46a engaged in.\u201d Wilcher v. Postmaster Gen., 441 F. App\u2019x 879, 882 (3d Cir. 2011). In this case, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that tend to show that Plaintiff, based on his sex, was treated differently than any similarly situated female employee of the University. The allegations in the Complaint of Plaintiff\u2019s differential treat- ment vis-a-vis another female employee are all directed towards the University\u2019s treatment of Im. (See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 436-438, 441-444, 450-451.) Howev- er, Im\u2014a graduate student and the accuser\u2014was not similarly situated in any relevant respects to Plaintiff\u2014a faculty member and the accused. Although Plaintiff \u201cis not required to show that he is identical to [his alleged] comparator,\u201d he must still show \u201csubstantial similarity.\u201d See Houston v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 355 F. App\u2019x 651, 654-55 (3d Cir. 2009) (stating that \u201c[t]o make a comparison of the plaintiff\u2019s treatment to that of an employee outside the plaintiff\u2019s protected class for purposes of a Title claim, the plaintiff must show that he and the employee are similarly situated in all rele- vant respects\u201d) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that he is similar in any relevant respect to Im. He also has not identified any other similarly situated female employees (professors or other- wise) who were treated differently than him in sim- ilar circumstances. Accordingly find that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled facts from which it can be inferred that Plaintiff was treated differ- 47a ently by his employer, the University, because of his gender.9 (2) Hostile Work Environment To state a claim for hostile work environment under Title VII, the plaintiff must allege that: \u201c(1) he suffered intentional discrimination because of his membership in a protected class; (2) the dis- crimination was severe or pervasive; (3) the dis- crimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in like circumstances; and the existence of respondeat superior liability.\u201d Ali v. Woodbridge Twp. Sch. Dist., 2019 1930754, at *8 (D.N.J. Apr. 30, 2019) (citing Mandel v Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 2013)). \u201cWhen the workplace is permeated with \u2018discrimi- natory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,\u2019 that is \u2018sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the condi- tions of the victim\u2019s employment and create an abu- sive working environment,\u2019 \u201d a hostile environment is created. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)). In evaluating whether a plaintiff was subjected to a hostile environment, courts look to \u201call the circumstances,\u201d including \u201cthe frequency of 48a 9 In his opposition, Plaintiff contends that his claim for disparate treatment under Title may be alleged even absent an allegation that a similarly situated individual was treated more favorably than Plaintiff. (Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 21-22.) Even if that were true, Plaintiff has still not alleged any other facts from which to infer a connection between his gen- der and the University\u2019s treatment of him, other than his con- clusory accusation. the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee\u2019s work performance.\u201d National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 116 (2002). In support of his hostile work environment claims, Plaintiff points to the following allegations in the Complaint: (i) Plaintiff and Im were both employees of the University (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 478-479); (ii) the University was under considerable scrutiny in 2016-2017 regarding its perceived failure to pro- tect female students from sexual harassment (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 71, 74-75); (iii) following the outcome of the First Investigation, Im embarked on a broad campaign to destroy Plaintiff\u2019s reputation, relying heavily on the backdrop of the #MeToo movement and focusing on the University\u2019s alleged failure to adequately punish male respondents (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 188-222); (iv) in furtherance of her campaign against Plaintiff, Im publicized numerous Title documents and information that the University had marked as confidential (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 193, 200, 219-220); (v) as a result of Im\u2019s public campaign, Plaintiff was publicly criticized, mocked, and his courses were protested on campus (Compl. \u00b6 207); (vi) Im\u2019s campaign impeded Plaintiff\u2019s ability to perform his employment duties and caused him anxiety, distress, and high blood pressure (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 209, 215); (vii) Plaintiff reported that Im\u2019s actions were creating a \u201chostile working environ- ment\u201d to the Acting Chair of Plaintiff\u2019s department and to the University\u2019s counsel (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 215, 49a 219); and (viii) the University took no actions to quell or remedy the hostile environment (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 192, 209-211; 215; 220-221). (See Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 23-24 need not exhaustively analyze the sufficiency of Plaintiff\u2019s allegations against each of the required elements of a hostile work environment claim, because find that Plaintiff has not established a basic element of a claim. \u201c[H]arassment, no matter how unpleasant and ill-willed, is simply not prohib- ited by Title if not motivated by the plaintiff\u2019s gender (or membership in other protected groups).\u201d Dalton v. New Jersey, 2018 305326, at *9 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2018) (citation omitted); see also Ullrich v. U.S. Sec\u2019y of Veterans Affairs, 457 F. App\u2019x 132, 140 (3d Cir. 2012) (\u201cMany may suffer severe or pervasive harassment at work, but if the reason for that harassment is one that is not pro- scribed by Title VII, it follows that Title pro- vides no relief.\u201d). Although, according to Plaintiff, Im\u2019s alleged public pressure campaign caused him a great deal of anxiety and distress find that there are insufficient allegations from which to infer that Im\u2019s public campaign (or the University\u2019s failure to quell her campaign) was motivated by gender bias.10 Indeed, the Complaint ascribes only two to Im, neither having to do with Plaintiff\u2019s gen- der: Im\u2019s dissatisfaction with the University\u2019s reso- 50a 10 In addition, importantly note that Plaintiff does not explain, in his opposition, how Im\u2019s conduct in allegedly cre- ating a hostile work environment can be attributed to the University. lution of her report of sexual harassment, and her desire to advance the alleged vendetta of another professor in the Electrical Engineering department against Plaintiff based on departmental politics. (See Compl. \u00b6 12 (stating that Im \u201cembarked on a vicious, retaliatory campaign\u201d because she was \u201c[d]issatisfied with [Plaintiff]\u2019s sanction\u201d); id. \u00b6\u00b6 4-7 (attributing Im\u2019s report to her \u201cclose relationship with Cuff\u201d). Given these motivations, which are alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint cannot sus- tain Plaintiff\u2019s hostile work environment claims without more specific allegations that Im\u2019s conduct was motivated by Plaintiff\u2019s gender as a male. C. State Law Claims Counts thru of the Complaint assert claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrim- ination, for breach of contract, for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for negli- gence and gross negligence, and for wrongful disci- pline. Because the Court has found that Plaintiff has failed to state any of his federal claims, the only potential basis for this Court\u2019s jurisdiction over Plaintiff\u2019s state law claims is supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367. Under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c)(3), a district court \u201cmay decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.\u201d The Third Circuit has stated that \u201cwhere the claim[s] over which the district court has original jurisdiction [are] dismissed before trial, the district court must 51a decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.\u201d Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995); cf. Markowitz v. Ne. Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 106 (3d Cir. 1990) (\u201c[T]he rule within this Circuit is that once all claims with an independent basis of federal jurisdiction have been dismissed the case no longer belongs in federal court.\u201d). In this case, having dis- missed all of Plaintiff\u2019s federal claims find that no considerations justify this Court\u2019s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and, therefore decline to exercise jurisdiction over those claims In summary find that Plaintiff has failed to state his federal claims (Counts thru IV), and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff\u2019s state law claims (Counts thru XVI). Accordingly, Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss is and PART. Plaintiff\u2019s federal claims are dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended com- plaint to replead his federal claims, in a manner consistent with this Opinion, within forty-five (45) days of the date of the Order accompanying this Opinion. If Plaintiff adequately pleads one or more of his federal claims in an amended complaint, the Court may exercise any supplemental jurisdiction 52a at that time. In lieu of filing an amended com- plaint, Plaintiff may pursue his state law claims in state court, and the limitations period for each of those claims is tolled, to the extent the limitations period has not already expired, for a period of thirty (30) days, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(d). DATED: March 30, 2020 /s/ Freda L. Wolfson Hon. Freda L. Wolfson U.S. Chief District Judge 53a Civil Case No. 19-1248 VERD\u00da Plaintiff, v S. ROSEN, and V. SMALL, Defendants Plaintiff Sergio Verd\u00fa (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d or \u201cDr. Verd\u00fa\u201d), by and through his attorneys Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP, as and for his complaint against Defendants The Trustees of Princeton University (\u201cPrinceton\u201d or the \u201cUniversity\u201d), the Board of Trustees of Princeton University, Christopher L. Eisgruber, Deborah A. Prentice, Regan Crotty, Toni Marlene Turano, Lisa Michelle Schreyer, Michele Minter, Claire Gmachl, Cheri Burgess, Lynn William Enquist, Susan Tufts Fiske, Carolina 54a Mangone, Harvey S. Rosen and Irene Small (collec- tively the \u201cDefendants\u201d) alleges as follows 1. This action arises out of Princeton\u2019s flawed and gender-biased Title proceedings, unreme- died harassment and retaliation against Dr. Verd\u00fa and the subsequent unwarranted and flawed ter- mination proceedings against him. 2. Dr. Verd\u00fa, formerly Princeton\u2019s Eugene Higgins Professor of Electrical Engineering, who taught at the University for nearly 35 years, held his tenured position without incident until Spring 2017. Dr. Verd\u00fa has long been held in the highest esteem by students and colleagues alike, he has achieved the highest levels of success in his field and received numerous awards and accolades over the course of his career. 3. Rather than make any effort to protect its highly esteemed faculty member, Princeton instead pursued the decimation of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s reputation and career, and violated his right to privacy over an extramarital affair that took place years earlier so that it could exact a harsher punishment against Dr. Verd\u00fa in the wake of the #MeToo movement. 4. In Spring 2017, Paul Cuff (\u201cCuff\u201d), an Assis- tant Professor who held a grudge against Dr. Verd\u00fa, and blamed him for Cuff\u2019s failure to obtain tenure, reported allegations to then Dean of the Graduate School, Sanjeev Kulkarni (\u201cKulkarni\u201d), that, years prior, Dr. Verd\u00fa had been involved in a 55a consensual romantic relationship with a former female graduate student supervised by Cuff month earlier, the University heard the same allegation from a faculty member at Stanford University. 5. Concerned about Cuff\u2019s motives, and the lack of any complaint from the former graduate student, \u201cE.S.\u201d\u2014who received her Ph.D. from Princeton over two years earlier and never made a report or complaint about Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2014Kulkarni told Cuff that no investigation was warranted. At the time, Cuff said he was going to \u201cwatch out\u201d for Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s only female advisee, twenty-five-year-old graduate student Yeohee Im (\u201cMs. Im\u201d). 6 short time later, Cuff notified the Universi- ty that Dr. Verd\u00fa had allegedly acted inappropri- ately with Ms. Im, and, upon information and belief, encouraged Ms. Im to file a false charge of sexual harassment against Dr. Verd\u00fa with the Uni- versity\u2019s Title Office, stemming from two occa- sions on which Ms. Im and Dr. Verd\u00fa watched movies together at his home. Ms. Im also alleged\u2014 as had Cuff\u2014that Dr. Verd\u00fa was rumored to have engaged in a consensual relationship with E.S. 7. Having developed a close relationship with Cuff, Ms. Im willfully mischaracterized ordinary social interactions with Dr. Verd\u00fa, which she enthusiastically participated in, as sexual harass- ment. She claimed sexual harassment even though she admitted that Dr. Verd\u00fa acted professionally 56a during the course of her graduate studies\u2014both before and after the incidents she complained of. 8. When complaining to the University, Ms. Im supplied only part of the story, and presented deliberately altered \u201cevidence\u201d in support of her claim of sexual harassment, including select por- tions of a secretly taped conversation with Dr. Verd\u00fa and excerpted emails. The full set of emails\u2014produced by Dr. Verd\u00fa to the Title administrator\u2014demonstrated that Ms. Im initiat- ed a social relationship with Dr. Verd\u00fa and made attempts to foster a closer relationship with him. The Title panel, tasked with investigating Ms. Im\u2019s allegations and determining responsibility, relied on the altered evidence, as opposed to the exculpatory evidence provided by Dr. Verd\u00fa, to erroneously find him responsible for sexual harassment. 9. Though the panel members admitted that Ms. Im downplayed her efforts to foster a close relation- ship with Dr. Verd\u00fa, they failed to consider this in weighing the evidence. The panel also ignored that Cuff\u2014not Ms. Im\u2014was the original source of Ms. Im\u2019s Title complaint and turned a blind eye to the simultaneous timing of the allegations about E.S., brought forward by Cuff and Ms. Im. The panel further ignored that, only months earlier, Ms. Im made a Title report against a male teaching assistant. All of these facts raised serious questions about Ms. Im\u2019s credibility and her motives. 57a 10. When she reported the \u201csexual harassment\u201d to the University, Ms. Im embellished her story in a manner that directly contradicted the evidence, including her own email communications with Dr. Verd\u00fa. Ms. Im\u2019s story also continuously changed. The Title panel members ignored these contra- dictions. Their assessment of the case, and corre- sponding finding of responsibility against Dr. Verd\u00fa, revealed their sex bias because they treated Ms. Im\u2014an adult\u2014 like a child in need of parental supervision. They also assumed that\u2014because Dr. Verd\u00fa was male and Ms. Im female\u2014Dr. Verd\u00fa intended a simple gesture like quickly cleaning a red wine stain off Ms. Im\u2019s sweatshirt to be a sexu- al advance. They ignored Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s consistent account of the events in question. 11. The University ultimately found Dr. Verd\u00fa responsible for sexual harassment. As a result of this finding, he was placed on probation for one year, could not take a planned sabbatical, and was required to attend a mandatory 8-hour counseling program with an outside psychologist, whose serv- ices had been secured by Princeton exclusively to deal with student cases in the past. 12. Dissatisfied with this sanction, Ms. Im embarked on a vicious, retaliatory campaign to destroy Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s career and reputation by dis- closing confidential Title records and altered recordings to the press, making unsubstantiated comments in an article published by the Huffington Post, encouraging social media posts against Dr. Verd\u00fa within the construct of the #MeToo move- 58a ment, filing complaints with professional associa- tions to which Dr. Verd\u00fa belonged, and publicly accusing him of sex crimes. Ms. Im succeeded in her destructive efforts. 13. The November 9, 2017 Huffington Post arti- cle, published against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement, prompted a firestorm of negative pub- licity at Princeton, leading to the plastering of fly- ers across campus with Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s photo, calls to the Princeton administration for his termination, exaggerated accusations and unsubstantiated rumors which Ms. Im and Cuff fueled by publishing editorials about Dr. Verd\u00fa in The Daily Princeton- ian newspaper. 14. The University took no steps to quell the harassment of Dr. Verd\u00fa or prohibit Ms. Im from revealing confidential information obtained through the Title process. On the contrary, the Univer- sity encouraged retaliation against Dr. Verd\u00fa by taking a position that supported Ms. Im. Princeton had already been subjected to a number of Office for Civil Rights investigations1 and was embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal concerning profes- sors in the University\u2019s German Department and, in the weeks following the rebirth of the #MeToo movement, was, upon information and belief, more interested in preserving its reputation than pre- venting further harm to Dr. Verd\u00fa. 59a 1 Indeed, its handling of sexual misconduct allegations received a score of 5/20 (letter grade D) from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. 15. All the while, Dr. Verd\u00fa was under a gag order, as the University warned him against dis- closing any emails from and to Ms. Im or any other confidential information from the Title proceed- ings. Although Ms. Im was also subject to such con- fidentiality orders, the University chose not to enforce them against her. As a result, Dr. Verd\u00fa was unable to publicly defend himself against Ms. Im\u2019s accusations and the unsubstantiated rumors that were the subject of campus discourse, includ- ing nearly a dozen articles in The Daily Princeton- ian attacking his character. Essentially, the University barred Dr. Verd\u00fa from coming to his own defense while simultaneously allowing Ms. Im to unabashedly and publicly attack Dr. Verd\u00fa. 16. Not only did the University encourage retal- iation against Dr. Verd\u00fa, its administration opened a second investigation into the allegations originally lodged by Ms. Im and Cuff concerning a consensual relationship between Dr. Verd\u00fa and E.S. 17. Ms. Im contacted E.S. on a number of occa- sions, threatened her and solicited her to file a uni- versity complaint against Dr. Verd\u00fa, because she was dissatisfied with the fact that he was not fired as a result of her, and Cuff\u2019s, sexual harassment allegation. Ms. Im\u2019s threats were unsuccessful. E. S. even met with Princeton\u2019s Title administra- tors to inform them that Dr. Verd\u00fa had not engaged in any sexual misconduct with respect to her. Regardless, Princeton administrators attempt- ed to coerce E.S. into admitting that Dr. Verd\u00fa had 60a an improper relationship with her that violated University policies. This was simply not the case. 18. Despite the lack of any evidence that sexual misconduct occurred with respect to E.S. the Uni- versity pressed on, seeking to bolster its reputation for failing to protect female students from sexual harassment by faculty members. Princeton also sought to correct its perceived laxity in sanctioning Dr. Verd\u00fa in Ms. Im\u2019s Title proceeding by resur- recting the allegations against him concerning E.S.\u2014and opening an unwarranted investigation\u2014 at Ms. Im\u2019s insistence. 19. Dr. Verd\u00fa was punished for his efforts to pro- tect E.S.\u2019s and his right to privacy and for railing against the University\u2019s unwarranted and relent- less invasion of his privacy in the face of Ms. Im\u2019s and Cuff\u2019s drummed up allegations. E.S. and Dr. Verd\u00fa engaged in an extramarital affair, years ear- lier, which did not violate University policy. Princeton used the affair as a mechanism for termi- nating Dr. Verd\u00fa, in an effort to appease Ms. Im\u2014 and her angry supporters who took the Huffington Post article at face value\u2014who would not rest until Dr. Verd\u00fa was fired. 20. Princeton administrators went so far as to keep Ms. Im informed about the status of the E.S. investigation even though she was not a proper complainant or participant in the alleged events. In contrast, the administrators acted hostile, menac- ing and coercive towards E.S., treating her more like a criminal than an alumna. There was no policy 61a in place that even permitted post hoc investiga- tions concerning students who had graduated, let alone complaints lodged by third parties. 21. Princeton breached University protocol when conducting the investigation, hiring a high-profile law firm to provide an investigator rather than the Dean of the Faculty. Though the initial investiga- tion turned up insufficient evidence, the Provost urged Dr. Verd\u00fa to confess in order to receive a lesser punishment. Her recommendations for disci- pline were rife with judgment about the propriety of Dr. Verd\u00fa, an older man, being involved in a con- sensual relationship with a younger woman. 22. Dissatisfied with Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s refusal to admit to any wrongdoing, the President of the Uni- versity ordered a search of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s university emails for communications with E.S., including a timeframe well beyond the date upon which E.S.\u2019s Ph.D. was conferred. Ultimately, the investigators relied on flimsy evidence, including communica- tions which post-dated E.S.\u2019s departure from Princeton, to conclude that Dr. Verd\u00fa violated Princeton\u2019s policy on Consensual Relations with Students. Because Dr. Verd\u00fa defended himself, and E.S., against Princeton\u2019s unwarranted invasion of privacy, the University President also found him responsible for violating University policies involv- ing dishonesty. 23. In assessing and adjudicating the false alle- gations against Dr. Verd\u00fa, the University deprived him of a fair and impartial process. Princeton had 62a no regard for the heightened protections that were warranted in the case of deciding allegations against a tenured professor and the significant interest he had in his professorship. 24. Throughout both investigations, Princeton officials withheld information from Dr. Verd\u00fa, including the identities of key witnesses and the individuals who made certain allegations, as well as the fact that Ms. Im and Cuff were behind the E.S. allegations. Dr. Verd\u00fa had no right to cross- examine his accusers or question witnesses. He had no right to be represented by counsel during any appearances, nor did he receive a proper hearing. 25. Both the outcome of the Title investiga- tion and the decision to terminate Dr. Verd\u00fa result- ed from an abuse of power and were the product of sex discrimination. 26. During the relevant timeframe, Princeton was under constant, extreme pressure to repair its tarnished reputation, which resulted from: i) numerous investigations; ii) public outcry over the alleged sexual harassment of a number of female students in the German Department; iii) Ms. Im\u2019s and Cuff\u2019s public vilification of the Provost for failing to terminate Dr. Verd\u00fa; and iv) the momentum of the #MeToo movement. 27. As a result of Defendants\u2019 misconduct in vio- lating Princeton\u2019s policies, failing to provide Dr. Verd\u00fa with a fundamentally fair process in either investigation, assisting Ms. Im\u2019s retaliatory cam- paign against Dr. Verd\u00fa and engaging in sex dis- 63a crimination, Dr. Verd\u00fa has, among other things, suffered irreparable harm to his career and reputa- tion, been cut off from conducting research in his field, and is unemployable. Dr. Verd\u00fa has also suf- fered physical illness and emotional distress as a result of the discriminatory and hostile environ- ment created by Ms. Im\u2019s retaliatory campaign. * * * [12 I. Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s Background 49. Dr. Verd\u00fa grew up in Barcelona, Spain. In 1980 he came to the United States to pursue his Ph.D. and, in 1984, he became the youngest faculty member at Princeton at that time. Dr. Verd\u00fa was employed by Princeton, including as a tenured pro- fessor since 1989, for the next 34 years. 50. Until June 2017, or over a span of 33 years, Dr. Verd\u00fa had an unblemished disciplinary record. 51. Over the years, Dr. Verd\u00fa received recogni- tion for his teaching and research, including as the youngest recipient ever of the Claude Shannon Award, the top distinction in Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s field of study, information theory. In recognition of his research achievements, Dr. Verd\u00fa was also elected to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. 52. Prior to his termination, and in the wake of a negative publicity campaign sparked by one of his former graduate students, as fully described below, 64a Dr. Verd\u00fa received continuing support from former and current students and colleagues, men and women alike, who provided testimonials to Prince- ton in support of his character. Their support con- tinues to the present day. 53. Despite these words of support, Princeton caved in to pressure surrounding the #MeToo movement and criticism that it failed to protect its female students from sexual harassment, stripping Dr. Verd\u00fa of his tenured position after conducting an unauthorized, unwarranted and biased investi- gation, the primary purpose of which was to find a reason to terminate him. * * * [29]123. On the same day, Crotty interviewed E.S. by phone about the allegations that she had engaged in a consensual, romantic relationship with Dr. Verd\u00fa. Notably, E.S. was not an advisee of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s during the time in which she attended Princeton. E.S. denied that anything inappropriate or violative of any policies had occurred. E.S. also denied having a romantic relationship with Dr. Verd\u00fa. Crotty asked E.S. if there might be any pic- tures of her and Dr. Verd\u00fa taken in a Hong Kong bar in 2015, which she denied. Crotty had heard about these pictures from Ms. Im, who in the course of her subsequent harassment of E.S. told her that Ms. Im\u2019s friends were willing to provide statements to the University that E.S. had been seen with Dr. Verd\u00fa in a Hong Kong bar. 65a 124. After her interview, E.S. called Dr. Verd\u00fa and asked him not to disclose that he and E.S. had been involved in an extramarital affair. She went on to say that if this information was made public her husband \u201cmight kill him.\u201d Unconcerned about policy violations\u2014as the relationship had not vio- lated any policy\u2014but about the harm that could result from any disclosure of the relationship, Plaintiff also denied the relationship when inter- viewed on April 18, 2017. 125. On April 17, 2017, Ms. Im was interviewed by the Title panel convened to investigate her allegations, comprised of Crotty, Schreyer and Turano (the \u201cPanel\u201d). 126. Before Dr. Verd\u00fa was given any notice of the charges against him, he was called to meet with the Panel and did so on April 18, 2017 \u201csumma- ry\u201d of the interview was not finalized until several days letter. Though Schreyer read a summary of her notes to Dr. Verd\u00fa at the end of his interview, the final memo contained inaccuracies that were inconsistent with what Dr. Verd\u00fa told the Panel. 127. During the April 18th interview, Dr. Verd\u00fa voluntarily provided the Panel with complete copies of all of his email correspondence with Ms. Im. In contrast, Ms. Im\u2014who was interviewed the day before\u2014provided only excerpted copies of her email communications with Dr. Verd\u00fa, leaving out, for instance, the love song that she sent to him as well as other emails that showed her enthusiasm for the movies that they watched together and sug- 66a gesting that they watch other films. Ms. Im also failed\u2014and was not asked\u2014to provide any email communications with Cuff which might have shown a coordination of efforts to damage Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s career and reputation. * * * [58]V. Princeton\u2019s Unwarranted Second Investigation Against Dr. Verd\u00fa 226. Ms. Im\u2019s efforts at retribution against Dr. Verd\u00fa, and to exact a harsher punishment against him, were successful as, over Summer 2017, Ms. Im drummed up enough \u201cevidence\u201d to prompt the Uni- versity to pursue an investigation into whether Dr. Verd\u00fa and E.S. had a \u201cromantic relationship\u201d more than two years prior to Ms. Im reporting the alle- gation. 227. In fact, Ms. Im solicited various individuals to provide statements to University officials that, in Summer 2015, Dr. Verd\u00fa and E.S. were seen kissing at a bar in Hong Kong, during an Conference. An anonymous individual also sup- plied photographs of a man and woman purported- ly kissing, allegedly E.S. and Dr. Verd\u00fa. 228. In actuality, the photographs provided to the University did not show the woman\u2019s face and it was not clear from the photographs that the indi- viduals were kissing. The University did not ques- tion who took the photographs or why they were taken. The photographer was never interviewed. The University also failed to question why the pho- 67a tos were of such grave concern after sitting in someone\u2019s file for over two years. A. The Rules and Procedures of the Faculty 229. The 2015 version of the Rules and Proce- dures of the Faculty stated as follows with respect to consensual relationships between faculty and graduate students: Whenever a faculty member has a professional responsibility for a student or could reasonably expect to have professional responsibility for the student during the student\u2019s time at Princeton, a consensual sexual or romantic relationship between the faculty member and the student raises a serious question of viola- tion of this provision faculty member has a professional responsibility for a student when he or she has direct or indirect administrative, teaching or supervisory responsibility for that student. When a sexual or romantic relationship involves individuals in a teacher-student rela- tionship (e.g. being directly or indirectly taught, supervised or evaluated) . . . it is a clear and most serious violation of both Uni- versity and professional standards, as well as a potential violation of state and federal anti-dis- crimination statutes. Any sexual or romantic relationship between teacher and student is bound to impinge upon the teacher student 68a relationship, not only with regard to the stu- dent involved but also in relationship to his or her peers, who may perceive favoritism or unequal treatment by the faculty member. * * * [60]B. Dr. Verd\u00fa and E.S. 235. Dr. Verd\u00fa and E.S. commenced a relation- ship in Spring 2014. At the time, Dr. Verd\u00fa had no teacher-student relationship with E.S., he was nei- ther her advisor nor her teacher. She had taken courses from him three years before the relation- ship began. At no point during the course of their relationship was E.S. under Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s supervision. 236. In Fall 2015, Dr. Verd\u00fa served as a reader of E.S.\u2019s dissertation but this role was not disposi- tive as to whether she would get her Ph. D. E.S.\u2019s two advisors wrote glowing reports and the main results from her thesis were published in the top journal in the field. 237. The rules of the Princeton University Grad- uate School state: \u201cWhen the dissertation has been formally presented the department takes action on the positive recommendation of at least two princi- pal readers to request that the dissertation advance to the final public oral (FPO) examina- tion.\u201d Leaving aside the fact that at Princeton it is exceedingly rare for a dissertation to be found unacceptable by a reader, E.S. certainly did not need Plaintiff\u2019s report to get her Ph.D. 69a C. The Unwarranted University Investi- gation Concerning Dr. Verd\u00fa and E.S. 238. On September 19, 2017, Crotty emailed Ms. Im and requested a meeting with her. She informed Ms. Im that the University had received enough information to start a new investigation into Ms. Im\u2019s allegation that Plaintiff and E.S. potentially engaged in a consensual, romantic relationship. 239. On September 25, 2017, Prentice\u2014who had determined Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s sanction in the Title proceedings and was now the Provost\u2014emailed a letter to Dr. Verd\u00fa informing him that \u201cthe Office of the Dean of the Faculty has received a report that you may have engaged in conduct with a now former graduate student that violated University policy.\u201d The letter further informed Dr. Verd\u00fa that a review of the report would be conducted pursuant to the Rules and Procedures of the Faculty. Senior Associate Dean of the Faculty Turano\u2014who had served on Ms. Im\u2019s Title Panel\u2014would lead the review and work with Cheri Burgess, the Director of Institutional Equity and EEO, who is also an employment attorney. The letter noted that the Dean of the Faculty, Kulkarni had recused himself \u201cdue to his personal and professional relationship with\u201d Dr. Verd\u00fa.28 70a 28 In his February 2018 editorial in The Daily Princeton- ian, Cuff stated \u201cas soon as Princeton\u2019s general counsel got word that Dean Kulkarni had received reports of violations prior to Yeohee\u2019s incident, he recused himself from the * * * [75]292. Upon information and belief, Eisgru- ber, Prentice and/or the investigators reviewed the contents of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s mailbox when the snapshot was taken in or around September 2017. Aware that such a search was outside the scope of the alle- gations at issue, concerning a conference in June 2015, they waited until Prentice issued her recom- mendation to create a pretext of dishonesty which would justify searching through Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s emails. Further aware that Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s and E.S.\u2019s relationship did not violate University policy, Eis- gruber, Prentice and/or the investigators had to find another reason to justify terminating Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2014Ms. Im\u2019s dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Title proceedings was not a sufficient rea- son to do so. 293. On April 11, 2018, President Eisgruber ordered investigators Burgess and Okubadejo to undertake a search of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s Princeton email account. 294. According to Eisgruber, the purpose of the email search was to \u201cshed light\u201d on Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s alleged relationship with E.S. 295. Dr. Verd\u00fa was not given notice of the email search until April 27, 2018. 296. On May 2, 2018, Dr. Verd\u00fa objected to the search on the grounds that it violated University rules. Dr. Verd\u00fa further objected to the staffing of the investigation, its lack of impartiality and the credibility of the anonymous witnesses. 71a 297. The investigators reviewed emails dating back to October 2011 and through May 2017. Notably, E.S. graduated from Princeton in Novem- ber 2015. The email communications showed that Dr. Verd\u00fa and E.S. had been involved in a consen- sual relationship, which the investigators conclud- ed began \u201csometime in April 2014.\u201d 298. On May 8, 2018, the investigators issued a report of their findings: a. The investigators erroneously found that the relationship between E.S. and Dr. Verd\u00fa violated the 2015 policy on Consen- sual Relationships. They based their find- ing on: i) Dr. Verd\u00fa serving as a reader of E.S. dissertation; and ii) that he sent \u201cwritten recommendations\u201d regarding E.S. to his professional contacts in September 2, 2015 and after E.S. graduated on Jan- uary 17, 2016. b. The investigators erroneously concluded that, as a reader of E.S.\u2019s dissertation, Dr. Verd\u00fa had supervisory responsibility for E.S. Straining to find a policy violation, the investigators likened this role to an unofficial \u201cadvisor\u201d to E.S. This is untrue. At the time, E.S.\u2019s co-advisors were Cuff and Professor H. Vincent Poor. Two reports finding the dissertation acceptable are required to get a PhD at Princeton. As in the immense majority of cases, both Cuff and Poor found E.S.\u2019s dissertation accept- 72a able. The approval of E.S.\u2019s dissertation was unanimous and its major results were published in a leading journal. c. In yet another strained attempt to find a policy violation, the investigators found that E.S. and Dr. Verd\u00fa had a \u201cteacher/ student\u201d relationship because he discussed professional opportunities with her and sent an email on her behalf to a former stu- dent of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s with whom E.S. had a job interview in the private sector. d. The definition of teacher-student relation- ship in the policy on Consensual Relations with Students, did not include giving a stu- dent general career advice or reaching out to contacts who may be interviewing said student. In fact, E.S. took only two courses with Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2014three years prior to the commencement of any relationship. e. The investigators further mischaracterized Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s two emails to his contacts (one of which post-dated E.S.\u2019s graduation as noted supra) as \u201cwritten recommenda- tions.\u201d The emails were hardly as formal as described. f. The investigators also found that Dr. Verd\u00fa violated the policy on Honesty and Cooperation in University matters. In making this determination, the investiga- tors relied in large part on email communi- cations between E.S. and Dr. Verd\u00fa during 73a the time period after E.S.\u2019s degree was con- ferred. Events that occurred after E.S. left Princeton were irrelevant to the charge that E.S. and Dr. Verd\u00fa engaged in a con- sensual relationship while she was a grad- uate student. Such \u201cevidence\u201d should have been excluded from consideration. g. Equally troubling was the investigators\u2019 assumptions that Dr. Verd\u00fa was at all times dishonest when he spoke with Princeton administrators three years after a number of the events in question. For example, it was no secret, nor did Dr. Verd\u00fa deny, that he served as a reader of E.S.\u2019s dissertation. Yet the investigators concluded that he made a material misrep- resentation about when he agreed to become a reader. h. Given that Dr. Verd\u00fa had been in a rela- tionship with E.S. for almost a year at the time in which the investigators found, based on email correspondence, that he agreed to serve as a reader, Dr. Verd\u00fa had no motive to be dishonest. Whether he agreed in February 2015 or September 2015, his role was the same. It is possible that Dr. Verd\u00fa did not recall the email exchange that took place years earlier. Yet the investigators simply assumed that any fact not remembered and volunteered by Dr. Verd\u00fa, about events that took place years before he was questioned, signaled 74a dishonesty. Moreover, when Dr. Verd\u00fa merely agreed to serve as a reader was irrelevant to whether doing so in Septem- ber 2015 violated the policy on Consensual Relationships with Students. As set forth supra at Paragraphs 107-108, 235-237, 252, 261, 264, 266, 268 and 278, it did not. This is yet another example of the investi- gators grasping at straws to find a policy violation. 299. In their May 2018 report, the investigators referenced Ms. Im\u2019s Title proceedings. Like Prentice, they purposely left out the source of the E.S. allegations\u2014Cuff and Ms. Im. The investiga- tors also failed to consider that when Dr. Verd\u00fa and E.S. each denied their relationship they were less concerned with Princeton\u2019s policies (which they had not violated) than the complete and utter havoc that would be wrought on their personal lives\u2014an outcome which, upon information and belief, Cuff and Ms. Im desired. 300. The investigators also failed to consider whether it was proper to investigate allegations concerning events that occurred years earlier. They pointed to no policy provision which allowed post hoc investigations, particularly when neither party to the alleged relationship had come forward and raised concerns. Neither Prentice nor Eisgruber questioned the propriety of the investigation either. 75a 301. The above-referenced copying of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s mailbox, \u201clegal hold,\u201d searches and review of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s emails without notice and consent not only violated, upon information and belief, the technolo- gy policy in place at the time, but was contrary to the procedures recommended by the American Association of University Professors (\u201cAAUP\u201d). 302. The has stated that electronic com- munications can \u201cbe used to investigate individuals in ways that were impossible just a decade ago.\u201d The recognizes that \u201cfaculty members have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their elec- tronic communications and traffic data\u201d and that a university should not \u201cexamine or disclose the con- tents of electronic communications and traffic data without the consent of the individual participating in the communication except in rare and clearly defined cases.\u201d (emphasis added). Moreover, \u201call parties to the communications should be notified in ample time for them to pursue protective meas- ures.\u201d30 303. Eisgruber followed no such protocols when directing the copying, search and of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s mailbox for personal communications with E.S. 76a 30 Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications, available at and-electronic-communications-2014. See also aaup.org/issues/academic-freedom/professors-and-institu- tions. F. The Eisgruber Recommendation 304. On May 21, 2018, President Eisgruber issued a recommendation memo to the Board of Trustees that Dr. Verd\u00fa be dismissed from Prince- ton. In this memo, Eisgruber made a number of misrepresentations and statements that were not supported by the evidence and/or did not support finding a policy violation, including: a. [E.S.] was under Verd\u00fa\u2019s supervision. This is false. The 2015 Rules and Procedures of the Faculty define \u201cAcademic supervision\u201d as including teaching, advising, super- vising research, supervising teaching or grading, and serving as Departmental Rep- resentative or Director Graduate Studies of the student\u2019s academic program.\u201d At no time during their relationship did Plaintiff play any of those roles with respect to E.S. His role was to serve as one of the three readers of her dissertation.31 Elsewhere Eisgruber stated: \u201cDr. Verd\u00fa. . . told me, as he had the Provost, that [E.S.] was not under his supervision at the time of the conference.\u201d This was, and remains, the truth. Per her March 2018 recommen- 77a 31 Notably, Princeton recently revised its Rules and Pro- cedures of the Faculty to include \u201cserving as a dissertation reader\u201d and \u201cproviding letters of reference\u201d in its definition of academic supervision. See Point V.C.2. available at princeton-university-and-other-provisions-concern - faculty/chapter-v-2 dation, Prentice found that, even if Dr. Verd\u00fa and E.S. had been in a romantic relationship at the time of the conference this would not have violated the policy on Consensual Relationships with Students. Tellingly, Eisgruber\u2019s assertion that E.S. was under Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s supervision echoed the claims made by both Ms. Im and Cuff in their Daily Princetonian articles. b. Dr. Verd\u00fa and [E.S.] were engaged in a sex- ual or romantic relationship while they were also in a teacher-student relationship, as defined by the University\u2019s policy on Consensual Relations with Students. This statement, repeated throughout Eisgru- ber\u2019s memo, is false. E.S. took two courses from Dr. Verd\u00fa, in Spring 2011 and Fall 2011, and their relationship started in 2014. c. Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s dishonesty harmed [E.S.]. If Dr. Verd\u00fa had forthrightly acknowledged his relationship with [E.S.], we might have been able to resolve the case without her. This is false. E.S. was interviewed by Crotty on April 13, 2017, and denied the extramarital relationship, before Plaintiff was even asked anything about E.S. At that time, E.S. had asked Plaintiff not to acknowledge a relationship between them. Effectively, Eisgruber claimed that if Dr. Verd\u00fa had told Crotty that E.S. was lying when she denied the relationship, he 78a would have avoided harming E.S. The spin Eisgruber put on the harm inflicted on E.S. is all the more egregious since, prior to issuing his recommendation, he received a letter from her in which she was unequivo- cal about who was to blame for the harm done to her, the invasion of her privacy and the degrading treatment she received\u2014 Eisgruber, Crotty, Cuff, Burgess and Okubadejo. Eisgruber elected not to dis- close this letter to the Board of Trustees even though Prentice had included it in the document file she provided to him. Eisgruber knew that Princeton had harmed E.S. by pursuing stale allegations made by a dis- gruntled former colleague of Dr. Verd\u00fa, about events that took place years prior, and which Kulkarni found no grounds for pursuing in Spring 2017. In her March 2, 2018 recommendation to Eisgruber, Pren- tice acknowledged \u201cthe significant collater- al damage to Dr. [E.S.] (who remains the subject of unresolved allegations and the target of unwanted public attention).\u201d Fur- thermore, it is incredible that Eisgruber would not realize that, with his unprece- dented actions and the inevitable public airing of the circumstances of Plaintiff\u2019s dismissal, he was undermining the legiti- macy of E.S.\u2019s doctoral degree in addition to breaching her right to privacy. 79a d. Eisgruber referred to Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s \u201c2015 romantic liaison with a graduate student whose dissertation [he was] evaluating.\u201d Eisgruber ignored that Dr. Verd\u00fa and E.S. commenced their relationship in Spring 2014 when, by Princeton\u2019s own evidence, he had no professional relationship with E.S. The policy on Consensual Relation- ships with Students contemplated the com- mencement of a relationship at a time when two persons had a teacher/student relationship. Eisgruber\u2019s use of the word \u201cliaison\u201d further demonstrates that his decision was tainted by personal bias about the fact that E.S. and Dr. Verd\u00fa had engaged in an extramarital affair. Eisgru- ber took into account that E.S. was a stu- dent in Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s \u201cdepartment\u201d when finding that he violated the policy on Con- sensual Relationships with Students\u2014this was not the proper standard or a relevant consideration. e. Eisgruber erroneously concluded that Dr. Verd\u00fa deliberately misrepresented the timeframe in which he was designated as a reader of E.S.\u2019s thesis, which, in Eisgru- ber\u2019s opinion, impacted Prentice\u2019s finding that \u201ceven if he had a romantic relation- ship with [E.S.] during the conference, it would not have constituted a clear viola- tion of the policy on Consensual Relations with Students.\u201d Yet Prentice\u2019s conclusion 80a on this issue turned on when Dr. Verd\u00fa served as an \u201cofficial reader.\u201d Prentice directed Burgess to conduct further inves- tigation, which led Prentice to acknowl- edge that Dr. Verd\u00fa was not an official reader until Fall 2015. Dr. Verd\u00fa never denied this role. The May 2018 investiga- tion report also pinpointed September 2015 as the time in which Dr. Verd\u00fa reviewed E.S.\u2019s dissertation and \u201csigned off\u201d on it. However, based on a single email exchange, the report concluded that Dr. Verd\u00fa agreed to serve as a reader in Febru- ary 2015. Eisgruber transformed Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s failure to recall when he agreed to read E.S.\u2019s thesis into one of the \u201csubstan- tial and material misrepresentations\u201d upon which Eisgruber based his recom- mendation of dismissal. f. By his own admission, Eisgruber demon- strated that he does not believe that the members of the University community can expect any right to privacy in their personal communications. Eisgruber falsely asserted that he ordered a \u201cnarrowly-tailored search\u201d of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s emails, hiding the fact that a large portion of the purported \u201cevidence\u201d against Dr. Verd\u00fa post-dated the conferral of E.S.\u2019s degree. In fact, \u201cthe appropriately narrow time period\u201d turned out to be the whole body of their emails, from the time she took courses from him in 81a 2011 until 2017, well after E.S. left the university. Upon information and belief, the search violated the technology policy in place at the time. In contrast, Eisgruber ordered no \u201clegal hold\u201d in order to search Ms. Im\u2019s or Cuff\u2019s email accounts, includ- ing their deleted emails, even though there was evidence that Ms. Im had not been forthcoming with the initial emails she provided to the Title Panel and that Cuff was behind the initial Title com- plaints\u2014with respect to Ms. Im and E.S. g. Eisgruber\u2019s memo stated \u201cIf students or faculty members acknowledge misconduct and take responsibility for it, we can work with them to avoid recurrences of the prob- lem and to restore the community\u2019s trust in them.\u201d Eisgruber went on to say: \u201cIn her recommendation, Provost Prentice observed that Dr. Verd\u00fa could mitigate the harm from these violations by \u201crespond[ing] more fully and openly.\u201d In the event that Dr. Verd\u00fa availed himself of this opportunity, she recommended that he be suspended for a period of two years.\u201d Eisgruber did not identify the members of the community who lost trust in E.S. and Dr. Verd\u00fa because they engaged in a consensual rela- tionship that did not violate any existing policy. Eisgruber also failed to identify who had been harmed by the relationship. Indeed, Prentice\u2019s investigation revealed 82a no evidence of favoritism towards E.S. and no evidence of a policy violation. Yet Pren- tice and Eisgruber each sought to penalize Dr. Verd\u00fa for defending himself against an unauthorized post hoc invasion of privacy initiated by Ms. Im and Cuff, attempting to coerce a confession from him despite a lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Eisgruber did not explain to the Board of Trustees that the extraordinarily severe penalty of a two-year suspension in exchange for Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s acknowledgment of a consensual relationship with E.S. was proposed by Prentice without any attempt to find a sin- gle University rule which would support it, let alone that she proposed the disciplinary measure after concluding that there was insufficient evidence of a policy violation. h. Eisgruber mischaracterized Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s email to a friend as a formal letter of refer- ence for E.S., noting \u201cTheir relationship was ongoing . . . on September 2, 2015, when he recommended her for employ- ment.\u201d On the contrary, Plaintiff infor- mally emailed one of his former Ph.D. students on the day E.S. was interviewing at his company to put in a good word for her. This information had not been solicit- ed by E.S.\u2019s potential employer. Such infor- mal communications with former graduate students or other contacts in their industry are routinely sent by faculty on behalf of 83a graduate students with whom they are acquainted. Eisgruber\u2019s reliance on this email as evidence of Plaintiff\u2019s dishonesty as to whether he wrote letters of reference for E.S. is yet another example of the flim- sy evidence relied upon by Eisgruber in recommending Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s dismissal\u2014par- ticularly since Eisgruber could not pin- point this routine email as the cause of any harm to the University or to other gradu- ate students. As Burgess pointed out in her report to Prentice, Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s grades were consistently fair. i. Eisgruber justified his unprecedented breach of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s privacy by referring to the \u201cgravity of his apparent miscon- duct.\u201d However, he did not explain or argue why serving as a reader on E.S.\u2019s thesis was such a grave offense. Eisgruber did not\u2014because he could not\u2014suggest that E.S. would not have gotten her degree had Dr. Verd\u00fa not served as a reader of her dis- sertation. Upon information and belief, Eisgruber trumped up the purported grav- ity of what occurred in order to draw atten- tion away from the fact that the investigation into the E.S. allegations was launched in order to appease Ms. Im and to find a reason to exact harsher punishment on Dr. Verd\u00fa amidst the campus backlash created by Ms. Im and Cuff. 84a j. Regarding the Hong Kong photographs, Eisgruber acknowledged that Dr. Verd\u00fa told him that \u201cit looked like him, that he did not deny it was him . . . that he did not allege [the photographs] were photo- shopped, [and] that he did not dispute the eyewitness identification of him.\u201d In fact, Dr. Verd\u00fa had even told the investigators that he owned clothing like that shown in the photographs. Yet, Eisgruber concluded that Dr. Verd\u00fa was untruthful because he did not recall the bar in the photographs. k. Eisgruber did not cite a single University investigation of a consensual relationship between a faculty member and a graduate student who had graduated and left Princeton years prior, let alone one trig- gered by accusations brought by third par- ties whose motivations were highly suspect. Eisgruber did not cite to any precedent of any tenured faculty being expelled from the Faculty (even in cases of faculty who had been accused of criminal sexual activity). Eisgruber was only able to cite the case of a faculty member who resigned and joined another University in 2013 after, according to Eisgruber, \u201clying to University officials about past interac- tions with students.\u201d32 85a 32 Notably, in February 2016, Princeton was featured by The New York Times for failing to notify future employers l. Eisgruber incorrectly concluded\u2014despite Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s unblemished record over a 34-year period\u2014that his desire to protect E.S. by not disclosing their relationship equaled dishonesty in all aspects of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s career. Adding insult to injury, Eisgruber wrote \u201cWe must be able to trust that faculty members are expressing honest and impartial judgments when they assess students, participate in personnel process- es, review scholarship, or account for con- tributions to work sponsored by grant-making agencies.\u201d Naturally, Eisgru- ber did not\u2014and could not\u2014cite a single instance in Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s 34-year career at Princeton in which Dr. Verd\u00fa was dishon- est or partial when judging a student, participating in personnel processes, reviewing scholarship, or accounting for research contributions to funding agencies. That President Eisgruber felt compelled to invoke this dismal innuendo epitomized the unfairness of his recommendation to the Board of Trustees. m. Eisgruber likened Dr. Verd\u00fa to a criminal who was beyond \u201crehabilitation\u201d yet Dr. Verd\u00fa had an unblemished prior record, and consensual relationships and social 86a about this professor\u2019s alleged sexual harassment. https:// - amid-sexual-misconduct-investigation.html. interactions are neither criminal nor do they necessitate rehabilitation. Moreover, Dr. Verd\u00fa was deprived of due process in all aspects of the investigation and deter- mination of its outcome, even though his tenure was at stake. There was no hearing, he had no right to confront his accusers, evidence was withheld from him and the charges against him were continuously modified, evidencing the University\u2019s intent to punish him in the wake of the Im uproar. n. Eisgruber seemed to rejoice in Ms. Im\u2019s and Cuff\u2019s negative campaign of retaliation against Dr. Verd\u00fa, causing Eisgruber to overlook the relevance of Cuff\u2019s role. \u201cThere is no doubt that Dr. Cuff and Ms. Im have conducted a vigorous campaign against Dr. Verd\u00fa . . . Animus toward Dr. Verd\u00fa might bias Dr. Cuff\u2019s own testimony, but neither this case nor the previous one turned on Dr. Cuff\u2019s recollections or on any other evidence that he personally provid- ed.\u201d In accordance with this reasoning, Ms. Im\u2019s allegations concerning E.S. should have been disregarded and deemed unwor- thy of investigation because the case should have turned on whether E.S. filed a complaint\u2014she did not\u2014and E.S.\u2019s recol- lection. Prentice acknowledged this when noting in her recommendation that she felt bound to support E.S. over the anonymous 87a witnesses whom she found lacking in cred- ibility. Eisgruber\u2019s statement further sug- gests that Cuff provided evidence to the University during the investigation. Yet Plaintiff received no \u201cevidence\u201d (let alone \u201crecollections\u201d or \u201ctestimony\u201d) provided by Cuff during the course of the Title investigation or otherwise. Considering the many other omissions and breaches of due process in the investigation\u2014includ- ing that Plaintiff was unable to review any evidence against him during the second investigation\u2014it is quite possible that Eis- gruber was not misspeaking. o. In his disingenuous attempt to disassoci- ate both cases, Eisgruber hid from the Board of Trustees that Cuff and Ms. Im were the sources of the allegations against E.S. and Dr. Verd\u00fa, instead attributing them to \u201crumors\u201d from unnamed sources. Unlike Kulkarni, Eisgruber embraced the view that any individual may trigger an investigation of a faculty members for vio- lation of the consensual relationship poli- cy\u2014even in cases where the student has graduated. Yet this position is unsupport- ed by any University policy. Eisgruber omitted from his memo that termination was the goal of Ms. Im\u2019s and Cuff\u2019s nega- tive publicity campaign against Dr. Verd\u00fa. p. Though Eisgruber repeatedly asserted that the Title proceedings were irrelevant to 88a his decision, he admonished Dr. Verd\u00fa for watching a movie with Ms. Im. Eisgruber ignored Ms. Im\u2019s solicitation of a closer social relationship, as well as her sugges- tion that they watch films more explicit than The Handmaiden, including up to the time she claimed discomfort at Dr. Verd\u00fa allegedly touching her leg. Upon informa- tion and belief, Eisgruber\u2019s only interest was to parse the Title record in a man- ner that suited his goal of supporting Ms. Im and to find a basis for Plaintiff\u2019s termi- nation. Indeed, on March 13, 2018, Plain- tiff informed Eisgruber that the Title allegation was a hoax fabricated by Cuff and Ms. Im, and that they were the indi- viduals responsible for bringing the accu- sations about E.S. to the attention of the University. This was not pursued. At a meeting on May 14, 2018 Eisgruber admit- ted to Plaintiff that he had not even read his appeal of the Title ruling, submitted over a month earlier. Days after that meet- ing, the chair of wrote to Plaintiff to inform him that the committee \u201cdid not accept your appeal.\u201d At this point and despite an abundance of evidence, and unwilling to entertain the notion that Plaintiff had been wrongly found responsi- ble for sexual harassment, Eisgruber\u2019s goal was, upon information and belief, to quell the firestorm ignited by Ms. Im by termi- nating Dr. Verd\u00fa. 89a q. Instead of quoting the emails produced by Dr. Verd\u00fa during the Title investiga- tion, Eisgruber misrepresented them to the Board of Trustees, blaming Dr. Verd\u00fa for the Title investigation and \u201cpublicity that followed.\u201d He also described Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s defense of himself against the Title charge and negative publicity cam- paign as \u201cshameful\u201d and accused him of \u201cblam[ing] his victim.\u201d r. Despite Eisgruber\u2019s statement to Dr. Verd\u00fa that the Title proceeding had nothing to do with the second investigation concerning E.S., Eisgruber relied upon the sanction issued in the Title proceeding to call for Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s dismissal: \u201cDr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s dishonesty occurred while he was on disciplinary probation as a result of a spring 2017 University investigation that found him responsible for sexually harass- ing a female graduate student who was then his advisee.\u201d Eisgruber\u2019s invocation of the probation penalty was another misrep- resentation to the Board of Trustees. The June 9, 2017 letter from the Provost states: \u201cyou are being placed on probation for one year, effective immediately, with the understanding that any further violation of this policy or attempts to retaliate against those who brought their concerns to the Title office will result in more serious disciplinary action.\u201d \u201cThis policy\u201d 90a refers only to the University\u2019s Sexual Mis- conduct Policy. Thus, relying on the Title sanction to dismiss Dr. Verd\u00fa was not justified. 305. On May 29, 2018, Prentice \u201crevised\u201d Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s administrative leave during the pendency of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s right to appeal to the CCFA. The revised leave: i) included transitioning all of his graduate students and postdoctoral researchers to another academic advisor; ii) mandated that after September 1, 2018, Dr. Verd\u00fa would not advise, support or supervise students; iii) beginning on May 29, 2018 effectively banned Dr. Verd\u00fa from campus except for the purpose of helping the stu- dents in his group find new advisors; iv) required Dr. Verd\u00fa to vacate his office by August 31, 2018; and v) prohibited Dr. Verd\u00fa from representing Princeton at any conferences. The following day, the University\u2019s counsel took it upon himself to add to the restrictions by banning Dr. Verd\u00fa from attending commencement. He emailed Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s counsel \u201c[t]here is a firm expectation that Professor Verd\u00fa will not be present at Commencement relat- ed events next week.\u201d * * * [92]338. Title may be violated by a school\u2019s imposition of university discipline where gender is a motivating factor in the decision to discipline. 339. Challenges to the outcome of university dis- ciplinary proceedings can fall into two categories: (1) \u201cerroneous outcome\u201d cases, in which the claim is 91a that plaintiff was innocent and wrongly found to have committed an offense and gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous findings; and (2) \u201cselective enforcement\u201d cases, in which the claim asserts that, regardless of the respondent\u2019s guilt or innocence, the severity of the penalty and/or decision to initiate the proceeding was affected by the respondent\u2019s gender. 340. To succeed on an erroneous outcome claim under Title IX, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a flawed proceeding, which (2) led to an erroneous outcome; and (3) gender was a motivating factor in the decision to discipline. 341. An erroneous outcome occurred in this case because Plaintiff was subjected to a blatantly flawed proceeding and erroneously found to be responsible for violating Princeton\u2019s Sexual Mis- conduct Policy, and gender was a motivating factor behind this erroneous outcome. 342. Plaintiff was deprived of a fair and impar- tial process with regard to Ms. Im\u2019s sexual harass- ment complaint because without limitation: a. Crotty, the Title Administrator, had a conflict of interest because she was respon- sible for Title compliance and, as a Panel member, was responsible for decid- ing Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s case. b. The Sexual Misconduct Policy did not pro- vide for Crotty\u2019s participation on the Title Panel. 92a c. Crotty\u2019s lack of impartiality was abundantly exhibited during the proceedings, when i) she violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy by meeting with Ms. Im in the absence of the other Panel members and without informing them or Plaintiff; and ii) when she leaked the news to Ms. Im of a confi- dential investigation regarding Plaintiff, to which Ms. Im was not a party, and which was not under the purview of Crotty\u2019s office. d. Crotty did not provide Plaintiff with notice of the specific allegations against him until after he was interviewed twice. e. Crotty withheld evidence from Dr. Verd\u00fa, including: i) the date the Title com- plaint was filed; ii) that his disgruntled colleague, Cuff, was behind Ms. Im\u2019s filing of the sexual harassment complaint; iii) that the report about Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s consen- sual relationship with E.S. came from Cuff, Ms. Im and a Stanford University professor, in the same time frame as the Title complaint; iv) that Ms. Im informed Crotty that there were pictures of E.S. and Dr. Verd\u00fa taken in Hong Kong; v) Ms. Im\u2019s secret, altered recording of her conversation with Dr. Verd\u00fa; vi) the fact that Cuff became financially responsible for Ms. Im\u2019s research assistantship and her travel to a conference in Germany to deliv- er a paper co-authored with Dr. Verd\u00fa; and 93a vii) Crotty\u2019s meetings with Ms. Im, in the absence of other members of the Panel, including one in Kulkarni\u2019s office. Crotty also redacted laudatory comments about Dr. Verd\u00fa from a text exchange to Ms. Im from a fellow graduate student. f \u201csummary\u201d of the Panel\u2019s April 18, 2017 interview with Dr. Verd\u00fa was prepared several days afterwards and was inconsis- tent with the notes that Schreyer read to Dr. Verd\u00fa at the conclusion of his inter- view. g. Only two of the three Panel members were present for Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s second interview, on April 19, 2017. Crotty acted as scribe and wrote a very short summary of the meeting three days later. h. The Panel did not question Ms. Im\u2019s deliv- ery of excerpted email communications with Dr. Verd\u00fa or her decision to delete portions of her recorded conversation with him. On the contrary, prejudging the rele- vance of the evidence collected and then hidden by Ms. Im, Crotty wrote to her realize that much of it may be focused on academic issues.\u201d The Panel also explained away Ms. Im\u2019s omission of email communi- cations which supported Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s account of what happened as an attempt by Ms. Im to downplay her efforts to foster a relationship with Dr. Verd\u00fa. 94a i. The Panel did not question Ms. Im about Cuff, or seek copies of email communica- tions between Ms. Im and Cuff concerning Dr. Verd\u00fa. j. The Panel did not question Cuff. In partic- ular, they made no inquiry about the simultaneity of the accusations made by him, Ms. Im and the Stanford professor, nor about the fact that these accusations and the Title complaint occurred right after Cuff\u2019s tenure denial. k. The Panel did not question why Ms. Im was concerned about Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s consensu- al relationship with E.S., or her motive for bringing forth those allegations. l. The Panel knew, and concealed from Dr. Verd\u00fa, that Ms. Im made the allegation about his relationship with E.S. The Sexual Misconduct Policy required that all infor- mation provided by the complainant be provided to the respondent, and vice versa. m. The Panel did not question why Ms. Im changed her account from Plaintiff brush- ing against her thigh while they watched a movie, to alleging that he placed his hand on her upper thigh for a prolonged period of time. Nor did they question that she complained to Plaintiff about the single instance in which Plaintiff brushed against her leg, yet lodged a number of new allega- tions against Plaintiff concerning a num- 95a ber of instances in which she purportedly felt uncomfortable. n. The Panel dismissed abundant evidence that called Ms. Im\u2019s credibility into ques- tion, including: i) the inconsistency of her accounts, which varied with time; ii) her accusations regarding E.S., a former grad- uate student she had not even met; iii) her enthusiastic agreement to watching The Handmaiden; iv) her suggestion that she and Dr. Verd\u00fa watch Oldboy and Thirst together after The Handmaiden, followed by her false claims of being uncomfortable watching The Handmaiden, and that she did not want to spend time with Dr. Verd\u00fa outside of work; v) after watching Oldboy Ms. Im emailed Dr. Verd\u00fa yet another movie suggestion; vi) the absence of any expressions of discomfort to Dr. Verd\u00fa other than the brief contact with her leg, as expressed in her March 11, 2017 email and at their subsequent, in-person meet- ing; vii) Ms. Im\u2019s secret recording of Dr. Verd\u00fa which contradicted the Panel\u2019s sub- sequent, portrayal of Ms. Im as a reluctant witness who \u201chad not intended to report this matter at all;\u201d viii) her destruction of part of the recording (remarkably, the Panel bolstered her credibility citing that her oral testimony weeks later was consis- tent with the recording); ix) Ms. Im\u2019s selec- tive disclosure of emails to/from Dr. Verd\u00fa, 96a and the contradictions between the emails she did not disclose and her account of what happened; x) Ms. Im\u2019s effort to con- ceal that she knew she would be alone with Dr. Verd\u00fa to watch the soccer match; xi) Ms. Im\u2019s misrepresentations about Dr. Verd\u00fa offering her alcohol, when she asked for red wine during each social interaction; xii) Ms. Im\u2019s strained account of the clean- ing of the wine stain on her shirt and her allegation that it may have been Dr. Verd\u00fa, who, unbeknownst to her, was responsible for the stain; xiii) her misrep- resentation that \u201cGraduate Student 7\u201d assisted her with her March 11, 2017 email to Dr. Verd\u00fa; and xiv) Ms. Im\u2019s email to Dr. Verd\u00fa, after watching The Handmaiden, bemoaning that Dr. Verd\u00fa did not invite her to watch the return Champions League soccer match. o. The Panel failed to investigate Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s allegation that he believed he was being set up and that this had all the hallmarks of a hoax. Unlike Dr. Verd\u00fa, who was com- pletely unaware of Cuff\u2019s role, the Panel knew that Cuff was the individual who ini- tiated the Title complaint right after his tenure denial. The Panel also knew that Ms. Im had tried to hide her efforts to establish a close relationship with Dr. Verd\u00fa, that she had accused Dr. Verd\u00fa of 97a having a relationship with E.S. and that she secretly recorded him. p. The Panel interviewed no witnesses other than Dr. Verd\u00fa and Ms. Im. q. Even though a credibility determination was required in these circumstances, no hearing was held and Dr. Verd\u00fa had no right to cross-examine Ms. Im. r. The individuals responsible for investigat- ing Ms. Im\u2019s allegations were responsible for determining whether Dr. Verd\u00fa violat- ed the Sexual Misconduct Policy. s. Crotty\u2019s April 26, 2017 letter incorrectly stated that a \u201cmajority decision\u201d would be required for a finding of responsibility when, in proceedings against faculty, a unanimous decision was required. t. The Panel impeached Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s credibil- ity by accusing him of trying to mislead the Panel about the nature of The Handmaiden. Yet, he bought and provided a of the film to the Panel for its consideration. Two of the Panel members, Turano and Schrey- er, declined to watch the film yet the Panel \u201cagreed that the film was very explicit.\u201d u. The Panel misconstrued the definition of Sexual Harassment, finding that even if Plaintiff did not intend his conduct to be sexual in nature, his behavior was to be judged \u201cby its impact on the person direct- 98a ly affected.\u201d The definition of Sexual Harassment required that unwelcome behavior be \u201cdirected at a person based on sex.\u201d With respect to certain of Ms. Im\u2019s allegations, she told the Panel that she was unsure whether the alleged conduct was sexual in nature. v. By Ms. Im\u2019s own account, her professional relationship with Plaintiff was \u201cgoing smoothly\u201d when she made the Title report. It remained professional during the Title investigation. w. Dean of the Graduate School Kulkarni told Plaintiff on June 15, 2017 that the Title Panel \u201cmade a case out of nothing.\u201d x. Turano, one of the three Panel members, advised Plaintiff that he was not going to get far with an appeal of the Title find- ing. Both Turano and Kulkarni advised that, instead of appealing, a preferable course of action was to submit a letter to Prentice to be included in Plaintiff\u2019s per- sonnel file. y. Turano was proven right in her assess- ment of Dr. Verd\u00fa\u2019s chances on appeal. Plaintiff\u2019s 55-page, 82-attachment, appeal was dispatched with one sentence by without even holding a hearing. According to the 2011 Dear Colleague Let- ter, the 2014 and the 2001 Guidance, the persons responsible for investigating 99a and determining the outcome of Ms. Im\u2019s Title complaint and considering Plain- tiff\u2019s appeal had to be trained in handling sexual harassment complaints as well as Princeton\u2019s Sexual Misconduct Policy and procedures for handling student sexual harassment complaints against faculty. See 2011 at p. 12; 2014 at p. 40; 2001 Guidance, at p. 21. Upon information and belief, the members had no such training. 343. Apart from the allegations set forth supra Paragraph 342, the Panel\u2019s report shows that gen- der bias was a motivating factor behind their erro- neous finding that Plaintiff violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy: a. The Panel credited Ms. Im\u2019s portrayal as a \u201creluctant\u201d complainant because Plaintiff was \u201cthe biggest name in the field\u201d yet by all accounts her professional relationship with Plaintiff was not affected by the alleged harassment, nor did Plaintiff ever pressure Ms. Im to socialize with him or threaten her in any way. b. The Panel relied upon the IMDb Parents\u2019 Guide to determine whether the content contained in The Handmaiden was appro- priate for a twenty-five-year-old woman, suggesting that they viewed Ms. Im as a child in need of adult supervision and inca- pable of making her own decisions. 100a c. The Panel repeatedly criticized Plaintiff for serving alcohol to Ms. Im in the \u201cmiddle of the afternoon\u201d ignoring not only that Ms. Im requested red wine on each and every occasion but that she was well beyond the legal drinking age. There were, further, no allegations that either Plaintiff or Ms. Im was incapacitated. d. The Panel ignored that Ms. Im suggested that she and Plaintiff watch Oldboy and Thirst after The Handmaiden. These films contain scenes depicting sexual assault, showing full frontal nudity, and other scenes that are sexual in nature. The Panel failed to consider the Parents\u2019 Guide entries for those films. e. The Panel\u2019s report reflected the gender- biased assumption that Plaintiff\u2019s actions, such as: agreeing to watch one of the most successful films from Korea; agreeing to watch a second film that Ms. Im suggested (by the same director); resting one\u2019s arm on the back of a couch (which Ms. Im said did not seem sexual); inadvertently brushing a person\u2019s leg while reaching for a wine bot- tle; and quickly removing a red wine stain from someone\u2019s shirt were sexual in nature simply because Plaintiff is male and Ms. Im is female. f. The Panel\u2019s conclusion that Plaintiff\u2019s actions \u201cwere sufficiently severe to have 101a the effect of unreasonably interfering with [Ms. Im\u2019s] educational experience by creat- ing a hostile or offensive environment,\u201d could only be reached by distorting the available evidence (including the email record, which demonstrated that this was not the case) to conclude that Plaintiff had a sexual interest in Ms. Im. This conclu- sion was, further, unsupported because Ms. Im acknowledged that her relationship with Plaintiff remained professional and was \u201cgoing smoothly\u201d after they met to dis- cuss her alleged discomfort. 344. Additional circumstances suggesting that gender bias was a motivating factor, because Princeton was under continuous and severe public pressure for allegedly failing to protect female students from sexual harassment are, without limitation: a. Since 2014, Princeton was under constant scrutiny, and threat of rescission of federal funds, after the University was found to be in violation of Title for using a burden of proof (clear and persuasive evidence) that was too demanding, and for creating a hostile environment for female students. Princeton was required to submit annual reports to OCR, for an indefinite period of time, as a result of these viola- tions. Crotty, a Panel member, was appointed to the position of Title 102a Administrator in the wake of Princeton entering into the Resolution Agreement with OCR. Upon information and belief, Princeton has also entered into a number of financial settlements with female complainants. b. On February 2, 2016, The New York Times published an article concerning a former Princeton professor who resigned from University of Chicago due to alleged sexual misconduct with a student who was inca- pacitated. The article noted that the profes- sor had abruptly resigned from Princeton and that the University had failed to pro- vide information about the professor in response to employer inquiries. c. In May 2016, a female student filed a com- plaint with OCR, and an investigation was later opened, into allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault by a male student or faculty member. d. During the 2016-2017 academic year, three female graduate students in the German Department left Princeton abruptly, prompting a town hall meeting to address systemic and long-term sexual harassment within the Department Title investi- gation was launched in Summer 2017. 345. Upon information and belief, Princeton has engaged in a pattern of unfair investigations and adjudications resulting in unduly severe sanctions 103a being imposed on males accused of sexual harass- ment while not making comparable efforts with respect to allegations of sexual harassment against non-males. 346. Upon information and belief, Princeton engaged in selective enforcement because, unlike Dr. Verd\u00fa, female professors accused of sexual harassment have not been investigated by Title administrators, have not been found responsible for sexual harassment and/or have not received probation as a result of a finding of responsibility. The University does not publish this level of detail in its Title data34 and, accordingly, Plaintiff did not have the ability to confirm these facts at the pleading stage. However, annual student surveys published by Princeton indicate that both male and female students have experienced sexual harassment.35 347. Upon information and belief, the University has information in its possession demonstrating that only male professors have been formally inves- tigated, and sanctioned, for sexual harassment since April 2011, when issued the Dear Col- league Letter. 348. Upon information and belief, the University has not pursued reports of sexual misconduct against female professors or, when it did so, imposed far less severe sanctions than against male professors. 104a 34 See 35 See 349. Plaintiff was subjected to a sex-biased, prej- udiced and unfair process in violation of Title IX. 350. The wrongful outcome in the Title pro- ceedings further resulted in subsequent, adverse actions by the University, including the second investigation into the E.S. allegations at Ms. Im\u2019s prompting and, ultimately, Plaintiff\u2019s termination. Among other things, Eisgruber improperly relied on the Title sanction to argue to the Board of Trustees that Plaintiff should be more severely dis- ciplined and used it to justify recommending Plain- tiff\u2019s dismissal. See supra \u00b6 304, p, r. 105a"} |
7,426 | Walter Lewin | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | [
"7426_101.pdf",
"7426_102.pdf",
"7426_103.pdf",
"7426_104.pdf",
"7426_105.pdf"
] | {"7426_101.pdf": "indefinitely removes online physics lectures and courses by Walter Lewin policy on sexual harassment was found to be violated. News Office December 8, 2014 2/16/25, 10:20 indefinitely removes online physics lectures and courses by Walter Lewin News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1/3 is indefinitely removing retired physics faculty member Walter Lewin\u2019s online lectures from OpenCourseWare and online MITx courses from edX, the online learning platform co-founded by MIT, following a determination that Dr. Lewin engaged in online sexual harassment in violation of policies. MIT\u2019s action comes in response to a complaint it received in October from a woman, who is an online MITx learner, claiming online sexual harassment by Lewin. She provided information about Lewin\u2019s interactions with her, which began when she was a learner in one of his MITx courses, as well as information about interactions between Lewin and other women online learners immediately began an investigation, and as a precaution instructed Lewin not to contact any students or online learners, either current or former. The investigation followed protocol for complaints of sexual harassment. The head of the physics department, Professor Peter Fisher, ensured an objective and timely review, which included a review of detailed materials provided by the complainant and interviews of her and Lewin. Based on its investigation has determined that Lewin\u2019s behavior toward the complainant violated the Institute\u2019s policy on sexual harassment. Following broad consultation among faculty is indefinitely removing Lewin\u2019s online courses, in the interest of preventing any further inappropriate behavior President L. Rafael Reif says, \u201cStudents place tremendous trust in their teachers. Deserving that trust is among our most fundamental obligations. We must take the greatest care that everyone who comes to us for knowledge and instruction, whether in classrooms or online, can count on as a safe and respectful place to learn.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:20 indefinitely removes online physics lectures and courses by Walter Lewin News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2/3 At the time received the complaint, Lewin was not teaching any courses, either on campus or interactively online. Lewin retired from in July 2009 and last taught a course on campus in spring 2008. He last taught an online MITx course in fall 2013. Provost Martin Schmidt says, \u201cDr. Lewin had a long and distinguished career at MIT, and it is painful to learn of the behavior that necessitated this action. However, complaints of harassment must be met immediately and squarely in all cases. Today\u2019s decision was made in consultation with faculty leadership both in the physics department and across more broadly.\u201d The following information describes resources available to those who wish to discuss or report sexual misconduct at MIT. To report an incident to the Institute: For 24-hour support and information, or to report anonymously: Violence Prevention and Response 617-253-2300 To report a crime or for police assistance Police 617-253-1212 2/16/25, 10:20 indefinitely removes online physics lectures and courses by Walter Lewin News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3/3", "7426_102.pdf": "Walter Lewin Walter Hendrik Gustav Lewin (born January 29, 1936) is a Dutch astrophysicist and retired professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lewin earned his doctorate in nuclear physics in 1965 at the Delft University of Technology and was a member of MIT's physics faculty for 43 years beginning in 1966 until his retirement in 2009. Lewin's contributions in astrophysics include the first discovery of a rotating neutron star through all- sky balloon surveys and research in X-ray detection in investigations through satellites and observatories. Lewin has received awards for teaching and is known for his lectures on physics and their publication online via YouTube OpenCourseWare and edX. In December 2014 revoked Lewin's Professor Emeritus title after an investigation determined that Lewin had violated university policy by sexually harassing an online student in a MITx course he taught in fall 2013.[1][2][3] Lewin was born to Walter Simon Lewin and Pieternella Johanna van der Tang in 1936 in The Hague, Netherlands. He was a child when Nazi Germany occupied The Netherlands during World War II.[4] His paternal grandparents Gustav and Emma Lewin, who were Jewish, died in Auschwitz in 1942.[5][6] To protect the family, Lewin\u2019s father \u2014 who was Jewish, unlike his mother \u2014 decided one day to simply leave without telling anyone. His mother was left to raise the children and run a small school she and her husband had started together. After the war ended, his father resurfaced; Lewin describes having a \u201cmore or less normal childhood.\u201d His parents continued running the school, which he says strongly influenced his love of teaching.[4][7] Walter Lewin taught high school physics while studying for his PhD, then he went to Massachusetts Institute of Technology in January 1966 as a post-doctoral associate, and was appointed an assistant professor. He was promoted to associate professor of physics in 1968 and to full professor in 1974.[8] At MIT, Lewin joined the X-ray astronomy group and conducted all-sky balloon surveys with George W. Clark. Through the late seventies, there were about twenty successful balloon flights. These balloon surveys led to the discovery of five new X-ray sources, whose spectra were very different from the X- ray sources discovered during rocket observations. The X-ray flux of these sources was variable. Among them was 1+4 whose X-ray flux appeared to be periodic with a period of about 2.4 minutes. This was the first discovery of a slowly rotating neutron star.[9] Early life and education Academic career 2/16/25, 10:21 Walter Lewin - Wikipedia 1/9 Walter H.G. Lewin Lewin in action during his farewell lecture, \"For the Love of Physics\", at on May 16, 2011 Born January 29, 1936 The Hague, Netherlands Nationality Dutch Alma mater Delft University of Technology Children Emmanuel Gustav Walter Lewin and Emma Lewin Awards Award for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1978) Alexander von Humboldt Award (1984 and 1991) Guggenheim Fellowship (1984 Science Council Prize for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching (1984) W. Buechner Teaching Prize (1988) Everett Moore Baker Memorial Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching (2003) Scientific career Fields Astrophysics, Physics Institutions In October 1967 when Scorpius X-1 was observed, an X-ray flare was detected. The flux went up by a factor of about 4 in ten minutes after which it declined again. This was the first detection of X-ray variability observed during the observations. The rockets used by other researchers could not have discovered that the X- ray sources varied on such short time scales because they were only up for several minutes, whereas the balloons could be in the air for many hours.[10] Lewin was co-investigator on the Small Astronomy Satellite 3 (SAS-3) project. He directed the burst observations and discovered several X-ray bursters, among them was the rapid burster[11] which can produce thousands of X-ray bursts in one day. His group also discovered that the rapid burster produces two types of bursts and established a classification of bursts as type (thermonuclear flashes) and type (accretion flow instabilities).[12] Lewin was co-principal investigator on High Energy Astronomy Observatory 1 HEAO-1 (A4), which has yielded the first all sky catalog at high-energy rays. With H. Pedersen and J. van Paradijs, Lewin made extensive studies of optical bursts which are associated with X-ray bursts; for X-ray detections they used SAS-3 and the Japanese observatory \"Hakucho\". Their combined burst observations demonstrated that the optical bursts are a few seconds delayed relative to the X-ray bursts. This established the size of the accretion disc surrounding the accreting neutron stars. In his search for millisecond X-ray pulsations from low-mass X-ray binaries, in 1984\u201385 Lewin made guest observations with the European observatory in collaboration with colleagues from Amsterdam and Garching, Germany. This led to the unexpected discovery of intensity-dependent quasi- periodic oscillations (QPO) in the X-ray flux of 5-1. During 1989 to 1992, using the Japanese observatory \"Ginga\", Lewin and his co-workers studied the relation between the X-ray spectral state and the radio brightness of several bright low-mass X-ray binaries.[13] Lewin was closely involved in observations of the nearby galaxies M31 and Messier 81. Lewin and his graduate student Eugene Magnier have made deep optical charge-coupled device observations of M31 in four colors; they have published a catalogue of 500,000 objects. Lewin and his graduate 2/16/25, 10:21 Walter Lewin - Wikipedia 2/9 student David Pooley initiated the successful X-ray observations within six days of the appearance of supernova 1993J in M81. Lewin collaborated with his close friend Jan van Paradijs of the University of Amsterdam from 1978 until van Paradijs' death. They co-authored 150 papers.[14] He became a corresponding member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1993[15] and a fellow of the American Physical Society in 1993.[16] Lewin and graduate student Jeffrey Kommers have worked on data from the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO). This was a collaboration with the Group[17] in Huntsville, AL. In early December 1995, with co-workers Chryssa Kouveliotou and Van Paradijs, they discovered a new type of X-ray burst source J1744-28) the Bursting Pulsar, and received a Achievement Award for this discovery. In 1996\u20131998, Lewin's collaboration with Michiel van der Klis in Amsterdam led to the discovery of kHz oscillations in many X-ray binaries. Using the Chandra X-ray Observatory, Lewin and his graduate student David Pooley made extensive studies of supernovae and faint X-ray sources in globular clusters. This research was done in collaboration with scientists from the University of Washington in Princeton Berkeley, the University of Amsterdam and Utrecht in The Netherlands, and the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC. The research on supernovae produced the first X-ray spectrum with unprecedented energy resolution of 1989S.[18] The research on globular clusters demonstrated that X-ray binary stars are cooked in the cores of the clusters where the stellar density is very high. With graduate student Jon Miller, Lewin made extensive studies of black-hole X-ray binaries in our galaxy. Evidence was found for spectral distortions of the iron line (in X-rays) indicative of the influence of general relativity on the iron-line emission in the vicinity of the \"event horizon\" of the black holes. This research on black-hole binaries is continuing using all available observatories in orbit \u2013 among them: Chandra, the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE), and the European observatories XMM-Newton, Integral and NuSTAR. Lewin has published about 450 scientific articles as of 2014.[16] 1978 Award for Exceptional Scientific Achievement[19] 1984 \u2013 Alexander von Humboldt Award[19] 1984 \u2013 Guggenheim Fellowship[20] 1984 Science Council Prize for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching[20] 1988 Department of Physics W. Buechner Teaching Prize[20] 1991 \u2013 Alexander von Humboldt Award (again)[19] 1997 Group Achievement Award for the Discovery of the Bursting Pulsar[20] 2003 Everett Moore Baker Memorial Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching[20] 2011 \u2013 first recipient of the Educator Award for OpenCourseWare Excellence (ACE)[21] Awards 2/16/25, 10:21 Walter Lewin - Wikipedia 3/9 Lewin with a blackboard On April 3, 2012, Lewin was ranked by the Princeton Review among \"The Best 300\". He was the only faculty member (albeit, retired) to make it to that list.[22][23] For about 15 years (starting in 1982) Lewin presented a one-hour program weekly on Cable TV. The shows were aired 24 hours per day helping freshmen with their weekly homework assignments. Videos of Lewin's lectures on Newtonian mechanics (1999), electricity and magnetism (2002) and the physics of vibrations and waves (2004), among others, could be viewed on the OpenCourseWare web site until removed them after finding that Lewin had sexually harassed a student in the online course.[3] Since February 2015, Lewin has been running and managing his own YouTube channel called \"Lectures by Walter Lewin. They will make you \u2665 Physics\".[24] Several of his lectures have been viewed more than a million times. His 2011 farewell lecture \"For the Love of Physics\" has been viewed around 15 million times - 1 million times on MIT's OCW, 6.9 million times on the channel \"For the Allure of Physics\" [25] and 6.9 million times on his personal channel.[26] In 2007, The New York Times featured Lewin on the front page, talking about his influence on online education.[27] In the summer of 2012, Lewin returned from his retirement to deliver a lecture series initiated and funded by the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation (NHK).[28] Each lecture features a selection of physics demonstrations that Lewin has used in his lectures at MIT. The lectures consist of eight programs that were broadcast in Japanese on in Japan in 2013. As of 2015, a region 2 box set of this series is available in Japanese, with an optional partial English audio track and English subtitles.[29] In early December 2014 determined that Lewin had sexually harassed an online MITx learner, in violation of MIT's policies.[1] Inside Higher Ed reported that this learner was one of at least 10 female students to whom Lewin had sent inappropriate messages, which confirmed.[30] The victim, a 32-year-old woman living in France, said that she came forward to ensure that the case was not forgotten, stating that Lewin pushed her to participate in sexual role-playing and send naked pictures of herself.[30] As a consequence of its internal investigation revoked Lewin's professor emeritus title,[2] and removed his lectures from the institute's online learning platforms.[31] Lewin is an art enthusiast and collector. He has lectured on the subject at MIT.[32] In the 1970s and 1980s, he collaborated with the artist Otto Piene, who was one of the founders of the movement and the director of MIT's Center for Advanced Visual Studies,[33] and Peter Struycken, who is a Lectures Sexual harassment Personal life 2/16/25, 10:21 Walter Lewin - Wikipedia 4/9 computer artist.[5] Below are a selection of notable appearances: 1998 Science Odyssey, WGBH, Boston, Produced by 2003, The Elegant Universe, NOVA, Produced by PBS[34] 2005, Einstein's Unfinished Symphony 2008, Riz Khan \u2013 Walter Lewin & physics [35] 2011, The Fabric of the Cosmos, NOVA, Produced by 2011, The Martha Stewart Show, season 3 episode 3172 [36] 2011, De Wereld Draait Door, VARA, the Netherlands, Oct 24[37] 2012, De Wereld Draait Door, VARA, the Netherlands, May 9[38] 2012, De Wereld Draait Door, VARA, the Netherlands, May 9 part II[39] 2012, De Wereld Draait Door, VARA, the Netherlands, November 27[40] 2013, January\u2013February, 8 one-hour lectures NHK, Japan. 2014, September, French Canal+ series of documentary \u2013 \"Special Investigations\", on Online Education 2014, The brilliant professor Walter Lewin 'I'm an artist' (Dutch NCRV) [41] 2014, The World of Quantum, NOVA, Produced by Lewin, Walter; Goldstein, Warren (2011). For the Love of Physics: From the End of the Rainbow to the Edge of Time Journey Through the Wonders of Physics ( ofphysics0000lewi). Simon and Schuster 978-1-4391-0827-7. (available in English, German, Dutch, Spanish, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, Polish, Greek, Italian, Persian and Turkish) Lewin, Walter; van der Klis, Michiel, eds. (2006). Compact stellar X-ray sources. Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-82659-4. Lewin, Walter H.G.; van Paradijs, Jan; van den Heuvel, Edward P.J., eds. (1995). X-ray binaries. Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-41684-9. Truemper, J.; Lewin, W.H.G.; Brinkmann, W., eds. (1986). The evolution of galactic X-ray binaries. D. Reidel Pub. Co.; Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers 978-90-277-2184-6. Lewin, Walter H.G.; van den Heuvel, Edward, eds. (1983). Accretion-driven stellar X-ray sources. Media appearances performances Publications Books 2/16/25, 10:21 Walter Lewin - Wikipedia 5/9 Cambridge University Press 0-521-24521-4. Lewin has published about 450 scientific articles,[16] below are a selected few. Lewin, Walter H.G.; Jan van Paradijs; Ronald E. Taam (2004). \"X-ray Bursts\". Space Science Reviews. 62 (3\u20134): 223\u2013389. Bibcode:1993SSRv...62..223L ( 93SSRv...62..223L). doi:10.1007/BF00196124 ( S2CID 125504322 ( D. Pooley; W.H.G. Lewin; S.F. Anderson; H. Baumgardt; A.V. Filippenko; B.M. Gaensler; et al. (2003). \"Dynamical Formation of Close Binary Systems in Globular Clusters\". Astrophysical Journal. 591 (2): L131 \u2013 L134. arXiv:astro-ph/0305003 ( Bibcode:2003ApJ...591L.131P ( doi:10.1086/377074 ( S2CID 36027886 ( cholar.org/CorpusID:36027886). J. Miller; A. Fabian; R. Wijnands; R. Remillard; P. Wojdowski; N. Schulz; et al. (2002). \"Resolving the Composite Fe K-alpha Emission Line in the Galactic Black Hole Cygnus X-1 with Chandra\". Astrophysical Journal. 578 (1): 348\u2013356. arXiv:astro-ph/0202083 ( 02083). Bibcode:2002ApJ...578..348M ( doi:10.1086/342466 ( S2CID 119393282 ( scholar.org/CorpusID:119393282). D. Pooley; W. Lewin; L. Homer; S. Anderson; B. Gaensler; B. Margon; et al. (2002). \"Optical Identifications of Multiple Faint X-ray Sources in the Globular Cluster NGC~6752: Evidence for Numerous Cataclysmic Variables\". Astrophysical Journal. 569 (1): 405. arXiv:astro-ph/0110192 (ht tps://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0110192). Bibcode:2002ApJ...569..405P ( u/abs/2002ApJ...569..405P). doi:10.1086/339210 ( S2CID 12626024 ( C. Kouveliotou; J. van Paradijs; G. J. Fishman; M. S. Briggs; J. Kommers; B. A. Harmon; et al. (1996). \"Discovery of a New Type of Burster from the Galactic Center Region\". Nature. 379 (6568): 799. Bibcode:1996Natur.379..799K ( 9K). doi:10.1038/379799a0 ( hdl:2060/19970023049 (http s://hdl.handle.net/2060%2F19970023049). S2CID 4323079 ( sID:4323079). M. v.d. Klis; J. Swank; W. Zhang; K. Jahoda; E. Morgan; W. Lewin; et al. (1996). \"Discovery of Sub millisecond Quasi-periodic Oscillations in the X-ray Flux of Scorpius X-1\". Astrophysical Journal. 469: L1 \u2013 L4. arXiv:astro-ph/9607047 ( Bibcode:1996ApJ...469L...1V ( doi:10.1086/310251 ( S2CID 16903844 ( cholar.org/CorpusID:16903844). W.H.G. Lewin; G.W. Clark & W.B. Smith (1968). \"Observation of an X-Ray Flare from Sco X-1\" (htt ps://doi.org/10.1086%2F180177). Astrophysical Journal Letters. 152: L55. Bibcode:1968ApJ...152L..55L ( doi:10.1086/180177 ( 1. Cajigas Jimenez, Juan Esteban (December 9, 2014 removes professor's online lectures Selected publications References 2/16/25, 10:21 Walter Lewin - Wikipedia 6/9 after harassment charge\" ( om/metro/2014/12/09/mit-removes-online-lectures-popular-retired-professor-after-sexual-harassm ent-charge/cbHVoxUCWd1YRKbpJw8rfL/story.html). The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on December 9, 2014. 2. Lin, Leon (December 9, 2014 cuts ties with Walter Lewin after online harassment probe\" (ht tps://web.archive.org/web/20180109034614/ The Tech. Archived from the original ( on January 9, 2018. Retrieved March 12, 2017. 3 indefinitely removes online physics lectures and courses by Walter Lewin\" ( mit.edu/2014/lewin-courses-removed-1208) (Press release News Office. December 8, 2014. 4. Jennifer Chu (May 18, 2011 labor of love\" ( ture-book-0518.html News. 5. Lewin, Walter; Goldstein, Warren (2011). For the Love of Physics: From the End of the Rainbow to the Edge of Time Journey Through the Wonders of Physics ( ofphysics0000lewi/page/11). Simon and Schuster. pp. 11 12 ( ysics0000lewi/page/11 978-1-4391-0827-7. 6. Walter Lewin (May 10, 2020). In Memory of My Family Murdered by the Nazis ( e.com/watch?v=DwUexUstPEE) (YouTube video). Retrieved October 20, 2022. 7. Kim Clark (January 10, 2008 New Physics Superstar\" ( ine-education/articles/2008/01/10/a-new-physics-superstar). U.S. News & World Report. 8. Instructor Profile: Walter Lewin ( OcwWeb/web/courses/instructors/lewin/lewin.htm) at OpenCourseWare (archived 2009) 9. Lewin, Walter H. G.; Ricker, George R.; McClintock, Jeffrey E. (October 1971). \"X-Rays from a New Variable Source 1+4\". Astrophysical Journal. 169: L17. Bibcode:1971ApJ...169L..17L (htt ps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971ApJ...169L..17L). doi:10.1086/180805 ( 6%2F180805). 10. Lewin, Walter H. G.; McClintock, Jeffrey E.; Ryckman, Stanley G.; Glass, Ian S.; Smith, William B. (November 1970). \"Continual Variations in the High-Energy Flux of X-Rays from Scorpius X-1\". Astrophysical Journal. 162: L109. Bibcode:1970ApJ...162L.109L ( s/1970ApJ...162L.109L). doi:10.1086/180635 ( 11. \"The Rapid Burster\" ( 12 Science & Technology: X-ray light curve of the Rapid Burster in a very active Type burst state\" ( Sci.esa.int. Retrieved 2013-04-20. 13. Lewin, Walter H. G.; Van Paradijs, J.; Van Der Klis, M. (1991). \"Quasi-periodic oscillations in low- mass ray binaries\". NAS-NRC, High-Energy Astrophysics. American and Soviet Perspectives: 251. Bibcode:1991heaa.conf..251L ( 14. Walter H. G. Lewin (2003). Edward P. van den Heuvel; Lex Kaper; Evert Rol; Ralph A.M.J. Wijers (eds.). My Quarter Century with Jan Conference Proceedings. Vol. 308. p. 27. arXiv:astro- ph/0105344 ( Bibcode:2003ASPC..308...27L ( abs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ASPC..308...27L). 15. \"Walter Lewin\" ( orrespondents/4469). Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Archived from the original ( on 20 July 2015. Retrieved 17 July 2015. 16. \"Walter Lewin\" ( Simon & Schuster UK. Retrieved 2015-02-22. 17 Project\" ( a.gov/batse/instrument/). Archived from the original ( msfc.nasa.gov/batse/instrument/) on 15 February 2013. Retrieved 12 January 2022. 2/16/25, 10:21 Walter Lewin - Wikipedia 7/9 18. Pooley, David; Lewin, Walter H. G.; Verbunt, Frank; Homer, Lee; Margon, Bruce; Gaensler, Bryan M.; Kaspi, Victoria M.; Miller, Jon M.; Fox, Derek W. (28 March 2002). \"Chandra Observation of the Globular Cluster 6440 and the Nature of Cluster X-ray Luminosity Functions\". The Astrophysical Journal. 573 (1): 184\u2013190. arXiv:astro-ph/0111212 ( 11212). Bibcode:2002ApJ...573..184P ( doi:10.1086/340498 ( 0004-637X ( at.org/issn/0004-637X). S2CID 119401055 ( 19. \"Walter Lewin | Helix Magazine\" ( western.edu/entity/walter-lewin). helix.northwestern.edu. Archived from the original ( orthwestern.edu/entity/walter-lewin) on 2019-03-27. Retrieved 2019-03-27. 20. \"New MITx course by Walter Lewin has potential to be the largest ever | The Open Education Consortium\" ( as-potential-to-be-the-largest-mooc-ever/). Retrieved 2019-03-27. 21 TechTV \u2013 Inaugural Awards for OpenCourseWare Excellence\" ( 0131101111220/ ds-for-opencourseware-excellence). Techtv.mit.edu. Archived from the original ( u/collections/ocwcglobal2011/videos/13882-inaugural-%20awards-for-opencourseware-excellenc e) on 2013-11-01. Retrieved 2013-04-20. 22. \"The Best 300 Professors\" ( ew.com/uploadedFiles/Sitemap/Home_Page/Rankings/Best_Professors/BestProfessors_Name.pd f) (PDF). The Princeton Review. Archived from the original ( dedFiles/Sitemap/Home_Page/Rankings/Best_Professors/BestProfessors_Name.pdf) (PDF) on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 2014-12-22. 23. M&C. \"Professor Walter Lewin featured in \"The Best 300 Professors\" \" ( b/20160110160124/ r-walter-lewin-featured-in-the-best-300-professors/). Employees Portal Delft. Archived from the original ( -lewin-featured-in-the-best-300-professors/) on 10 January 2016. Retrieved 23 December 2014. 24. \"Lectures by Walter Lewin. They will make you \u2665 Physics. - YouTube\" ( hannel/UCiEHVhv0SBMpP75JbzJShqw/). YouTube. 25. sati8335 (March 25, 2015). \"YouTube Channel Containing Lewin's Video Lectures\" ( outube.com/channel/UCliSRiiRVQuDfgxI_QN_Fmw/videos). 26. Archived at Ghostarchive ( and the Wayback Machine ( m/watch?v=sJG-rXBbmCc): \"For the Love of Physics - Walter Lewin - May 16, 2011\" ( youtube.com/watch?v=sJG-rXBbmCc). YouTube. 27. Sara Rimer (December 19, 2007). \"At 71, Physics Professor is Web Star\" ( m/2007/12/19/education/19physics.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin). The New York Times. 28. \"Walter_Lewin | Search Results\" ( ellence.mit.edu/?s=Walter+Lewin). Archived from the original ( s%3DWalter+Lewin) on February 3, 2014. Retrieved January 21, 2014. 29. \"Walter Lewin \u2013 Nhk Mit Hakunetsu Kyoshitsu DVD\" ( -Hakunetsu-Kyoshitsu-POBD-25047/dp/B00BUBZS3C). Amazon.com. Retrieved 2015-03-06. 30. Straumsheim, Carl (January 23, 2015). \"We All Felt Trapped\" ( ws/2015/01/23/complainant-unprecedented-walter-lewin-sexual-harassment-case-comes-forwar d). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 12, 2017. 31. Lin, Leon (January 14, 2015 says it removed Lewin videos for fear of continued harassment\" ( ml). The Tech. Archived from the original ( on July 11, 2015. Retrieved April 14, 2015. 2/16/25, 10:21 Walter Lewin - Wikipedia 8/9 32. Lewin, Walter (date unknown). \"Walter Lewin: Looking at 20th Century Art through the Eyes of a Physicist\". Retrieved from 33. Val Grimm (July 21, 2014). \"Otto Piene, leading figure in kinetic and technology-based art, dies at 86\" ( s-86 News. 34. \"The Elegant Universe: Pt 2 | PBS\" ( verse-part-2/#:~:text=WALTER%20H.G.%20LEWIN%20(Massachusetts%20Institute%20of%20Te chnology)). PBS. 28 October 2003. Retrieved 2023-05-04. 35. \"Walter Lewin & physics\" ( YouTube. Archived ( from the original on 2021- 12-12. 36. \"Walter Lewin guest on the Martha Stewart Show\" ( w-mit-professor-walter-lewin#995639). 2013-05-11. 37. \"Natuurkundige Walter Lewin, Diederik Jekel \u2013 24-10-2011 \u2013 Uitzending Gemist\" ( raaitdoor.vara.nl/media/74185). De Wereld Draait Door. Retrieved 2013-04-20. 38. \"Walter Lewin \u2013 9-5-2012 \u2013 Uitzending Gemist\" ( De Wereld Draait Door. Retrieved 2013-04-20. 39. \"Extra proef (2): Walter Lewin \u2013 9-5-2012 \u2013 Uitzending Gemist\" ( media/93941). De Wereld Draait Door. Retrieved 2013-04-20. 40. \"Walter Lewin \u2013 Wet van behoud lading \u2013 27-11-2012 \u2013 Uitzending Gemist\" ( oor.vara.nl/media/197892). De Wereld Draait Door. 2012-11-27. Retrieved 2013-04-20. 41. \"The brilliant professor Walter Lewin 'I'm an artist' (Dutch NCRV)\" ( atch?v=f2dXeJpfHG4). YouTube. Archived ( dXeJpfHG4) from the original on 2021-12-12. Walter Lewin's channel ( on YouTube YouTube channel with the original OpenCourseWare lectures ( UCliSRiiRVQuDfgxI_QN_Fmw) The Elegant Universe Video featuring Walter Lewin ( program.html) Walter Lewin Playlist ( Archived ( org/web/20190123184005/ 2019-01-23 at the Wayback Machine Appearance on WMBR's Dinnertime Sampler ( ndex.html) Archived ( w/index.html) 2011-05-04 at the Wayback Machine radio show February 4, 2004 lecturers top the iTunes top ten ( l) Retrieved from \" External links 2/16/25, 10:21 Walter Lewin - Wikipedia 9/9", "7426_103.pdf": "After a Sexual Harassment Complaint Removed a Professor\u2019s Online Lectures Retired professor Walter Lewin's physics videos were popular on the university's online education platform. by \u00b7 12/9/2014, 11:57 a.m. Get a compelling long read and must-have lifestyle tips in your inbox every Sunday morning \u2014 great with coffee The internet age has brought sexual harassment to the digital realm on a lot of platforms\u2014social networks, dating websites\u2014even online education. On the last point: Monday removed the popular online physics lectures of retired Professor Walter Lewin after an investigation found that he had sexually harassed several women online who took his course through MIT\u2019s EdX platform. Until this week, Lewin had been a bit of an online education star. His videos showed him engaging in elaborate schemes to exemplify principles of physics, swinging from a giant pendulum, for instance, to demonstrate its motion. (Think Miley Cyrus.) The New York Times described his online course in a 2007 story: Professor Lewin delivers his lectures with the panache of Julia Child bringing French cooking to amateurs and the zany theatricality of YouTube\u2019s greatest hits [\u2026] Professor Lewin beats a student with cat fur to demonstrate electrostatics. Wearing shorts, sandals with socks and a pith helmet \u2014 nerd safari garb \u2014 he fires a cannon loaded with a golf ball at a stuffed monkey wearing a bulletproof vest to demonstrate the trajectories of objects in free fall. When co-launched its online education venture EdX, Lewin\u2019s courses moved to the platform. In October, a student who took his class there complained to MIT. The university launched an investigation into his interactions with that student and others who took the course. In a release News reports: Based on its investigation has determined that Lewin\u2019s behavior toward the complainant violated the Institute\u2019s policy on sexual harassment. Following broad consultation among faculty is indefinitely removing Lewin\u2019s online courses, in the interest of preventing any further inappropriate behavior. Lewin\u2019s lectures being as well known and well liked as they are, a lot of the online comments questioned MIT\u2019s decision to take down the videos themselves. MIT\u2019s statement didn\u2019t elaborate on that decision, implying only that they didn\u2019t want more students to come into personal contact with Lewin over the internet 2/16/25, 10:22 After a Sexual Harassment Complaint Removed a Professor's Online Lectures - Boston Magazine 1/3 The whole situation brings to light many issues, including how a university should cut ties with a professor who is already retired. But another, more wide-reaching one is how universities expand harassment policies as they expand online course offerings. Many are confronting on-campus sexual harassment policies, especially given recent events. But Lewin\u2019s case shows that the expansion into online education means university administrators cannot just focus on their campus-wide measures. They\u2019ll have to look online as well. Read More About You Might Also Like Best of Boston 2022 An Early-Risers Guide to Boston Top Places to Live 2024: Where to Find a Deal in Greater Boston\u2019s Sky-High Market Why Boston Will Become the Nation\u2019s Leading Longevity Hub 1 On the Market Swanky Purple Condo in Boston\u2019s Back Bay 2 Tilde, Cafe by Day and Wine Bar by Night, Opens in Cambridge 3 The Best Restaurants in Boston\u2019s North End 4 2/16/25, 10:22 After a Sexual Harassment Complaint Removed a Professor's Online Lectures - Boston Magazine 2/3 About Contact Masthead Magazine Subscribe Advertise Customer Service Careers and Internships at Boston Magazine Privacy Policy 2025 \u00a9 Bostonmagazine. All Rights Reserved. 2/16/25, 10:22 After a Sexual Harassment Complaint Removed a Professor's Online Lectures - Boston Magazine 3/3", "7426_104.pdf": "\uf082 Facebook \uf099 Twitter \uf1a1 Reddit \uf0e0 Email \uf02f Print cuts ties with Walter Lewin after online harassment probe Institute revokes emeritus title, removes online courses of popular physics professor who starred in viral videos By Leon Lin | Dec. 9, 2014 is cutting ties with retired professor Walter Lewin after determining that the physicist, whose lectures had made him a beloved teacher and minor Internet star, had sexually harassed at least one student online. The woman was taking one of Lewin\u2019s classes on edX, the online learning platform started by Harvard and said Monday that it had launched an investigation immediately after she filed a complaint in October officials reviewed \u201cdetailed materials\u201d provided by the complainant, who also presented \u201cinformation about interactions between Lewin and other women The Tech \uf002 Subscribe to our newsletter 2/16/25, 10:22 cuts ties with Walter Lewin after online harassment probe | The Tech 1/1", "7426_105.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology Sep 1, 2017 Civil Action No. 16-12394 (D. Mass. Sep. 1, 2017) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Take care of legal research in a matter of minutes with CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free Civil Action No. 16-12394 09-01-2017 FA\u00cfZA HARBI, Plaintiff, v TECHNOLOGY, and LEWIN, Defendants SAYLOR, J. Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/17 This is a case alleging online sexual harassment. Plaintiff Fa\u00efza Harbi alleges, in substance, that she was sexually harassed by defendant Walter Lewin, a university professor who was teaching an online course in which she was enrolled. The complaint alleges a claim under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681, against Lewin's then-employer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (\"MIT\"), as well as eight other claims under state law against Lewin and MIT. Both defendants have filed motions to dismiss. For the following reasons, the motions will be granted in part and denied in part. I. Background The facts are set forth as alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff Fa\u00efza Harbi is a resident of Montpellier, France. (Am. Compl. \u00b61). At the relevant time, she was 31 years old. (Id. Ex. 2 at 7). Defendant Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a major research and teaching *2 university located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Id. \u00b6 2). Defendant Walter Lewin, who was 77 years old at the relevant time, was retired and a professor emeritus at MIT. (See id. \u00b6 3). 2 In 2012 and Harvard University entered into a partnership to provide open access to courses online\u2014commonly referred to as massive open online courses, or \"MOOCs\"\u2014through an entity called \"edX.\" (Id. \u00b6 7). edX students who successfully completed courses and demonstrated knowledge of course material were eligible to obtain \"certificates of mastery\" for a fee. (Id. \u00b6 8). One of the courses offered through edX was an introductory physics course taught by Lewin. The course was entitled \"For the Love of Physics\" and assigned the number 8.01x. (Id. \u00b6 7). The 8.01x course was similar to an on-campus course taught by Lewin. (Id.). Students enrolled in 8.01x viewed video lectures by Lewin, problem-solving sessions, and in-class demonstrations. (Id. Ex. 2 at 4). Students were also able to participate in interactive questions written by Lewin to help them check their understanding of the lectures. (Id.). 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/17 During the summer of 2013, Harbi registered for the 8.01x course for the term running from September 9, 2013, to January 15, 2014. (Id. \u00b6 8). Approximately 40,000 people registered for the 8.01x course, and 6,000 actively took the course. (Id. Ex. 2 at 5). Following her enrollment, Harbi created a Facebook group dedicated to the 8.01x course and became the administrator of that online group. (Id. \u00b6 14). It appears that had nothing to do with the creation of the Facebook group. On November 24, 2013, Lewin initiated a request through Facebook to join the group. (Id. \u00b6 15). Harbi received Lewin's request, but initially believed it to be a prank. (Id.). She responded by asking for confirmation of Lewin's identity. (Id.). He then sent an e-mail to her edX address confirming his identity and sharing a snapshot of her course progress, to which only *3 the course professor would have access. (Id.). 3 In November 2013, Lewin and Harbi began an electronic correspondence that lasted for a period of several months. They communicated over e-mail, through their Facebook pages, and eventually by video calls on Skype. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 18-19). Lewin and Harbi never met one another in person; at all times, Lewin was in the United States and Harbi was in France. Beginning in about December 2013, many of the communications between Lewin and Harbi became explicitly sexual in nature. Among other things, the complaint alleges that Lewin told Harbi that he was sexually attracted to her, he sent her nude photographs, and repeatedly masturbated on camera in front of her. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 21, 24). During their communications, Harbi disclosed that she had been raped as a young child and that she had low self-esteem as a result. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 23, 43). Lewin responded that he would try to help her restore her self-confidence. (Id.) He also told her that he planned to get her \"back on the road sexually by teaching her to masturbate.\" (Id. \u00b6 46). The complaint alleges that Lewin suggested that Harbi's successful completion of the course was conditioned on their continuing correspondence. (Id. \u00b6 23). It further alleges that Harbi did not break off the relationship for fear of being removed from the course. (Id.). 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/17 According to the complaint, in August 2014, Harbi realized for the first time that the correspondence with Lewin was \"highly inappropriate.\" (Id. \u00b6 26). As a result, she developed extreme anxiety, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, became unable to sleep, and began to self-mutilate. (Id. \u00b6 28). At some point, she was hospitalized for those symptoms. (Id. \u00b6 26 has a written manual directed at faculty and staff members that outlines the university's policies concerning sexual harassment. (Id. \u00b6\u00b6 11- 12). Among other things, the manual provides that is committed to creating an environment in which every individual *4 can work, study, and live without being harassed.\" (Id. \u00b6 12). It defines \"sexual harassment\" as potentially consisting of \"requests for sexual favors, visual displays of degrading sexual images, sexually suggestive conduct, or offensive remarks of a sexual nature.\" (Id.). 4 On October 7, 2014, Harbi reported Lewin's conduct to MIT. The university then initiated an investigation. (Id. \u00b6 30). On December 2, 2014 informed Harbi of the results of that investigation and provided her with a copy of the investigatory report. (Id. \u00b6 32). The report, which is attached to the complaint, concluded that Lewin had violated multiple policies and procedures. (Id.). Specifically, it found that Lewin had violated MIT's policies on harassment, conflict of interest, personal conduct and responsibilities toward students, and relations with students. (Id. Ex. 2 at 21-23). Among other things, it recounted Lewin's statements that he had exchanged nude photographs of himself with multiple other women and had previously \"taught another woman how to masturbate\" through Facebook. (Id. Ex. 2 at 20). When asked whether his remarks concerning masturbation were appropriate, he stated that he \"was raised in a Dutch culture, whereby a subject like this is openly discussed. We have a much more direct approach, which can hurt people too by the way. You, as an American, would not have thought this was appropriate. For me, it's fine.\" (Id. Ex. 2 at 9). When asked whether he would have made the same statements to a student who visited his office in person, he stated, \"[i]f a student at who came to me during office hours said this [referring to an e-mail from Harbi would have said the same thing.\" (Id.). 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/17 In response severed ties with Lewin and prohibited him from accessing university resources. (Id. \u00b6 35). According to the complaint, the university did not offer Harbi any counseling or other remedial services. (Id.). On November 23, 2016, Harbi filed the complaint in this action, alleging claims under *5 state and federal law against and Lewin. Harbi filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2017. Both and Lewin have filed motions to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 5 II. Standard of Review On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), the court \"must assume the truth of all well-plead[ed] facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom.\" Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 496 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must state a claim that is \"plausible on its face.\" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The \"[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).\" Id. at 555 (citation omitted). Dismissal is appropriate if the complaint fails to set forth \"factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery under some actionable legal theory.\" Gagliardi v. Sullivan, 513 F.3d 301, 305 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Centro M\u00e9dico del Turabo, Inc. v. Feliciano de Melecio, 406 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2005)). III. Analysis The complaint alleges nine counts: a violation of Title against (Count One); negligence against and Lewin, respectively (Counts Two and Three); negligent infliction of emotional distress against and Lewin, respectively (Counts Four and Five); intentional infliction of emotional distress against Lewin (Count Six); assault against Lewin (Count Seven); violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, \u00a7 1C against (Count Eight); breach of contract against both and Lewin (Count Nine). *6 6 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/17 A. Alleged Title Violation Count One alleges a claim for a violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681, against MIT. Subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, the relevant provision of Title provides that \"[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.\" 20 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681. It is undisputed that receives federal financial assistance within the meaning of the statute contends, however, that Harbi lacks standing to assert a claim under Title because the complaint alleges that at all times, she was a resident of France, and therefore she was never \"in the United States complaint alleging a violation of rights conferred by a statute must state a plausible claim both for constitutional standing and statutory standing. See Katz v. Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64, 75 (1st Cir. 2012). The statutory standing inquiry \"goes to the merits of the claim\" and is properly analyzed under the standard applicable for motions to dismiss made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Id. Whether a plaintiff is authorized to sue under a particular statute is a matter of \"statutory interpretation: the question it asks is whether Congress has accorded this injured plaintiff the right to sue the defendant under the particular statute to redress his injury.\" Vander Luitgaren v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 765 F.3d 59, 62 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Graden v. Conexant Sys. Inc., 496 F.3d 291, 295 (3d Cir. 2007)) (alterations omitted). As with any question of statutory interpretation, the proper starting point is the language of the statute itself. See Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 265 (1981). Where the plain meaning of a statute is clear, \"the sole function of the courts is to enforce the statute according to its terms.\" Arnold v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 136 F.3d 854, 858 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485 (1917)). *7 7 Under the plain language of \u00a7 1681, the protections of Title extend only to \"person[s] in the United States.\" The statute is not directed to the place where the discriminatory conduct occurred, or the place where the person 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/17 who engaged in the discriminatory conduct was located; it is directed to the location of the person who is protected by the statute. Here, the complaint does not allege that Harbi was \"in the United States\" at the time of the alleged harassment. At all relevant times, she was in France. Therefore, under the plain language of the statute, the complaint does not allege a claim under Title IX.1 1 contends that such a reading is further warranted as consistent with the general principle that \"legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.\" Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 255 (2010) (quoting v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991)). However, such a presumption need be invoked only when a statute is silent as to extraterritorial application. Here, \u00a7 1681 explicitly provides that \"person[s] in the US\" are the class to which the protections of Title extend. No reported case appears to have examined the precise question at issue here: whether Title protects a person abroad with respect to conduct committed in the United States and transmitted over the Internet. At least two courts have, however, examined the extraterritorial application of the protections of Title in the context of American students traveling abroad for foreign educational experiences. See Phillips v. St. George's Univ., 2007 3407728 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2007); King v. Bd. of Control of Mich. Univ., 221 F. Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. Mich. 2002). In Phillips, a student of a veterinary school located overseas brought a Title claim for sexual harassment against the school. 2007 3407728, at *1. The plaintiff was studying in Grenada, and the conduct occurred entirely in that country. The court found that the \"plain language of Title affirmatively indicates Congress's intent that the statute not apply extraterritorially,\" and therefore Title IX's protections did not apply. Id. at *4. In King, students at Eastern Michigan University alleged that sexually harassing conduct *8 occurred in South Africa during a school-sponsored study-abroad trip. See 221 F. Supp. 2d at 784-86. The court found that the complaint stated a cognizable claim under Title IX. See id. at 791. The court 8 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/17 reconciled that finding with the plain language of \u00a7 1681 by reasoning that the school's failure to remedy sexual harassment that occurred on study- abroad trips \"could close educational opportunities to female students by requiring them to submit to sexual harassment in order to participate.\" Id. The court stated that \"[a]s continuing students at [Eastern Michigan University], plaintiffs were 'persons in the United States' when a denial of equal access to EMU's resources, created by EMU's failure to address and stop the actions of [the alleged sexual harassers], happened.\" Id. By contrast, the complaint here does not allege that Harbi has ever been, or will ever be, a \"person in the United States.\" Harbi was not an American student studying overseas in France when the alleged harassment occurred; she was a French student, studying in France. Even assuming, without deciding, that the analysis of King is correct, even under that framework the complaint does not allege a plausible claim that Harbi was a person in the United States who has been denied equal access to education within the meaning of Title IX. Notwithstanding the statutory language, Harbi contends that the Court should read \u00a7 1681 to apply extraterritorially in order to ensure that the purposes of Title are achieved. Title has two primary purposes: \"to avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices [and] to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices.\" Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 704 (1979). But that approach would simply read the words out of the statute statute's purpose, however important or laudable, cannot overcome its actual language. Again, \"when the statute's language is plain, the sole function of the courts\u2014at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd\u2014is to enforce it *9 according to its terms.\" Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 359 (2005) (quoting Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000)). 9 Title may well be outdated. Online learning is a relatively new phenomenon, and the statute was promulgated in 1972, in a much different technological environment. See An Act to Amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 92-318, 86 Stat. 235 (Jun. 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1681- 1688. But this Court is not empowered to \"fix\" outdated statutes, no matter 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/17 how worthy the goal may be. Rather, \"[i]t is for Congress . . . and not for this Court, to rewrite the statute to reflect changed circumstances.\" First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Puerto Rico v. Ruiz De Jesus, 644 F.2d 910, 914 (1st Cir. 1981) (quoting Comtronics, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Telephone Company, 553 F.2d 701, 707 (1st Cir. 1977)). In summary, the plain language of \u00a7 1681 dictates that the protections of Title do not extend to a resident of France, who is physically present in France, with no relevant history of physical presence in the United States, and who is taking an online course over the Internet. Accordingly, Count One will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. B. Jurisdiction Count One alleged the only federal cause of action in this case. Having dismissed that claim, it is appropriate to examine whether the Court has jurisdiction to consider the remaining state-law claims. The amended complaint alleges that there is federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331, as it pleads a claim arising under federal law. It further alleges that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state- law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367. Although the complaint does not specifically allege alienage jurisdiction, it appears that there is also federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332(a)(2), which provides that \"[t]he district courts shall *10 have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . . \" (subject to an exception that does not appear to be relevant). See also Carnero v. Boston Sci. Corp., 433 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2006) (finding jurisdiction proper under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332(a)(2) in a suit between a foreign plaintiff and a Massachusetts defendant). 10 If the power to hear this action derived solely from federal-question jurisdiction, the Court might well decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. However, as there appears to also be alienage jurisdiction, the Court will exercise its jurisdiction over those claims. See Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/17 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (finding that federal courts have a \"virtually unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the jurisdiction given them\"). C. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214 , \u00a7 1C Count Eight alleges a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, \u00a7 1C against contends that claim is barred because plaintiff has not exhausted her claim before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (\"MCAD\").2 2 also argues that it should not be strictly liable under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, \u00a7 1C for Lewin's actions. It is an unsettled question under Massachusetts law what the proper standard is for determining institutional liability for sexual harassment claims made pursuant to ch. 214, \u00a7 1C, where those claims are defined by ch. 151C. See Morrison v. Northern Essex Community College, 56 Mass App. Ct. at 786 n.17 (2002) (\"We also do not address whether a c. 151C claim against an educational institution requires that its administrators have knowledge of harassment perpetrated by its coaches or teachers, a requirement imposed on claims under Title IX\"); see also Doe v. Bradshaw, 203 F. Supp. 3d 168, 189 (\"the Massachusetts Courts have not answered this question for either chapter 214 or chapter 151C\"). The Court will adopt the approach taken in Doe v. Bradshaw, 2013 5236110 (D. Mass. Sept. 16, 2013) and defer consideration of MIT's claim that a deliberate indifference standard, as opposed to a strict liability standard, applies here. See Doe v. Bradshaw, 2013 5236110, at *14 (declining to address whether a deliberate indifference or strict liability standard applies to claims for sexual harassment defined by ch. 151C and brought pursuant to chapter 214, \u00a7 1C, where \"a ruling on deliberate indifference will require further factual development\"). Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151C defines \"sexual harassment\" in the educational context to *11 include both quid pro quo and hostile-environment forms of harassment. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151C, \u00a7 1(e). The plaintiff's relationship to the educational program determines how he or she may bring a claim for sexual harassment as defined by chapter 151C. 11 3 3 The relevant provision provides in whole: \"The term 'sexual harassment' means any sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: (i) submission to or rejection of such advances, requests or conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/17 term or condition of the provision of the benefits, privileges or placement services or as a basis for the evaluation of academic achievement; or (ii) such advances, requests or conduct have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's education by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or sexually offensive educational environment.\" Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151C, \u00a7 1(e). Individuals who are \"seeking admission . . . to any educational institution\" and students who are \"enrolled . . . in a vocational training institution\" may file a petition before to complain about unfair educational practices, including sexual harassment under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151C, \u00a7 3(a). See Doe v. Fournier, 851 F. Supp. 2d 207, 215 (D. Mass. 2012), on reconsideration in part (Mar. 20, 2012). After such a student has exhausted his or her remedies, the claim is actionable in Superior Court under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, \u00a7 9. 4 5 4 Among other things, chapter 151C provides that \"it shall be an unfair educational practice for an educational institution . . . [t]o sexually harass students in any program or course of study in any educational institution.\" Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151C, \u00a7 2(g). 5 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, \u00a7 9 provides that \"[a]ny person claiming to be aggrieved by a practice made unlawful under [chapter 151B] or under [chapter 151C] . . . may . . . bring a civil action for damages or injunctive relief or both in the superior court . . . .\" All other students claiming to be aggrieved by sexual harassment in education may bring suit under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, \u00a7 1C. That statute provides as follows person shall have the right to be free from sexual harassment, as defined in [chapter 151B] and [chapter 151C]. The superior court shall have the jurisdiction to enforce this right and to award the damages and other relief provided in the third paragraph of section 9 of chapter 151B. . . . No claim under this section that is also actionable under chapter 151B or chapter 151C shall be brought in superior court unless a complaint was timely filed with the Massachusetts commission against discrimination under said chapter 151B. 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/17 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, \u00a7 1C. *12 12 Here, Harbi has brought her claim under ch. 214, \u00a7 1C. Section 1C fills a gap in the statutory scheme by \"extend[ing] to employees and students protection that is not otherwise available under [chapter] 151B and [chapter] 151C; it does not duplicate the relief provided by those statutes.\" Lowery v. Klemm, 446 Mass. 572, 578 (2006). The last sentence of section 1C imposes an exhaustion requirement for claims brought thereunder that are \"also actionable\" under chapter 151B and chapter 151C. Again, chapter 151C provides that applicants and vocational students who allege sexual harassment must file a petition before the MCAD. All other students making such claims must bring their claims through chapter 214. Therefore the only claims that are \"also actionable\" under chapter 151C are those brought by applicants and vocational students. There is no exhaustion requirement for all other students, for whom chapter 214 is the only remedy. See Doe v. Bradshaw, 203 F. Supp. 3d 168, 190 (D. Mass. 2016). The fact that chapter 214 imposes an exhaustion requirement for school applicants and vocational students, but not for students of non-vocational schools, obviously creates \"somewhat of an anomaly.\" Guzman v. Lowinger, 422 Mass. 570, 572 (1996). But the Supreme Judicial Court has elsewhere recognized that a plain reading of the exhaustion requirement under ch. 214, \u00a7 1C may lead to anomalous results. Id. at 572-73 (interpreting an earlier version of ch. 214, \u00a7 1C to impose an exhaustion requirement for claims against employers with more than six employees, but not for claims against smaller employers despite the fact that it was \"at a loss to perceive in the statutory framework a reasoned basis for this distinction\"). Here, although it is difficult to perceive a reasoned basis for the distinction, the plain meaning of the statute controls. Id. At least one court in this district has, without analysis, found an administrative exhaustion requirement for chapter 214 claims in a different statutory provision: Mass. Gen. *13 Laws ch. 151B, \u00a7 9. See Harrington v. City of Attleboro, 172 F. Supp. 3d 337, 351 (D. Mass. 2016) (\"Plaintiffs must satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement of Mass. Gen. L. c. 151B, \u00a7 9, made applicable to c. 151C under Mass. Gen. L. c. 214, \u00a7 1C.\"). Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, \u00a7 9, \"Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a practice 13 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/17 made unlawful under . . . chapter [151C] . . . may, at the expiration of ninety days after the filing of a complaint with the commission, or sooner if a commissioner assents in writing, but not later than three years after the alleged unlawful practice occurred, bring a civil action for damages or injunctive relief.\" But the practice at issue here\u2014sexual harassment of a student who is neither an applicant nor enrolled in a vocational school\u2014is made unlawful under chapter 214, not chapter 151C. Although the relevant definition of sexual harassment comes from chapter 151C, the actual prohibition comes from chapter 214. Therefore, the practice is made unlawful under chapter 214, not chapter 151C. Accordingly, the exhaustion requirement in chapter 151B, \u00a7 9 does not apply to the claims at issue here. MIT's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, \u00a7 1C for failure to exhaust administrative remedies will therefore be denied. D. Breach of Contract Count Nine alleges a claim for breach of contract against both and Lewin. In order to state a claim for breach of contract under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff must allege \"that there was a valid contract, that the defendant breached its duties under the contractual agreement, and that the breach caused the plaintiff damage.\" Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 957 F. Supp. 306, 316 (D. Mass. 1997). The elements of a valid contract include an offer, an acceptance, and an exchange of consideration. See Vadnais v Steering Sys. Am., Inc., 675 F. Supp. 2d 205, 207 (D. Mass. 2009). *14 14 Defendants contend that the complaint does not allege that there was a valid contract, because no consideration was paid. Harbi contends that although no consideration was paid, she would have had to pay a fee in order to receive a certificate from MIT. However, the complaint does not allege that a fee, or any other consideration, was actually paid. The fact that Harbi anticipated that she might later enter into an agreement to pay money in exchange for a certificate does not support a finding that consideration was paid to or Lewin for any services rendered. Accordingly, the complaint fails to allege the existence of a valid contract between the parties. Count Nine will therefore be dismissed. 6 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/17 6 also contends that the breach of contract and tort claims are barred because chapter 214, \u00a7 1C provides an exclusive remedy for claims of sexual harassment. However, that claim appears to depend on the complex interaction between Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 215, \u00a7 1C, ch. 151B, and ch. 151C. As that issue has not been thoroughly briefed by the parties, the Court will reserve judgment as to that issue. E. Negligence Counts Two and Three allege claims for negligence against and Lewin, respectively. Both defendants have moved to dismiss those claims on the basis that they did not owe Harbi a legal duty. To succeed on a claim for negligence under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual damage or injury. See Frappier v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 645 F.3d 51, 58 (1st Cir. 2011). \"Whether a duty of care exists is a question of law and an appropriate subject of a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12(b)(6).\" Leavitt v. Brockton Hosp., Inc., 454 Mass. 37, 40 (2009) (citation omitted). 1. Whether Owed a Duty to Harbi Under Massachusetts law, universities owe their students a duty \"to use reasonable care *15 to prevent injury . . . by third persons.\" Mullins v. Pine Manor Coll., 389 Mass. 47, 54 (1983) (quoting Carey v. New Yorker of Worcester, Inc., 355 Mass. 450, 452 (1969)). That duty extends only to acts by third parties that are \"reasonably foreseeable\" to the university. Kavanagh v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 440 Mass. 195, 203 (2003). Whether an act is foreseeable \"turns on an examination of all the circumstances.\" Mullins, 389 Mass. at 56. 15 While it is a close question, the complaint here alleges sufficient facts to support a claim that had a duty to protect Harbi from sexual harassment. There is evidence in the investigatory report attached to the complaint that Lewin had previously engaged in conduct that could qualify as sexual harassment. In addition, Lewin's comments in the investigatory report evince a disturbingly casual attitude toward sexual relationships with 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/17 students. Lewin apparently had no qualms about engaging in a sexual relationship with a student and appears to have made no attempts to hide that relationship from MIT. At this early stage, viewing those facts in the light most favorable to Harbi, the complaint plausibly alleges that it was reasonably foreseeable that Lewin would sexually harass a student. Whether the facts as developed in discovery support such a claim is a question for another day. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count Two will be denied. 2. Whether Lewin Owed a Duty to Harbi \"As a general principle of tort law, every actor has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid physical harm to others.\" Litif v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 2d 60, 75 (D. Mass. 2010) (quoting Remy v. MacDonald, 440 Mass. 675, 677 (2004)); see also Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm \u00a7 7 (2010) (\"An actor ordinarily has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the actor's conduct creates a risk of physical harm\"). That duty is limited by the principle that the risk of harm must be foreseeable to the actor. See Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. *16 141, 147 (2006). 16 Lewin contends that there is no special relationship creating a duty between professors and students that would give rise to tort liability here. However, a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is required only when the harm is caused by a third party, not when the harm is the fault of the actor against whom the claim is brought. See Leavitt v. Brockton Hosp., Inc., 454 Mass. 37, 40-41 (2009). Here, the relevant duty is Lewin's general duty to refrain from conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm. The complaint alleges that Lewin had reason to know that Harbi was emotionally vulnerable, and was particularly vulnerable to sexual misconduct in light of the fact that she had been raped as a young child. The complaint alleges that Lewin used those facts to further his sexual misconduct. According to the complaint, Lewin's conduct caused Harbi significant emotional distress and resulted in her engaging in acts of self- mutilation. Those allegations are sufficient to support a plausible claim that the risk of harm to Harbi was foreseeable. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count Three will be denied. 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/17 F. Assault Count Seven alleges a claim for assault against Lewin. At the hearing on these motions, Harbi agreed to dismiss the assault claim against Lewin. Accordingly, Count Seven will be dismissed. G. Other Claims The complaint otherwise appears to state a plausible claim for relief against defendants. Accordingly, the motions will be denied with respect to Counts Four, Five, and Six. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motions to dismiss are in part and *17 in part. Specifically, the motions are granted with respect to Counts One, Seven, and Nine. The motions are otherwise denied. 17 So Ordered. /s/ F. Dennis Saylor F. Dennis Saylor United States District Judge Dated: September 1, 2017 About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 16/17 Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:22 Harbi v. Mass. Inst. Technology, Civil Action No. 16-12394 | Casetext Search + Citator 17/17"} |
7,876 | Arthur Demarest | Vanderbilt University | [
"7876_101.pdf",
"7876_102.pdf",
"7876_103.pdf",
"7876_104.pdf",
"7876_105.pdf"
] | {"7876_101.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division Apr 12, 2010 No. 3:09-0068 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 12, 2010) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Take care of legal research in a matter of minutes with CoCounsel, your new legal assistant. Try CoCounsel free No. 3:09-0068. April 12, 2010 ECHOLS, District Judge Plaintiff Brigitte Kovacevich, Ph.D. (\"Plaintiff\") filed a Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 73), to which Defendant Vanderbilt Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Summaries Case details 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/28 University (\"Vanderbilt\") filed a response in opposition (Docket Entry No. 93). Vanderbilt filed a Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 76), to which Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Docket Entry No. 108), and Vanderbilt filed a reply (Docket Entry No. 125). The Court will also consider in this opinion Defendant's Motion To Strike Report Of Dr. Estrada-Belli (Docket Entry No. 113), and Plaintiff's Motion To Strike Defendant's Response To Plaintiff's Statement Of Material Facts Which Preclude Grant Of Summary Judgment, D.E. 126 (Docket Entry No. 135 The following facts are undisputed or are disputed but taken in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, Dr. Kovacevich. Plaintiff is currently employed as a tenure-track assistant professor in *2 the Department of Anthropology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Plaintiff was employed by the University of Virginia for one year as a lecturer, she served as a visiting professor at Yale University for one semester, and she worked at several contract positions in archaeology that are non-academic positions. 1 2 1 Plaintiff's Motion To Strike Defendant's Response To Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts Which Preclude Grant of Summary Judgment, D.E. 126 (Docket Entry No. 135) will be denied. The Court reviewed the voluminous summary judgment record, including the parties' very lengthy statements of undisputed facts and responses to those statements. (Docket Entry Nos. 78, 105, 106, 126 143.) The Court carefully considered the application of the Federal and Local Rules in drafting this opinion. For that reason, a painstaking evaluation of whether particular responses to statements of fact should be stricken is an unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources. The Court does not purport to include all facts set forth by the parties, but only those the Court deems significant. From 1997 until August 2006, Plaintiff was a graduate student seeking a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Anthropology at Vanderbilt. Plaintiff was employed by Vanderbilt as a graduate teaching assistant for ten semesters between 1997 and 2004, and as a research assistant for one year from 2005 to 2006. Plaintiff successfully defended her thesis and received her Ph.D. degree in August 2006. 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/28 teaching assistantship is essentially a form of financial aid for graduate students. Teaching assistants, or \"TAs\" may be assigned no more than twenty (20) hours of work per week. Specific duties vary and are determined by the combined decision of the leadership of the academic department in which the is employed and the specific faculty member to whom the is assigned. One component of the award is a salary for services rendered as a and the other component is a stipend for which no services are required. The salary is the same for all TAs throughout the College of Arts and Science, and that salary currently is $6,600 per academic year. The stipend may vary by department also receives a full-tuition scholarship and the student health insurance premium is paid by the College. In the Department of Anthropology, graduate students who do field work in connection with archaeological excavation are not considered as performing duties during their field work. Such work is performed only as part of the student's graduate education. (Docket Entry No. 80, McIntire Aff.) *3 3 From approximately 1999 until 2004, Plaintiff worked closely with Dr. Arthur A. Demarest, who also served as her doctoral thesis advisor. Dr. Demarest received his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University and joined Vanderbilt as an assistant professor of anthropology in 1984. He was promoted to the rank of full professor with tenure and named to the position of Centennial (now Ingram) Chair of Anthropology in 1986. His area of expertise is in archaeological excavation, and he has been involved in the excavation of ancient Mayan sites in Central America since 1976 and in the Republic of Guatemala since 1981. Dr. Demarest has completed twenty- seven field seasons as a project director in Guatemala and El Salvador. The projects have resulted in many published books and articles in Spanish and English. Dr. Demarest has also edited and co-edited a number of published volumes on Mesoamerican archaeological explorations and he is the editor of a series published by the Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology. In order to excavate an archaeological site and surrounding area such as Cancuen in Guatemala, the participating scientists develop a strategy for the excavation that changes annually based on the discoveries of the previous season in the field and the analysis of recovered materials in the 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/28 laboratories. Some zones are simply surveyed for mapping, in some areas artifacts are collected from the surface, in some areas two-by-two meter test units are excavated, and in other zones or sites nearby excavation is very intensive over wide areas. Once the actual excavations begin, the plan usually changes and excavation moves into other areas based on discoveries that are unearthed, although it depends on how well the original design was planned. During excavation, tens of thousands of fragments of ancient pottery, stone tools, and stone artifacts are recovered, including fragments of stone from broken tools and from the making of tools. The artifacts, including fragments of stones like flint and obsidian, are identified, tagged, and collected into bags to be studied more closely in the laboratories at the site and in Guatemala City. *4 4 Beginning in 1999, Plaintiff accompanied Dr. Demarest on the archeological excavation in Cancuen. She continued to make annual trips to Cancuen during the \"digging\" season from 1999 until 2004. Early in her work on the Cancuen project, Plaintiff discovered a large lithic deposit in the northern part of the site. \"Lithics\" is the study of stone artifacts, such as jade, chert and obsidian. Having prior formal training in lithics, Plaintiff elected to concentrate her studies in that area. From approximately 2000 through the first two or three years of excavation, the mapping of Cancuen was done by Vanderbilt graduate students and two or three Guatemalan students. In 2002, Marc Wolf, a professional topographer who has over 20 years of experience mapping sites throughout Central America and elsewhere, was hired to map the site. The Cancuen project continued after Plaintiff was last on the site in the summer of 2004. Since 2005, the development work and restoration of architecture has kept the scientists in Cancuen on a year-round basis. After completing her work in the field in Cancuen in 2003 and in the laboratory in 2004, Plaintiff began working in earnest to complete her doctoral thesis based on her work at the Cancuen excavation. Plaintiff's thesis focused on an analysis of the lithics at the site, including lithic deposits found in various ruins of structures excavated by her and other members of the team. Some of her interpretations were based on a traditional classification of structures decided upon by Tomas Barrientos, 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/28 Plaintiff and Dr. Demarest, which was modified from previous archaeological projects in the Maya area. Neither the principal laboratory consultant, Dr. Ronald Bishop of the Smithsonian Institute, nor any other member of the Cancuen project closely familiar with the project's work, except for Dr. Demarest, was a member of Plaintiff's thesis committee. Dr. William Fowler, a Vanderbilt professor who is a Mayan lithics expert, was a member of Plaintiff's thesis committee. In 2004 or 2005, Plaintiff and certain other graduate students filed a complaint against Dr. Demarest with Vanderbilt's Opportunity Development Center alleging sex discrimination, sexual *5 harassment, and retaliation directed at Plaintiff and other female graduate students by Dr. Demarest. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Demarest shortly thereafter learned of the complaint filed against him, and he launched a continuing campaign of retaliation against Plaintiff for exercising her right to oppose sex discrimination and sexual harassment. Previously, Dr. Demarest had told another person that Plaintiff was his best student and he did not have any problem with her work. After the charge was filed, Dr. Demarest's criticism of Plaintiff began. (Docket Entry No. 128-1, Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 76.) 5 In 2004 or 2005, Dr. Demarest withdrew his support for Plaintiff to obtain any further financial assistance from Vanderbilt for her doctoral studies, so Plaintiff obtained an assistantship with other Vanderbilt professors. Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, after receiving a right to sue letter, she filed a lawsuit in this Court against Vanderbilt and Dr. Demarest on August 10, 2007, alleging claims for sex discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, Title IX, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (\"THRA\"). Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt Univ. et al., No. 3:07-0828 (M.D. Tenn.) The parties settled the case in January 2008. More will be said about this settlement later in the opinion. Against this backdrop of Plaintiff's university complaint and charge, adjustments were made in the procedure for the writing and evaluation of Plaintiff's dissertation. An agreement was reached on March 2, 2006, between the Department of Anthropology, represented by its Chair, Dr. Demarest, and Plaintiff which provided that the Dissertation Committee would be comprised of two Co-Chairs, Dr. Tom D. Dillehay and Dr. 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/28 Demarest; two department members, Dr. John Janusek, Director of Graduate Studies, and Dr. William Fowler; and two outside readers. The agreement set out a procedure by which Plaintiff would submit her dissertation drafts to Dr. Demarest by overnight *6 express mail and Dr. Demarest would read the drafts and email his written comments to Dr. Dillehay within two weeks. The agreement provided in part: 6 Dr. Demarest is expected to provide only constructive criticism on the dissertation chapters. For obvious academic and intellectual reasons, he may disagree with Ms. Kovacevich's approach to and interpretation of the data, and, in turn, she may disagree with his suggestions and choose not to follow them. Dr. Dillehay will read the comments for content and tone and, if satisfied that they are professionally suitable, distribute them to Ms. Kovacevich and the other committee members. If Dr. Demarest's comments are negative beyond normal and justified scholarly criticism, Dr. Dillehay will return them to him for revision. Dr. Demarest's questions and comments on the candidate's answers to them during the oral defense of the dissertation also will be subjected to the same scrutiny for content and tone. Further, Dr. Demarest will not be able to solely veto the dissertation and the dissertation defense. (Docket Entry No. 100-1.) The agreement also provided that \"Dr. Demarest will not attend Ms. Kovacevich's oral defense of the dissertation. He is allowed to submit written questions, however; written answers will be given to him.\" (Docket Entry No. 100-1 at 2.) The agreement restricted Dr. Demarest from writing letters of recommendation for Plaintiff, from independently contacting possible employers of Plaintiff, and from commenting should he be contacted by a potential employer concerning Plaintiff's candidacy for an academic position. Likewise, Plaintiff was restricted from commenting if she was asked by a future employer why Dr. Demarest had not written on her behalf. The agreement contained other provisions concerning the timeline for publication of the dissertation, intellectual property issues, and consequences for breach of the agreement. The agreement was signed by Dr. 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/28 Demarest, Plaintiff, Dr. Dillehay and Dr. Timothy McNamara, Associate Provost. In the Spring of 2006, Plaintiff provided a draft of her thesis to Dr. Demarest for his review and comments. Over a period of several months in the late Spring and early Summer of 2006, Dr. Demarest provided to Plaintiff, through Associate Provost McNamara, very detailed comments on *7 her drafts and constructive criticism and suggestions for her to incorporate, including an update on archaeological findings at Cancuen since 2003. Dr. Demarest noted a number of problems with Plaintiff's conclusions, primarily resulting from her reliance on interpretations of the site that were then out-dated and no longer valid. Post-2004 field seasons and analysis contradicted some of Dr. Demarest's own previous interpretations and conclusions. Dr. Demarest's thesis comments cautioned Plaintiff about making certain conclusory statements called into question by subsequent discoveries and analyses, but even though Plaintiff requested any new evidence, Dr. Demarest did not provide her with the materials. Dr. Demarest pointed out to Plaintiff that conclusions made by all of the scientists working on the site, including many of his own conclusions, had changed since 2002-2003, and that many of their earlier theories and conclusions had been shown to be wrong. 7 Dr. Demarest specifically advised Plaintiff that her paper needed to be more \"modest\" in its assertions and clearer about the preliminary nature of all of the early findings, she should not attempt to interpret the whole political structure of Cancuen, and she should reject the notion that economy and power relations at Cancuen are comparable to other partially excavated sites in other areas from which much of the then-current \"fashionable\" theory had been derived. Dr. Demarest also suggested that Plaintiff's monograph should emphasize the presentation of the unique workshop evidence, especially the jade and obsidian materials and production at the site. He emphasized to Plaintiff that the ongoing research at Cancuen, around Cancuen, and in the areas from Cancuen to Coban in the south and from Cancuen north to Seibol was changing the thinking and analyses regarding the Cancuen site. Because of the new information and new and revised analyses of previously-developed information, Dr. Demarest recommended 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/28 that Plaintiff avoid specifics on certain aspects and acknowledge that she was basing her conclusions on a project that was ongoing. *8 8 While Plaintiff admits that Dr. Demarest made these written comments concerning her dissertation, she disputes that all of these comments or many other comments Dr. Demarest made in response to Plaintiff's dissertation drafts were supported by the archaeological evidence uncovered at Cancuen. She disputes that Dr. Demarest and his colleagues on the project were actually making efforts to issue corrections and changes to their own scholarship, and she points to evidence that the documents Dr. Demarest provided to the Guatemalan government to obtain necessary work permits also did not reflect the radical changes Dr. Demarest suggested were necessary when he commented on Plaintiff's dissertation. Moreover, although Dr. Demarest wrote to Plaintiff in November 2006 congratulating her on receiving her degree but expressing \"disappointment\" that he had not seen the final version of her thesis or signed off on it, Plaintiff contends that she sent Dr. Demarest an email link to the dissertation in August 2006 and states that he did sign off on the dissertation. Dr. Demarest made other assertions in the November 2006 letter about the content of Plaintiff's doctoral thesis, but Plaintiff disputes the accuracy of Dr. Demarest's remarks. Although Plaintiff admits that some of the statements in the letter were the same as the comments Dr. Demarest made concerning her thesis drafts, Plaintiff denies that Dr. Demarest made all of the comments earlier. Further, while Vanderbilt claims that Dr. Ron Bishop and Dr. Kazuo Aoyama informed Plaintiff that she relied on a faulty statistical analysis in her thesis and pointed out that some interpretations in the thesis did not correspond to the evidence and statistics she referenced, Plaintiff attests that Dr. Bishop told her he thought her dissertation was good, and Dr. Aoyama was generally very positive about the quality of the dissertation, even though Plaintiff and Dr. Aoyama disagree about how lithic patterns reflect economic patterns. (Kovacevich Aff. \u00b6\u00b6 17, 19.) *9 9 As mentioned previously, the parties settled Plaintiff's first lawsuit in January 2008. The settlement was memorialized in a confidential settlement agreement that contained many provisions aimed at resolving the complex dispute between the parties. The settlement agreement included a non- disparagement clause. While the Court recognizes the confidential nature of 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/28 the settlement agreement, the Court cannot discuss the pending issues without quoting the language of a portion of the agreement. Section 5 provided in pertinent part as follows: 5.1 Defendants and their representatives, including attorneys, shall not publicly criticize, denigrate or make any disparaging remarks concerning Plaintiff. As to Vanderbilt, this provision shall apply only to Demarest, current members of the faculty of the Department of Anthropology (so long as they remain employed by Vanderbilt) and persons having express knowledge of this Agreement. Any claim by Plaintiff of any violation of this provision by Demarest shall be directed only against Demarest and not against Vanderbilt unless the alleged remarks can be shown to have been made with Vanderbilt's advance knowledge of, and express consent to, or knowing ratification of, such remarks. . . . Any failure by Vanderbilt to disavow any remarks by Demarest in violation of this Section, after being requested by Plaintiff to do so, may constitute evidence of ratification. * * * 5.5 This Section 5 shall not restrict Plaintiff or Demarest from making reasonable, good faith, and professional academic critiques or criticisms of the other's research, interpretations or published work in the context of scientific and academic discourse and peer evaluation. Notwithstanding the forgoing, all critical comments relating to the character, nature or reputation of either party are strictly prohibited by this Section 5. 5.6 This non-disparagement provision is a material term of this Agreement. All parties agree that, should a court of competent jurisdiction find that any party has violated this non-disparagement provision, the violating party will pay to each non-violating party the sum of $2,500 for each such violation as liquidated damages, and not as a fine or penalty, together with the reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees actually incurred in collecting such sum. 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/28 The parties agree that this Agreement may be enforced in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. (Docket Entry No. 10 at 5-6.) *10 10 Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, in March 2008 Dr. Demarest presented an informal paper at the 2008 meeting of the Society of American Archaeology in Vancouver as part of a symposium on \"Ancient Mayan Economics of Power: Elite Production and Distribution.\" Dr. Demarest admitted he prepared the informal rough draft of the paper the night before the presentation, although it was purportedly written by Dr. Demarest and five other scientists who work on the Cancuen project. For similar presentations, Dr. Demarest usually prepares a very rough draft of a paper and then presents an impromptu discussion of some of the main points with a few Power Point slides. Since the proceedings or presentations are not published, a \"formal\" written version of the presentation is not made available for distribution, although speakers may distribute a \"reading version,\" without references or figures, for feedback from attendees. There are no \"standards\" for references or form in such unpublished distributed papers and they usually do not include primary data. Dr. Demarest and his coauthors created a \"draft\" copy, clearly designated in several places on the document as a \"very rough draft,\" and made the paper available to all presentation attendees at the room's entrance. Plaintiff and her husband, Michael Callaghan, a former graduate student in Anthropology at Vanderbilt, attended the Vancouver conference. Plaintiff presented her own paper and did not attend Dr. Demarest's presentation. Callaghan attended Dr. Demarest's presentation and took notes, but he did not obtain a copy of the rough draft paper because \"[o]ne of the last conversations had with him he told me that he was going to ruin my career, burn me, f____ me, and destroy me wasn't going to go near him and ask for a copy of his presentation.\" (Docket Entry No. 116-1, Callaghan Depo. at 20.) Plaintiff also testified that Dr. Demarest \"threatened me and others while we were on his project that if we went up against him, that he would ruin our careers and poison the ground that we walked on.\" (Docket Entry No. 85, Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 68.) Plaintiff also claimed *11 Dr. Demarest threatened that people's careers would be ruined for filing sexual 11 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/28 harassment charges against him. (Docket Entry No. 128-1, Kovacevich Depo. at 70.) According to Callaghan, during the March 2008 presentation, Dr. Demarest was \"very nervous, kind of agitated, even angry, shaking a bit, sweating.\" (Callaghan Depo. at 18.) Dr. Demarest's twenty-minute presentation was \"pretty much off the cuff,\" and the gist of it was that \"all of his and specifically Brigitte Kovacevich's interpretations of the [Cancuen] site were wrong and that he had new people redoing everything and that he now understood the site to be something that it wasn't.\" (Id.) According to Callaghan, Dr. Demarest did not offer evidence for any of the points that he made, and Dr. Demarest did not offer specific numbers, charts, graphs, or photos, although he did display slides of a number of maps. (Id. at 18-19.) Dr. Demarest claims his own contribution to the paper was a new synthetic interpretation regarding the role of noble merchants near the end of Classic Maya civilization, and this was the main point of the paper on which he sought feedback. (Demarest Decl. \u00b6 36, Ex. 6.) Plaintiff disputes this, claiming the conclusion was taken from prior publications authored by Callaghan. Dr. Demarest admitted he stated during his presentation that certain of Plaintiff's conclusions were wrong and that all the scientists were wrong (Docket Entry No. 129-1, Demarest Depo. at 77; Docket Entry No. 129-2, Demarest Depo. at 78), but he denied that he did not present new evidence found from 2004 to 2008 to support the conclusions made in his presentation about one of the most complicated sites in the Maya world. The parties dispute whether Dr. Demarest, assisted by others such as Marc Wolf, re-mapped the Cancuen site incorrectly in an effort to discredit the Plaintiff. Callaghan estimated fifty (50) people attended Dr. Demarest's presentation, including Callaghan's graduate advisor, Dr. Francisco Estrada-Belli from Vanderbilt, but he could not recall anyone else who attended. (Id. at 20.) Callaghan thought it unusual that Dr. Demarest said *12 something like: \"what say is right may be speculation, but what say is wrong is wrong.\" (Docket Entry No. 116-1, Callaghan Depo. at 38.) 12 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/28 Approximately two hours after Dr. Demarest's presentation, Callaghan told Plaintiff about the presentation and let her know that Dr. Demarest was talking about her research and saying it was all wrong. (Callaghan Depo. at 21-22.) According to Plaintiff, Callaghan told her Dr. Demarest was \"attacking [her] work,\" that other attendees also informed her about Dr. Demarest's presentation, and she felt his entire paper was actually about her. Plaintiff believed she had been singled out for criticism by Dr. Demarest that was more harsh and damaging than criticism he directed at others, and that Dr. Demarest also took credit for ideas that were actually Plaintiff's. (Docket Entry No. 85, Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 24, 34-36, 91, 101.) In March 2008 when this symposium took place, Plaintiff was actively on the job market searching for a full-time, tenure track academic position with a leading university. In Plaintiff's view, the job of a professor is to help a graduate student procure employment. Instead, Dr. Demarest attacked her, but he did not attack other graduate students. (Docket Entry No. 128-1, Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 90.) During the same symposium, Darrin Pratt, Director of the University of Colorado Press, was manning a booth not far from the booth Dr. Demarest set up for the Vanderbilt Press. During the two- to three-day event, Dr. Demarest spoke to Pratt approximately four times on different subjects. On one occasion, Dr. Demarest picked up a copy of a book the University of Colorado Press had published which included a chapter written by Plaintiff. Dr. Demarest told Pratt he did not believe Plaintiff had permission to use the illustrations that appeared in her chapter. (Docket Entry No. 1292, Demarest Depo. at 106.) When Pratt returned to his office after the symposium, he emailed one of the book's editors on April 2, 2008, pointing out the issue concerning the illustrations in Plaintiff's chapter and the *13 need for Plaintiff to obtain permission from the Guatemalan artist, Luis Fernando Luin, so there would be no copyright problems. In the email, Pratt stated, among other things: \"Arthur Demarest was particularly upset about those [images] by Luis Fernando Luin, claiming that Brigitte never got their permission, and that Luis typically charges a fee[,]\" and \"Arthur stopped by the booth about 4 times to harass me about this, so know it's on his mind.\" (Docket Entry No. 83, Ex. 1.) In his affidavit submitted in support of Vanderbilt's summary 13 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/28 judgment motion, however, Pratt attests that his use of the term \"harass\" in the email \"implies more than what actually happened. Dr. Demarest was not bothering me in any objectionable way, but was just raising what felt was a legitimate issue on more than one occasion.\" (Docket Entry No. 83, Pratt Decl. \u00b6 7.) The book editor contacted Plaintiff about the copyright matter. Plaintiff thought it suspicious that Dr. Demarest raised this claim in March 2008, shortly after her lawsuit against him was settled, when the book had been in print for a year and Dr. Demarest had not made any prior allegations that Plaintiff used illustrations without permission. (Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 66-67.) Plaintiff did not share the email she received from the book editor with Dr. McNamara or anyone else at Vanderbilt. (Id. at 92.) Plaintiff contends she was a close friend of Luin and she received his permission to use the illustrations prior to publication of the book. To resolve the issue, Plaintiff asked Luin to confirm that he had given prior permission to use the illustrations. Although at first Luin seemed cooperative, Plaintiff later received from Luin a series of emails with Microsoft Word documents attached to them in which Luin disagreed that he had given any such permission and demanded payment for use of the illustrations. Plaintiff questioned whether the emails were actually written by Luin or whether they were composed by Dr. Demarest based on the tone of the emails, their origination from an email address Plaintiff had never known Luin to use before, and her knowledge *14 that Luin feared Dr. Demarest. (Docket Entry No. 128-1, Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 56-58, 61-65.) 14 During this litigation, Plaintiff hired a computer forensics examiner, James R. Kempvanee of LogicForce Consulting, LLC, to examine the emails and attachments that Plaintiff received from Luin. Kempvanee determined that all three Microsoft Word documents attached to one email had been created on a computer where the preconfigured user name within the Microsoft Word program had been set to \"Arturo Demarest,\" and each of the documents was last modified and saved by the user \"afd sf\" just before the documents were sent to Plaintiff Microsoft Word document attached to another email was created on a computer where the preconfigured user name within the Microsoft Word program had been set to \"afd sf.\" The same 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/28 user who created the document was the last person to save the document approximately four minutes before it was sent to Plaintiff using the [email protected] email account from a Guatemalan address. During his deposition, Kempvanee conceded he had no personal knowledge of who actually had access to the computers at the time the emails were created and sent. (Docket Entry No. 114-1, Kempvanee Depo. at 21.) Dr. Demarest denied that he drafted the emails and documents. (Docket Entry No. 129-2, Demarest Depo. at 109.) Luin provided Vanderbilt with an affidavit in which he avers that he did not give Plaintiff permission to use his drawings in a non-project publication prior to her request for permission in April 2008. Luin also avers that he created the documents and emails sent to Plaintiff about the matter and he denies that Dr. Demarest created the documents and emails or instructed Luin to create them. (Docket Entry No. 82, Luin Aff.) Plaintiff asserts that in July 2008, during a presentation in Guatemala City as part of the Symposio de Investigaciones Arquelogicas en Guatemala, which she did not attend, Dr. Demarest continued his criticism of the Plaintiff's thesis Vanderbilt graduate student recorded the presentation at Plaintiff's request and provided a copy of the recording to Plaintiff. *15 (Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 39-40.) Dr. Demarest presented a paper at that event supposedly co-authored by nine different investigators, but Plaintiff claims there is no evidence as to the contributions, if any, of the other co- authors. Dr. Demarest spoke impromptu for approximately twenty-five minutes and made comments similar, though not identical, to those made during the March 2008 symposium. 15 Plaintiff denies that remapping of the Cancuen site by Marc Wolf and subsequent examination of her work by other scholars, such as Dr. Chloe Andrieu, a recent Ph.D. and lithics expert from France, undermined Plaintiff's scholarship as Dr. Demarest claimed. According to Plantiff, Dr. Andrieu did not obtain her Ph.D. until after 2007, and she did not gain access to Plaintiff's database until after March 2008. As of July 2, 2008, Dr. Andrieu had not analyzed Cancuen materials from 2004 to 2008. (Docket Entry No. 95.) Plaintiff further contends that it is rare in the field of archaeology that well-formulated initial hypotheses change dramatically. 2 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 14/28 She denies that Dr. Demarest and his colleagues on the Cancuen project were radically changing their positions as Dr. Demarest claimed. She also disputes Dr. Demarest's position that his comments at the March and July 2008 conferences constituted appropriate scholarly criticism of Plaintiff's dissertation. *16 3 16 2 To support her contention that Vanderbilt inappropriately relies on the unreliable, inconsistent, and fabricated maps of the Cancuen site done by Marc Wolf, Plaintiff produced an expert report of Francisco Estrada-Belli, Ph.D., which addresses differences in various maps of the Cancuen site. Vanderbilt filed a motion to strike the report of Dr. Estrada-Belli (Docket Entry No. 113) on the ground that Plaintiff did not disclose his name and report prior to the expert witness deadline on November 16, 2009. The Court agrees that Plaintiff did not timely disclose Dr. Estrada-Belli as an expert witness. Accordingly, the motion to strike will be granted and the Court has not considered Dr. Estrada-Belli's report in ruling on the summary judgment motion. 3 In this vein Plaintiff produced the expert report of John Monaghan, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Illinois, and former Vanderbilt professor. Dr. Monaghan examined the paper Dr. Demarest presented at the March 2008 symposium in Vancouver and opined that the criticism of Plaintiff's work did not meet accepted scholarly standards. Vanderbilt filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Monaghan under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and requested a hearing under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). (Docket Entry No. 109.) The Court will hear argument and any evidence the parties wish to present on this motion at the Final Pretrial Conference. Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Demarest's actions constitute unlawful retaliation for her sexual harassment complaints and prior lawsuit. She has no proof, however, that Dr. Demarest interfered with any specific academic position for which Plaintiff applied and was unsuccessful. (Docket Entry No. 85, Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 8-9.) Plaintiff and Dr. Demarest each submitted lengthy affidavits in connection with the cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docket Entry No. 89, Dr. Demarest Aff.; Docket Entry No. 107, Dr. Kovacevich Aff.) In addition, the 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 15/28 parties submitted excerpts from the depositions of Plaintiff and Dr. Demarest. (Docket Entry Nos. 85, 86, 128-1, 129-1, 129-2.) The Court observes that Dr. Demarest's affidavit embellishes extensively on his deposition testimony, but Plaintiff did not make a motion to exclude any portion of the affidavit. The testimony of these two individuals appears at times to be in broad disagreement as to the academic topics at issue, creating many factual disputes as to the available archaeological evidence from the Cancuen site and the proper interpretation of that evidence. In addition, Plaintiff supplies a 2008 evaluation of her dissertation by an outside reader, which appears to contradict assertions about the dissertation made by Dr. Demarest. (Docket Entry No. 101.) In Plaintiff's opinion, the settlement agreement executed to resolve her prior lawsuit required her to take any future action only against Dr. Demarest in the case of his disparagement of her. But she did not believe his comments at the conferences constituted disparagement. (Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 92.) She testified that, absent the settlement agreement, there would be nothing wrong with Dr. Demarest's presentations as long as he relied upon other people's work in good faith. *17 (Docket Entry No. 86, Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 215-216.) Plaintiff sued Vanderbilt in this action, rather than Dr. Demarest directly, because she believed Vanderbilt did not take any action to curtail the conduct of Dr. Demarest, and because Dr. Demarest tried to interfere with her ability to publish by attacking the quality of her dissertation. (Docket Entry No. 128-1, Kovacevich Depo. Vol at 92.) 17 Plaintiff filed a new charge with the on April 8, 2008, alleging retaliation by Vanderbilt under Title VII. Plaintiff's filing of an charge prompted Vanderbilt to file a Complaint in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, on May 5, 2008, seeking to enjoin Plaintiff from pursuing her charge against Vanderbilt and seeking damages from Plaintiff in light of the terms of the prior settlement agreement. The Chancery Court denied Vanderbilt's motion for a preliminary injunction. When Plaintiff filed this federal action alleging retaliation under Title VII, Title IX, and the THRA, (Docket Entry No. 1), Vanderbilt answered and filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff, which included claims for declaratory judgment, specific performance of the settlement agreement, and breach of 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 16/28 *18 contract. (Docket Entry No. 8.) Vanderbilt admitted in the answer that Dr. Demarest acted in the scope of his employment and that he acted as Vanderbilt's agent. (Id. \u00b6 8.) Plaintiff filed a Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 73) seeking summary judgment on paragraph 21 of her Complaint which alleged that Vanderbilt retaliated against her by filing the action in the Chancery Court. In paragraph 21, Plaintiff alleged: On or about May 5, 2008, defendant Vanderbilt in further retaliation for the plaintiff's exercise of her protected activity, namely the filing of the April, 2008 charge, filed a civil action against the plaintiff in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee attempting to enjoin plaintiff from pursuing her charge and causing plaintiff to incur attorneys fees and other injury in an effort to restrain plaintiff from pursuing her constitutional and statutory right to file and to pursue her charge with the EEOC. The Court denied defendant Vanderbilt's motion for an injunction. 18 In the Answer, Vanderbilt responded to paragraph 21 as follows: The Defendant admits that it filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee on May 5, 2008 seeking to enjoin the pursuit of the charge by the Plaintiff which was filed in direct violation of the terms and conditions of the confidential settlement agreement entered into between the Plaintiff, Dr. Demarest and the Defendant on January 3, 2008. The Defendant admits that the Court denied Vanderbilt's motion for a preliminary injunction. In support of her motion, Plaintiff produced certified copies of all pleadings filed in the Chancery Court action. Vanderbilt then filed its Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 76) seeking summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims under Title VII, Title IX, and the 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 17/28 party may obtain summary judgment if the evidence establishes there are not any genuine issues of material fact for trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Covington v. Knox County School Sys., 205 F.3d 912, 914 (6 Cir. 2000). The moving party bears the initial burden of satisfying the court that the standards of Rule 56 have been met. See Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236, 239 n. 4 (6 Cir. 1986). The ultimate question to be addressed is whether there exists any genuine issue of material fact that is disputed. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Covington, 205 F.3d at 914 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). If so, summary judgment is inappropriate. th th To defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary judgment will be entered if appropriate. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The nonmoving party's burden of providing specific facts demonstrating that there remains a genuine issue of material fact for trial is triggered once the moving party shows an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325 genuine issue exists \"if the *19 evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.\" Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all justifiable inferences in its favor. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 19 A. Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiff relies on v. Sundance Rehabilitation Corp., 466 F.3d 490, 498 (6 Cir. 2006), for the proposition that courts generally hold that prohibitions on filing charges with the are void and unenforceable as against public policy. She also cites v. Frank's Nursery and Crafts, th 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 18/28 Inc., 177 F.3d 448, 456 (6 Cir. 1999), for the rule that waiver of the right to file a charge with the is void as against public policy. th The settlement agreement in the 2007 case did not expressly preclude Plaintiff from filing a future charge. The settlement agreement also contained, however, a non-disparagement provision which specifically addressed public academic discourse of the parties. Vanderbilt and Dr. Demarest agreed that they and their representatives would not publicly criticize, denigrate or make any disparaging remarks concerning Plaintiff. The clause specifically stated: As to Vanderbilt, this provision shall apply only to Demarest, current members of the faculty of the Department of Anthropology (so long as they remain employed by Vanderbilt) and persons having express knowledge of this Agreement. Any claim by Plaintiff of any violation of this provision by Demarest shall be directed only against Demarest and not against Vanderbilt unless the alleged remarks can be shown to have been made with Vanderbilt's advance knowledge of, and express consent to, or knowing ratification of, such remarks. . . . Any failure by Vanderbilt to disavow any remarks by Demarest in violation of this Section, after being requested by Plaintiff to do so, may constitute evidence of ratification. (Docket Entry No. 10 at 5.) Section 5.5 expressly provided that \"Section 5 shall not restrict Plaintiff or Demarest from making reasonable, good faith, and professional academic critiques or criticisms *20 of the other's research, interpretations or published work in the context of scientific and academic discourse and peer evaluation. Notwithstanding the forgoing, all critical comments relating to the character, nature or reputation of either party are strictly prohibited by this Section 5.\" 20 The Court has now had the opportunity to review the pleadings Vanderbilt filed in the Chancery Court action. Vanderbilt alleged that Plaintiff's April 2008 charge contained some of the same allegations of conduct dating back to 2004 that were included in Plaintiff's first charge and in the first federal Complaint, both of which were expressly dismissed and released by Plaintiff in the settlement agreement. (Docket Entry No. 72-2, 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 19/28 Chancery Court Complaint \u00b6 8.) Vanderbilt also alleged that the allegations in the second charge fell expressly within the provisions of the non- disparagement provision contained in paragraph 5.1 of the settlement agreement. (Id. \u00b6 9.) Vanderbilt further alleged that under paragraph 5.1, any claim by Plaintiff that Dr. Demarest had publicly criticized, denigrated, or disparaged her was to be directed only against Dr. Demarest and not Vanderbilt, unless the alleged remarks could be shown to have been made with Vanderbilt's advance knowledge of, and express consent to, or knowing ratification of, the remarks. (Id.) Vanderbilt also alleged that section provided any failure by Vanderbilt to disavow any remarks made by Dr. Demarest in violation of the section, after being requested by Plaintiff to do so, may constitute evidence of ratification. (Id.) Vanderbilt alleged that it had not received any request from Plaintiff to disavow Dr. Demarest's remarks at the March 2008 academic conference or otherwise. (Id.) In the Chancery Court Complaint, Vanderbilt sought declaratory judgment of its rights under the settlement agreement, specific performance of the settlement agreement, and injunctive relief, and it also alleged breach of contract. Dr. Kovacevich answered and counterclaimed against Vanderbilt and filed a Third-Party Complaint against Dr. Demarest. (Docket Entry Nos. 72-3 at 1-11.) *21 Dr. Kovacevich also filed a Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings on the aspect of her Counterclaim that Vanderbilt breached the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement. (Docket Entry No. 72-3 at 18-20.) 21 The Chancery Court denied Vanderbilt's motion for an injunction because (1) Vanderbilt made no showing of any imminent risk of irreparable harm; (2) the relief would be largely mandatory rather than prohibitory; (3) Vanderbilt did not make a sufficient showing on the issue of likelihood of success on the merits; (4) the court was concerned about whether it should, as a matter of judicial policy and authority, intervene to interfere with an proceeding; and (5) the settlement agreement provided for liquidated damages and attorney's fees as a remedy for a breach of the non- disparagement clause. The Chancery Court also denied Dr. Kovacevich's motion for judgment on the pleadings because it was not clear that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law given that the disclosure at issue was 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 20/28 in a judicial proceeding involving a few, discrete provisions of the settlement agreement. (Docket Entry No. 72-3 at 41-43.) The Court concludes that the issue whether Vanderbilt filed the Chancery Court lawsuit as an act of retaliation against Dr. Kovacevich or as a legitimate means to invoke the provisions of the settlement agreement Dr. Kovacevich signed is a question of fact for a jury to determine. The jury will have to determine what Dr. Demarest actually said and did during the March 2008 Vancouver conference that prompted Plaintiff's April 2008 charge and then decide whether Dr. Demarest's conduct fell within the non- disparagement provision of the settlement agreement. If it did, a jury could reasonably find that Vanderbilt was justified in seeking to enforce the settlement agreement terms against Plaintiff. If it did not, a jury could reasonably find that Vanderbilt did not have a sufficient basis on which to file the Chancery Court lawsuit and that Vanderbilt retaliated *22 against the Plaintiff for filing the second charge. Because genuine issues of material fact exist, Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment will be denied. 22 B. Vanderbilt's Motion For Summary Judgment The parties agree that a retaliation claim may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and in this circumstantial evidence case, the burden-shifting paradigm of McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-805 (1973), and Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256-259 (1981), applies. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) Vanderbilt knew that she exercised her protected civil rights; (3) the Plaintiff was subjected to materially adverse action; and (4) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. Harris v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville and Davidson County, 594 F.3d 476, 485 (6 Cir. 2010) (Title case). Since courts generally look to Title as an analog for the legal standards to apply in Title discrimination and retaliation claims, the elements of a Title retaliation case are similar. Nelson v. Christian Bros. Univ., 226 Fed.Appx. 448, 454 (6 Cir. 2007); Arceneaux v. Vanderbilt Univ., 25 Fed. Appx. 345, 347 (6 Cir. 2001 claims are also analyzed under th th th 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 21/28 Title law. Madden v. Chattanooga City Wide Serv. Dept., 549 F.3d 666, 673 (6 Cir. 2008). th Vanderbilt first contends that Plaintiff cannot proceed under Title or the because her present retaliation claims are unrelated to her employment by Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt asserts that Plaintiff cannot invoke the protections of Title because she was primarily a graduate student at Vanderbilt and, although she performed some teaching and research activities as a or Research Assistant, the dominant purpose of her relationship with Vanderbilt was educational. Her current complaints, moreover, relate solely to her academic activities as a graduate student and conduct that occurred long after she received her Ph.D. degree. *23 23 Vanderbilt discusses cases which address whether a graduate student assistant is an \"employee\" for purposes of Title VII. The Sixth Circuit apparently has not ruled on this topic. Some courts have considered the dual role of graduate students as both university students and employees hired for teaching and research assistantships and concluded that Title applies to conduct that occurs while the plaintiff is in employment status, but not in student status. See e.g., Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 507 F.3d 1132, 1137-1138 (8 Cir. 2007) (holding former graduate student and teaching assistant could not proceed under Title because he made complaints about the university as a university, not as his employer); Seaton v. University of Pennsylvania, 2001 1526282 *8 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2001) (holding graduate student could not proceed under Title because complaint did not suggest student was retaliated against as employee, but as student); Bucklen v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 166 F.Supp.2d 721, 725-726 (N.D. N.Y. 2001) (same); Stilley v. University of Pittsburgh, 968 F.Supp. 252, 261 (W.D. Pa. 1996) (holding all issues pertaining to completion of plaintiff's dissertation related to plaintiff's role as student and not as employee); Pollack v. Rice Univ., 1982 296 * (S.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 1982) (holding plaintiff could not proceed under Title for religious discrimination in admission to scholastic program which entailed performance of services for remuneration but where such services were completely incidental to scholastic program). Based on the analyses of these cases, Vanderbilt argues that Plaintiff's present dispute with Dr. Demarest concerns good faith, scholarly disagreement on an academic subject, Plaintiff admitted Dr. Demarest did th 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 22/28 not take any specific action to interfere with Plaintiff's attempts to locate full-time, tenure-track academic employment, and thus, Plaintiff cannot prove a materially adverse employment action occurred. This argument might have been pertinent had it been raised in the prior 2007 action Plaintiff filed as a Vanderbilt graduate student and graduate assistant in which she alleged sex discrimination, *24 sexual harassment, and retaliation. In the Complaint filed in the prior case, Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt Univ. et al., No. 3:07-0828, Plaintiff alleged that illegal discrimination and retaliation took place during her graduate education and her graduate employment at Vanderbilt. (No. 3:07-0828, Docket Entry No. 1, Complaint \u00b6\u00b6 9-16.) Whether Plaintiff was entitled to proceed under Title and the as a graduate student and/or as a Vanderbilt employee was not decided in the prior case because the parties reached a settlement as memorialized in their written agreement. This case focuses on the retaliation Plaintiff alleges she experienced after she engaged in protected Title activity in the prior case and reached a settlement agreement in the federal lawsuit. She alleges that, despite the terms of the settlement agreement and the requirements of federal and state laws, Dr. Demarest has taken concerted action to discredit her and sabotage her career in retaliation for her protected activity. 24 In Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006), the Supreme Court explained that \"the antiretaliation provision [of Title VII] does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace.\" The Supreme Court noted that an \"employer can effectively retaliate against an employee by taking actions not directly related to his employment or by causing him harm outside the workplace.\" Id. at 63. If all actions and harms outside the workplace were eliminated, the Supreme Court reasoned, the antiretaliation statute's objective would not be achieved. Id. In Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 346 (1997), the Supreme Court held that former employees may pursue Title claims for retaliation; otherwise the effectiveness of Title would be undermined \"by allowing the threat of postemployment retaliation to deter victims of discrimination from complaining to the EEOC,\" and there would be a \"perverse incentive 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 23/28 for employers to fire employees who might bring Title claims.\" Similarly, Title is broadly *25 worded such that \"[w]here the retaliation occurs because the complainant speaks out about sex discrimination, the `on the basis of sex' requirement is satisfied.\" Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 179 (2005). Congress enacted Title to prevent the use of federal dollars to support discriminatory practices and to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices. Id. \"Reporting incidents of discrimination is integral to Title enforcement and would be discouraged if retaliation against those who report went unpunished.\" Id. Therefore, Plaintiff's Title VII, THRA, and Title retaliation claims do not fail simply because Plaintiff had finished her studies at Vanderbilt's graduate school and had completed her graduate student employment at the time of Dr. Demarest's conduct in March 2008 and July 2008. 25 In a case where a female former post-doctoral research assistant filed suit against a professor for defamation under state law and for gender discrimination under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983, the district court found that seven statements in letters written by the professor were defamatory. Woodruff v. Ohman, 166 Fed. Appx. 212, 216 (6 Cir. 2006). For example, the professor stated that \"`[f]or the last 2 and one-half years she has spent on this project, she has not been able to accumulate enough data for a single paper, and is still far from it.'\" Id. The Sixth Circuit said, \"It is reasonable to interpret this statement as defamatory, because, as the district court stated, `[i]t directly injures Plaintiff in her profession, by implying that she is unable to perform the scientific work at issue and that she is not a competent scientist.'\" Id. In affirming on the defamation claims, the Sixth Circuit noted that \"[a]n individual with Woodruff's level of education and achievement would likely be viewed with contempt if she was not able to perform the basic duties of her job, and this is thus clearly related to her professional reputation.\" Id. th While the Court recognizes that this is not a defamation case against Dr. Demarest, the injury to the plaintiff described inWoodruff is similar to the injury Plaintiff alleges in this retaliation *26 lawsuit. To disallow this suit and any potential remedy at the summary judgment stage on the ground that Plaintiff had received her Ph.D. degree and was no longer a Vanderbilt graduate student assistant in 2008 would undermine the objectives of the 26 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 24/28 antiretaliation statutes. See Robinson, 519 U.S. at 346; Jackson, 544 U.S. at 179. Vanderbilt next contends that Plaintiff cannot proceed on her claims because she cannot meet any of the four elements of her prima facie case. Vanderbilt especially notes that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence of a materially adverse employment action taken against her, nor has she shown a causal connection between protected activity and the alleged adverse employment action. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence for summary judgment purposes to show that she engaged in protected activity as a graduate student and as a graduate student assistant and that Vanderbilt knew she had engaged in such protected activity. The first two elements of the prima facie case are met. As just explained, reviewing White, Robinson, and Jackson, retaliation claims need not be restricted to materially adverse employment actions. Plaintiff may litigate alleged retaliatory conduct that does not relate to employment or which occurred outside the Vanderbilt graduate student assistant workplace. An action is materially adverse if it \"could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.\" White, 548 U.S. at 57. There are numerous genuine issues of material fact in this record as to whether Dr. Demarest, acting as an agent of Vanderbilt, and whether Vanderbilt itself engaged in conduct that could well dissuade a reasonable Vanderbilt graduate student, TA, or research assistant from making or supporting a charge of discrimination, such that the conduct would qualify as material adverse action under White. There is also abundant evidence of a causal connection between Plaintiff's prior Title protected activity, particularly the filing of her first federal lawsuit in August 2007, and Dr. *27 Demarest's conduct in March 2008, shortly after the parties reached a settlement agreement in the prior lawsuit in early January 2008. Dr. Demarest's conduct continued in July 2008 after Plaintiff filed her second charge in April 2008. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has established her prima facie case of retaliation under the applicable statutes. 27 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 25/28 The burden of production thus shifts to Vanderbilt to enunciate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its own actions and those of Dr. Demarest. Vanderbilt produces extensive evidence supporting its claim that Dr. Demarest acted out of legitimate and good faith scholarly disagreement with Plaintiff and that Vanderbilt filed the Chancery Court lawsuit in a good faith effort to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The burden thus shifts back to Plaintiff to produce evidence that Vanderbilt's given reasons are a pretext for retaliation.Harris, 594 F.3d at 486 (plaintiff may establish pretext by showing proffered reasons had no basis in fact, did not actually motivate the action, or were insufficient to motivate the action). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has produced substantial evidence in addition to her prima facie case to show for summary judgment purposes that a reasonable jury could find in her favor on the ultimate issue of retaliation. Even without considering the expert report of Dr. Monaghan, which is still at issue, Plaintiff produced evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact about whether Dr. Demarest's public statements and actions at the March 2008 conference and his statements at the July 2008 conference constituted scholarly criticism of her work or amounted to an attempt to sabotage her career. Dr. Demarest admitted he raised a concern to the University of Colorado Press about whether Plaintiff committed copyright violations, and Plaintiff presented computer forensics evidence from which a jury could circumstantially infer that Dr. Demarest played a role in drafting the email communications sent from Luin to Plaintiff about the copyright issue. Although Dr. Demarest and Luin deny Plaintiff's version as to how these email *28 communications and documents were created, such denials simply generate another material dispute of fact for the jury to decide. Finally, while Vanderbilt contends the filing of the state lawsuit was a legitimate attempt to enforce a binding settlement agreement, material issues of fact exist as to what statements Dr. Demarest made during his presentations at the March and July 2008 conferences, whether Dr. Demarest's statements and actions fell within the non-disparagement provision of the settlement agreement, and whether Vanderbilt acted from a proper or improper motive when it filed the state court lawsuit and sought to enjoin consideration of Plaintiff's second charge. 28 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 26/28 For all of the reasons stated, Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 73) will be denied; Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 76) will be denied; Defendant's Motion To Strike Report Of Dr. Estrada-Belli (Docket Entry No. 113) will be granted; Plaintiff's Motion To Strike Defendant's Response To Plaintiff's Statement Of Material Facts Which Preclude Grant Of Summary Judgment, D.E. 126 (Docket Entry No. 135) will be denied; and the Motion On Behalf Of The Defendant, Vanderbilt University To Exclude The Testimony Of Plaintiff's Expert Witness, John Monaghan, PhD. (Docket Entry No. 109), will be heard at the Final Pretrial Conference. An appropriate Order will be entered. *1 1 About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 27/28 Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:22 Kovacevich v. Vanderbilt University, No. 3:09-0068 | Casetext Search + Citator 28/28", "7876_102.pdf": "Courts After Settling Suit Years Before, Former Student Claims Vanderbilt Professor Continued Harassment Brigette Kovacevich says the school knew about and supports a decade-long vendetta against her by noted anthropologist By Connor Daryani August 8, 2024 2/16/25, 10:22 Vanderbilt Harassment Lawsuit: Allegations of Assault, Retaliation - Nashville Banner 1/5 statue of Cornelius Vanderbilt on the campus of Vanderbilt University. Credit: Martin B. Cherry / Nashville Banner former graduate student is suing Vanderbilt University for allegedly \u201cpermitting, encouraging and financially supporting\u201d a prestigious anthropologist at the school as he has harassed and retaliated against students who have complained about him allegedly sexually harassing and discriminating against them. The 13-page complaint alleges that in 2004, complainant Brigette Kovacevich and other graduate students at an archeological project in Guatemala came forward with allegations of gender discrimination and sexual harassment against Arthur Demarest, an award-winning anthropologist at Vanderbilt who specializes in studying Mayan civilization. The students submitted a complaint to Vanderbilt\u2019s Opportunity Development Center, which, according to Kovacevich\u2019s complaint, found the allegations to be true. But the complaint goes on to say that the disciplinary and corrective actions imposed upon Demarest by the university were \u201climited\u201d and that in the years since, he has proceeded to follow Kovacevich around the country, discrediting her work. 2/16/25, 10:22 Vanderbilt Harassment Lawsuit: Allegations of Assault, Retaliation - Nashville Banner 2/5 \u201cPlaintiff Dr. Kovacevich immediately went from being the best student of Demarest to the worst the moment Demarest learned that she was the leader of a group of graduate students who complained about his outrageous sexual conduct, which included asking his graduate students to procure Guatemalan women for him to sleep with,\u201d reads the complaint. \u201cDemarest had threatened to \u2018poison the ground\u2019 they walked on and \u2018ruin their careers\u2019 if the graduate students did not assist him in these efforts, a threat that he continues to carry out.\u201d Among the allegations made against Demarest in 2004 are claims that he punched Kovacevich and called her an \u201casshole bitch,\u201d and \u201cmade repeated and sexually offensive and derogatory comments to plaintiff about women, including but not limited to, \u2018women are not good for anything but sex,\u2019 speaking about the \u2018joys of prostitution,\u2019 telling plaintiff he was \u2018hung like a horse,\u2019 and commenting that \u2018women are only valuable as receptacles for male semen.\u2019\u201d \u201cMany of the allegations in the most recent complaint were first raised by Ms. Kovacevich in or around 2004 and have been adjudicated numerous times, in various forums, over the past 18 years,\u201d Vanderbilt University said, in part, in a statement provided to the Banner (see the full statement below). \u201cVanderbilt University is unaware of any viable basis for liability in the matter and will defend itself accordingly.\u201d Kovacevich\u2019s attorney referred the Banner to the complaint. In 2007, Kovacevich filed suit in federal court against both Demarest and Vanderbilt over claims of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation. That lawsuit was confidentially settled outside of court and dismissed with prejudice. But that was far from the end. Kovacevich\u2019s complaint alleges that following the settlement, Demarest almost immediately commenced his retaliatory actions against her. \u201cFrom 2008 to at least 2022, defendant Vanderbilt through its agent Demarest has contacted other scholars in the field of Mayan archeology in an effort to denigrate the scholarly research of Dr. Kovacevich for the purpose of interfering with her academic career, promotions, salary and reputation,\u201d reads the complaint. In 2010, Kovacevich presented a paper at a Harvard University symposium in Washington, D.C. Her complaint alleges that Demarest attended that conference with Vanderbilt\u2019s \u201capproval and support\u201d and had to be restrained by another Vanderbilt faculty member from disrupting Kovacevich\u2019s presentation. The complaint goes on to allege multiple instances over the past decade of Demarest taking actions against Kovacevich in efforts to sabotage her work, actions that allegedly got so bad that \u201cfrom 2017 through 2022, 2/16/25, 10:22 Vanderbilt Harassment Lawsuit: Allegations of Assault, Retaliation - Nashville Banner 3/5 plaintiff Dr. Kovacevich did not attend the annual meetings of the Society of American Archeology because of the intimidation and prior physical assault by Demarest.\u201d Kovacevich\u2019s newly filed suit against Vanderbilt is not the only ongoing litigation over this situation. In August 2023, Demarest filed a complaint against Kovacevich in Davidson County Chancery Court, claiming that she had breached the 2008 confidentiality agreement by complaining to archeological organizations about Demarest\u2019s behavior despite him \u201cmerely attending professional events and/or presenting a brief academic talk.\u201d \u201cDr. Demarest is a respected archeologist,\u201d said Larry Crain, Demarest\u2019s attorney. \u201cThis academic disagreement between him and Dr Kovacevic \u2014 which apparently lies at the heart of this case \u2014 we feel like has long since been resolved, and it is Dr. Kovacevic who continues to kick this can down the road. We think it needs to stop.\u201d Kovacevich filed a counterclaim in that lawsuit, making similar allegations to those made in her complaint against Vanderbilt. Demarest denies the allegations in the ongoing suit. Kovacevich is scheduled for a deposition in that case on Oct. 11. This is not the first time Vanderbilt has been in court over allegations involving Demarest. Kovacevich\u2019s lawsuit lists another graduate student, Mary Pye, and colleagues Steve Houston, Laura Junker, Arthur Joyce, John Monaghan and Francisco Estrada-Belli as others who were retaliated against by Demarest and Vanderbilt for \u201cengaging in protected activity.\u201d At least one of those situations made it to court. Laura Junker filed suit against Vanderbilt in 1997, claiming gender discrimination. That suit was settled in 2001 and was sealed. Junker, Monaghan, Joyce, Houston and Estrada-Belli, notable anthropologists in the field of Mayan archeology, all moved on from Vanderbilt. Demarest is currently the Director of the Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology and Development and holds the endowed position of Ingram Chair of Anthropology at the school. 2/16/25, 10:22 Vanderbilt Harassment Lawsuit: Allegations of Assault, Retaliation - Nashville Banner 4/5 \u00a9 2025 Nashville Banner Powered by Newspack Statement from Vanderbilt: Vanderbilt University became aware of a lawsuit initiated by Arthur Demarest against Brigitte Kovacevich in August 2023. Mr. Demarest filed the lawsuit in his personal capacity. Vanderbilt University is not a party to that lawsuit nor had any knowledge of the matter prior to its filing. The matter is still pending in the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Vanderbilt University does not comment on the personal matters of its employees. Ms. Kovacevich graduated from Vanderbilt University in 2006 \u2013 more than 18 years ago. Many of the allegations in the most recent complaint were first raised by Ms. Kovacevich in or around 2004 and have been adjudicated numerous times, in various forums, over the past 18 years. Vanderbilt University is unaware of any viable basis for liability in the matter and will defend itself accordingly. All members of our community are strongly encouraged to report sexual misconduct to our Title office so we can take swift and appropriate action consistent with our policies. When we receive a report of misconduct, we fully investigate it using our robust processes designed to protect the well-being and safety of our community members and respect the rights of everyone involved. We are committed to providing a safe and welcoming learning and working environment. 2/16/25, 10:22 Vanderbilt Harassment Lawsuit: Allegations of Assault, Retaliation - Nashville Banner 5/5", "7876_103.pdf": "\uf007Michael Balter \uf01712/14/2018 04:00:00 Home #STEMToo Rogue's Gallery of sexual harassers, predators, and bullies in the sciences [Updated November 2024] Since fall 2015, in collaboration with victims and survivors who have served as primary sources for my stories have had the privilege of publicly exposing the following men and women accused of sexual assault, harassment, or bullying. This list does not include a few individuals that have named on social media, but all allegations make publicly always based on multiple and credible sources including victims and survivors. The following links refer to my first public mentions of these individuals. While started off investigating sexual misconduct for Science and The Verge eventually moved most of my #MeToo reporting to my blog. In a September 2019 article for the Columbia Journalism Review explain that decision and the criticisms of media coverage of misconduct that led me to go that route. Brian Richmond, formerly of American Museum of Natural History. Richmond was accused of sexual assault by a colleague he supervised, but the museum did little until Science began an investigation. He was eventually forced to resign. Miguel Pinto, currently Instituto de Ciencias Biol\u00f3gicas, Escuela Polit\u00e9cnica Nacional, Ecuador. Pinto was eventually banned from the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History after he sexually assaulted a student there. Robert Baker, Texas Tech, emeritus. Baker had a long history of sexual harassment of students which was only publicly exposed upon his retirement. William Hylander, formerly emeritus, Duke University. Hylander is another anthropologist with a long history of sexual harassment, about which nothing was done until he was already emeritus Title investigation ended with him being stripped of his emeritus status at Duke. Ron Clarke, University of the Witwatersrand. Clarke was given a zero tolerance warning by Wits after evidence surfaced that he had sexually harassed graduate students. Steven Churchill, Duke University. Churchill was forced to step down as anthropology department chair at Duke after at least one inappropriate relationship with a student. Rob Blumenschine, Rutgers University. He was given a zero tolerance warning by Wits, with which he was also affiliated, in the same procedure that looked at Ron Clarke's behavior (see above #STEMToo Rogue's Gallery of sexual harassers, predators, and bullies in the sciences [Updated November 2024] \uf099 \uf09a \uf0e1 Social Media The truth at last, or at le some of it, about Peter Rathjen, the of Adelaid the of Melbourne, the of Tasmania, etc. [Updat Sept 3, 2020: University Melbourne \"leader\" final speaks] Popular Posts StatCounter Search Search this site My book about Neolithic Catalhoyuk in Turkey and the origins of civilization, th paperback edition. For more informatio about it, please visit The Goddess and the Bull The Goddess and the Bull \"Lying is done with words and also with silence.\" --Adrienne Rich Quotes of the Moment 2/16/25, 10:22 #STEMToo Rogue's Gallery of sexual harassers, predators, and bullies in the sciences [Updated November 2024] 1/6 Nick Longrich, University of Bath. Longrich was removed from supervising graduate students after being found guilty of bullying students at Bath. He lost a large Leverhulme Trust grant as a result. Update April 25: Longrich appears to have been \"rehabilitated,\" and is often featured as a commenter or source in media stories about paleontology and related subjects. David Lordkipanidze, Georgia National Museum. Lordkipanidze, according to a number of women who talked to me about their experiences with him, committed multiple sexual assaults on women and harassed many more. Amazingly, despite the weight of evidence against him, the human evolution institute in Tarragona, Spain has now promoted to president of its Scientific Advisory Board. This is unlikely to go unchallenged. Rod Scott, University of Bath. Scott had a long history of sexual harassment of students at Bath. Scott took his own life in December 2018, while being investigated for this behavior. Stephanie Diezmann, formerly University of Bath, now University of Bristol. Diezmann bullied multiple students although she was let off the hook after an investigation by Bath. Luiz Loures, formerly of UNAIDS. Loures allegedly sexually assaulted his colleague Martina Brostrom during a meeting in Thailand. An internal investigation let him off the hook, but an external investigation found that senior leaders created a culture of harassment and abuse of power at the agency. Update April 2022: In what was clearly a retaliatory move fired Martina Brostrom based on questionable allegations against her. Jean-Jacques Hublin, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig. Hublin was accused by a student he had an affair with of sexual misconduct and misleading her about his marital status. Other former students have accused him of harassment, and he also allegedly fired a postdoc in his lab when he began dating Hublin's secretary (of whom he was reportedly very fond.) More recently, Tanya Smith, a highly respected biological anthropologist now at the University of Griffith in Australia, has published her story about how Hublin tried to wreck her career over many years because she did not toe the line about his insistence that no one could ever be independent of him. Update April 2022: Hublin has retired from the Leipzig institute and is now a member of the College de France. He reportedly lives in Paris. David Yesner, University of Alaska, Anchorage did not break the initial story on this case, but followed it for months and am doing followup. Yesner became a major flash point when he showed up unexpected at the meetings in Albuquerque.) Update April 2022: Some archaeologists continue to either spread or believe lies about what happened at the meeting in 2019. Fethi Ahmed, University of the Witwatersrand. Ahmed was dismissed as head of the Wits School of Geography, Archaeology, and Environmental Sciences after being found guilty of gender-based bullying of seven complainants. His dismissal was upheld on appeal. Deanna Grimstead, Ohio State University. Found guilty by an investigation of sexual harassment of a student in 2015, no apparent action taken, still employed and teaching. Found guilty again last year, in a second Title investigation. Finally forced to resign, effective Jan 1, 2020. Randall White, New York University. Suspended from for a year in the 1990s for a long history of sexual harassment, the whole episode covered up by the university, but not forgotten by those who suffered have called upon White to come clean about what he did and the effect it had on young researchers as he retires in August. Update April 2022: White was forced into early retirement from NYU, behind the scenes, and now lives in France. Kevin Folta, University of Florida horticulture department, and leading biotech advocate. Although Folta is best known for extensive conflicts of interest in his self-proclaimed role as a \"science communicator,\" there are also multiple witnesses to his having abused his ex-wife while they were married. He was forced to step down as chair of the department in the wake of those revelations. Michael Westaway, University of Queensland in Australia. Bullying, harassment, unethical conduct. Alan Cooper, ancient DNA, University of Adelaide. Bullying, harassment, unethical behavior. The university launched a \"culture check\" as a result of publicity about the case and victims coming forward; that inquiry \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Michael Balter View my complete profile About Me Enter your email address: Subscribe Delivered by FeedBurner Subscribe via email 2/16/25, 10:22 #STEMToo Rogue's Gallery of sexual harassers, predators, and bullies in the sciences [Updated November 2024] 2/6 led to Cooper's suspension as director of the lab pending disciplinary action. Update Dec 20, 2019: Cooper has been fired. Nevertheless he continues to publish from time to time in association with other Australian institutions who are willing to overlook his history. Charles Esdaile, University of Liverpool, Department of History. Sexual predation. James Doughty, University of Bath good friend and enabler of the late of Bath researcher and sexual predator Rod Scott (see above.) Harassment and sleeping with students. Faye McCallum, Head of School of Education, University of Adelaide. Multiple complaints of bullying of colleagues, harassment, favoritism, preferential treatment, and other abusive and unprofessional behavior university inquiry (\"culture check\") heard the evidence but university officials have done nothing so far. Filipe Castro, anthropology, Texas AM. Severe sexism and sexual harassment, unethical behavior. Fired, Jan 2021. Sharon Gursky, anthropology, Texas AM. Bullying, unethical behavior including stealing student research ideas. Bruce Dickson, anthropology, Texas AM, emeritus. Sexual harassment. Wayne Smith, anthropology, Texas AM, nautical archaeology. Sexual harassment. Darryl de Ruiter, department chair, anthropology, TAMU. Sexual harassment and bullying, Title IX. Update April 2022: There are some indications that de Ruiter has now tried to take leadership against sexual harassment and in creating a safe atmosphere for students, but the jury is out on that. Michael Alvard, anthropology, Texas AM. Ethical issues with requiring students to participate in a study involuntarily, bullying and threatening students who expressed concerns about it. Reprimanded, Jan 2021. Richard Martin, cultural anthropologist, University of Queensland. Long history of sexual harassment, of which the university is well aware. More to come. Danielle Kurin and Enmanuel Gomez Choque, University of California, Santa Barbara. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and retaliation against students who reported it. An updated report on later events can be found at this link. Kurin has now sued me for defamation. GoFundMe link with updates here. Update July 2021: The lawsuit is now settled with an agreement between the parties. Update Jan 2022: Kurin has resigned her tenured position at under a cloud of suspicion that she misled the mother of a missing teenager into thinking she had found his remains. The investigation of the case of the missing teen, Jack Cantin, is approaching a full year and is not yet resolved. Arthur Demarest, MesoAmerica expert, Vanderbilt University. Sexual harassment, attempts at retaliation. More to come. Alan Lee, graduate student in the University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropology department. Sexual predation, threats against those he suspects of outing him. Ran Boytner, Executive Director of the Institute for Field Research. Sexual harassment, bullying, racism, sexism, and enabling of sexual assault at one of the archaeology field schools he directs. Update June 2020: Boytner has been fired as executive director by its governing board. Update April 2022: Boytner is now running, behind the scenes, the Center for Field Studies, where a number of leading scholars have either been hoodwinked or become complicit with an abuser. Peter Rathjen, most recently Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Adelaide in Australia. Sexual predation over many years, protecting a pedophile. Forced to step down after a major corruption investigation that has, as they say, rocked Australia. 2/16/25, 10:22 #STEMToo Rogue's Gallery of sexual harassers, predators, and bullies in the sciences [Updated November 2024] 3/6 Pier Paolo Pandolfi, formerly cancer researcher at Harvard Medical School's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, forced to resign for allegations of sexual harassment; just picked up by the Desert Research Institute in Nevada (did they know?) Update June 27, 2020: Corriere della Sera confirms the story. Sam Gue, formerly with University of Adelaide dental school and Women's and Children's Hospital in Adelaide; forced to resign for a years-long history of sexual harassment and bullying. More to come soon. Luis Jaime Castillo Butters, an Andean archaeologist at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, former Peruvian culture minister, accused of bullying, sexual harassment, sleeping with students. Castillo's activities have come to light as a result of an investigation by The Harvard Crimson into misconduct by a close collaborator of his, Harvard anthropologist Gary Urton. The survivors of Castillo's abuse have issued a powerful statement about their experiences. Update Feb 27, 2021 special sexual harassment commission appointed by found strong evidence that Castillo had indeed committed sexual harassment, but was unable to recommend discipline due to technical issues. Update Oct 13, 2021: Castillo\u2019s membership in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has been rescinded after a misconduct investigation. Update April 2022: Castillo has sued one of the truth-tellers for defamation. He wants to put her in jail. Geoffrey Braswell San Diego anthropologist. Aggravated sexual harassment. Developing story, but when three survivors come to me independently to tell me their stories, it's time to call an abuser out. Necmi Karul, head of the prehistory department at Istanbul University, and director of important excavations in Turkey including early Neolithic Gobekli Tebe. Sexual harassment, charges filed in July 2020. Update July 16, 2020: The allegations have now broken into the Turkish press. Update July 31: My post on the accusations including a detailed letter from one of the victims translated into English. Mark Siddall, former curator at the American Museum of Natural History. The museum did the investigation, although it took them years of complaints to get around to it was tipped off some months ago and kept updating the story as it went along. Now he is gone. Aaron van der Reest. Former student of famed dinosaur maven Philip Currie at University of Alberta, now at University of Saskatchewan. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, passed from one institution to another. Brian Pratt and Bill Patterson of the University of Saskatchewan Geological Sciences department. Details to come. Leonardo Avilla, paleontologist at the Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Numerous credible reports of sexual harassment and degradation of students. Update Dec 13 has suspended Avilla pending an investigation, after accusers and allies appeared on the Brazilian program \u201cFantastico\u201d Update Oct 5, 2023: After a two-year investigation has dismissed Avilla for misconduct. Walter Jetz, ecologist and evolutionary biologist at Yale University. Bullying, data stealing, toxic lab climate. Adrien Finzi, biologist forced to resign from Boston University due to years of abusive and bullying behavior. Max Allen, carnivore ecologist at University of Illinois, subject of at least two Title complaints for sexual harassment. Akito Kawahara, entomologist at the University of Florida and Florida Museum. Toxic lab. 2/16/25, 10:22 #STEMToo Rogue's Gallery of sexual harassers, predators, and bullies in the sciences [Updated November 2024] 4/6 4 Comments Anonymous said was wondering why one of your entries here doesn't have a hyperlinked story or post from your blog? Is it forthcoming? July 20, 2020 at 6:08 Anonymous said\u2026 great post August 9, 2021 at 2:50 Anonymous said\u2026 Every now and again pass by this entry with great sadness, wishing my professor\u2019s name was on this list for all to see. He was a serial abuser and Title absolutely failed me, and others, in our complaints. It destroyed my graduate career am now in student debt and mourn the loss of my education and the financial burden placed upon me. We pay to get an education, not to be accosted. I\u2019m so angry that other young women will have to face a man who, while no longer employed there due to my last fighting effort to be heard, is still actively employed and doing research with female faculty. Speaking out felt like accomplished nothing other than getting a mark for \u201cbeing difficult\u201d. It shouldn\u2019t be this hard in any discipline BuzzFeed's win in Steele dossier defamation case victory for freedom of the press and hope, a rebuke to gatekeeping in journalism Letter to an apparently unreformed harasser on rejoining the scientific community Posted by Michael Balter have been a working journalist for more than 40 years, beginning in Los Angeles as an investigative reporter and then in Paris as a travel, food, and science writer. For more than 20 years have covered anthropology and archaeology writer for Science, Audubon, Scientific American, SAPIENS, and other publications have also covered sexual misconduct for The Verge, Scientific American, and others write about mental health, especially schizophrenia; and engage in occasional media criticism returned to the in October 2017 after 30 years in Paris, and now live in the New York City area, where currently teach journalism at City College of New York previously taught journalism at Boston University and New York University.) For more about me and what do, copies of my articles, information about my book, and other goodies, please visit You may like these posts Peruvian archaeologist and former culture minister Castillo, ejected from U.S. National Academy of Sciences for sexual harassment, sues Academy and its president for millions of dollars [Updated June 4, 2023: Judge grants defendants's motion for dismissal] Bones claimed by disgraced Santa Barbara anthropologist Danielle Kurin to be those of a missing teenager turn out to be not human, but animal, most likely from a cow. Was a fraud perpetrated on a grieving mother and a traumatized community? [Updated Sept 22, 2022 real forensic anthropologist weighs in] Why did a leading #MeToo reporter subpoena a leading #MeToo advocate? [Updated June 22] Post a Comment 2/16/25, 10:22 #STEMToo Rogue's Gallery of sexual harassers, predators, and bullies in the sciences [Updated November 2024] 5/6 Copyright \u00a9 2025 Balter's Blog April 14, 2024 at 2:30 Michael Balter said\u2026 To the last commenter: Please feel free to get in touch with me privately. April 14, 2024 at 5:48 Post a Comment 2/16/25, 10:22 #STEMToo Rogue's Gallery of sexual harassers, predators, and bullies in the sciences [Updated November 2024] 6/6", "7876_104.pdf": "54b9-a390-e47ece63cc91.html sued again over acts of famed Maya expert 22, 2009 2/16/25, 10:23 sued again over acts of famed Maya expert | | nashvillepost.com 1/3 For the third time in 18 months, litigation has broken out between anthropologist Brigitte Kovacevich and Vanderbilt University, where she carried out her graduate studies under renowned scholar Arthur Demarest. Kovacevich filed suit this week against the university, claiming that Demarest, as its agent, has sabotaged her career in several ways because she resisted his sexual harassment. In her complaint, filed in Nashville's federal court and available at this link, Kovacevich accuses Demarest of badmouthing her to the publisher that was bringing out a book she wrote and telling a March 2008 academic conference in Canada that she had plagiarized from him. Demarest has an international reputation as an expert on the Maya civilization that flourished and then mysteriously collapsed in Central America centuries before the first Spanish explorers arrived. Kovacevich argues that he has used his professional influence to harm her prospects of landing a tenure-track faculty appointment. She is presently a lecturer at the University of Virginia. Kovacevich first sued Vanderbilt and Demarest in August 2007, making dramatic and detailed charges about Demarest's behavior at a dig site in the Guatemalan jungle. That lawsuit, available at this link, asserted that Demarest had \"engaged in repeated unprofessional and outrageous conduct that included burning down the field camp, destruction of artifacts, fabrication of a crime scene, the misappropriation and misuse of Vanderbilt University and government funds, threats against students and assaults of students.\" The parties quickly entered talks to resolve the matter, and they agreed on a confidential settlement in January 2008. After the March 2008 conference, however, Kovacevich brought a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Vanderbilt, in turn, sued her for allegedly violating the settlement terms by going to the EEOC. In this week's lawsuit, she says a judge in that case denied Vanderbilt's request for an injunction against her. The current legal action accuses Demarest of \"repeatedly communicating with the University Press of Colorado\" to claim that Kovacevich was using drawings in her book without the permission of those who prepared them, a claim she denies. \"Demarest then proceeded to coerce the artist/creator of the images to withdraw permission of use of the images and to request an unreasonable amount of compensation for their one time use, while threatening legal action against plaintiff in Guatemala,\" the complaint says. 2/16/25, 10:23 sued again over acts of famed Maya expert | | nashvillepost.com 2/3 The filing also says Demarest has tried to interfere with the publication by Vanderbilt University Press of a monograph based on Kovacevich's dissertation, as he has been \"attacking the quality of the manuscript.\" Kovacevich seeks $500,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. Richard J. Braun of Braun & Associates in Nashville is her attorney. Beth Fortune, vice chancellor for public affairs at Vanderbilt, told NashvillePost.com that the university has no comment on the lawsuit at this time. 2/16/25, 10:23 sued again over acts of famed Maya expert | | nashvillepost.com 3/3", "7876_105.pdf": "Employment / January 21, 2009 teacher, a secretary and a teacher's aide say the former principal of Joyce Kilmer Elementary School sexually harassed and pawed them repeatedly. They sued the Cherry Hill Township Board of Education in Camden County Court Ph.D. graduate sued Vanderbilt University in Nashville Federal Court, claiming it retaliated for her complaints of sexual harassment from Anthropology professor Arthur Demarest, director of the Cancuen Archaeological Project in Guatemala. Class-action complaints alleging Labor Code violations have been filed against these defendants: Marriott International, International Coffee & Tea, Nick Alexander Imports, and Host International, in Los Angeles Superior Court; Comcast Cable Communications Management, in Cook County Court; Altus HealthCare and Hospice, in Atlanta Federal Court; Gaffoglio Family Metalcrafters, in Orange County Court, Calif.; and Alliance Elevator Co., in Central Islip, N.Y., Federal Court. Categories Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world. enter your e-mail address Additional Reads Contributor-Test-Post- 2025-02-15 February 15, 2025 Contributor-Test-Post- 2025-02-15 February 15, 2025 Contributor-Test-Post- 2025-02-15 February 15, 2025 Contributor-Test-Post- 2025-02-15 February 15, 2025 Subscribe to Closing Arguments Submit Try Litigation Reports or Log in Sunday, February 16, 2025 | Back issues Log in to CasePortal Sunday, February 16, 2025 Free Litigation Reports Find Judicial Opinions 2/16/25, 10:23 Employment | Courthouse News Service 1/2 Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Connect with us on our social channels: \u00a9 2025, Courthouse News Service About Us / Masthead / Advertise / Terms of Use / Privacy Policy / Support 2/16/25, 10:23 Employment | Courthouse News Service 2/2"} |
7,665 | Elbaki Hermassi | University of California – Berkeley | [
"7665_101.pdf",
"7665_102.pdf"
] | {"7665_101.pdf": "Sexual Harassment By Compiled College newspapers February 2, 1980 Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter Harvard Quietly Resolves Anti- Palestinian Discrimination Complaint With Ed. Department Following Dining Hall Crowd Harvard College Won\u2019t Say It Tracked Wintersession Mo JOSE, Cal--Two Eay Area professors, one at San Jose State University and the other at University of California at Berkeley, have been severely disciplined for allegedly sexually harassing women students. Philip Jacklin, associate professor of philosophy at San Jose State, was fired after a unanimous recommendation for dismissal by a faculty committee and by the university's president, Gail Fullerton. Five women students had accused Jacklin of persistently touching, embracing, kissing, fondling and propositioning them in incidents dating since the fall of 1977. At Berkeley, Elbaki Hermassi, assistant professor of sociology, was suspended without pay for one quarter for allegedly similar behavior dating since 1971 record of the incident will also be placed in Hermassi's permanent personnel file, university officials said. Spokesmen for both universities said they believe their actions for sexual harassment were the most severe taken recently by any university in the county. Sections 2/16/25, 10:23 Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 1/3 1. I\u2019m a Former Dean. Here\u2019s What Trump\u2019s Cuts Will Actually Do. 2. Harvard Researchers Discover Origin of Indo-European Language Family 3. Harvard Researchers Brace for Impact As Threatens To Limit Support For Indirect Costs 4. Law Firm Withdraws From Representing Prof. Gino in Suit Against Harvard 5. Reasons Why You Wore Your Harvard Sweatshirt to the Airport The Harvard Crimson's Guide To Your Summer Opportunities | 2025 Over 300+ courses at prestigious colleges and universities in the and are at your disposal Three Ways Collegiate Can Reduce Your Financial Stress With innovative financial tools combined with financial education, Collegiate empowers students to take control of their finances and build confidence in their money management skills Build Community at Harvard: Summer 2025 Proctor Opportunities Serve as a proctor for Harvard Summer School (HSS) students, either in the Secondary School Program (SSP), General Program (GP), or Pre-College Program Successful Law School Essays | 2024 With an increasingly competitive Law School admissions process, it's important to understand what makes an applicant stand out. Sections 2/16/25, 10:23 Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 2/3 The Harvard Crimson The University Daily, Est. 1873 News Opinion Arts Blog Magazine Videos Sports General Diversity & Inclusion Privacy Policy Rights & Permissions Sitemap Advertising Newsletters Journalism Programs Corrections Copyright \u00a9 2025 The Harvard Crimson, Inc Huckberry Holiday Guide Welcome to your one-stop gifting destination for men and women\u2014it's like your neighborhood holiday shop, but way cooler Siddharth's Essay Admit Expert is a premium admissions consulting company, helping candidates secure admission to top B-schools across the globe with significant scholarships. Sections 2/16/25, 10:23 Sexual Harassment | News | The Harvard Crimson 3/3", "7665_102.pdf": "Eleven The Undergraduate Journal of Sociology Created By Undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley Volume 7 2017 Editor-in-Chief Nancy Liao Managing Editor Claire McBride Senior Editors Olivia Flechsig, Hapin Lu, Soomin Suh, Yuchen Yang Associate Editors Laurel Bard, Lambert Li, Miranda Petersen, Tianyi Qian, Shirin Purkayastha Director of Public Relations Juliana Zhao Public Relations Team James Chen, Karina Elizabeth Contreras, Gayane Iskandaryan, Pilar Montenegro, Marianne Motus, Inika Sharma Undergraduate Advisors Cristina Rojas and Seng Saelee Faculty Advisor Michael Burawoy Cover Artist Avi Banerjee Eleven: The Undergraduate Journal of Sociology is the annual publication of Eleven: The Undergraduate Journal of Sociology, a non-profit unincorporated association at the University of California, Berkeley. Grants and Financial Support: This journal was made possible by generous financial support from the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. Special Appreciation: We would also like to thank: Belinda White, Tamar Young, and the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. Contributors: Contributions may be in the form of articles and review essays. Please see the Guide for Future Contributors at the end of this issue. Review Process: Our review process is double-blind. Each submission is given a number and all reviewers are supplied a specific review number per each submission. If an editor is familiar with any submission, she or he declines review. Our review process ensures the highest integrity and fairness in evaluating submissions. Each submission is read by three trained reviewers. Subscriptions: Our limited print version of the journal is available without fee. If you would like to make a donation for the production of future issues, please inquire at [email protected]. An online version of this volume as well as all past journals can be found on our website, Copyright \u00a9 2017 Eleven: The Undergraduate Journal of Sociology unless otherwise noted. Editor\u2019s Note 1 Nancy Liao Professor\u2019s Note 2 Michael Burawoy Classes in Classes: Executive Compensation, Student Debt, and 4 Faculty Composition in the Public University John M. Towey Cal Survivors Speak Out!: Examining the Emergence of Student 22 Activism Addressing Sexual Violence at Berkeley in Response to the Weberian Model of Bureaucratization Thea Matthews Access Without Excellence: The Shortcomings of Financial Aid 38 and Its Impact on Students with Children Natalie Ruiz Campus Shared Services: Bureaucratic Inefficiency and the 54 Corporate Restructuring of Berkeley Aaron Palmer Notes on Contributors 64 Guide for Future Contributors 65 \u201cThe philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.\u201d \u2013Karl Marx, \u201cXI\u201d from \u201cTheses on Feuerbach\u201d Created By Undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley Eleven The Undergraduate Journal of Sociology Volume 7 2017 1 Welcome to this special edition of Eleven: The Undergraduate Journal of Sociology. Eleven has always been a home for provocative ideas, innovative perspectives, and ambitious argument. We are proud to continue this tradition of thoughtful journalism through new means with a special release focusing specifically on the modern university. Inspired by the course \u201cOur University\u201d taught by Professor Michael Burawoy and Kara Young, our journal wanted to reflect on the very universities that nurture our contributors\u2019 and readers\u2019 minds. The forces that shape the modern university are ubiquitous and dynamic, powerful yet quiet. They have resulted in such transformations as the privatization, corporatization, and financialization of these educational institutions. The societal influences at work can be approached, of course, through a variety of theoretical lenses. There is the Durkheimian perspective of equality of opportunity, the Foucaldian view of discipline, and the Fanonian approach of racial order Marxist perspective can offer insights into the capitalistic influence that has made the university adopt corporate practices, while a Weberian approach can point to the university\u2019s bureaucratization as part of its modernization. In this volume, we bring to you the work of four current students and critics of our very own university, the University of California, Berkeley. These individuals, all students of Professor Burawoy\u2019s Fall 2016 class, explore the university\u2019s recent transformations from various theoretical perspectives. We begin the volume with John Towey\u2019s piece on executive compensation. His research on tuition, student debt, and faculty employment trends expertly brings Marxist class analysis into the university setting. Next, Thea Matthews examines campus sexual violence, resulting student activism, and the university\u2019s response. She utilizes the Weberian model of bureaucratization to explain these causes and effects at play in students\u2019 activist efforts. In our third paper, Natalie Ruiz too draws on Weber, this time to understand student parents\u2019 experiences navigating the financial aid system. Her look into the shortcomings of the bureaucratic financial aid system exposes multiple levels of dysfunction while simultaneously highlighting the benefits of such a system. Our final paper has Aaron Palmer tying Weber\u2019s theory of bureaucratization to the Campus Shared Services. His analysis of university efforts to improve efficiency illustrates the hidden costs of such measures, as well as the root issues causing them. It is our hope that this special edition of Eleven not only unearths problems within the modern university system, but also inspires solutions. As changes occur in the world around us, we must meet them with a renewed mind, a critical brain, and an active spirit. Nancy Liao, Eleven Editor-in-Chief 2 am delighted to see Eleven publishing several of the papers from the sociology seminar taught with Kara Young in the Fall of 2016. The seminar was a continuation of the two-semester sequence in the history of sociological theory, required of all sociology majors at Berkeley. Some 30 addicts of social theory (ASTs) decided to take this third semester and the topic was \u201cour university\u201d. Students chose an issue, connected to the Berkeley campus, and researched it through the lens of one of the theorists that we had studied the previous year: Marx, Gramsci, Fanon, Durkheim, Weber, Foucault, Beauvoir and Collins. In the space of 15 weeks students came up with amazing papers, showing the relevance of social theory to major issues at the university. They pursued such topics as the student experience: undocumented students, food insecurity among student-parents, women in fields, gendered interaction in co-op life, ideologies of student in different disciplines, experience of foreign Chinese students students struggling for space on campus, the alienation of transfer students, exploitation of student-workers in the dining halls, and student- worker alliance against outsourcing. They studied the aspirations of graduate students in different departments, the exploitation of research assistants and the experience of lecturers. They discovered how sociology faculty responded to the \u201cranking of their department\u201d and how recruitment of faculty did or did not take diversity into account. They studied institutions on campus such as the Disabled Student Program, the Title office, the changing conduct of campus police in quelling protest, and the Underground Scholars Initiative. They investigated the corporatization of the university as manifested in athletics, in the financing of new buildings and in Operation Excellence. Out of the class emerged a sociological vision of \u201cour university\u201d - a dynamic arena of inequality and domination, of collaboration and struggle, of alienation and discovery - a tribute to the talents of Berkeley undergraduates and the power of sociological theory. Michael Burawoy, Professor of Sociology University of California, Berkeley 3 Abstract In this paper argue that research into executive compensation in higher education has neglected to thoroughly examine the extent to which public university executives\u2019 salaries rise through mechanisms of exploitation in which university executives enrich themselves by increasing student tuition and prioritizing employment of adjunct and contingent faculty over tenured and tenure-track faculty. This paper presents exploratory research designed to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to reject this exploitation hypothesis develop a Marxist class analysis of the University of California, Berkeley using data from The Institute for College Access and Success, The Sacramento Bee\u2019s State Worker Salary Database, and the Institutional Data Archive on American Higher Education show that tuition increases, student debt increases, and non-tenured and non-tenure-track faculty employment increases occur temporally prior to or simultaneously with average executive compensation increases at the University of California, Berkeley conclude with a discussion of a preliminary research agenda and the possible significance my project may have for social theory and social policy. Keywords Marx, class conflict, exploitation, executive compensation Classes in Classes: Executive Compensation, Student Debt, and Faculty Composition in the Public University John M. Towey University of California, Berkeley 5 In their report on executive salaries at state universities, Erwin and Wood (2014) not only demonstrate that there is a correlation between administrative compensation on the one hand and student debt and low-wage faculty labor on the other, but imply this relation is causal. However, though Erwin and Wood (2014) should be commended for bringing attention to the possibility of a relationship between executive compensation at public universities and faculty composition or student debt, their work lacks the theoretical foundation necessary for establishing this as a causal relationship. Existing research in the area of executive compensation has established that both boards of directors and executives have influence over the compensation contract. Neoclassical economic theory implies that higher pay for executives should be associated with larger numbers of open executive positions and fewer candidates available to fill them (Rubinstein 1982). However, many empirical investigations have problematized this straightforward hypothesis, finding that firm size, as well as weaker boards of directors, and the existence of benchmarks, industry pay guidelines, or reference peer-groups that executives can cite in negotiations also correspond to higher executive compensation (Bebuchuk and Fried 2003, Bizjak, Lemmon, and Naveen 2008; Ezzamel and Watson 1998; Faulkender and Yang 2010; Gregoric, Polanec, and Slapnicar 2010; Hart and Moore 2006; Hyndman 2011; Porac, Wade, and Pollock 1999; Ruiz-Verd\u00fa 2008). Erwin and Wood (2014) acknowledge the importance of boards of trustees in presidents\u2019 salaries but make a valuable move toward examining the relations between groups within the structure of the university proper. In addition to general examinations of executive compensation, scholarship investigating the relationship between executive performance and pay in educational institutions has found almost no link between executive compensation and the performance of these institutions (Bachan 2008; Bartlett and Sorokina 2005; Cheng 2014; Ehrenberg, Cheslock, and Epifantseva 2001; Monks and McGoldrick 2004; Pfeffer and Ross 1988; Tang, Tang, and Tang 2000; Tarbert, Tee, and Watson 2007). Researchers have concluded most executives, including public university presidents, are actually compensated as if they are bureaucrats, with salaries and raises dependent on firm size and attached to offices or positions while being independent of the performance of the individual who occupies the office (Cheng 2014; Jensen and Murphy 1990; Tosi et al 2000). However, Erwin and Wood\u2019s (2014) approach forces us to consider not just why executive compensation increases over time\u2014i.e. because it is built into the 6 bureaucratic structures of the organization\u2014but rather how this happens consistently. Existing research into executive compensation, therefore, generally seems to treat it as either the outcome of a rational negotiation between executives and boards or as an institutional process completely removed from the power of executive influence. In both cases, this literature tends to ignore the possibility that the group relations within the public university could be the source of compensatory increases. Erwin and Wood\u2019s (2014) approach, on the other hand, shifts the focus from institutionalized mechanisms or relationships between groups inside and outside the organization to the relations between groups within the organization. This shift is valuable in that it allows a different sort of question to be asked. Rather than simply investigating why executive compensation increases, Erwin and Wood (2014) demonstrate that we should be asking: what is the source of the funds that university executives need to increase their compensation packages? However, with no theoretical basis for clearly formulating such a question, Erwin and Wood (2014) cannot ultimately state the causal claim they imply. What is needed is a theoretical framework that treats university management as a class of individuals with the motive and the agency to affect the budgetary allotments for both their own compensation packages on one hand and student aid, faculty hiring, and tenure appointments on the other - in other words, a Marxist class analysis of the public university. Marx\u2019s focus on the effects of class conflict in society (e.g. Marx and Engels 1978:473- 83) allows for an analogous examination of the social relationships in the public university as relations of class conflict intend to argue that a broad notion of class, as individuals within an organization who either control or are subjected to the \u201cmeans of administration\u201d\u2014which is implied by Weberian theory (e.g. Giddens 1971; Weber 1946, 1978a, 1978b)\u2014allows us to examine the extent to which the relationship between executives, students, and contingent and adjunct faculty are, thus, relations of exploitation in which the dominant class profits at the expense of subordinate classes. This is analogous to the approach Marx used in examining relationships in society at large (e.g. Marx 1978a:429-31). And will make use of the University of California, Berkeley as a case study of large public universities with a large number of executives, students, and faculty1. Within U.C. Berkeley, then, executives represent a dominant class with 1One may ask why this study is not rooted in a Weberian organizational analysis contend that Marxist theory is the appropriate theoretical perspective herein because the central concept under investigation is not class or organizational hierarchy, but exploitation. And with exploitation as the focus it is better to start with Marxist theory and retrieve the broader notion of class from Weber 7 power over the means of administration, while students and faculty represent subordinate classes subject to them. This Marxist perspective implies that executive compensation should increase not simply as a result of a bureaucratic mechanism, or executive-board negotiations, but at the expense of the economic situation of students and faculty. Therefore, executive compensation should increase as student tuition increases, insofar as student fees provide a source of revenue on which executives can draw to increase their salaries. Furthermore, executive compensation should increase the more the university employs contingent and adjunct faculty over time, given the lower salaries and benefits paid to these precariously employed instructors relative to tenured and tenure-track faculty. In what follows first briefly describe my data sources and variables then present Marxist theoretical perspectives on classes and exploitation in the public university. After detail the results of my exploratory data analysis, showing that executive compensation at U.C. Berkeley increases over time, along with student tuition fees and student debt, even as student aid remains relatively stagnant then show how the number of unclassified faculty at U.C. Berkeley increases over time, while the number of tenure and tenure-track faculty remains relatively stagnant argue that these findings are consistent with Erwin and Wood\u2019s (2014) results, and that therefore the exploitation hypothesis cannot be rejected. However, despite this ultimately conclude that have insufficient evidence to reveal a causal relationship among these variables. Finally discuss the possible implications of my findings, as well as the limitations of my data and areas for future research Building on Erwin and Wood\u2019s (2014) work obtained data from The Institute for College Access and Success (College-Insight 2016) on student tuition and fees and student debt. These data include both student 1For Marxist perspectives on organizations see Braverman (1974) and Burawoy (1979, 1983). Though Burawoy focuses on the ideological frames of organizations, his research supports the treatment of an organization as more than merely an expression of society-level class conflict between Marx\u2019s bourgeoisie and proletariat\u2014particularly to the extent that management in the context Burawoy explores strategically shape workers\u2019 compensation and employment conditions. Braverman\u2019s treatment of organizations is more conventionally Marxist, with management functioning as a suppressive and extractive body in the service of capital. However, Braverman still devotes significant time to the development, implementation, and effects of \u201cscientific management,\u201d as well as the organization of the modern corporation. Moreover, Braverman points out that \u201coperating control is vested increasingly in a specialized management staff for each enterprise. Since both capital and professional management\u2014at its top levels\u2014are drawn, by and large, from the same class, it may be said that the two sides of the capitalist, owner and manager, formerly united in one person, become aspects of the class\u201d (1974:258). 8 tuition, institutional aid, and the average debt of graduates at U.C.Berkeley also located and extracted the salaries of senior managers at U.C. Berkeley from the State Worker Salary Database at The Sacramento Bee extracted data on the number of individuals employed and the average salary for each of the following positions: Chancellor, Provost, Vice Chancellors and Provosts, Assistant and Associate Vice Chancellors, Assistant Provosts, Directors and Associate Directors, Deans, and acting, associate, and assistant deans. This covers the entire \u201cSenior Management Group\u201d (SMG) plus senior academic administrators, but excludes university librarians, athletic managers, and coaches extracted data on faculty employment from the Institutional Data Archive on American Higher Education (Brint 2013). These data include the total number of faculty, the number of tenured faculty, the number of tenure-track faculty, and the number of non-tenured, non-tenure- track faculty. Furthermore use exploratory data analysis to examine my hypotheses first calculated the average annual salary for the over the first part of the 21st century then calculated the \u201cOther Faculty\u201d variable as discussed above. Finally produced graphical representations of the trends in these variables over the early 2000\u2019s to examine whether there is evidence of exploitation at U.C. Berkeley Marxist political theory begins with the premise that states have a functional relationship to social classes; that is, that \u201cthe state is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests\u2026 [and] that the state mediates in the formation of all common institutions and that these institutions receive a political form\u201d (Marx 1978d:187; see also Engels 1972 for a discussion of the functional relationship between states and classes). Moreover, Marx argues the organization of schools is determined by social conditions, and state educational systems support the dominant class (Marx 1978b:539-40; Marx and Engels 1978:487). This is how Christopher Newfield (2008) approaches an examination of public universities. Newfield (2008) stresses the importance of the state\u2019s withdrawal of public support from universities and related increases in tuition through the 1980s and 90s. Newfield (2008) argues that in the 1980s the \u201cshareholder\u2019s revolt\u201d changed the administration of public universities even as it altered the administration of public corporations. Executives\u2019 shift to \u201cknowledge management\u201d techniques and the penetration of financial accounting into university administration made tuition increases unavoidable 9 (Newfield 2008). In this \u201cmarket-smart\u201d environment, Newfield (2008) maintains, education is seen as a product purchased with tuition money and private philanthropy is offered as a replacement for public funding. However, though Newfield (2008) makes a powerful argument, he neglects to point out that these tuition increases may become \u201cunavoidable\u201d specifically because of the dominant economic position of the group in charge of setting tuition relative to those who must pay it, and not because capitalists outside the university control this group. If it is true that dominant classes in society \u201cpossess among other things consciousness, and therefore think\u2026 and determine the extent and compass of an epoch\u201d (Marx 1978d:173), then university executives, a dominant class relative to students and faculty in the structure of the organization, must also have the agency to determine the direction of the university. That is, executive control over budgetary allocations creates the possibility for affecting the financial arrangement of the university relative to students and faculty regardless of the fact that all of these groups have equivalent structural positions in society at large vis-\u00e0-vis traditional Marxist theory. Newfield only tangentially acknowledges the role of university executives in implementing and utilizing \u201cresponsibility-center management\u201d, the delegation of control over the allocation of revenue and payment of expenses from agents of the state to university managers themselves (2008:165). Newfield thus presents the condition under which public university presidents positioned themselves to substantially influence the distribution of salaries, fees, aid, and employment within their universities, even as he summarily dismisses this as less important than changes to affirmative action admissions rules and need-based financial aid allotments at the level of the state. If Newfield (2008) lacks a perspective on class conflict within the university, Erwin and Wood (2014), for the most part, lack any theoretical explanation for their observed patterns at all. This hampers their methodological approach in addition to limiting their ability to draw causal conclusions.2 Like many modern social scientists, Erwin and Wood (2014) focus on rates of change in their variables of interest. They show how executive compensation increases over time from its starting value, but rather than doing the same for student debt and aid, they instead show only the acceleration of the changes in these variables. This is problematic insofar as it does not compare directly to the primary variable they hope to explain, i.e. executive compensation, and because it only captures differences in the 2To recapitulate, Erwin and Wood (2014) do not explicitly claim the relationships they observe are causal, but rather imply this. 10 rates of change without referencing differences in the values per se\u2014which may inhibit the ability to draw any substantive conclusions. Furthermore, the choice of student debt and aid are insufficient without also incorporating student fees into the analysis\u2014if debt is increasing and aid is not, that does not necessarily imply that fees are increasing or budgetary restraints to increasing executive salaries have been relaxed. Instead housing prices could be increasing, for example, or other costs of living. Erwin and Wood (2014) additionally compare total permanent faculty to total adjunct and contingent faculty at the top 25 public research universities by executive compensation. This is an odd choice, given that the average would be a more informative measure of faculty employment relationships at these 25 schools. Marxist theory provides the analytic leverage necessary to conduct the examination that Erwin and Wood (2014) attempt, and Newfield (2008) informs the details of educational systems that Marx and Engels lack. That is, theory reveals what the mechanism at work in the causal relationship Erwin and Wood (2014) attempt to explore could be, using Newfield\u2019s (2008) conception of financial accounting in the marketized university as a weapon of class conflict. Executives enrich themselves by increasing student tuition over time, while not increasing student aid from the institution. At the same time, executives limit tenure and tenure-track faculty positions while expanding contingent and adjunct positions over time. These actions by those with the capacity to act ease constraints on budgets, releasing funds that executives can then use to increase their salaries The first premise that must be established is that executive compensation at U.C. Berkeley increases over time. Figure 1 displays the average annual salary of senior managers\u2014as defined in section III\u2014from 2007 to 2015, which is every year for which data was available. Average executive salary was approximately $160,000 in 2007, and increased to approximately $275,000 in 2015. This is an approximately 72% increase over eight years. Furthermore, the rate of increase in managers\u2019 salaries increased following the 2008 financial crisis, indicated by the steepening of the slope of the line. These findings are consistent in pattern, though not in scope, with Erwin and Wood\u2019s (2014) findings that executive compensation at public research universities nationwide increased between 2005 and 2012, and increased more rapidly following the 2008 financial crisis. Furthermore, this is consistent with the Marxist hypothesis that executive salaries increase over time, though this is not, in itself, sufficient 11 to draw any conclusions. This does, however, establish the preliminary necessary condition of the argument. That is, if we observed that executive compensation at U.C. Berkeley did not increase over time, then we would be forced to reevaluate our hypothesis at this point With the preliminary necessary condition satisfied, it is now possible to proceed to the comparative portion of this argument, in which the relationship is established between executive compensation on the one hand and student fees, aid, and debt on the other. Figure 2 indicates that student fees were nearly zero in 2001, increasing to nearly $7,500 by 2008. Following the financial crisis, fees spiked to some $13,000 in 2012, where they remained through at least 2014. Institutional aid in 2004, the earliest available year, was approximately $2,000, remaining relatively flat until 2008 when it reached about $2,500. Institutional aid increased to about Figure 1. Average annual salary of senior managers at U.C. Berkeley, 2007-2015. Source: The Sacramento Bee State Worker Salary Database $4,000 by 2011, $5,000 in 2012, and then declined to approximately $4,500 by 2014. At the same time, the average debt of graduates increased between 2004 to 2014. From 2004 to 2005, debt remained at approximately $13,000, increasing to almost $15,000 in 2006, where it remained for the most part until 2009. Debt then increased steadily to approximately $18,000 in 2012, 12 declining thereafter to about $17,500 from 2013 to 2014. Comparing these results to executive compensation, from 2007 to 2014 the average manager\u2019s salary increased about 72%, while student fees more than doubled over the same time period\u2014from approximately $6,000 to approximately $13,000, or more than 116%. During this same period, institutional aid increased from about $2,500 to approximately $4,500, or about 80%, while the average debt of graduates increased more than 20%. Figure 2. Annual student fees, per capita institutional aid, and average debt of graduates at U.C. Berkeley, 2001-2014 (2004-2014 for aid and debt). Source: Institute for College Access and Success These findings are consistent with the Marxist hypothesis that over time executives increase their salaries by increasing student fees more than institutional aid. Moreover, the inclusion of student fees makes this case more forcefully than Erwin and Wood (2014), to the extent that my analysis reveals that the increase in executive compensation is concomitant with both a greater increase in student fees than institutional aid, and an increase in student debt. The implication is that a portion of the increase in executive compensation may be accounted for by increasing student fees more than student aid over time, which in turn is associated with increasing student debt. This adds to Erwin and Wood\u2019s (2014) analysis, therefore, by not only relating student debt to executive compensation, but also by providing empirical evidence of the source of increasing debt that Erwin and Wood implicate 13 Figure 3 shows that from 1990 to 2010, the number of tenured faculty remains nearly unchanged at approximately 1,100 employees. Likewise, tenure-track faculty remained mostly stable at approximately 250 employees. Non-tenured-non-tenure-track faculty increased slightly from 1990 to 2010, from about 200 to approximately 275 employees. Figure 3 also establishes that from 1990 to 2000 the total number of faculty was equal to the sum of the categories of tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenured-non-tenure-track faculty. Beginning in 2000, though, the total number of faculty increases without a like increase in the sum of the faculty in these three categories, which reveals an apparent difference between total faculty and classified faculty. It is not clear why this occurred; it could simply be a reclassification of existing employees\u2019 job titles from non-faculty to faculty, or it could be a result of the university hiring more adjunct faculty. Alternatively, it could be a combination of both derived a variable call \u201cOther Faculty,\u201d representing these unclassified faculty. Figure 3 indicates that unclassified faculty increases from zero in 2000 to about 750 from 2005 to 2010. Figure 3. Non-tenured-non-tenure-track faculty, tenure-track faculty, tenured faculty, total faculty, and other faculty at U.C. Berkeley, 1990-2010. Source: Institutional Data Archive on American Higher Education 14 These data exhibit a trend in which the number of the most precariously employed faculty increases prior to the indicated increases in executive compensation from 2007 to 2015. The increase in unclassified faculty is also concomitant with the increase in student fees and debt. These findings are consistent with the Marxist hypothesis, that executives increase their salaries through holding steady the number of tenure and tenure- track faculty positions and expanding the number of contingent faculty, assuming they are represented by the \u201cnon-tenured-non-tenure-track\u201d and \u201cOther\u201d attributes. These results, however, are not entirely consistent with Erwin and Wood\u2019s (2014) finding that total adjunct and contingent faculty increase at a faster rate than total permanent faculty at the top 25 public research universities. In fact, their data show the average permanent faculty employment for these top 25 universities was approximately 1,400 from 2005 to 2011, while contingent and adjunct faculty range from about 1,200 in 2005 to approximately 1,500 in 2011. These aggregate data reveal a shift in the majority employment status from full-time to part-time. On the other hand, my data indicate that while adjunct and contingent faculty did increase it does not appear that they become the majority of employed faculty. This might suggest that the top 25 universities on which Erwin and Wood (2014) focus may be unique. On the other hand, my findings could imply that what Erwin and Wood (2014) see happening in these top 25 universities is a precursor to what could eventually happen at places like U.C. Berkeley. At the least, we should take their findings as a warning of a possible future for faculty employment at public universities. In sum, my data show that executive compensation at U.C. Berkeley increased through the early part of the 21st century, that this increase occurred just as Berkeley students\u2019 fees increased more than student aid increased, producing the conditions under which expanding student debt also occurred. Similarly, over this same time period the number of precariously employed faculty increased while the number of faculty with more stable employment relationships with U.C. Berkeley remained essentially unchanged. These findings are, furthermore, consistent with the exploitation hypothesis outlined above. However, there are limitations to this study that prevent concluding that university executives are in fact exploiting students and faculty to enrich themselves conclude with a discussion of these limitations and recommendations for future research, as well as the potential theoretical and policy implications of such research 15 have argued that existing research into executive compensation in the public university has not sufficiently explored the class-based determinants of executive salaries argued that most accounts of salaries of senior managers give too much weight to the force of negotiations between managers and boards, while others remove almost all agency from managers and ascribe it to bureaucracy claimed that we can best understand increasing executive compensation by drawing on Marxist theories of exploitation, and Newfield\u2019s (2008) contention that accounting practices in public universities benefit executives at the expense of students took the University of California, Berkeley as a case of public universities and analyzed time-series data on executive salaries, student fees, aid, and debt, and faculty employment numbers found evidence consistent with, but which by no means proves, the Marxist hypothesis of exploitation. This analysis was limited, first, by taking Erwin and Wood (2014) as a starting point. Because my intention was to explore evidence of a possible explanation for the trends they observed, i.e. exploitation of students and faculty by senior managers focused on data that were similar enough to facilitate comparison. However, as Newfield (2008) points out, consistent with Marx and Marxist theory (Engels 1972; Marx 1978b:539-40; Marx 1978d:172-73; Marx and Engels 1978:487), the social relations within the public university are themselves dependent on, or at least heavily influenced by, the state. In particular, public universities are dependent in large part on both state funding and state approval of their budgets. Future research must account for the actions of the state in the construction of the university budget. Without access to the budget, the source of the funds used to raise the salaries of senior managers cannot be determined with any level of certainty, which would be necessary for drawing the conclusion that exploitation is the cause of the increasing salaries. Additionally, there are other groups in the university that may represent an oppressed class -- specifically, non-faculty employees Berkeley staff and other workers report suffering extremely poor working conditions, including low pay, few benefits, and precarious employment (Purser, Schalet, and Sharone 2004). Some of the increase in managers\u2019 salaries over time could be a result of exploiting workers, in addition to or rather than students and faculty. Future research should incorporate non-faculty employment into analyses of executive compensation. Finally, my analysis is limited without controls for changes in the consumer price index (i.e. inflation adjustment). Erwin and Wood (2014) 16 report their findings adjusted to 2012 dollars. Future research into the relationship between executive compensation, student fees, aid, and debt, and faculty composition must adjust dollar amounts for inflation. Ultimately, this project is incomplete, but presents evidence of the possibility that executive compensation at U.C. Berkeley increases over time as a result of increasing student fees, decreasing student aid, increasing student debt, and increasing use of contingent and adjunct faculty. My main contribution is in providing theoretical grounding for and incorporating student fees into the analysis begun by Erwin and Wood (2014). However, more research is needed to determine whether the observed relationship is indeed causal. Assuming future research is successful in demonstrating a causal relationship between the aforementioned variables, however, it seems likely that this has broader implications for social theory. First, by showing that relationships between groups within universities can be understood as relations of exploitation, this research could build on and support Marxist studies of organizations (e.g. Burawoy 1983). Furthermore, it may underscore the importance of drawing on another of Marx\u2019s concepts: alienation. Though exploitation and alienation are two distinct processes, if it is useful to explore organizations as sites of class conflict per se, rather than an expression of the struggle Marx sees in broader society, then it also may be useful to examine the extent to which students and faculty \u2014 but in particular adjunct and contingent faculty \u2014 are alienated from the product of their intellectual labor, from each other, from their potential, or from the natural world (for Marx\u2019s account of alienation see: Marx 1978c). The policy implications of this research could be significant as well. If the causal relation can be established, and assuming there was sufficient moral impetus to end exploitative relationships, then several possible policy solutions exist. On the one hand, the source of the increases to public university executive compensation could be restricted to sources other than tuition and fees or faculty compensation. The managerial independence of university executives (Newfield 2008) could be restricted through greater oversight at the level of the state, which would also allow for the enforcement of additional regulation that may be required to prevent executives from redirecting subsidies away from students and faculty second possibility would be to remove compensation increases from public university executive compensation contracts or from the normative understandings of how boards of trustees think these executives should be paid. Finally, as distasteful as it may seem to make it easier for executives to acquire raises, more funding from the state over time would preclude the necessity of executives resorting to raising student fees and shifting faculty 17 composition. Some combination of these three approaches would likely be most effective at eliminating exploitation in public universities, should its presence be conclusively demonstrated, but these broad policy prescriptions should be further detailed and evaluated in future research My methodological approach of exploratory data analysis was appropriate for his study insofar as it allowed me to evaluate whether evidence could be obtained in support of Erwin and Wood\u2019s (2014) implication of a causal relationship between the variables of interest. Given more time would like to have incorporated more schools into the analysis greater length of time over which could calculate average salaries of senior managers would also have been helpful. The data on employment numbers proved to be the most challenging to collect. Employment data that may have been available at one time from U.C. Berkeley proved difficult to locate. It is not clear if these formerly available sources of data are still on the web somewhere, in some form, or if they have been suppressed. More research may uncover their location, or establish that university administrators have indeed ceased making the data publicly available. The Institutional Data Archive on American Higher Education that used is not an ideal data source for this type of exploratory analysis. It does not break down faculty by rank and does not include full- time-equivalencies for each faculty rank. Its great strength is in the fact that it brings together a huge amount of data on every higher education institution in the United States, allowing for comparisons across universities. My future work on this project will focus more on these large-scale datasets and use methods comparing, for example, public and private universities across the United States Bachan, Ray. 2008. On the Determinants of Pay of CEOs in Public Sector Higher Education Institutions. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor Discussion Paper No. 3858). Bartlett, Robin L. and Olga Sorokin. 2005. \u201cDeterminants of Presidential Pay at National Liberal Arts Institutions.\u201d Review of Higher Education 29(1):53-68. Bebuchuk, Lucian Arye and Jesse M. Fried. 2003. Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic 18 Research working paper series: working paper No. 9813). Bizjak, John M., Michael L. Lemmon, and Lalitha Naveen. 2008. \u201cDoes the Use of Peer Groups Contribute to Higher Pay and Less Efficient Compensation.\u201d Journal of Financial Economics 90(2):152-68. Brint, Steven. 2013. Institutional Data Archive on American Higher Education, 1970-2011. ICPSR34874-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. Retrieved October 2016, ( Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burawoy, Michael. 1983. \u201cBetween the Labor Process and the State: The Changing Face of Factory Regimes Under Advanced Capitalism.\u201d American Sociological Review 48(5):587-605. Cheng, Shaoming. 2014. \u201cExecutive Compensation in Public Higher Education: Does Performance Matter?\u201d Research in Higher Education 55(6):581-600. College-Insight. 2016. \u201cCollege Insight Data Explorer.\u201d The Institute for College Access & Success. Retrieved October 2016, ( insight.org/#explore/go). Ehrenberg, Ronald G., John Jesse Cheslock, and Julia Epifantseva. 2001. \u201cPaying Our Presidents: What Do Trustees Value?\u201d Review of Higher Education 25(1):15-37. Engels, Friedrich. 1972. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. New York: Penguin Books. Erwin, Andrew and Marjorie Wood. 2014. The One Percent at State U: How Public University Presidents Profit from Rising Student Debt and Low- Wage Faculty Labor. Washington: Institute for Policy Studies. Ezzamel, Mahmoud and Robert Watson. 1998. \u201cMarket Comparison Earnings and the Bidding- Up of Executive Cash Compensation: Evidence from the United Kingdom.\u201d Academy of Management Journal 41(2): 221-31. Faulkender, Michael and Jun Yang. 2010. \u201cInside the Black Box: The Role and Composition of Compensation Peer Groups.\u201d Journal of Financial 19 Economics 96(2):257-270. Giddens, Anthony. 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gregoric, Aleksandra, Sa\u0161o Polanec and Sergeja Slapnicar. 2010. \u201cPay me Right: Reference Values and Executive Compensation.\u201d European Financial Management 16(5):778\u2013804. Hart, Oliver and John Moore. 2006. Contracts as Reference Points. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research working paper series: working paper No. 12706). Hyndman, Kyle. 2011. \u201cRepeated Bargaining with Reference-Dependent Preferences.\u201d International Journal of Game Theory 40(3):527-49. Jensen, Michael C. and Kevin J. Murphy. 1990 Incentives\u2014It\u2019s Not How Much You Pay, but How.\u201d Harvard Business Review 68(3):138-49. Lane, Jason E. 2012. \u201cAgency Problems in Higher Education Administration.\u201d Pp. 278-303 in The Organization of Higher Education: Managing Colleges for a New Era, edited by M. Bastedo, 278-303. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Marx, Karl. 1978a. \u201cCapital, Volume One.\u201d Pp. 294-438 in The Marx-Engels Reader, Second Edition, edited by R. C. Tucker. New York: Norton. Marx, Karl. 1978b. \u201cCritique of the Gotha Program.\u201d Pp. 525-41 in The Marx-Engels Reader, Second Edition, edited by R. C. Tucker. New York: Norton. Marx, Karl. 1978c. \u201cEconomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.\u201d Pp. 66-125 in The Marx-Engels Reader, Second Edition, edited by R. C. Tucker. New York: Norton. Marx, Karl. 1978d. \u201cThe German Ideology: Part 1.\u201d Pp. 146-200 in The Marx-Engels Reader, Second Edition, edited by R. C. Tucker. New York: Norton. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1978. \u201cThe Manifesto of the Communist Party.\u201d Pp. 469-500 in The Marx-Engels Reader, Second Edition, edited by R. C. Tucker. New York: Norton. Newfield, Christopher. 2008. Unmaking the Public University: The Forty- Year Assault on the Middle Class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 20 Massy, William F. ed. 1996. Resource Allocation in Higher Education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Monks, James and Kimmarie McGoldrick. 2004. \u201cGender Earnings Differentials Among College Administrators.\u201d Industrial Relations 43(4):742-58. Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Jerry Ross. 1988. \u201cThe Compensation of College and University Presidents.\u201d Research in Higher Education 29(1):79-91. Porac, Joseph F., James B. Wade, and Timothy G. Pollock. 1999. \u201cIndustry Categories and the Politics of the Comparable Firm in Compensation.\u201d Administrative Science Quarterly 44(1):112-44. Purser, Gretchen, Amy Schalet, and Ofer Sharone. 2004. Berkeley\u2019s Betrayal: Wages and Working Conditions at Cal. Accessed September 2016, ( Rubinstein, Ariel. 1982. \u201cPerfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model.\u201d Econometrica 50(1):97- 109. Ruiz-Verd\u00fa, Pablo. 2008. \u201cCorporate Governance When Managers Set their own Pay.\u201d European Financial Management 14(5):921-43. Sacramento Bee. 2016. \u201cState Worker Salary Database.\u201d The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved November 2016, ( article2642161.html#StatePay&dept-dept=UC%20Berkeley&dept- n=10&dept-p=17&dept-year=2015&search-d=1&search- dept=UC%20Berkeley&search-n=20&search-p=0&search-s=name). Tang, Thomas Li-Ping, David Shin-Hsiung Tang, and Cindy Shin-Yi Tang. 2000. \u201cFactors Related to University Presidents\u2019 Pay: An Examination of Private Colleges and Universities.\u201d Higher Education 39(4):393-415. Tosi, Henry, Steve Werner, Jeffrey P. Katz, and Luis R. Gomez-Mejia. 2000. \u201cHow Much Does Performance Matter Meta-Analysis of Pay Studies.\u201d Journal of Management 26(2):301-39. Weber, Max. 1946. \u201cClass, Status, Party.\u201d Pp. 180-95 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills. New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, Max. 1978a. \u201cBureaucracy.\u201d Pp. 956-1005 in Economy and Society, Volume 2, edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press 21 Weber, Max. 1978b. \u201cDomination and Legitimacy.\u201d Pp. 941-55 in Economy and Society, Volume 2, edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Abstract According to Weber, bureaucracy is the most efficient system of rationalization in that institutions are held by fixed duties, qualifications, rules from a top-down hierarchical power structure of offices by official rules in a series of regulated documented procedures. In this paper will examine how the Weberian model of bureaucratization at Berkeley has spawned student activism addressing campus sexual violence; and in what ways the bureaucracy responds. Through in-depth interviews and secondary resources, data revealed that bureaucracy\u2019s red tape, time length to address reported cases, an austere impartial nature, and dishonorable acts violating federal bureaucratic interventions impels student- survivors to politically organize, publicly disclose their story to media outlets, hold political, survivor-solidarity demonstrations; and utilize the Dear Colleague Letter to become Title complainants. In response, bureaucracy responds with concessions and more bureaucracy. Years between waves of student activism potentially result in a combination of concession pacifiers and activists graduating. Keywords Weber, bureaucracy, sexual violence, student activism Cal Survivors Speak Out!: Examining the Emergence of Student Activism Addressing Sexual Violence at Berkeley in Response to the Weberian Model of Bureaucratization Thea Matthews University of California, Berkeley 23 We undeniably live in a rape culture where we are subjected to not only various forms of sexual violence in our communities and within multiple institutions, but we are also subjected to dehumanization by systematic bureaucratic measures used to address our disclosures and theoretically provide formal justice for all people Berkeley is no exception to this global phenomenon. In addressing campus sexual violence1 Berkeley has a Title office, the Office for the Prevention of Harassment & Discrimination (OPHD), in which all reports, including student-on-student and faculty/staff-on-student violations, are channeled through before any further action can take place. The length of time investigations has held when cases are processed, and the dearth of Kadi-justice -- ethical justice in which everyone is equal before the law (Weber 1958) --continues to propel students to take further legal and non-legal action to combat sexual violence on campus (Abbott, Wen, and Yoon-Hendricks 2017). Currently, students learn at an institution where professors, such as Sujit Choudhry, Geoff Marcy, Blake Wentworth, and most recently, Nezar AlSayyad, found guilty of sexual violence, still hold their positions and pensions, or they resign rather than having their position terminated. Students guilty of sexual assault and/or harassment are able to graduate on time with accolades. The offender is not equal to the victim. Student- survivors as the mass democracy have continuously enforced their weight on the bureaucratic process for addressing the pervasiveness of sexual violence at Berkeley. Hence hope to answer in this paper how has the Weberian model of bureaucratization at Berkeley continued to spawn student activism that redefines justice while addressing campus sexual violence; and in what ways does the bureaucracy respond. Weber considered bureaucracy the most efficient and disciplined organization whose crucial elements not only develop from passive democracy, but counteract its principles in order to maintain its permanence. Institutions are bureaucratized through fixed duties, qualifications, and rules from a top-down hierarchical structure of offices bound together by official rules for only qualified personnel who implement their duties in a series of regulated, documented procedures (Weber 1958). Consequently, bureaucracies hold a documental, procedural rigidity producing delayed- actions or avoidance of constituents\u2019 complaints. Weber knew these attributes of bureaucracy when he stated: 1For the purpose of this paper, campus sexual violence will be used to encompass all variations of sexual harassment and assault. 24 When fully developed, \u2026the more bureaucracy is \u201cdehumanized,\u201d the more completely it succeeds in eliminating from official business love, hatred, and all purely personal, irrational and emotional elements which escape calculation. This is the specific nature of bureaucracy and it is appraised as its special virtue (Weber 1958:196, 215-216). Regulations lead bureaucrats to parochialism, routinization, and impersonalization of the client and of themselves. Because bureaucratic work depends upon rules, officials utilize rules to obstruct unwanted actions from clients and/or bureaucracies; and its impartial nature of formal equality before the law continues to objectify and dehumanize the victim, and in some cases, also the offender. Regardless, there is an imbalance to all constituents involved. The methodology for this paper consists of a grounded theory approach, which is utilized in order to \u201cuncover relevant conditions but also to determine how the actors under investigation actively respond to those conditions, and to the consequences of their actions,\u201d (Corbin and Strauss 1990:5 interviewed two female-identified survivors/student- activists\u2013\u2013Meghan Warner, sexually assaulted by a fraternity brother, and Aryle Butler, assaulted by a faculty member also interviewed Marandah Field-Elliot, who believes in consent and got involved with the \u201cTitle crew\u201d during her freshman year. These women were between the ages of 18 and 20 when they first became activists on campus kept their use of language to convey their subtext and interpretation of the experience they reflected upon when facilitated the interview supplemented the data with secondary resources, such as periodicals, reports, and emails, encapsulating other survivor-students\u2019 accounts and reports made alleging the university\u2019s mishandling of cases. Data revealed that bureaucracy\u2019s adherence to rules and formalities (red tape), time length to address reported cases of campus sexual violence, austere impartial nature, and dishonesty around compliance to the federal bureaucracy used to confront campus sexual violence have impelled survivor- students to politically organize themselves and fight for reformation. Since the 1970\u2019s case against sociology professor Elbaki Hermassi for sexually harassing cisgendered female graduate students, survivor-student activists have conducted a series of public campaigns bringing to light the fact that Berkeley has violated federal bureaucratic interventions by not adhering to its regulations: first, with Title IV, part of the Education Amendment Act prohibiting all forms of sex discrimination in educational institutions (1972 25 and recently, the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) issued by the Department of Education\u2019s office of Civil Rights as part of a 2011 guidance holding universities accountable to promptly address campus sexual misconduct (Lochner 2015). Thus, students have incited federal investigations, organized protests, and advocated for consent education (Schubert and Vidu 2016 Red tape or excessive regulation and abidance to bureaucratic formalities stalls time, impedes decision-making, but essentially calls victims to take action. At Berkeley, fixed jurisdictions within a hierarchical power structure of offices, and a centrality of documentation, have resulted in complaints not promptly addressed (Weber 1958:196-198). Student activism confronting campus sexual violence began in November 1978 when Women Organized Against Sexual Harassment (WOASH) acted on behalf of thirteen student complainants against sociology professor Elbaki Hermassi, (Schubert and Vidu 2016). Three months later, they filed suit with the (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). As time elapsed, the more disgruntled students became. In one of the leaflet series, the header reads: \u201c312 days have passed since the filing of the complaint on February 28, 1979 NOW!\u201d (Women Organized Against Sexual Harassment Weekly, Issue 2) Within the same year, materials for the first press conference divulging to the media the university\u2019s faults state: \u201cSince July 1976, the administration has been talking about having a Title compliance officer, which has been required by law for these nearly 3 years. Yet there is still no compliance officer and no procedures for implementing Title of any kind at this time.\u201d The wait for implementing laws, formulating procedures, and handling cases of campus sexual violence has been considered unacceptable by most survivor-students then and now. 40 years later, in 2016 when student advocate and activist Marandah discussed her experience assisting a friend to make a report of campus sexual assault to OPHD, she disclosed: She went through the reporting process and the biggest problem that she had is that it\u2019s supposed to, there\u2019s all these like time allotments that they\u2019re giving for each step, and they\u2019re all like 30 days but they\u2019re able to give themselves unlimited extensions. So, it was supposed to be like a 2-month process. Lasted like 7 or 8 months, because at every stage of the reporting process, the investigators are able to give themselves unlimited extensions. So it\u2019ll say 30 days but they can push it to whenever if they need 26 it\u2026 Therefore, the time elapsed for each step of the process can be very taxing on the victim/survivor and as Marandah Field-Elliot goes on to state, the process is \u201cmisleading\u201d in that when the victim makes the report they are told and learn of a particular time frame the case should be processed, but then unexpectedly the time has the potential to be repeatedly delayed. There are many interpretations for this type of bureaucratic attribute. Weber would see this phenomenon as a manifestation of how methodical and precise bureaucracy must be in handling each report (Weber 1958:214). Meghan Warner, one of the students under the 2012 Title complaint alleging Berkeley with \u201cdeliberate indifference\u201d for mishandling reported cases, contended with Weber\u2019s notion: Title has to fairly investigate, and they have to do a fair and complete investigation, which can take time. It shouldn\u2019t take as long as it has been taking them, but it\u2019s not gonna happen in 2 days. It\u2019s gonna take some time\u2026 So some students are like, so they\u2019re taking a 100 days, which sometimes, or even longer than that, which is way way way too long, but it\u2019s gonna take some time to get all the information\u2026 so Title has to investigate and they have to do so fairly, they have to be an impartial body first and foremost.\u201d Warner also attributes underfunding to reasons why the Title office may be understaffed and not promptly processing each case. Her sympathizing words for Title can be problematic when hearing the case of Marandah\u2019s friend. The time to be precise sometimes compromises the time to be efficient; and most survivor-students have expressed much discontent when bureaucratic processes are said to take a certain amount of time, but take much longer In addition to reports not promptly addressed, bureaucracy\u2019s impartial nature has connected to survivors becoming activists demanding an ethical, informal justice; however, according to Weber, bureaucracies are calculable and objective, providing solely a formal \u2018equality before the law\u2019 (Weber 1958:220-221). Sofie Karasek, sexually assaulted by a senior who was also a leader of a student organization when she was a freshman in 2012, recalls in an article byAl Jazeera America (2014) that after she reported the attack with three other women on the same perpetrator to OPHD, she was \u201cunsuccessful\u201d in removing the perpetrator from the student group. She 27 said that \u201cthe university\u2019s Gender Equity Resource Center advised her that the group should \u2018keep him close in case he does it again\u2019 so that he would \u2018have a community of friends to support him in processing it.\u2019 Karasek\u2019s response to the reporter discussing the aftermath was: \u201cWhy should his healing process take precedent over the possibility that he could assault me again, or assault another person?\u201d (Taylor 2014). Survivors such as Karasek complained that they were not treated with respect or integrity after they told their trauma, yet bureaucracies\u2019 main task is to be calculable and objective as they treat everyone fairly (Weber 1958:220-221). The constant strive for impartiality leads to a grave imbalance impacting the definition of justice. Weber concedes that formal equality before the law only honors the propertied class; informal/ Kadi-/ ethical justice honors the property-less, but is seen as irrational (Weber 1958:220-221); because objectivity does not buttress the justice for which student-activists strive. In the case of Nicoletta Commins, a graduate student who was sexually assaulted by a male student in January 2012, the university only temporarily suspended her assailant from some time in 2013 until fall 2015 (Lochner 2015). Survivor-students, such as Commins and Karasek may not want to completely take away their assailants\u2019 rights; however, committing any acts of sexual violence, from their perceptions, should have graver consequences than suspension and leaving student organizations keen overarching attribute of bureaucracy is dishonesty, which indicates that exhibited behavioral patterns by bureaucratic officials have negatively impacted constituents, proving themselves and the process itself untrustworthy. There has been dishonesty with whether or not cases got actually reported; and whether or not the university has abided by federal bureaucratic processes for confronting campus sexual violence. In regards to the case of Aryle Butler, she believes that the university never investigated or even took disciplinary action on her assailant. She first told her supervisor of the trauma, no action was taken, and when she later told OPHD, she was reprimanded for being accused by her assailant for falsely reporting sexual assault (Lochner 2015). Her case is different from many cases in that her assailant was a guest lecturer. When talking with Aryle Butler, she considered her experience with fall 2012 as a turning point with her becoming a public survivor, student-activist, joining others in the Title complaint and disclosing testimonies to the media: After was assaulted went to the school\u2026to kind of 28 get them to do something about [the offender], and was told constantly by the Title coordinator, you know, \u2018oh we can\u2019t do that because of FERPA,\u2019 (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 1974) or \u2018We can\u2019t do this because um would have to reveal your identity,\u2019 or \u2018We can\u2019t do this because of our school\u2019s policy.\u2019\u2026all heard her say was that, \u2018oh [there\u2019s] nothing we could do,\u2019 and at the very end, she goes, \u2018If there\u2019s anything we can do, please feel free to contact me.\u2019 \u2026And so, um thought to myself, \u2018well if it\u2019s true they can\u2019t do any of these things because of these different laws, what do these laws say?\u2019 And just started reading\u2026and realized have been lied to\u2026 She was lied to and excuses were made to hinder movement of processing her case. Survivor-students, such as Butler, alleged the university for \u201cdeliberate indifference\u201d for how the institution handled reported cases; because there was no existing accountability process and transparency for all constituents involved. Yet, the paradoxical nature of Weberian bureaucracy is that it assumes power through the leveling of economic and social differences by the mass democracy to supposedly prevent economic/social exploitation; and mass democracy, in this case survivors/students/ activists (and their families) prevent a supreme authority in bureaucracy based on their fight for \u201cequality before the law\u201d and the \u201cprincipled rejection of doing business \u2018from case to case\u2019\u201d (Weber 1958). In other words, bureaucracy naturally is not meant to be accountable to the mass democracy. Only through struggle and protest does this mass garner enough momentum to generate reformation. After the Dear Colleague Letter was issued in 2011 requiring universities to have established prompt disciplinary procedures for allegations of campus sexual violence, students learned how to file Title complaints and get the university under federal investigation Red tape, austere objective impartiality, and the degree of dishonesty Berkeley\u2019s bureaucracy has exhibited strongly motivated survivors/ students (now Cal alumni) Warner, Butler and Karasek, to becoming public activists. Similar to the 1970s, survivors politically organized and strengthened survivorship visibility by disclosing their stories not only to each other but publicly through various mainstream and underground media outlets. Also, to assert the epidemic found on campus, students conducted researched on their own fellow collegiate body. For instance, in a 1979 zine circulating on 29 campus, Donna Benson, a student in the Sociology department, conducted a survey revealing that 1 out of 5 Berkeley senior women have been sexually harassed. (Women Organized Against Sexual Harassment Weekly, Issue 2 crucial element in responding to perceived injustices of campus sexual violence was and remains raising awareness of trauma itself. Another similarity between the 1970s and present time after 2011 was an emphasis on policy for Berkeley\u2019s reformation. Students educated themselves and others on their rights and existing policies used to confront campus sexual violence. They publicly disclosed their stories, their names, and in turn created spaces for other survivor-students to do the same, they took their story to news media outlets, and not only did many become Title complainants charging the university with \u201cdeliberate indifference,\u201d but they also organized campus demonstrations and healing circles in solidarity with other survivors at different universities and in light of raising awareness of their own cases (Karasek 2014). Also, a fully staffed survivor-support office, the to Care center, now exists as a direct result of 2013 students continuously advocating for confidential care for victims on campus. Marandah pointed that although groups of survivors/students/ activists have helped bring resources into existence and reformation, countless students are still unaware of what is available to them on campus. Demonstrations and rallies are great for not only gaining media attention, but also for reminders to the student body of the issue this university has with campus sexual violence and the resources that are available to them. Photo by: Sophia Kasa in \u201cStudents Bring Out Mattresses In Huge \u2018Carry That Weight\u2019 Protest Against Sexual Assault\u201d by Alexandra Svokos (Huffington Post 2014). \u201cCarrying the Weight Together\u201d solidarity action done in 2014 for Columbia student Emma Sulkowicz carrying her mattress to raise awareness of campus rape culture, sexual assault, and the university\u2019s negligence in handling reported cases. 30 Furthermore, the vision of these activists lives as long as they are students at this institution. What happens when activists graduate? Warner expressed that current enrolled advocates/activists are not focusing on policy and mandatory sexual consent education as she and other Title activists were when enrolled at Berkeley while organizing demonstrations. Photo by: Nathaniel Solley in \u201cAuditor\u2019s report on sexual harassment gives and a passing grade (improvement needed) while \u201caffirmative consent\u201d bill moves forward in State Senate\u201d by Paul G. Mattiuzzi Independent Observer 2014). Sofie Karasek (Centered; right to Congress woman Barbara Lee); Meghan Warner (behind next to U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier); and Aryle Butler (Directly behind Karasek) Photo by: Laura A. Oda in \u201cSan Jose State Berkeley grapple with fallout from sexual harassment cases\u201d by Katy Murphy (The Mercury News 2016) Political action done Sept. 7, 2016 in response to Sujit Choudhry\u2019s return to campus after found guilty of sexual misconduct 31 Photo by: Anda Chu in Berkeley students furious over new sexual harassment case\u201d by Katy Murphy (Mercury News 2016). Political demonstration outside Wurster Hall on November 15, 2016 in an immediate response to campus sexual violence and in light of architecture professor, Nezar AlSayyad, being found guilty of sexually harrasing a graduate student shift in the bureaucratic regulation of sexual violence precedes a shift in a university for confronting campus sexual violence. When filed the Title complaint at Berkeley, the university had no efficient Title procedure. In turn, the Chancellor created the Campus Title Advisory Committee in the 1980s. Over 35 years later, survivor-students were again leading the wave of activism demanding justice and an end to campus sexual violence. First, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the Department of Education \u201cpromulgated a Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance in 2001 reaffirming the compliance standards of the 1997 Guidance, stating that schools must \u2018end the harassment, prevent its recurrence, and, as appropriate, remedy its effects.\u2019 Then in 2011 issued the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), extending the 2001 Guidance, focusing on the definition of campus sexual violence and the university\u2019s responsibility to addressing and preventing it (Gersen and Suk 2016). The current Title complaint and federal investigation Berkeley is under exists because of DCL. Frankly president Janet Napolitano and Berkeley\u2019s administration have responded with concessions, and more \u201clip-service\u201d as Field-Elliot described it (Gordon and Watanabe 2014). They sent a host of emails assuring students that they are determined to have an efficient organization of panels, task forces, and new policies addressing the issue of sexual violence. One such email was sent on November 3, 2016 by 32 Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, notifying students that a new task force, the Campus Sexual Violence & Sexual Harassment Peer Review Panel has been finalized. According to Dirks, this panel responds to President Janet Napolitano\u2019s proposal in March 2016 for a System-wide peer review panel that would review cases of sexual harassment and sexual violence policy violations involving senior university leaders including chancellors, associate and assistant chancellors, provosts, vice provosts, deans, coaches, and athletic directors.\u201d Despite the \u201cgood news\u201d that there is a newly designed task force, no jurisdiction or official bureaucratic process exists to effectively handle such cases of campus sexual violence. New task forces continue to sprout, such as the panel peer-review board for analyzing faculty-on-student cases. Allocated funds have been directed to provide jobs for a full-staffed survivor support center on campus, the to Care Center. Also, mandatory consent education now exists for students, faculty, and staff (Gordon and Watanabe 2014); and in regards to student-on- student campus sexual assault, if found guilty, offenders are suspended for two years. The length of time and lack of bureaucratic procedure for each conceived, possible known sexual violation exhausts but galvanizes student victim-survivors Task forces are often seen as stunts that do \u201cbasically nothing\u201d as Warner stated. However, she did acknowledge that survivor-led student- activism has influenced today\u2019s bureaucracy at the university. Concessions have been made and what was not in existence five or ten years ago, now is flowchart and functioning website for victims now exist, as well as mandatory preventative sexual violence education training. Survivor- activists, such as Karasek, Warner, and Butler continue to advocate consent sexual education; and they assist others with filing Title complaints to universities botching reported cases. When considering the current state of OPHD, she asserted that \u201cstudents complain about [the office], it\u2019s because it\u2019s not perfect and get wanting to push for more, but it\u2019s just a lot more than we had, way more than we had before, and way more than most schools in the country.\u201d Settling with concessions and the little changes under reformation only strengthens the interdependency between society and bureaucracy, survivors/students and and administration. As Weber (1958: 96) noted, \u201cmore and more the material fate of the masses depends upon the steady and correct functioning of the increasingly bureaucratic organizations of private capitalism,\u201d the more utopian it is to eliminate 33 such organizations. Bureaucracy breeds more bureaucracy with the same reoccurring attributes of red tape, time length to handle cases, impartiality, and a severe lack of accountability and transparency. Thus, the never-ending struggle for reformation remains For the basis of this project conducted three interviews and then supplemented the data with secondary resources interviewed Marandah Field-Elliot, Meghan Warner, and Aryle Butler. From these facilitated interviews had the opportunity to meet survivors who became activists fighting against sexual violence since their late teens was quickly amazed and inspired by the fact that they took initiative to reforming Berkeley\u2019s bureaucratic processes for handling campus sexual violence. Not everyone who experiences trauma is initially a go-getter, fight-back-the-system-type of person. The idiosyncrasies these women exhibited, such has having the motivation to learn policies (i.e. Title and Dear Colleague Letter) and taking initiative to organize in accordance with other existing cases throughout the nation in a move for survivorship visibility, aided their own abilities to publicly bring their stories to the forefront and organize demonstrations on campus. In regards to the research question\u2013\u2013how does the Weberian model of bureaucracy spawn student activism, in this case, survivors/students combating campus sexual violence asked participants questions of their experience interacting with OPHD, inspirations for getting active on campus, and how their visions changed over time with concessions. From their responses and the conversations we had, this is where implicit biases crept in am also an activist, also a survivor of sexual violence, and believe the basic functioning of bureaucracy is inherently flawed. However, the data could still be considered credible because did not impose my beliefs on any of the participants nor was my analysis impacted by my preconceived beliefs primarily listened and in our conversations was reminded that reformation does not equate to transformation. When activists protest for reformation, concessions are eventually delivered. Similar to a cycle of violence, there will eventually be another wave of bureaucracy that will incite student activist to fight for more reformation to the same bureaucratic system once again. 34 Abbott, Katy, Melissa Wen, and Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks. 2017. \u201c19 campus employees violated sexual harassment policies in past seven years.\u201d The Daily Californian. ( in-past-seven-years-19-campus-employees-violated-sexual-harassment- policies/). Corbin, Juliet and Anselm Strauss. 1990. \u201cGrounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.\u201d Qualitative Sociology 13, no. 1. New York: Human Sciences Press Inc. Felch, Jason. 2014. \u201c31 women accuse Berkeley of botching sexual assault investigations Times. ( assaults-20140227). Germain, Lauren J. 2016. Campus Sexual Assault: College Women Respond. Baltimore Press. Gerson, Jacob and Jeannie Suk. 2016. \u201cThe Sex Bureaucracy.\u201d California Law Rev. 104, issue 4 Art. 2. ( vol104/iss4/2). Gordon, Larry and Teresa Watanabe. 2014 proposes systemwide plan to fight sexual misconduct.\u201d Los Angeles Times. ( education/la-me-uc-regents-20140918-story.html). Green, Jason, Katy Murphy, and Thomas Peele. 2016 Berkeley sex scandals: Records expose rampant violations.\u201d The Mercury News. ( com/2016/04/05/uc-berkeley-sex-scandals-records-expose-rampant- violations/). Karasek, Sofie. 2014. \u201cSexual Assault and Injustice at Berkeley story of Bearing the Path to Cloud IX.\u201d The Huffington Post 35 ( injustice_b_3563918.html). Kingkade, Tyler. 2016. \u201cNew Website Sheds Light On Berkeley\u2019s History of Sexual Harassment Problems.\u201d The Huffington Post. ( assault_us_56e9bbd7e4b0860f99db6a8a). Lochner, Tom. 2015. \u201cFormer Berkeley students outline claims in Title sexual assault lawsuit.\u201d The Mercury News. ( students-outline-claims-in-title-ix-sexual-assault-lawsuit/). Mattiuzzi, Paul G. 2014. \u201cAuditor\u2019s report on sexual harassment gives and a passing grade (improvement needed) while \u201caffirmative consent\u201d bill moves forward in State Senate Independent Observer. ( csu-independent.com/2014/08/auditors-report-on-sexual-harassment. html). Murphy, Katy. 2016 Berkeley students furious over new sexual harassment case.\u201d The Mercury News. ( furious-over-new-sexual-harassment-case/). Schubert, Tinka, and Ana Vidu. 2016. \u201cStudent Campaigns against Sexual Violence.\u201d Global Dialogue: Newsletter for the International Sociological Association 6, Issue 3. ( violence/). Svokos, Alexandra. 2014. \u201cStudents Bring Out Mattresses In Huge \u2018Carry That Weight\u2019 Protest Against Sexual Assault.\u201d The Huffington Post. ( huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/29/carry-that-weight-columbia-sexual- assault_n_6069344.html). Taylor, Marisa. 2014. \u201cBerkeley students allege university mishandles sexual 36 assault cases.\u201d Al Jazeera America. ( \u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013. 2014 Berkeley\u2019s sexual assault problem.\u201d Aljazeera America. ( Weber, Max. 1958. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited and translated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Oxford: Oxford University Press 37 Access Without Excellence: The Shortcomings of Financial Aid and Its Impact on Students with Children Natalie Ruiz University of California, Berkeley Abstract This essay seeks to understand the experiences of Berkeley student parents navigating bureaucratic organization. Though Weber theorized that this form of organization was not only superior to other forms of organization, but also the only secure and stable option because it protected against the whims of public opinion and populist fervor, bureaucracy is not without its shortcomings. These shortcomings are brought to life through the experiences of eight student-parent interviewees that share their stories of debt, stress, food insecurity, and academic strain at the hands of Financial Aid\u2014a bureaucratic system that exists to promote the University\u2019s mission to provide Access and Excellence to all students. These interviews highlight not only the ways in which bureaucracy is dysfunctional on multiple levels, but also the ways in which it can still be advantageous. Keywords Weber, bureaucracy, financial aid, student parents My research seeks to understand how student parent experiences are shaped by bureaucratic organizations at the University of California, Berkeley. In the 2016-2017 academic year Berkeley enrolled fewer than 200 undergraduate students with dependent children (2015). More than two-thirds of this group was considered eligible for the Educational Opportunity Program, meaning that they fit at least one of these three criteria: first generation student, historically underrepresented racial minority, or recipient of a Pell Grant. To fit the eligibility criteria for a Federal Pell grant, a student needs to provide documentation stipulating that they expect to live off of a financial amount that is roughly equivalent to the federal poverty line, or less (2017 hypothesized that financial aid, a bureaucratically organized system, cannot effectively meet the unique needs of Berkeley student parents because of their small population size, low levels or representation and advocacy, as well as the implications set from existing literature regarding individuals like these and their success rates in accessing supportive, bureaucratically administered support services According to Max Weber, bureaucratic organization holds \u201ctechnical superiority\u201d over any and all other forms of organization within modern western bourgeois rational capitalism (1968: 214). This particular form of Capitalism is the precondition for which bureaucracy is able to succeed. It is characterized by a large, complex population whose governing comes from a rational, legal order disbursed throughout bureaucratic officials, unlike its precursor that concentrated power at the top and disbursed authoritative power based on hereditary privilege. According to Weber, Bureaucratic officials enjoy a tenured, salaried position and many other forms of job security (1968:196-198). For Weber, these characteristics should presumably create a system that works with \u201cprecision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity\u2026\u201d and more traits that prove functionally superior (1968:214), especially in comparison to the Patrimonial, kinship-based organization that preceded it. Additionally, Weber\u2019s ideal type of bureaucracy operates under \u201cformal equality,\u201d or the leveling of social and economic differences that serves to ensure that bureaucratic jobs and services are accessible to everyone, regardless of hereditary privilege therefore imagine that Weber would defend the system of financial aid and its efficacy in many facets. The system of Financial Aid at Berkeley closely resembles Weber\u2019s model of bureaucracy which is characterized 39 40 by fixed jurisdiction, a hierarchy of offices, written documents, expert training, separation of work and home, and management through rules. The combination of these characteristics is intended to guarantee access to not only government jobs, but government services as well. The notion of access is notably relevant to this research, given that the Berkeley maintains a mantra of its dedication to \u201cAccess and Excellence\u201d and regards in its mission statement that \u201cThis comprehensive educational excellence is accessible and affordable to large numbers of students of exceptional talent from all socioeconomic backgrounds\u201d according to the official website of Berkeley. Weber might argue that the bureaucratically organized system of financial aid is the vehicle through which \u201call\u201d students, under formal equality, are granted their \u201caccess and excellence\u201d from this University. The office of Financial Aid at Berkeley manages award packages that are funded at the federal, state, and university levels. Each financial aid bureaucrat is required to answer to managers higher than them in all of these areas when distributing their funds. This level of accountability is achieved through heavy documentation and paperwork for all of their student cases, their needs, and what kind of aid is given to them. Weber\u2019s discussion on bureaucracy provides this research with the theoretical framework of \u201cformal equality,\u201d which is the leveling of social and economic differences that protects the bureaucratic system from the \u201cirrational\u201d sentiments of public opinion (1968:226). Under this model, to challenge formal equality is to challenge the fiber of bureaucracy, and open up opportunities for dictatorship built upon populism without any rational structure or accountability. Michel Crozier\u2019s (1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon acts as a critique of Weber\u2019s ideal model of bureaucracy. Crozier is largely interested in internal power struggles between both individuals and groups inside of the context of a bureaucratic organization. He argues that such power struggles create \u201cvicious circles\u201d which ultimately make the rationalized model of bureaucratic organization dysfunctional (1964:149). This idea will act as a second theoretical framework in this essay. Each \u201cvicious circle\u201d occurs internally and then contributes to the overall external bureaucratic dysfunction. These circles are characterized first by the \u201cimpersonal rules\u201d which guarantee that a set of abstract rules cover all possible events. For example, the 1960\u2019s French Clerical Agency, in which he observes bureaucracy at work, administers a standardized bureaucratic exam given to all officials. If passed, it guarantees seniority and upward mobility for lifetime state careers. Crozier contests that this practice diminishes the actual value of upward mobility as well as the authoritative power of the higher positions 41 to effectively govern the lower positions (1964:19 second tenet of Crozier\u2019s \u201cvicious circles\u201d is the impersonal nature of jobs that characterizes bureaucratic decision making. It seeks impartiality and thus calls upon those with insufficient knowledge on the problems they are meant to solve. In an effort to protect the bureaucratic official against what Weber calls the whims of \u201cirrational public opinion,\u201d (1964:229) Crozier argues that bureaucracies employ uninformed decision makers for the sake of preserving impartiality, though it ultimately produces dysfunction. Lastly, Crozier argues that power within a bureaucracy is disproportionately wielded by those who control the \u201czones of uncertainty\u201d \u2013 or the areas in which events occur outside of the impersonal and predefined rules (1964:163). The end results stray far from the intended bureaucratic goals of impartiality and equal access for all clients review of Michael Lipsky\u2019s (1980) Street Level Bureaucracy explores the ways in which the interactions between bureaucratic officials at the front lines of public service and public clients largely shape the bureaucratic experience as a whole. Lipsky references social workers, legal aides, police officers, and teachers to argue that these relatively low-level public officials\u2019 day-to-day interactions with clients embody a gap between governmental policy theory versus governmental policy in practice. Lipsky coined these officials and those similar as \u201cstreet level bureaucrats\u201d who \u201crepresent government to the people\u201d (PAGE). Street level bureaucrats face a dilemma in which they are expected to make decisions for individual cases while carrying out strict, broad, and often oversimplified governmental policies that make their tasks counterintuitive. As a result of high caseloads, inadequate resources, and ambiguous governmental goals that do not fit neatly into the individual cases they are expected to manage, street level bureaucrats must adopt a level of \u201cdiscretionary power\u201d demanded by the nature of their work. This concept provides a third theoretical framework in which the experiences of student parents at Berkeley can be analyzed. Discretionary power, or discretionary decision-making authority stems from the notion that governmental goals or policies do not provide enough specific guidelines to manage the highly specific details of individual cases. Therefore, although bureaucracy employs a hierarchical system of authority, the \u201cstreet level bureaucrats\u201d are consequently given a higher, unwritten degree of discretion over the actions they make take in the case of a client. This may work favorably at times, but Lipsky acknowledges that discretionary power among street level bureaucrats cumulatively reroutes the intended governmental policy or service to a less favorable outcome for the client. 42 This essay will attempt to highlight the experiences of student parents as they navigate through bureaucracies of Berkeley, with a particular emphasis on the office of Financial Aid. Methods for data collection consisted of conducting eight in-person, in-depth, ethnographic interviews with student parent participants solicited participation for these interviews by advertising on the Berkeley Student Parent Facebook group. These interviews were held in public, neutral locations, such as coffee shops on or near campus, as well as private locations including the homes of respondents. The questions were geared toward learning about student parents\u2019 levels of \u201cAccess and Excellence,\u201d consistent with the Berkeley Mission Statement. For the purposes of this research define \u201caccess\u201d as the degree of ease with which students in need can obtain a broad range of resources needed to achieve excellence at Berkeley define \u201cexcellence\u201d in the areas of academics, job preparedness, and socioeconomic wellness, and mental, physical, and psychological health. Over the course of my interviews found it challenging to maintain the focus of my research question with my overwhelming findings in different areas relevant to the existing literature entered this research intending to focus on food insecurity as a consequence of a flawed system of Financial Aid at Berkeley based this hypothesis on the theoretical frameworks brought forth by Lipsky and Crozier coupled with the recent data that reveals an alarmingly high level of students who report skipping meals at Berkeley released by the Berkeley Food Pantry. However, as learned different commonalities in the responses began to readjust my questions to learn more about consequences other than food insecurity including falling academic performance and mental health struggles. Nonetheless, my qualitative and quantitative findings have brought forth meaningful data to prove the following arguments. While hypothesized that Weber\u2019s \u201csuperior\u201d form of bureaucracy would be proved ineffective and dysfunctional through a student parent experience analysis am finding that it offers both dysfunction and opportunities for loopholes\u2014 and therefore advantages. These findings simultaneously affirm and refute Weber\u2019s argument of bureaucratic superiority Financial Aid does not adequately meet basic financial needs of student parents 43 Candy is a 34-year old Ethnic and Chicano studies major and mother of five. When asked if (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) accurately assessed what kind of financial need her family was in, she answered \u201cnope, otherwise wouldn\u2019t need to fill out a budget appeal Cost of Attendance Adjustment Report, also known as a budget appeal, is a documented request for an expanded student budget. The form gives students written guidelines where they may list any expenses that the standard financial aid package is not expected to cover. If approved, students receive extra funds in the form of loans. Approval is not guaranteed, and financial aid advisors have the discretion and authority to approve only parts of it. Each of the eight student parents interviewed reported needing to submit a budget appeal every single semester during their time at Cal. Each participant is a financially \u201cindependent\u201d student (meaning that their parents income would not be considered) with one or more financial \u201cdependents\u201d, or children, whose needs were also to be considered. All reported having an \u201cExpected Family Contribution\u201d (EFC) of zero dollars, meaning usually that they did not expect to work while attending school. This qualified all eight student parents for the maximum amount of financial aid grants and loans, which still was not enough money without a supplemental budget appeal, according to all eight. When asked what kind of expenses were still remaining after the standard budget covered the cost of tuition, fees, and some rent, common answers included the remainder of rent, the cost of groceries, clothes, regular medicine, household items, and the cost of traveling to their hometowns for holidays. From this data argue that the bureaucratic system of financial aid is dysfunctional as a means of granting \u201caccess and excellence\u201d to student parents at Berkeley for two possible reasons. First, perhaps the standard budget currently awarded to student parents with an of zero dollars could have met the basic needs of a student parent, but no longer does. This would reflect the bureaucracy\u2019s failure to adjust with the rising cost of living, housing, and tuition\u2014which then negatively impacts the student parents who must now compensate for the failures of the system. Secondly, it is possible that perhaps this standard budget was never actually intended to be enough money to meet the basic needs of student parents. Instead, it is possible that the University\u2019s intention was always that student parents would rely on multiple external systems in order to compensate for the areas in which standard financial aid packages did not suffice. Regardless, this limits both access and opportunities for excellence of student parents because the required time and paperwork necessary to advocate on behalf of one\u2019s own needs to multiple bureaucracies cuts into time that is already 44 scarcely divided amongst two extremely demanding responsibilities from both parenting and higher education. Delays in processing time and disorganization of paperwork make \u201cfree money\u201d very costly. Though every student interviewed expressed their gratitude for the opportunity to even fill out a budget appeal with the possibility of expanding their budget (even though it meant taking on more debt), a majority reported that the budget appeal in some cases hardly helps their financial situation because it is not even available until halfway through the semester. At the time of interviews, Amy shared that she had been driving for Uber and selling items like her bike on the Berkeley \u201cFree and For Sale\u201d Facebook group to compensate for financial aid that had not yet been approved or disbursed to her send Ashlyn on playdates with friends who know will feed her\u201d she shared. And as for herself, she \u201ccan handle skipping meals every once in a while before the money comes in.\u201d The budget appeal delay is not an isolated example. At the time that conducted these interviews (mid November), at least two student parents had not even had their standard financial aid package disbursed yet, let alone the budget appeal. Many were waiting to get approvals on a separate supplemental forms called the \u201cSatisfactory Academic Progress\u201d appeal that student parents commonly need to submit. According to the Berkeley Financial Aid Website, students must be meeting \u201cSatisfactory Academic Progress\u201d or SAP, in order to qualify for any form of financial aid. The Berkeley Financial Aid website lists the following criteria for SAP: \u2022 Making progress toward your degree by completing a minimum percentage of attempted units \u2022 Maintaining a minimum cumulative grade point average \u2022 Completing your degree within a maximum specified amount of attempted units For student parents, this means that those who struggle academically beyond this criteria, or intend to take longer than their expected time to graduate, are at risk for becoming ineligible for financial aid as a whole. These scenarios are very common for student parents seeing as they tend to take advantage of the reduced course load option which allows them to lighten their course load but also delays graduation. As such, four out of eight interviewed reported their need to file a appeal, which 45 according to the website, is a vehicle through which students may report their \u201cextenuating circumstances [that] sometimes prevent students from making satisfactory academic progress toward their degree\u201d and allow them to have their financial aid eligibility reconsidered. Pamela, a 20-year-old student and mother of a 3-year-old daughter shared that since she has taken a very reduced course load in order to balance academic demands and single parenthood, she is required to submit a appeal every semester before she can even be considered for the standard budget (before the optional budget appeal). She submitted her appeal two weeks before the semester started, and still has not received her approval, which means she has not had any financial aid disbursed at all. Maryanne, a 30-year old re-entry student and single mother of a 4-year-old son with special needs, shared that back in 2013, her appeal also faced a multiple week delay in processing even after the semester had begun. It was then denied. Since the semester was already underway, she was charged for the cost of attending as a full time student for the semester, without any way to pay it was told that other students in my situation are encouraged to take out private loans to pay for this, but could not qualify for any private loans because my family is all in Mexico and you need a family member to cosign on those loans.\u201d Maryanne laments that she never would have registered for classes if she thought she could be denied financial aid eligibility. Her financial situation demanded that she go back to working in retail for the next year and a half to pay for the single semester that she was denied aid for registered classes. She returned in 2015 after her debt was paid and the block on her account could be removed. Though Maryanne faced by far the most severe consequence for delays in processed paperwork, six out of eight students reported one or more instances of not receiving funds past the beginning of the semester due to delays in paperwork processing Weberian lens advocates for paperwork on the basis that documentation facilitates rational, calculated, decision-making processes based on facts and not emotions. However, these student parent experiences suggest that paperwork not processed correctly or in a timely manner creates only more red tape, and serious negative financial and educational consequences for student parents. When asked how financial aid advisors could better serve student parents, Pamela answered \u201cprocess our paperwork faster! We have dependents and we have different financial responsibilities that not a lot of students on this campus have, so consider us a priority on this campus.\u201d Pamela calls directly for the opposite of formal equality, as did at least four other participants. 46 Financial aid advisors operate street level bureaucrats with discretionary power. Amy, a 20-year old single mother of a 5-year old daughter chooses to go to the Student Parent Center to get her financial aid questions answered over the Financial Aid office in Sproul Hall because \u201cthey\u2019re so impersonal\u2026 certain things become essential for this lifestyle because you have a kid. And they [Financial Aid officers] make you feel like you have to beg them for those things.\u201d Pamela echoed Amy\u2019s sentiment, and also expressed that she wished that those advisors with the final discretion over their budgets \u201ccould live in the budget we are given, so they can know what that struggle is like and really consider if they would survive in this state and still pull off being a parent and being a scholar.\u201d To echo Crozier\u2019s (1964) argument on under-informed bureaucrats, Pamela also shared that on more than one occasion she has found herself teaching Financial Aid advisors what kind of aid that she is supposed to be eligible for, because they do not know. \u201cLike, I\u2019m the one teaching them like \u2018um, hello? I\u2019m a student parent, do you even know that there is a student parent grant?\u2019\u201d Not every financial aid advisor was reported as impersonal or uninformed\u2014only the ones with decision making power. Maryanne expressed that she felt \u201clucky\u201d to have Luis Mencillas help her with her case because he was \u201con my side.\u201d Even though she felt supported, he ultimately could not get her most recent budget appeal approved to include the cost of alternative medicine for her autistic son, or organic food that the doctor has recommended for his diet. To echo Michel Crozier\u2019s critique of Weber\u2019s bureaucracy, this example illustrates the ways in which those in power are far too disconnected to make informed decisions on relevant matters, while those who work more closely to the clients have no authority due to the hierarchical order. \u201cThey\u2019re sympathetic. Some have dependents themselves.\u201d They will appear understanding but then still be like \u2018okay but still need you to fill this out\u2019 and for what? For your stuff to be denied\u201d\u2014 Amy. The relationship of multiple, interconnected bureaucracies creates more red tape. For Maryanne, receiving two sets of contradictory advice from two different bureaucracies cost her nearly $5000, and a year and a half of her life spent working full time to pay it off before returning back to school. After accepting her transfer admission to Cal and applying initially for 47 financial aid, she was asked to submit a appeal, which took more than 4 months to process and had to be resubmitted after it was misplaced on their end. Maryanne was advised by the housing office to look for alternative housing plans in case her financial aid didn\u2019t come in knew that if didn\u2019t get approved would still be billed for my classes! So enrolled in online courses instead and made a \u2018plan B\u2019 to live with a friend for a semester. Then they denied me [my appeal] because they said had \u2018unstable plans was still billed for the semester of online classes that didn\u2019t take, and a block was put on my account until paid it. When asked the Office of the Registrar if they could help correct it, they said \u2018we are two different buildings\u2019 and like, they knew it was wrong but they didn\u2019t have the power to make it go away.\u201d Pamela faced a similar issue with daycare and financial aid. She took on summer work to boost her income while she didn\u2019t receive summer aid, but then quit for the fall when classes would return. She also needed to submit a appeal, which had delays in processing. Meanwhile, the daycare center required a financial aid statement to qualify her daughter for a subsidy. \u201cAt the beginning of the fall when my financial aid was backed up, they were still using my summer income to say \u2018well look you still have this income\u2019 but at the same time it\u2019s like \u2018I\u2019ve already quit my job! I\u2019m back in school\u2026I\u2019m now getting financial aid but my financial aid has not come in yet so don\u2019t have any documentation to prove to you that I\u2019m getting financial aid\u2026so the fee was still there. So because of that had to pay $106 in August and September went in and then asked financial aid if could get even just an estimate and they said \u2018I\u2019m sorry, your stuff hasn\u2019t been approved, so we can\u2019t really make any promises.\u2019 So up until this point, childcare still thinks I\u2019m making my income from my summer job, and financial aid can\u2019t give me a statement to show them that that is not true finally had time to talk to the family advocate at daycare and they are going to take me on word of mouth until the proof comes in. But now I\u2019m thinking, do even 48 have time before the semester ends to submit a budget appeal because my financial aid isn\u2019t even in yet?\u201d Pamela will receive no reimbursement for the fees she should not have been paying. She feels that she has lost time that she could have been spending dedicated to her studies, her parenting responsibilities, and or her mental wellness. The decentralization and loose interconnectedness of multiple bureaucracies exemplified here was a key finding in this study. The relationship of multiple, intertwined bureaucracies also creates opportunities for loopholes. Although student parents certainly face financial setbacks arguably at the hands of the dysfunctional Financial Aid bureaucracy, my findings also show that student parents utilize ways to take advantage of the dysfunction and poor communication between multiple bureaucracies. For example, Pamela revealed that she has been in violation of her lease agreement at the Village for years by having an unauthorized roommate who pays her an extra $700 a month. This income has been extremely advantageous to her, as she was able to make ends meet when her appeal was delayed and financial aid money did not come in until halfway through the semester. Candy is a veteran, who receives a federal G.I. Bill grant. This is probably gonna mess up your research, but haven\u2019t really needed financial aid\u2026 because the assistance that get, they\u2019re all federal Bill, Chapter 33\u2026they didn\u2019t talk to each other. Get what I\u2019m saying had a Pell grant and maximized that Pell grant, and was like cashing in\u2026get what I\u2019m saying? So haven\u2019t really dealt too much.\u2014Candy, 36 She has omitted entering this as income, and it has never been followed up on by anyone \u201cby mistake assume, but hey you gotta be resourceful to make it all work,\u201d Candy says. Katrina, a 27-year old single mother shared that in recent years, the finances have not been enough for her to afford rent, groceries, expenses for her daughter, but since her daughter\u2019s father lives in Texas and pays for her expenses when she sends their daughter to visit, Katrina has sent her daughter to Texas for nearly the entire semester. \u201cThis is the only way can afford to live here. When she was here, my grades were dropping and the 49 money wasn\u2019t enough and it was seriously so stressful\u201d says Katrina. Katrina reports that sending her daughter to live with her father, but claiming that her daughter still lives with her in Berkeley is the only way that she can afford her rent, groceries, and other needs without her grades needing to suffer. She also reported that she has the time and energy to prioritize her mental health by doing yoga regularly. The incentive to use bureaucratic dysfunction to find loopholes is best described by Jeremy: \u201cLook, there is no disclaimer anywhere that says your financial aid won\u2019t be enough, but if you look at what they give you monthly, and look at the cost of rent in the Village, you\u2019ll see that you\u2019re gonna be $800 short, minimum\u2026This budget appeal process is a phony baloney process\u2026 the incentive is to put as little info as possible to not incriminate yourself\u2026and it pushes you to be sneaky.\u201d With the exception of Katrina, very few students expressed sentiments that implied they felt as though they were taking advantage of the system in an unfair way. Instead, many justified it in Candy\u2019s terms, as a \u201chustle\u201d or rather, a situation in which taking advantages anywhere possible\u2014even if it is against the rules\u2014is the only way to make ends meet financially at this institution for student parents. For Pamela, breaking the rules by violating her lease agreement and taking in an extra roommate was the only way to maintain her \u201caccess\u201d to her education when the shortcomings of the bureaucratic Financial Aid system failed her even when she played by their rules. To this argue that the bureaucratic machine has failed to adequately address pressures from below that in this case, are arguably rational\u2014namely the belief that students with families should not need to go hungry or go to such great lengths to secure finances for basic needs when they are eligible for full financial aid. Affected student parents call for more \u201cformal equality\u201d, despite existing bureaucratic dysfunction. The time and energy needed to fill out, submit, and await a response for a Budget Appeal has negatively impacted every single student interviewed financially, academically, or mentally. As Pamela tells: \u201cDo you know how time consuming that is? To just like, 50 organize a budget appeal with even twenty receipts? Food, childcare, medical expenses, traveling receipts, you have to print out a doc with how much gas you spend, print out a Google map with what your daily commute looks like, and if you\u2019re traveling out of California you have to also express that in a letter explaining why\u2026so it\u2019s just time consuming\u2026it takes a toll on you which eventually takes a toll on your academics\u2026if only could study as much as worry about money, I\u2019d have a 4.0\u201d When asked how they felt that the financial aid system could be improved upon to make financial aid at Berkeley more accessible for student parents expected to hear students call for more channels through which they could advocate for their own unique needs. Rather than the detailed, case by case, budget appeal process that currently exists as a supplemental option, many students surprisingly called for a more standardized process\u2014but specifically for student parents. This both refutes and affirms Weber\u2019s argument in favor of formal equality given that the standardization would be done within the confines of an already unique and distinct population. Maryanne explains: \u201c\u2026everything is so subjective right now so it makes everything more complicated and makes the process longer because they have to review more things. Maybe if they just made it like ok you have one kid, you get 3,000 more, and if people have two kids a different number\u2026 other students are given a straight budget, and if you want to spend $300 at Nordstrom then that\u2019s your problem. But for us, if we need to buy clothes for our kids then they start asking questions like \u2018why can\u2019t you buy your clothes at Target or somewhere cheaper?\u2019 So if there was a standard student parent budget, an initial one, then this subjectivity wouldn\u2019t have to be there unless student parents ask for more things\u2014like my son\u2019s speech therapy\u2014which would be on a case by case basis\u201d This is essentially a call for a hybrid of formal equality with the opportunity for self-advocacy and case management. This was surprising because it suggests that the financial aid bureaucracy could be more functional for student parents if it required them to advocate on their own 51 behalves less. The reason Jeremy referred to the budget appeal process as \u201cphony baloney\u201d is because Financial Aid allows student parents to turn in as many invoices, receipts, and other forms of financial verification that they feel are necessary. This does not mean that each item will be approved, but it presumably affords student parents a fair amount of financial flexibility. When asked the question \u201cif managing your financial aid case was another class, how many units would it be worth?\u201d five student parents answered with three units (which equates to more than 100 hours in a semester argue that time is just as necessary as money as a resource in the pursuit of access and the possibility of achieving excellence at Berkeley. To require so much of their time before they can receive their money still does not guarantee access and is arguably discriminatory. This university claims that it is financially accessible for students of all socioeconomic backgrounds because of financial aid, but then demands that financially needy students dedicate so much of their time to actually working to receive these resources that their opportunities to pursue \u201cexcellence\u201d take a drastic toll. As Eliza, a 26-year-old single mother and Sociology major explains: \u201cYou\u2019ve got to work harder as a student parent from the beginning\u2014to access those internships, get the classes that fit your kid\u2019s schedule, and research opportunities that will help your resume\u2026and finding places to be that are child-friendly. You got to work so hard. And when I\u2019m concerned about food for me and Janie, my paper can wait Student parents at Berkeley largely face negative consequences at the hand of the bureaucratic organization, as hypothesized. However, my findings largely indicated that financial aid is one of multiple bureaucracies in an interconnected system of bureaucracies whose level of dysfunction is compounded exponentially, often by many of the traits that Weber argues make bureaucracy so technically efficient (i.e. paperwork and expert training). While conducting this research expected time and again to find a greater level of uniformity among my responses. This, perhaps is because internally applied a degree of formal equality to my subjects given my knowledge that they were all student parents was surprised to learn that even the students with the exact same income and household size could still have endless external factors positively or negatively impacting their financial circumstances, as well as their academic and mental health circumstances. 52 Learning the experiences of those who are directly impacted by these dysfunctions proved that dysfunction can at times lead to workable outcomes and advantages. Such a conundrum leads me to conclude that perhaps these mixed responses illustrate exactly Weber\u2019s point\u2014that no one system can satisfy all individuals, and no matter what there will be those who are impacted worse. The student parents at Berkeley perhaps represent the \u201cpropertyless masses\u201d that are \u201cespecially not served by formal equality\u201d (Weber 234 do not disagree that the system of financial aid as a bureaucracy is stable and efficient to a degree. The simple fact that every student parent interviewed has not yet dropped out or failed out of this University because of finances shows that to one degree or another, they are indisputably granted \u201caccess\u201d to this University, similar to the way that bureaucracy is presumed to grant equal access to bureaucratic jobs and services to all. In the case of the university will conclude by affirming that access alone for non-traditional students that already come in with a disadvantage should not be the sole metric for which the bureaucratically organized system of Financial Aid at Berkeley can call itself efficient or accessible to the vulnerable population of student parents In reflection of this process acknowledge my unique insight that has indisputably affected my entire hypothesis. This insight comes from my personal experiences as a student parent who has dealt with the Financial Aid bureaucracy on many occasions, as well as my service to the student parent community at Berkeley as the Student Parent Food Donations Program Director. In my role as program director am required to constantly assess the demand for donated food within the student parent community am well aware that more than 100 undergraduate students rely heavily on our program to ensure that they have food for their families. Since have grown personal friendships with many of my fellow student parents whom the program serves also have some insight on their time scarcity given their academic workload and their parental responsibilities. Nonetheless have watched now for two years how dedicated parents stay waiting in long lines despite even cold and rainy weather to receive free food. Some parents go as far as to wake their sleeping children in the early mornings so that they can stand in line to receive free food donations because the urgency of their financial situation demands it. Throughout the entirety of these interviews, this insight contributed to the formulation of my hypotheses, questions, findings, and conclusions 53 Crozier, Michel. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society. Edited by G. Roth, C. Wittich. Translated by G. Roth, & C. Wittich Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 956-958. Office of Planning and Analysis. Home | Office of Planning and Analysis - Office of the Chief Financial Officer. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2017. Campus Shared Services: Bureaucratic Inefficiency and the Corporate Restructuring of Berkeley Aaron Palmer University of California, Berkeley Abstract The project of Operational Excellence and the subsequent Campus Shared Services was a solution to fix the financial troubles of Berkeley through the promise of creating greater organizational efficiency and cost- saving measures. But instead of fulfilling its promise, it has done the exact opposite. Services have become less efficient and its operations have become more costly. Using strategies for the corporate world, this organizational restructuring has also come at the cost of how this university operates. Faculty, students, and staff have become excluded from the part of shared governance, and top level administrators have gained more power in its core functions. Within Weber\u2019s theory of bureaucracy, the ideal type of hierarchy of office comes into play. This hierarchy of office has created a system ignoring feedback from below, and these inefficiencies have arrived because of a lack of cooperation from above. Keywords Weber, bureaucracy, hierarchy of office, organizational efficiency At the time of the economic crisis in 2008 Berkeley was struck with a structural problem. Funding from the state had been reduced and the university was faced with a massive budget deficit. In response, Chancellor Birgeneau, at the recommendation of the private firm, Bain & Co., started on a massive restricting project, which focused on the administrative organizational structure on campus, with the goal of fixing the university\u2019s financial problems. From this, the multi-year, multi-project program Operational Excellence (OE) and its subproject Campus Shared Services (CSS) was created, which sought to bring greater efficiency and cost savings in its operations. But, at its current state, this program did not meet its intended goal. Operational Excellence and can be seen as a move that brought organizational and operational principles from the corporate world into this public institution. In Henry A. Giroux\u2019s book, \u201cNeoliberalism\u2019s War on Higher Education,\u201d he describes how the neoliberalist ideology of free-market fundamentalism and privatization has changed the public university (2014). He examines how neoliberalism has caused the defunding of the public university and how the public university has now become commodified. Giroux places a lot of emphases on how there has been a restructuring of the university towards corporatization and how governance within the institution has changed. There is greater power towards the top, which is occupied by an executive class of administrators, and their discourse with faculty and students have become stifled. Giroux\u2019s discourse/ discussion may serve as a helpful starting point to think of the question concerning the administrative practice of Berkeley More specifically in the case of CSS: why did this bureaucratic restructuring\u2014which was intended to create greater efficiencies\u2014fail? According to Giroux, the ideology of neoliberalism has shaped the institutional structure of public universities over time. From the principles of the corporate world, the structure of the public university has taken what Max Weber would consider a rational hierarchical organizational form. Experts who claim rational-legal authority have used a top-down approach in the restructuring of the university. One of the issues that emerges within the bureaucratic feature of the hierarchy of office is the lack of feedback from below. Top level administrators within the bureaucracy claim an expert knowledge over their subordinates, disseminating authority from the top-down while preventing participation and information sharing from the bottom-up. This goes against the principle of shared governance 55 56 which in its ideal form, allows for the participation in governance and feedback from faculty and other stakeholders at the university. Without the allowance of input from below, tension has arisen between the chief of the bureaucracy (the Chancellor) and the divisions below. Also, instead of tailoring administrative services for the individual needs of the diverse campus departments by centralizing and reorganizing the administrative services outside of the campus also created greater rigidity in how these services were conducted, consequently reducing the efficiency and simultaneously increasing the cost of administrative tasks The following paper will present the argument for why and created greater inefficiencies and compromised the tradition of shared governance will first present background information on the and project. Then will show data on the outcome and the current status of CSS. Finally will present the argument that the failures of can be seen as a poor decision of top administration and private consulting firms to rationalize the deficit problems in financial terms, while ignoring the reality that only shared governance by faculty and ground level staff guarantees/ promises/consolidates the soundness of the public educational institution Data for this project has been collected through online sources, including: online news articles from sources like the Daily Californian, published research, and \u2018internal documents\u2019 produced by faculty and administration at Berkeley which relate to and have uncovered vast amounts of data in relation to how and have been implemented, the current status, as well as staff\u2019s, faculty\u2019s and administration\u2019s perspective on and CSS. For news articles and internal documents have used the method of coding and analyzed the data have also integrated data from previous research conducted on and as part of my findings Implementation of & CSS: The logic for creating was a response to the financial deficits Berkeley was facing during a time of an economic recession and decreased funding. With the decrease of public funding, the university shifted its focus towards procurement and to organize itself in a way to meet the demands of 57 the market economy was backed by a greater project called Operational Excellence, which attempted to reorganize the university through various cost saving measures and to create greater administrative efficiency. The cost cutting through focused on four areas: procurement, organizational simplification, information technology, and student services. This meant a big organizational shift, about which Chancellor Birgeneau said, \u201cEach of us will have to change the way we work, and the way we work with each other, in order to streamline our operations and produce meaningful savings,\u201d (Taylor 2012). From the onset was riddled with controversy throughout the campus and the greater system community. One area of controversy was the hiring of the private consulting firm, Bain & Co., which the paid $7.5 million to evaluate and propose policies for cost saving measures. Bain & Co. provides management consulting for governments, nonprofit organizations, and businesses with a focus on finding inefficiencies within the firm and organizations, and finding solutions to increase efficiencies and reduce expenses. The total projected cost at the time was between $70-75 million to fund the various projects and an additional annual cost of $5 million (Alisha 2011). It is interesting to note the amount of total expenses the went through in order to save money. The general purpose for the creation of was to combine administrative staffing in a central location to streamline processes in order to save money. This placed more than 600 people in a single location on 4th street in Berkeley, which is approximately three miles from campus and this new building came at the cost of $24 million (Davis 2015 PowerPoint slide provided by states the operational challenges Berkeley has and the rationale for why the creation for this center was necessary. This includes: highly distributed administrative functions, varying types of quality of technology used across campus, inefficient or redundant processes, fragmented quality control, and multiple interpretations of policy. The objective was to simplify and standardize administrative tasks, direct more resources towards teaching and research by generating savings, and to meet the needs for departments and other units on campus provides four key administrative functions: business and financial services, human resource and academic personal support, information technology, and research administration. Prior to this administrative centralization, these functions were scattered around campus in the various departments and units. During the period of implementation, issues arose about the lack of involvement of faculty, staff and students. In a letter provided by the Berkeley Faculty Association (BFA) and Save the University to the administration, there was sentiment detailing the need for the \u201cwillingness 58 by top administrators to abandon reform proposals \u2026 if feedback proves that they are poorly designed and flawed,\u201d and that feedback from faculty, staff and students should not be treated as hostile and should not be silenced (2010). With Berkeley\u2019s long history of shared governance as the crux of the public model of higher education had created a fear within these units that the lack of feedback and cooperation would further deteriorate this public model. This could be seen as a move by top level administrators\u2014who hold specialized knowledge on organizational strategy and financial competency\u2014to give them greater authority on how the university should be operated. This hierarchal approach allowed for the further centralization of the administration, while ignoring the actual individual needs at the ground level. The financial consulting firm Bain & Co, and at the lead of Chancellor Birgeneau had used their preconceived notions of modern organizations in the framework of a private corporate structure. In the PowerPoint slide on the initial findings, they present a solution which states that a high- performance operating culture should \u201cdefine clear organizational goals and cascade goals to units and individuals, with corresponding metrics\u201d and to \u201cEnhance performance management and incentive systems to ensure accountability for high performance,\u201d (Bain & Co Berkeley 2010) The same slide also suggests the use of a financial management model which should \u201cfoster highly skilled finance organization,\u201d and \u201cmaintain ongoing financial discipline and accountability, using financial performance metrics to guide decision making.\u201d What can be taken from this is the restructuring which models a corporate structure with greater top-down authority and the use of financial metrics, including a costly auditing culture, as a way to create operational and financial efficiencies. Outcomes of CSS: Prior to the implementation of CSS, there had been concern about the lack of consideration of the specialized needs required for different departments. The reported that \u201cthere is a danger of a \u2018one size fits all\u2019 proposal without adequate consideration of differences in size, function, and needs of departments and other subunits,\u201d (2010). They continued by saying that \u201csome need more specialists, other more generalists; some can share services with other units, some cannot.\u201d By creating this \u2018one size fits all\u2019 approach had run into the problem of not being able to meet the specific needs of many of the departments on campus and had created greater inefficiencies since these departments had to expend more of their 59 resources in order to meet their personal needs, which was not fully able to supply. In reflection of how has come to restructure the university, writer James Cersonsky states that the centralized control of the university erodes the allegiances between academic and non-academic employees and that the strategy of division and containerization is an academic disaster with a dubious fiscal promise (2012 created a lot of concern about its implementation, ranging from the $24 million dollar purchase for the property on 4th street, environmental impacts, as well as an opportunity that was lost to use that space to economically support the community (Davis 2015). What was most notable in this animosity was the fact that units and departments on campus were no longer employing and supervising the support staff; instead, staffing became centralized and shared among several units. By taking these key staff members outside of their departments separated them from the culture within their units/departments and the understanding of the diverse and various ways in which each unit was able to do their work. Before, each unit required different tactics to solve their own problems, and required a highly collaborative process. As Professor Davis from the Architecture department notes, \u201cDecision-making in the sciences is often different than in the humanities,\u201d (2015). With an intent to make administrative operations more efficient, the centralization of administrative services dissolved one of the key aspects of how this university had operated. These services lost a key personal aspect,\u2014 which involved the constant collaboration and communication with staff, faculty and students\u2014and became autonomized. In Weber\u2019s ideal type of bureaucracy, this separation from the campus community into a centralized office could be seen as a situation in which bureaucratic administrators are placed to work at full working capacity. Full working capacity means that there is a separation from the home (in this case, the campus community) and work. The issue arises where there is greater routinization of work. Workers lose their personal attachment to the campus community and cases are no longer treated on a case-to-case basis, but instead operations become standardized through rules and regular procedures. Professor Davis puts it this way: \u201cSeparating the management and administration from its academic and intellectual enterprise undermines a main motivation for employees, creates a caste system, and limits collaborative problem solving. We are not making widget,\u201d (2015). Ultimately and was not able to meet its goal of bringing greater operational efficiency and cost savings. In fact, it had the opposite effect. Staff members who were not integrated into the campus were 60 burdened with additional work, and faculty were put into the position to do the work that was once done by the departmental staff members. Oversight has become disconnected over staff members who now have to report to the centralized office. And even with severe financial problems, departments and units were put into the necessary position of hiring additional staff members to deal with the outcome of CSS, since was not being responsive to their needs. In fact, payroll costs have increased dramatically due to the increase in management and management support staff; direct payroll cost of management support employees has grown from $75.6 million in 2009 to $114.5 million in 2014, an increase of $38.9 million in payroll (\u201cRestructuring at Berkeley Fails...\u201d 2016). More restructuring and layoffs: The future for is currently unknown. As recent as May, 2016, the current Chancellor, Nicholas Dirks, had announced that in the face of a $150 million financial deficit, there will be major (unknown) changes to the model as a way to cut further costs (Srivastava 2016). Campus spokesperson, Dan Mogulof, has also acknowledged that has not been able to deliver on all its promises in terms of administrative service efficiencies and cost savings and will eventually be replaced with a new model (Srivastava 2016). The failure of can also be seen in the layoffs in December of 2015 of 28 system employees, due to a lack of funds and lack of work. This has led to Union members rallying against this layoff. In an interview in the Daily Californian, a human resource employee states that he attributes these layoffs to bureaucratic inefficiencies and that there has been an increase of managers to manage staff members, but that they did not come up with any working solutions and they do not communicate with lower level staff members (Goldberg 2016). This story of has gone full circle and the issue of bureaucratic feedback has come back into the picture. The problems of inefficiency of the model can be attributed to the increased hierarchal structure, which has seen an increase in managerial positions as a solution to fix a financial problem. The project has caused an increase in payroll expenditures with the payment to the consultant company and the new building on 4th street, but has also institutionalized a power structure in the name of holding expert knowledge, which has prevented participation, collaboration, and input from below 61 \u201cIn the field of scientific research and instruction, the bureaucratization of the always existing research institutes of the universities is the function of the increasing demand for material means of management\u2026 Through the concentration of such means in the hands of the privileged head of the institute, the mass of researchers and docents are separated from their \u2018means of production,\u2019 in the same way as capitalist enterprise has separated the workers from theirs.\u201d ~ Max Weber Weber saw the increase of the bureaucracy at the university as an issue in which tension is created within the heart of the university\u2014the faculty and staff whose functions are to support the education of students and produce knowledge. They now become detached from the main administrative functions, and are replaced by a bureaucratic class. While this hierarchical administrative structure seeks efficiency in its operations, it ignores the main principles in which this public institution was founded on and was seen as a solution to fix Berkeley\u2019s financial difficulties by creating a corporatized structure built on efficiency and rationality, but the top bureaucrats within this institution have created a project, which ultimately has become inefficient because of its neglect of feedback from faculty, students, and staff, which have made this public institution great This project helped me in bringing greater insight into the inner workings of Berkeley and to an area which is not visible from a student\u2019s perspective. Prior to starting this research project, the existence of Campus Shared Services and the Operational Project was unknown to me, and to my surprise when talking to other faculty members, the functions of was also not clearly understood by them. Although was able to collect a lot of data through online sources do acknowledge that there are many limitations to this method of data collection. One of the limitations had faced was that there high concentration of qualitative data on very specific aspects of and OE, including faculty and staff perspectives, and general information published through online news articles, but other aspects, including quantitative data and information on the administrative functions of have been difficult to find. 62 believe that if was able to conduct interviews with faculty, staff, and administrators who have relations to CSS, the quality of my data would have been enhanced, and would have greater insight in the details of this administrative structure. But, due to time and resource constraints, this would have been difficult to accomplish Azevedo, Alisha. 2011. Operational Excellence: an overview as implementation begins. The Daily Cal. Retrieved December 11, 2016. ( overview-as-implementation-begins/). Bain & Co. and Berkeley. 2010. Achieving Operational Excellence at University of California, Berkeley: Final Diagnostic Report\u2014Complete Version. Cersonsky, James. 2012. The Shared Service Disaster. In These Times. Retrieved December 11, 2016. ( entry/13584/the_shared_services_disaster). Davis, Sam. 2015. The errors of Campus Shared Services: we\u2019re not making widgets Berkeley. Retrieved December 11, 2016. ( berkeley.edu/2015/11/10/the-errors-of-campus-shared-services-were- not-making-widgets/). Giroux, Henry A. 2014. Neoliberalism\u2019s War on Higher Education. Toronto, CA: Between the Lines. Goldberg, Logan. 2016. Union members submit petition, stage protest over layoffs in Campus Shared Services. The Daily Cal. Retrieved December 11, 2016. ( submit-petition-stage-protest-layoffs-campus-shared-services/). Restructuring at Berkeley Fails to Reverse Management Growth. 2016 the University & the Berkeley Faculty Association. 2010. Principles for Evaluating \u201cOperational Excellence\u201d at Berkeley, Fall 2010. Retrieved December 11, 2016. ( Principles-for-OpEx-SAVE-BFA.pdf). Strivastava, Ishaan 2016. Dirks announces major changes to cost-cutting efforts. The Daily Cal. Retrieved December 11, 2016. ( dailycal.org/2016/05/08/dirks-announces-major-changes-cost-cutting- efforts 63 Taylor, Tracey 2012. Chancellor Birgeneau to implement cost-cutting measures in line with report\u2019s recommendations. Berkeleyside. Retrieved December 11, 2016. ( chancellor-birgeneau-to-implement-cost-cutting-measures-in-line-with- reports-recommendations/). Weber, Marx. 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Scribner Thea Matthews is a graduating senior at the University of California, Berkeley majoring in sociology. She recently won The Danesha McCoy Award for outstanding scholarship. Currently, she is part of Cal-Advancing Diversity in Aging Research (Cal-ADAR) program. As an evocative Black feminist scholar, her research interests include how interpersonal and institutional responses to varying degrees of trauma experienced individually and/or collectively impact the ways in which society functions. She is also interested in the social implications of historical/ inter-/ multi-generational trauma as well as cultural trauma; and exploring effective solutions to mend old social problems. Her senior thesis explores these issues in relation to child sexual violence in the U.S. Aaron Palmer is a current undergraduate student at the University of California, Berkeley. He is majoring in sociology with a minor in public policy and plans on graduating in the Spring of 2017. His academic interests are in social theory, political theory, sociology of organizations, and education and labor policy. Prior to coming to U.C. Berkley, he studied photography at Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara. Natalie Ruiz is a senior at the University of California, Berkeley majoring in Sociology and Social Welfare. Her areas of interest include social policy, poverty, and social inequalities, with a focus on poor families and their relationship to social safety nets. Natalie is intrigued by socially constructed stigmas surrounding poverty and their influence on creation and implementation of social policies. She has assisted in graduate level research to study the ways in which inequality shapes patterns of food consumption across varying income level neighborhoods in Oakland, California. Natalie has a strong commitment to community service, especially advocating for the needs of students on campus who are also parents as the Program Director for the Student Parent Food Assistance Program. These efforts won her the 2016 Chancellor\u2019s Award for Civic Engagement. Her recent Senior Honors Thesis has given Natalie the unique opportunity to marry her passion for advocacy with her intrigue for Sociological research on families in poverty. John Towey received a in sociology with a minor in demography from the University of California, Berkeley, graduating with Highest Honors. 64 Prior to transferring, John received an in General Studies: Social and Behavioral Science from Los Angeles Pierce College, and was a recipient of the 2013 Betty Odello Perpetual Scholarship awarded by the department of Philosophy and Sociology there. While a student at Berkeley, John was actively engaged in research, assisting faculty projects as both a research apprentice and a research assistant. John also pursued his own research interests, participating in the 2015 Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship program, completing an honor\u2019s thesis, and presenting this research at the 2016 Pacific Sociological Association conference. John\u2019s research interests include economic sociology, political sociology, collective action and social movements, social stratification and inequalities, and social demography. In addition to research, John has been involved in Berkeley\u2019s Student Learning Center as a study group leader for both research methods and classical sociological theory. He has also worked as a math and English tutor for Kumon Math and Reading Centers. John is a member of Alpha Kappa Delta, the international sociology honor society; Phi Beta Kappa, the national arts and sciences honor society; the American Sociological Association; and the Pacific Sociological Association General Eleven: The Undergraduate Journal of Sociology accepts submissions from current undergraduate students and students who have graduated in the last 36 months, given that their papers were originally written as undergraduates. Eleven seeks sociological articles written for sociology courses as well as courses outside the discipline. Papers submitted by authors in different academic disciplines should foreground a rich sociological engagement to make their work appropriate for Eleven. We welcome both electronic and paper submissions. We accept papers with a length of 10-65 pages, including references. An electronic submission must be in Microsoft Word 6.0/95 or later, and may be submitted as an e-mail attachment to [email protected]. Paper submissions should include: a completed cover sheet/submission form; a copy of the paper with no identifying information; an abstract or short summary of the paper (maximum of 250 words); and an academic biography (maximum of 250 words). Since manuscripts are reviewed anonymously, the author should be identified only on the submission sheet and not in the manuscript itself. Potential contributors should e-mail Eleven at [email protected] for a 65 66 copy of the journal\u2019s submission form. For more information please visit our website at Format All manuscripts must be typed and double-spaced with 1-inch margins on all sides. The submission must included numbered pages. All text (including titles, headings, and footnotes) should be in Times New Roman, 12-point font. In general, we recommend submissions not to have too complex a hierarchy of sections and subsections. In the case of a heading, the title should be separated from the preceding paragraph by two (2) lines and one (1) line from the proceeding paragraph. The heading should appear in 10-point boldface type, left justified. In the case of a sub-heading, the title should be separated from both preceding and proceeding paragraphs by a single (1) line. The sub-heading should appear in 12-point italicized type. Citation and Reference Format Submissions should follow the American Sociological Association (ASA) Style Guide (Third Edition). All citations in the text should be identified by the author\u2019s last name, year of publication, and pagination (if necessary). Identify later citations in the same way as the first. If there are more than three authors of a single work, use \u201cet al.\u201d Citations should follow the following format: (Author Year:Pagenumber). If there are multiple citations, separate each citation with a semicolon (\u201c;\u201d) and a space: (Author Year:Pagenumber; Author Year:Pagenumber). References should come at the end of the paper and should be prefaced with the heading \u201cReferences\u201d in 12-point boldface type, left justified. The reference entries themselves should be formatted according to the American Sociological Association (ASA) Style Guide 67 68 \u201cThe function of sociology, as of every science, is to reveal that which is hidden.\u201d - Pierre Bourdieu"} |
8,720 | Walter Lasecki | Association for Computing Machinery | [
"8720_101.pdf",
"8720_102.pdf",
"8720_103.pdf",
"8720_104.pdf",
"8720_105.pdf",
"8720_106.pdf",
"8720_107.pdf"
] | {"8720_101.pdf": "Design by Madison Grosvenor. Buy this photo. This article is the first part of a two-part investigation by The Michigan Daily\u2019s Focal Point team into allegations of sexual misconduct against computer science professor Walter Lasecki and the University of Michigan\u2019s handling of these allegations. It is based on emails, documents, notes and interviews with 12 individuals knowledgeable of these events Daily investigation finds divergence in U-M, outside organization\u2019s han- dling of allegations against professor by Nina Molina and Sammy Sussman May 19, 2021 2/16/25, 10:24 Daily investigation finds divergence in U-M, outside organization\u2019s handling of allegations against professor 1/9 Content Warning: Sexual harassment and misconduct UPDATE: According to an email sent to faculty on May 28, Walter Lasecki resigned from effective August 30. In the interim, he has been barred from \u201cin-person interaction\u201d with students. wo investigations into four allegations of sexual misconduct against University of Michigan computer science professor Walter Lasecki began in November 2019. One was conducted by the University\u2019s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE). The other was conducted by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), a prominent computer science research association. Despite receiving the same allegations, the two investigations reached vastly different conclusions. OIE\u2019s investigation ended on July 13 2020, with the finding that Lasecki\u2019s behavior in all four cases did not violate the University\u2019s sexual harassment policy, Standard Practice Guide 201.89 and with no sanctions against Lasecki. ACM, however, concluded in February 2021 that Lasecki had violated its Policy Against Harassment, and Lasecki was banned from events for at least five years. Hired to the University in 2015, Lasecki is an assistant professor in the Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) department of the College of Engineering. He also held a position in the School of Information until March 2020. Three of the allegations against Lasecki came from non-University affiliated graduate students and involved his conduct at social gatherings and industry conferences from 2016 to 2019. The fourth allegation came from a student at the University, who alleges she had been harassed on campus, off campus and at industry events. The four students requested anonymity in interviews with The Michigan Daily, citing Lasecki\u2019s prominence in the industry and their fears of professional retribution. All the allegations shared common characteristics: while joining the students for drinks, Lasecki allegedly made statements that made the students feel uncomfortable. In at least six instances, he allegedly touched them sexually. Lasecki did not respond to multiple email requests for comment from The Daily. He denied all allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct in statements to OIE. In a statement to The Daily on May 14, University spokesperson Rick Fitzgerald declined to discuss the specifics of this case, citing issues of confidentiality. \u201cIt is university policy not to publicly discuss personnel matters out of respect for employee privacy. That also means we are unable to discuss details of any matters that may be reported to the Office for Institutional Equity for review,\u201d Fitzgerald wrote. When asked if Lasecki would be returning to the University to teach in Fall 2021, Fitzgerald wrote that \u201cthere has been no final determination at this time.\u201d The allegations against Lasecki are not the first to rock the University\u2019s Computer Science and Engineering department. In Feb. 2020, an article in The Verge uncovered numerous previously undisclosed allegations of sexual harassment against faculty member and former Clinc Jason Mars, who continues to teach courses in the department despite pushback from students and faculty. In January 2021 faculty member Peter Chen \u2014 and interim chair of the department from January to July 2020 \u2014 was placed on leave after criminal sexual misconduct charges of the first degree with a victim under 13 years old were filed against him. University spokesperson Fitzgerald offered a brief summary of the College of Engineering\u2019s commitment to addressing matters of culture and inclusivity in a statement to The Daily is committed to fostering an inclusive environment, where all community members feel safe and welcome,\u201d Fitzgerald wrote. \u201cEfforts to broaden participation and improve climate in have been underway for years, including mechanisms to improve climate, educate employees and students on inclusivity, increase representation and remove roadblocks. These can be seen in detail in the annual Climate Report.\u201d Fitzgerald also highlighted a specific initiative by Alec Gallimore, dean of the College of Engineering, to improve the department\u2019s climate. This group, known as the Climate Assessment Committee, investigates and manages the department\u2019s culture, according to Fitzgerald. The formation of this committee came after faculty members called for its creation in a Feb. 1, 2021 open letter. According to Fitzgerald, this climate assessment will be led by a third-party and a final report will be released this summer. 2/16/25, 10:24 Daily investigation finds divergence in U-M, outside organization\u2019s handling of allegations against professor 2/9 has not demonstrated that it can fully resolve culture and climate issues internally, and would benefit from outside perspectives,\u201d the open letter reads. \u201cMichigan conducts program reviews for internal academic improvement. We propose a regular climate-related program review for CSE, similar to such academic or graduate program reviews.\u201d Sexual harassment and misconduct allegations at the University of Michigan are not unique to the College of Engineering. The School of Music, Theater and Dance has seen allegations against two former professors Stephen Shipps and David Daniels, while the School of Literature, Science and the Arts has seen allegations against English professor Douglas Trevor and former American Culture professor Bruce Conforth. In January 2020, Provost Martin Philbert \u2014 who previously oversaw \u2014 was placed on leave and later resigned after multiple allegations of sexual harassment against him were reported to the University. The allegations were later investigated and corroborated by law firm WilmerHale. Another WilmerHale investigation released earlier this month found hundreds of credible allegations of sexual abuse against former University doctor Robert Anderson over a 37-year period. The Anderson report concluded that the allegations represent a \u201cdevastating pattern\u201d of abuse that was known to University officials. \u2018My experience was part of a pattern of behavior\u2019 ne of the non-University graduate students that filed a complaint against Lasecki attended a group dinner after an industry conference in 2016. Lasecki also attended this dinner. In this article, this student will be referred to as Jane. In the final report released by OIE, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily, Jane alleged that Lasecki encouraged her to drink throughout the meal, at one point asking the waiter to make her a \u201cdouble.\u201d She also alleged that he briefly placed his hand on her thigh. Later that night, Jane said Lasecki helped her return to her apartment. He then touched her sexually, she wrote in her statement. The report notes that Jane said she \u201cdid not give any nonverbal cues to indicate that she was interested nor uninterested in physical contact.\u201d Jane shared her apprehension about the alleged incident in a text message to The Daily. \u201cWhen it first happened felt violated and disturbed but thought perhaps it was a miscommunication or misunderstanding,\u201d Jane wrote also didn\u2019t know what to do about it, since we were not (and still are not) at the same institution second non-University graduate student \u2014 who will be referred to as Rachel in this article \u2014 attended four conferences that Lasecki also attended between 2017 and 2019. She alleged that he touched her sexually at all four conferences. In her statement to OIE, which was obtained by The Daily, Rachel described the pervasiveness of Lasecki\u2019s alleged harassment. \u201cWhen [Respondent] is around me when he is drinking, he is consistently physically affectionate with me,\u201d Rachel wrote can\u2019t count the number of times he\u2019s touched me in intimate and inappropriate ways. I\u2019m anxious at events that he will come up to me and start touching me \u2014 it bothers me so much that I\u2019ve started scanning the room at poster sessions, receptions, and parties to watch where he\u2019s at third non-University graduate student wrote in her statement to OIE, also obtained by The Daily, that she experienced similar harassment at an industry conference in 2016. In this article, she will be referred to as Alex. Alex alleged that Lasecki groped her while she was talking to a group of people. \u201cHis behavior was overly familiar, touching me at first in small ways as we were talking to other people,\u201d Alex wrote. \u201cAt some point, he leaned closer to me and essentially reached his hand between my legs was uncomfortable the whole time, but distinctly remember knowing he was faculty and well-regarded, and so thinking should be flattered. At the point where he groped my crotch, though knew that was past a line.\u201d In a text message to The Daily, Alex recalled struggling with how to respond to this alleged harassment. \u201cDespite having heard as much as anyone else about sexual misconduct in academia and beyond, when it happened to me still naively assumed it was a one-off incident,\u201d Alex wrote. \u201cSo tried to put it out of my mind and do my best to avoid being around him as much as could.\u201d The fourth student to file a complaint with OIE, who will be referred to as Lily in this article, was a University of Michigan student. Lily alleged that Lasecki harassed her between 2016 and 2019 on campus, in social settings and at outside conferences. She wrote in her report that Lasecki was \u201ca little too friendly for a faculty member\u201d when she first interacted with him at a conference. In 2017, when Lasecki joined Lily and a few other students for dinner, Lily alleged that he encouraged her to drink more alcohol. 2/16/25, 10:24 Daily investigation finds divergence in U-M, outside organization\u2019s handling of allegations against professor 3/9 \u201c\u2018You have to celebrate a paper submission the right way. Come on, one more,\u2019\u201d Lily remembered Lasecki saying, according to her statement to OIE. Lily wrote that Lasecki touched under her shirt later that night and that she repeatedly attempted to stop his advances. Despite these attempts, the harassment continued, she claims. She remembered how Lasecki tried to justify his behavior. \u201cOh, sorry, from the way you were angling your body towards me during our meeting before figured you wanted me to,\u201d she alleged that he replied. Information graduate student Lindsay Blackwell told The Daily she knew these students and put them in touch with one another in Nov. 2019 through Signal, an encrypted messaging app. \u201cAt that point, the four of them started talking, learning about each other and what had happened, and thinking about reporting,\u201d Blackwell said. Alex told The Daily learning about other women with similar allegations against Lasecki encouraged her to report. \u201cWhen suddenly became aware that my experience was part of a pattern of behavior was immediately hit with the devastating realization that my naive and scared silence might have enabled years of abuse,\u201d Alex wrote in a text message to The Daily knew that filing a report could not do much for me \u2014 I\u2019m not affiliated with UM, the incident was years ago, and was mostly effectively managing to avoid him \u2014 and that going through with the reporting process would be arduous, time-consuming, and emotionally painful also knew it was the right thing to do.\u201d Lily recalled a similar realization. \u201cFinding out that wasn\u2019t alone in these experiences and that there were others who were willing to take action by reporting gave me some hope that the university would see the pattern of problematic behavior,\u201d Lily wrote in a text message to The Daily. \u201cThat\u2019s partially why we filed it as a joint report never gave an explanation for their change in rationale\u2019 hen began its investigation after receiving all four complaints together on Nov. 19, 2020, all four students believed that their complaints would be processed together because they had similar allegations. \u201cWe filed our complaints together with confirmation from that it would help establish a pattern of behavior,\u201d Jane wrote in a text message to The Daily. (Notes taken by an advocate during Jane\u2019s interview, along with correspondence between Jane, Alex and this advocate, corroborate Jane\u2019s claim.) But records obtained by The Daily indicate that Jane\u2019s complaint had been separated from the other three complaints by the time her feedback was requested on the preliminary report footnote in the \u201cInvestigative Process\u201d section of Jane\u2019s report mentions that her complaint was initially processed with Alex and Rachel\u2019s complaints. This section offers no rationale for splitting these complaints. The footnote in Jane\u2019s report. In an interview with The Daily, Liz Abdnour, Michigan-based attorney and former Michigan State University Title investigator, questioned OIE\u2019s decision to split the complaints. (Abdnour has no legal involvement in these cases. Her comments are expert opinions based on information provided by The Daily.) \u201cThere\u2019s no rule about whether cases need to be handled together or not,\u201d Abdnour said. \u201cIn my experience when was doing it (at Michigan State) \u2026 we would generally do them together if they involved the same respondent as long as they were similar fact patterns, which it sounds like this is.\u201d Though he declined to discuss the specifics of Lasecki\u2019s case, Fitzgerald explained OIE\u2019s general policies toward separating and combining cases. \u201cIf there are multiple allegations reported about the same respondent will assess the allegations individually to determine if one investigation or separate allegations is most appropriate,\u201d Fitzgerald said. \u201cTypically, allegations that are related to a specific incident or closely related are handled as one investigation. When the allegations are distinct, they are handled as separate investigations.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:24 Daily investigation finds divergence in U-M, outside organization\u2019s handling of allegations against professor 4/9 Jane described the splitting of the complaints as the first of many instances that caused her to distrust OIE. \u201cThe fact that this was reneged upon midway through the investigation without our consent does not engender trust,\u201d Jane wrote in a text message to The Daily never gave an explanation for their change in rationale \u2026 The decision to separate the reports made the very idea of determining what is \u2018relevant history\u2019 subjective and undermined the possibility of establishing a pattern.\u201d Though the reports were handled separately, toward the end of Alex, Rachel and Lily\u2019s complaints added a section titled \u201cOther Concerns.\u201d The wording of this section in all three reports is nearly identical. (In Alex\u2019s report omits the word \u201chowever\u201d before \u201cbecause.\u201d) \u201cThe initial report submitted to and some concerns raised in the course of this investigation do not directly pertain to Respondent\u2019s interactions with Complainant,\u201d all three sections note. \u201cBecause some of these concerns may be relevant to varying degrees to Complainant\u2019s allegations, information about these concerns \u2026 is summarized below.\u201d In subsections titled \u201cConcerns Involving Witness (Alex),\u201d \u201cConcerns Involving Witness (Lily),\u201d and \u201cConcerns Involving Witness (Rachel),\u201d all three reports contain brief summaries of the allegations brought by the other two students. The summaries are nearly identical across the three different reports, as are the summaries of the investigative processes. Four of these sections across the three reports conclude with Lasecki\u2019s response denying the allegations. The \u201cOther Concerns\u201d section in Lily\u2019s report. The \u201cOther Concerns\u201d section in Alex\u2019s report. Lasecki\u2019s response to Alex\u2019s allegations in Rachel\u2019s report. Lasecki\u2019s response to Rachel\u2019s allegations in Alex\u2019s report. 2/16/25, 10:24 Daily investigation finds divergence in U-M, outside organization\u2019s handling of allegations against professor 5/9 Abdnour noted that the University\u2019s Professional Standards for Faculty, among other University policies, provide for consideration of \u201ca pattern of behavior and interactions.\u201d \u201cThe way they define sexual harassment: \u2018In evaluating whether the hostile environment exists, the University will consider the totality of the known circumstances, including the nature, frequency and intensity \u2026 of the behavior,\u2019\u201d Abdnour said. \u201cThe facts of the other three folks\u2019 experiences seem directly relevant to that analysis of any one person\u2019s case.\u201d Given the similarity of the four complaints, Abdnour also questioned the effectiveness of the University\u2019s investigative process in preventing sexual harassment. \u201cIf you look at them together, it\u2019s pretty clear that this risk is definitely persistent, even if they don\u2019t think it\u2019s pervasive or clear,\u201d Abdnour said feel like they\u2019re stretching beyond the spirit of the policy \u2026 You can do gymnastics to not make findings and still be within the words of the policy but you\u2019re not within the spirit of the policy anymore.\u201d In an interview with The Daily, Alex challenged the impartiality of the University\u2019s investigation. She noted that Lasecki\u2019s wife, a University faculty member, was repeatedly referenced throughout the report as someone who established the consistency of Lasecki\u2019s account. Similar wording appears in Lily\u2019s and Rachel\u2019s reports. Though he declined to discuss the specifics of Lasecki\u2019s case, Fitzgerald explained that typically interviews all witnesses with knowledge of a case will interview any relevant witness provided by a party,\u201d Fitzgerald wrote would not refuse to interview a witness based on a relationship with either the complainant or respondent.\u201d Blackwell said she believes OIE\u2019s decision to interview Lasecki\u2019s partner undermined the credibility of the investigation. \u201cIf she were just another faculty member in computer science at of who closely collaborated with (Lasecki), that would already be a conflict of interest,\u201d Blackwell said. \u201cBut the fact that they are married on top of that professional relationship is just infuriating.\u201d Abdnour raised similar concerns about Lasecki\u2019s partner being part of the investigation. \u201cIf someone\u2019s a spouse and a faculty member, those concerns should also be addressed with respect to that person,\u201d Abdnour said. \u201cThere\u2019s certainly potential that because of this relationship they may have a motivation to support their spouse.\u201d \u2018You will not be permitted to attend or participate in any (ACM) event\u2019 round the same time that the four students sent their complaints to OIE, they also sent them to the Association for Computing Machinery under their Policy Against Harassment. Witness 18\u2019s response to Rachel\u2019s allegations. Witness 18\u2019s response to Alex\u2019s allegations. 2/16/25, 10:24 Daily investigation finds divergence in U-M, outside organization\u2019s handling of allegations against professor 6/9 Lasecki\u2019s ties to run deep. According to his curriculum vitae, he has authored or co-authored approximately 20 conference papers for ACM-affiliated conferences since joining the University. He has also participated in seven talks at ACM-affiliated events. In the report, the investigator wrote that Lily first met Lasecki at a 2016 conference. \u201cShe said that at that time they spoke about research, and she and a friend felt that Respondent was \u2018a little too friendly for a faculty member,\u2019\u201d the investigator wrote. \u201cShe explained that she did not \u2018have much experience with conferences at the time to flag this as a possible issue.\u2019\u201d One of Alex\u2019s allegations pertained to events at an conference. Rachel\u2019s complaint referred to Lasecki\u2019s behavior at a conference about two years later. Soon after filing complaints with ACM, the four students were contacted by Rachel Hochhauser, the managing director in the Sexual Misconduct Consulting and Investigations Division of Protection Resources, a company focused on security and investigations. Hochhauser wrote in an email to Jane that Protection Resources had been retained to investigate the complaints copy of Hochhauser\u2019s email as obtained by The Daily. All four students were interviewed as part of the investigation into Lasecki\u2019s conduct. Then they heard little from Hochhauser little over a year after they were first contacted by Hochhauser, the four students received an email from Don Gotterbarn, a co-chair of the ACM\u2019s Committee on Professional Ethics. The subject line read \u201cResolution of Harasment (sic.) Complaints against Dr Walter Lesecki (sic.).\u201d The email to the four students included a snippet of what was sent to Lasecki. Though it did not offer the determinations of T&M\u2019s investigation or attach a report from the investigation, it stated clear sanctions that would impact Lasecki\u2019s future connections to ACM. \u201cFor a period of five (5) years following the notice of this decision \u2026 You will not be permitted to attend or participate in any event,\u201d Gotterbarn wrote. \u201cAfter 5 years you may be able to again participate in the above activities if you provide evidence to the \u2026 of completion of a pre-approved anti-sexual harassment course.\u201d Gotterbarn said would not release Lasecki\u2019s identity and also requested that the four students keep the sanctions confidential. 2/16/25, 10:24 Daily investigation finds divergence in U-M, outside organization\u2019s handling of allegations against professor 7/9 copy of Gotterbarn\u2019s email as obtained by The Daily. Though he declined to discuss the specifics of Lasecki\u2019s case, Fitzgerald emphasized that investigative processes between the University and other entities frequently differ. \u201cIt\u2019s not possible to say that two investigations \u2014 conducted by two different organizations \u2014 into the same matter are identical,\u201d Fitzgerald wrote in a statement to The Daily. \u201cThe investigative process can be different. The standards of proof can be different. The underlying policies and what constitutes a violation of a policy can be different. The definition of investigation can be different did not even issue a slap on the wrist\u2019 n July 13, 2020 released the conclusion of their investigations into Alex and Rachel\u2019s allegations: a \u201cpreponderance of evidence\u201d did not support the allegations that Lasecki violated University policies. Abdnour said the preponderance of evidence standard meant \u201cit is more likely than not, based on the available information evidence, that something occurred.\u201d \u201cAnother way of putting it is \u201850% plus a hair,\u2019\u201d Abdnour said. \u201cIf there is even the tiniest bit more than half of the evidence supporting a conclusion, then you have a preponderance.\u201d OIE\u2019s conclusion in Lily\u2019s case was more complicated found that an underlying event in Lily\u2019s complaint was credible, though it did not violate the University\u2019s sexual harassment policy. \u201cRespondent physically touched Complainant during one-on-one meetings and in public settings, including hugging, placing his hand around her shoulder, and tapping her knee wrote in the executive summary of Lily\u2019s case. \u201cHowever, Respondent would not have reasonably known this contact was unwanted at the time the contact was made.\u201d In Jane\u2019s report wrote that because her allegation occured at a social gathering after Lasecki provided paid consulting to a private company, it did not fall under the purview of the University policies. Nevertheless decided to issue a finding as if the allegations were under University purview: that, like in the other complaints, a \u201cpreponderance of evidence\u201d did not support the conclusion that Lasecki\u2019s behavior would have violated the University\u2019s sexual harassment policies. \u201cThis matter does not fall under the normal jurisdiction of and had it been known at the outset would not have pursued this matter,\u201d the executive summary of Jane\u2019s report notes. \u201cOut of respect for the cooperation of all witnesses in this process will proceed with issuing a report in this matter.\u201d 2/16/25, 10:24 Daily investigation finds divergence in U-M, outside organization\u2019s handling of allegations against professor 8/9 In an interview with The Daily, Abdnour struggled to understand the logic behind OIE\u2019s actions in Jane\u2019s case. \u201cThat doesn\u2019t make any sense to me,\u201d Abdnour said. \u201cThey might be deciding \u2018Okay, we can\u2019t be considering this a party because it was a social event outside our jurisdiction under the new Title rule.\u2019 But don\u2019t know why you would then make a finding. You would normally just leave it at that.\u201d Jane was troubled by OIE\u2019s decision in her case find that disturbing, given that the did not even issue a slap on the wrist or acknowledgement that his behavior was inappropriate, let alone predatory,\u201d Jane wrote in a text message to The Daily don\u2019t think it is up for debate how inappropriate his behavior is, and yet he will continue to work with unknowing students without any change.\u201d Eric Gilbert, an associate professor of information who has been critical of the University\u2019s handling of sexual misconduct allegations, is aware of the two investigations into Lasecki and offered his thoughts in an email to The Daily. \u201cIf you look at OIE\u2019s statistics, almost never do they find that a faculty member acted inappropriately. How can that possibly be right?\u201d Gilbert said. \u201cIn my opinion, the looked at the same evidence but followed a much more thorough and independent process.\u201d Reflecting on the University\u2019s investigation of the four complaints against Lasecki, Abdnour called into question the purpose of the University\u2019s Title process. \u201cIf you\u2019re not keeping your campus, to the extent that you can, safe for people, why even bother having a policy?\u201d Abdnour said. \u201cWhat\u2019s the point if you\u2019re just going to twist it that far?\u2026 Why bother with Title-IX?\u201d Gilbert wrote that he believed the University should overhaul its sexual misconduct processes. \u201cIn my view, the University should just completely start over doesn\u2019t work,\u201d Gilbert wrote. \u201cThe University should design brand new processes that center and protect students.\u201d The second article in this series will be published on Friday. It focuses on the handling of these allegations by the School of Information and the College of Engineering\u2019s Computer Science and Engineering department. (Up until March 2020, Walter Lasecki held a courtesy appointment in the School of Information.) Daily staff reporters Nina Molina and Sammy Sussman can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected]. Editor\u2019s note: The student referred to as \u201cEmily\u201d in a previous version of this story has been changed to Alex. \u00a9 2025 One hundred and thirty-four years of editorial freedom Powered by Newspack 2/16/25, 10:24 Daily investigation finds divergence in U-M, outside organization\u2019s handling of allegations against professor 9/9", "8720_102.pdf": "\u00d7 Search Deadline Detroit Home Articles Deadline Tv Detroit Digest Craig Fahle Charlie LeDuff About Contact Advertise With Us Privacy Terms \u2630 Get our newsletter February 16, 2025 | 23 Clouds Search Home Articles Deadline Detroit Digest Education Time's up for University of Michigan professor who made at least 26 female students uncomfortable TweetShare 2/16/25, 10:24 Deadline Detroit | Time's up for University of Michigan professor who made at least 26 female students uncomfortable 1/5 This 32-year-old educator has gone from \"rising research star\" to accused harasser. (Graphic: University of Michigan) June 04, 2021, 9:36 University of Michigan assistant professor accused of sexual harassment agreed to resign at the end of August. Walter Lasecki, the 32- year-old computer science faculty member, is barred from in-person student contact while he wraps up research projects, The Michigan Daily says. The Office of Public Affairs confirmed ... that Lasecki had submitted his resignation. ... Four complaints of sexual harassment against Laskecki led to an Office of Institutional Equity investigation in November 2019, which ultimately resulted in [a finding that] Lasecki did not violate the university\u2019s sexual harassment policy. However, a separate investigation by the Association for Computing Machinery, a prominent computer science research association, found that Lasecki had violated its policy against harassment, and Lasecki was banned from [its] events for at least five years. 2/16/25, 10:24 Deadline Detroit | Time's up for University of Michigan professor who made at least 26 female students uncomfortable 2/5 Walter Lasecki's six years at end this summer. Late last week, according to the student paper, an administrator sent an email to at least three people seeking \"information on 22 previously undisclosed accounts of sexual harassment by Lasecki.\" \"Many of [those] concerns have not previously, to my understanding, been reported to the University,\" [Title coordinator Elizabeth] Seney wrote also understand that you may be aware of concerns of inappropriate and possibly retaliatory contact of a University graduate student related to their prior reporting of concerns.\" That inquiry was prompted by \"information shared in social media that appeared to contain new allegations,\" a university spokesman told The Daily. The assistant professor has taught at since 2015 and won a Young Faculty Award in 2019 from the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which honored him as a \"rising research star.\" News of Lasecki's upcoming derparture comes two weeks after a two-part investigative report about him in the campus paper, \"based on emails, documents, notes and interviews with 12 individuals.\" Reporters Nina Molina and Sammy Sussman wrote: All [four original] allegations shared common characteristics: While joining the students for drinks, Lasecki allegedly made statements that made the students feel uncomfortable. In at least six instances, he allegedly touched them sexually. ... The allegations against Lasecki are not the first to rock the University\u2019s Computer Science and Engineering department. In February 2020, an article in The Verge uncovered numerous previously undisclosed allegations of sexual harassment against ... Jason Mars, who continues to teach courses in the department despite pushback from students and faculty. In January 2021 faculty member Peter Chen \u2014 and interim chair of the department from January to July 2020 \u2014 was placed on leave after criminal sexual misconduct charges of the first degree with a victim under 13 years old were filed against him. Related: Arrested Professor Denies Sexually Assaulting Pre-Teen Robotics Student He Coached, Jan. 29, 2021 Read more: The Michigan Daily Leave a Comment: Contributors Allan Lengel Nancy Derringer Violet Ikonomova Alan Stamm Joe Lapointe Chad Selweski Michael Lucido Greg Bowens 2/16/25, 10:24 Deadline Detroit | Time's up for University of Michigan professor who made at least 26 female students uncomfortable 3/5 Photo Of The Day Tesla Cybertruck opposite St. Florian Roman Catholic Church, a 1926 Hamtramck landmark don\u2019t think I\u2019ve captured an image with two more contrasting ideas inside a single frame,\" Detroit photographer Eric Hergenreder posts. By: Eric Hergenreder Follow Us on Instagram Deadline's Latest Crime Macomb Man Who Tried to Run Over Harris/Walz Supporters Makes Court Appearance February 16, 2025, 10:43 - Macomb Daily 2/16/25, 10:24 Deadline Detroit | Time's up for University of Michigan professor who made at least 26 female students uncomfortable 4/5 Podcast 'Detroit in Black and White:' 'This Is a Real Opportunity Here to Correct the Renaissance Center' February 15, 2025, 12:31 - Detroit in Black and White Development Apple Announces It's Hiring for Its Downtown Detroit Store February 14, 2025, 9:12 - Deadline Detroit Health Michigan Confirms First 2 Influenza-Associated Pediatric Deaths For the Season February 14, 2025, 5:39 - Deadline Detroit Crime Flint-Area Judge Orders Walmart Shoplifters to Wash Cars February 14, 2025, 1:51 - Associated Press Load More Stories Home About Contact Advertise With Us Terms Privacy \u00a9 Copyright 2025 Deadline Detroit, Inc. - All Rights Reserved 2/16/25, 10:24 Deadline Detroit | Time's up for University of Michigan professor who made at least 26 female students uncomfortable 5/5", "8720_103.pdf": "Close Follow Us Search Home About Us Attorneys Cases We Handle Client Victories Testimonials Areas We Serve Offices Welcome to Grewal Law I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call Email Chat Connect 2/16/25, 10:24 Two More of Professors Face Sexual Assault Allegations 1/9 / / / / Home Blog 2021 June Two More of ... June 04, 2021 By Grewal Law The University of Michigan of M) has been hit with two more sexual assault scandals, as students have come forward with allegations against American studies professor Bruce Conforth and computer science professor Walter Lasecki Welcome to Grewal Law I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 10:24 Two More of Professors Face Sexual Assault Allegations 2/9 of has faced a wave of sexual assault scandals in the past few years. At least seven professors and officials, either current or former, have been accused of sexual harassment or abuse: Stephen Shipps, David Daniels, Douglas Trevor, Martin Philbert, Robert Anderson, and now Bruce Conforth and Walter Lasecki. It has been shown that of knew about Conforth\u2019s predatory behavior early on\u2014with students first reporting it in 2008\u2014but did nothing about it. In fact, Conforth was once named \u201cProfessor of the Year\u201d and was able to teach at of for 16 years before quietly retiring in 2017. Seven women have alleged that Conforth lured them in under the guise of mentorship\u2014as a \u201ctribal elder,\u201d he would say\u2014or through ritualistic, spiritual, or occult connections. He even told students he was part of the Illuminati, claiming to be a highly ranked member. Once he had gained the student\u2019s trust, he would then make Welcome to Grewal Law I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 10:24 Two More of Professors Face Sexual Assault Allegations 3/9 aggressive romantic and sexual advances. The students were left very anxious and confused as this professor, much older than them, sought to control and have sex with them. These past students spoke to The New York Times about their traumatic experiences. In the most horrific account of Conforth\u2019s sexual assault, he allegedly lured one young woman to his off-campus apartment and raped her. Another was coerced into performing sexual favors, while another was forcibly kissed. Each woman alleged that Conforth pursued them for several years and threatened suicide to leverage control over them. Six women have filed Notice of Intent to Sue letters against of and Conforth. The seventh woman is in the middle of filing hers. Grewal Law is proud to represent each of these survivors of sexual assault. As for computer science professor Walter Lasecki of M\u2019s campus Welcome to Grewal Law I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 10:24 Two More of Professors Face Sexual Assault Allegations 4/9 newspaper, The Michigan Daily, published a report detailing the sexual assault allegations against him. Per the report, four graduate students alleged that Lasecki made inappropriate statements, and some alleged they were touched inappropriately. While Lasecki denies wrongdoing, he is set to resign from his position August 30, 2021. We Are Proud to Stand with Survivors In addition to the Conforth litigation, Grewal Law is also representing sexual assault survivors in their cases against Robert Anderson, a former of physician. Despite knowing of his misconduct of made him the official sports team physician instead of taking action to protect its students. More than 800 student athletes, students, and other young people have alleged sexual assault by Anderson Welcome to Grewal Law I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 10:24 Two More of Professors Face Sexual Assault Allegations 5/9 Our acclaimed attorney team is well acquainted with campus sexual assault cases. For instance, we represented athird of the plaintiffs in the first wave of lawsuits against Michigan State and Larry Nassar. We were instrumental in helping the plaintiffs obtain a settlement of half a billion dollars from the university \u2014and we do not plan on stopping anytime soon. We are currently fighting to hold and accountable for allowing Nassar to commit sexual abuse time and again. If you have been the victim of sexual assault on campus or by a university faculty member, our Michigan attorneys at Grewal Law will provide compassionate counsel and aggressively advocate for your rights through a lawsuit. We know it can be intimidating to come forward, which is why we are committed to supporting you at every step of the way. With our team, you will not be alone in your pursuit of justice Welcome to Grewal Law I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 10:24 Two More of Professors Face Sexual Assault Allegations 6/9 To speak with a caring lawyer, contact Grewal Law online or at (888) 211-5798 today. Categories: Sexual Assault & Abuse 1 / 3 Dec 2, 2024 Welcome to Grewal Law I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 10:24 Two More of Professors Face Sexual Assault Allegations 7/9 Call Us Today! 888-211-5798 Links Home About Us Attorneys Cases We Handle Client Victories Testimonials Blog Videos Contact Us Locations Okemos Office 2290 Science Parkway Okemos 48864 Map & Directions Northville Office Welcome to Grewal Law I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 10:24 Two More of Professors Face Sexual Assault Allegations 8/9 Follow Us 345 Cady Street 3rd Floor Northville 48167 Map & Directions The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. \u00a9 2025 All Rights Reserved. Site Map Privacy Policy Site Search Welcome to Grewal Law I'm here to help answer any questions you have. Call 2/16/25, 10:24 Two More of Professors Face Sexual Assault Allegations 9/9", "8720_104.pdf": "Barrel of Bad Apples from the Tree of Knowledge The University of Michigan illustrates why organizations must be more thorough when there are multiple claims of harassment. January 18, 2022 / 2 min read Ethics You may have recently read that the University of Michigan removed president Mark Schlissel following a complaint that he \"may have been involved in an inappropriate relationship with a University employee.\" It made national news. What you may not have seen is that in 2020 dozens of students and faculty complained to then President Mark Schlissel that they didn\u2019t trust the school to handle sexual harassment complaints. This is not surprising given that Provost Martin Philbert had been accused of sexually harassing people for over a decade and in 2020 an independent investigation found that the administration knew about it. You may also have missed that University of Michigan Professor Walter Lasecki resigned in the summer of 2021 over allegations of harassment. Tellingly, according to The Michigan Daily, the University of Michigan did not find the claims against him credible, but the Association for Computing Machinery, a respected industry group, did find that he violated the ACM\u2019s policies. Home Synopsis Author Awards Media Speaking App Blog Resources Contact Buy the Book 2/16/25, 10:24 Barrel of Bad Apples from the Tree of Knowledge 1/4 Of course, Lasecki wasn\u2019t the only one. Also over the summer of 2021 Computer Science Department Chair Peter Chen was arrested for of sexually assaulting a young woman in 2017. Professor Bruce Conforth also had multiple allegations made against him. What is to be made of all this? It is true that sometimes there is a single bad apple. Just because someone in an organization, especially one with tens of thousands of people, is bad, doesn\u2019t imply that everyone is bad. The apple idiom, however, is, \u201cone bad apple can spoil the barrel.\u201d In a barrel of apples if you see a bad one, you immediately check those around it. When one of the early bad apples is a senior member of the administration, you can\u2019t just stop after finding the one apple. To my knowledge there\u2019s no secret organization of people who sexually harass others, such that during an interview they give a secret handshake and hire their own. What there does seem to be is a pattern where someone who has no problem crossing a line for himself seems to be blind to the transgressions of others. If a district attorney is found to have soiled the judicial process, say through evidence tampering, all prior cases of that prosecutor need to be revisited in the interest of justice. When someone senior in an organization is found to have harassed someone, it behooves the organization to review all of the units he managed to see if perhaps he wasn\u2019t the only one spoiling the barrel. At the very least, prior complaints all need to be reviewed in this new light. By the same token, if uncovered harassment was a pattern, and not a recent occurrence, the organization should look upward as well and ask: why was this not detected and corrected sooner? The repeated offenses at the University of Michigan serve as an example of institutionalized malfeasance. Unfortunately, such an organizational culture is far more common than we as a society should accept. Disclosure was invited to speak at the University of Michigan on March 13, 2020. My lecture was delayed due to covid, and did two virtual lectures later that semester also did a virtual talk for the University of Michigan College of Engineering in April 2021. Home Synopsis Author Awards Media Speaking App Blog Resources Contact Buy the Book 2/16/25, 10:24 Barrel of Bad Apples from the Tree of Knowledge 2/4 By Mark A. Herschberg Share Home Synopsis Author Awards Media Speaking App Blog Resources Contact Buy the Book 2/16/25, 10:24 Barrel of Bad Apples from the Tree of Knowledge 3/4 Home Synopsis Author Awards Media Speaking App Blog Resources Contact Buy the Book 2/16/25, 10:24 Barrel of Bad Apples from the Tree of Knowledge 4/4", "8720_105.pdf": "University of Michigan professor to resign amid sexual harassment allegations Meredith Bruckner, Community News Producer, All About Ann Arbor Published: June 1, 2021 at 3:55 Updated: June 2, 2021 at 3:16 Tags: Ann Arbor, University Of Michigan, U-M, Professor, Computer Science, Michigan Engineering, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Misconduct, Students, Graduate Students, Investigation, Association For Computing Machinery, Resignation, Resign, Faculty \u2013 University of Michigan computer science professor Walter Lasecki announced he will resign on Aug. 30 after multiple allegations of sexual assault against him came to light. Some of the allegations were exposed in a Michigan Daily investigation. The student news outlet interviewed four women who detailed unwanted advances, including groping, by Lasecki. Many of these instances occurred at 6 2/16/25, 10:24 University of Michigan professor to resign amid sexual harassment allegations 1/6 conferences and in the presence of others, according to the interviews. All of the women were graduate students at the time, and only one was affiliated with U-M. Choosing to remain anonymous, she said the misconduct took place on campus, off campus and at conferences. However, emails obtained by the newspaper reveal a total of 22 individuals experienced the same treatment from Lasecki. Recommended Videos 2/16/25, 10:24 University of Michigan professor to resign amid sexual harassment allegations 2/6 Terms of Service Privacy Policy Powered by Sign up here for the All About Ann Arbor Newsletter Required Email love Ann Arbor! Sign me up for the All About Ann Arbor newsletter. The announcement of Lasecki\u2019s pending resignation was sent out in an email to department faculty on Friday. Until Aug. 30, Lasecki is reportedly banned from any in-person interaction with students. According to the Daily, two separate investigations by U-M\u2019s Office of Institutional Equity and the Association for Computing Machinery reached \u201cvastly different conclusions.\u201d OIE\u2019s investigation found that Lasecki was not in violation of the school\u2019s sexual harassment policy and all four cases and did not sanction the professor. In contrast concluded that Lasecki was in violation of its Policy Against Harassment and barred him from association events for a minimum of five years. An open letter from the student body criticizes the department for adhering to guidelines. \u201cWe view it as hypocritical to claim that the department prioritizes student safety and well-being, when it acts otherwise when faced with a clear conflict,\u201d reads the letter. \u201cThis lack of integrity can no longer continue if the Click here to take a moment and familiarize yourself with our Community Guidelines. 2/16/25, 10:24 University of Michigan professor to resign amid sexual harassment allegations 3/6 department indeed cares deeply about its students.\u201d The letter currently has been signed by 191 students and community members, 77 of which chose to remain anonymous. Copyright 2021 by ClickOnDetroit - All rights reserved. Recommended Videos 2/16/25, 10:24 University of Michigan professor to resign amid sexual harassment allegations 4/6 Freshen your space with this NASA-inspired odor eliminator \u2014 no filters needed Elevate your style and beauty game with these Insider Deals 2/16/25, 10:24 University of Michigan professor to resign amid sexual harassment allegations 5/6 Omne Results Logo Listings Email Newsletters Feeds Contests and Rules Contact Us Careers at Closed Captioning / Audio Description Public File Current Report Terms of Use Privacy Policy Do Not Sell My Info Applications Cookie Preferences If you need help with the Public File, call (313) 222-0556. At WDIV, we are committed to informing and delighting our audience. In our commitment to covering our communities with innovation and excellence, we incorporate Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies to enhance our news gathering, reporting, and presentation processes. Read our article to see how we are using Artificial Intelligence. Copyright \u00a9 2025 ClickOnDetroit.com is managed by Graham Digital and published by Graham Media Group, a division of Graham Holdings 2/16/25, 10:24 University of Michigan professor to resign amid sexual harassment allegations 6/6", "8720_106.pdf": "Alec Cohen/Daily. Buy this photo Walter Lasecki resigns effective August 30 amid new sexual harassment allegations by George Weykamp, Sammy Sussman and Nina Molina May 28, 2021 Walter Lasecki, a University of Michigan computer science professor, will resign on Aug. 30 following the publication of a Michigan Daily investigation that exposed multiple allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Lasecki\u2019s resignation was announced in a Friday night email from Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) department chairs. Effective immediately, Lasecki will have no in-person contact with University of Michigan students, according to the email. 2/16/25, 10:25 Walter Lasecki resigns effective August 30 amid new sexual harassment allegations 1/3 The Office of Public Affairs confirmed Saturday morning that Lasecki had submitted his resignation. In another email obtained by The Michigan Daily, University Title coordinator Elizabeth Seney sought information on 22 previously undisclosed accounts of sexual harassment by Lasecki, writing on Friday to an individual with knowledge of the allegations. An identical email was sent to two other individuals, The Daily learned Friday understand that you may be aware of a total of 22 individuals who have disclosed they\u2019ve experienced sexual misconduct by the faculty member, many of whose concerns have not previously, to my understanding, been reported to the University,\u201d Seney wrote also understand that you may be aware of concerns of inappropriate and possibly retaliatory contact of a University graduate student related to their prior reporting of concerns.\u201d Seney wrote that she hoped the individual would be able to provide the Title office with the information necessary to ensure the appropriate action is taken against sexual misconduct spokesperson Rick Fitzgerald told The Daily in an email that the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) strives to ensure all concerns are addressed and reported so can provide resource and reporting options to anyone who may have experienced sexual misconduct. \u201cThere was information shared in social media that appeared to contain new allegations,\u201d Fitzgerald wrote was reaching out for additional information and encourages anyone who may have information to contact Title Coordinator Elizabeth Seney so that may address the concerns.\u201d The resignation comes after four complaints of sexual harassment against Laskecki led to an Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) investigation in November 2019, which ultimately resulted in deeming Lasecki did not violate the University\u2019s sexual harassment policy. However, a separate investigation by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), a prominent computer science research association, found that Lasecki had violated its policy against harassment, and Lasecki was banned from events for at least 5 years. An open letter addressed to the department, on behalf of the student body, expressed the signees\u2019 collective disappointment on the handling of Lasecki\u2019s case following The Daily\u2019s investigation. The statement claims that the department only informed the community of the results of the investigation, and never the findings of the investigation. The statement argues that because of this, the department has failed to protect its student population. 2/16/25, 10:25 Walter Lasecki resigns effective August 30 amid new sexual harassment allegations 2/3 \u00a9 2025 One hundred and thirty-four years of editorial freedom Powered by Newspack \u201cThe department\u2019s actions makes us believe that it views its responsibility as being to follow OIE\u2019s guidelines, whereas we view its responsibility as to protect students first, even when that might contradict or the college,\u201d the letter reads. \u201cWe view it as hypocritical to claim that the department prioritizes student safety and well-being when it acts otherwise when faced with a clear conflict.\u201d The letter questioned why the department took no meaningful action against Lasecki at the same time as the School of Information revoked his appointment. The letter also suggested three steps for the department: first, to offer apologies and explanations for the department\u2019s inaction; second, to acknowledge they responded insufficiently to the allegations; and third, to provide full transparency on Lasecki\u2019s then- upcoming tenure decision. \u201cWe have lost faith in the department\u2019s ability to act,\u201d the letter reads. \u201cWe do not feel that we have safe avenues for expressing our thoughts on these matters. Every town hall so far has only resulted in more disappointment. We expect the department to step up, own its mistakes and offer concrete plans for improvement.\u201d The letter currently has 57 graduate student signatures, 20 community signatures and 69 anonymous signatures. Summer News Editor George Weykamp can be reached at [email protected]. Daily Staff Reporters Sammy Sussman and Nina Molina can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected]. Note: This article has been updated to reflect confirmation of Lasecki\u2019s resignation and to include comment from a spokesperson regarding Seney\u2019s outreach seeking information on new allegations. 2/16/25, 10:25 Walter Lasecki resigns effective August 30 amid new sexual harassment allegations 3/3", "8720_107.pdf": "of computer science assistant professor resigns as sexual misconduct allegations come to light Michigan Public | By Nisa Khan Published June 3, 2021 at 10:34 Anna Schlutt / Michigan Radio Walter Lasecki, a well-known University of Michigan computer science assistant professor, is resigning as of August 30 amid multiple allegations of sexual misconduct against him. The Department of Computer Science and Engineering said Lasecki, in the meantime, will not be able to have in-person interactions with students. The Michigan Daily of M\u2019s independent student newspaper, initially detailed the allegations against Lasecki from four people dating back to 2016. Many of these incidents allegedly happened during industry social gatherings or conferences. One person described incidents allegedly happening on campus. Donate World Service Michigan Public 2/16/25, 10:25 of computer science assistant professor resigns as sexual misconduct allegations come to light 1/9 An internal investigation by the University that started in November 2019 concluded that Lasecki did not violate its sexual harassment policy. But according to The Daily, there was a similar investigation into Lasecki\u2019s behavior conducted by the Association for Computing Machinery, the world\u2019s largest computing society. ACM\u2019s conclusion was to ban Lasecki for its events for at least five years of spokesperson Rick Fitzgerald wrote in a statement that the university cannot publicly discuss personnel matters due to employee privacy. In regard to the investigation, he wrote, \u201cIt\u2019s not possible to say that two investigations \u2013 conducted by two different organizations \u2013 into the same matter are identical. The investigative process can be different. The standards of proof can be different. The underlying policies and what constitutes a violation of a policy can be different. The definition of investigation can be different follow-up article by The Daily reports that the Title coordinator is seeking information on 22 previously unreported incidents related to the assistant professor. Fitzgerald said in an email, \u201cThe Office for Institutional Equity always follows up on any reports or information it becomes aware of. That said, we also encourage anyone who has information about any form of misconduct to share that with so the office can thoroughly review and investigate all reports of misconduct.\u201d Lasecki did not respond to requests for comment. The release of the investigation led to an outcry among graduate students and staff on social media, expressing intense frustration with the university and the culture of academia. Lindsay Blackwell, a PhD student at the University of Michigan\u2019s School of Information, said she helped the four people with initial allegations about Lasecki get in contact with each other after hearing about the alleged misconduct. She said she had been in touch with the four throughout the investigation process and beyond. \u201cI'm glad he's gone or soon to be gone. But my very next reaction is why the hell was he allowed to resign?\u201d she said. \u201cBy resigning and not being formally dismissed, or disciplined in any way, that's leaving the door open for him to very easily slink off into another career path World Service Michigan Public 2/16/25, 10:25 of computer science assistant professor resigns as sexual misconduct allegations come to light 2/9 \u201cI'm worried about the possibility of him being able to hurt more people, even possibly end up in a different university contract or at a different educational setting where he's going to have access to young (people) again mean, anything is possible because he was given the opportunity to resign.\u201d More than 100 academics and professionals across the computer science and human- computer interaction fields signed a letter asking for, among other things, an outside review: \u201cThe Michigan process and decision should be reviewed by an independent entity\u201d and \u201c(o)ther universities and departments should examine their own reporting policies and practices, and commit to addressing sexual assault and sexual misconduct in their own communities Department Chair Michael Wellman, in a letter independent of the university, said social media posts had \u201csmeared Michigan beyond recognition.\u201d Wellman wrote a 19-page document Tuesday detailing his experience during the investigation and saying that it was courageous for the people to come forward. He also added people should not be quick to \u201ctake a side.\u201d Wellman\u2019s writing also makes references to the Tulsa Race Massacre and the McCarthy era. Michigan Radio reached out to Wellman, who pointed to the document. Blackwell said Wellman\u2019s document angered her. \u201cThe fact that Michael Wellman thinks that these two weeks have been just absolutely agonizing for him personally and for the department that has done nothing but let these people down over and over again,\" she said. \"It is just so infuriating that can hardly find the words to appropriately describe my rage.\u201d \"All that we've gotten in return is blamed for creating an internet circus and ruining their reputation or something when they've done an excellent job ruining the reputation all on their own.\" The news about Lasecki comes after a long line of incidents at the University of Michigan The former interim department chair of CSE, Peter Chen, was arraigned in January on criminal sexual conduct with a child under 13 World Service Michigan Public 2/16/25, 10:25 of computer science assistant professor resigns as sexual misconduct allegations come to light 3/9 Instructor Jason Mars is another case at the department, after an investigation by The Verge in February 2020 revealed alleged sexual harassment and other abusive behavior from Mars toward employees at his Ann Arbor based start-up. Fitzgerald wrote that department formed a climate committee after a request from faculty in February 2021. Outside the department, The New York Times recently revealed sexual harassment allegations against former of lecturer Bruce Conforth from several students. An independent report by firm WilmerHale into the University of Michigan revealed \u201ccountless\u201d cases of sexual misconduct toward athletes by the late Doctor Robert Anderson. According to a of Office of Institutional Equity report released in January 2021, the university has received 177 sexual misconduct reports involving faculty, staff and third parties between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020. Twenty-one matters were investigated by OIE, and 134 were \"consultations.\" Editor's note: The University of Michigan holds Michigan Radio's license. Want to support reporting like this? Consider making a gift to Michigan Radio today. Tags News University of Michigan Title campus sexual assault Nisa Khan Nisa Khan joins Michigan Radio as the station\u2019s first full-time data reporter. In that capacity, she will be reporting on data-driven news stories as well as working with other news staff to acquire and analyze data in support of their journalism. See stories by Nisa Khan World Service Michigan Public 2/16/25, 10:25 of computer science assistant professor resigns as sexual misconduct allegations come to light 4/9 Latest Stories National boycott of Tesla urged to protest what activists call \"Elon Musk's moves to destroy our democracy\" In \"When Detroit Played the Numbers,\" Felicia B. George looks at illegal gambling's heyday Michigan Dems raise fears over Trump plans for Education Dept Court terrorism law unconstitutional World Service Michigan Public 2/16/25, 10:25 of computer science assistant professor resigns as sexual misconduct allegations come to light 5/9 This flu season is already pretty bad; it could be worse by the time it's over Moms, babies in parts of the Upper Peninsula will now get cash aid Related Content News Late of physician under investigation for accusations of sexual misconduct The Associated Press, February 20, 2020 Updated Feb. 20, 2020 at 4:53 p.m sixth person is accusing a late University of Michigan physician of sexual abuse. The university says it has received World Service Michigan Public 2/16/25, 10:25 of computer science assistant professor resigns as sexual misconduct allegations come to light 6/9 Stay Connected \u00a9 2025 Contact Us Work with Us Public Documents News Eastern Michigan University accused of failing to respond to assaults The Associated Press, March 25, 2021 Eastern Michigan University \u201cturned a blind eye\u201d to the sexual assault of students by other students, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday by 11 women World Service Michigan Public 2/16/25, 10:25 of computer science assistant professor resigns as sexual misconduct allegations come to light 7/9 Michigan Public Hourly News Contest Rules Privacy & Terms of Use Applications World Service Michigan Public 2/16/25, 10:25 of computer science assistant professor resigns as sexual misconduct allegations come to light 8/9 2/16/25, 10:25 of computer science assistant professor resigns as sexual misconduct allegations come to light 9/9"} |
8,925 | Joey Torres | California State University - Los Angeles | [
"8925_101.pdf",
"8925_102.pdf"
] | {"8925_101.pdf": "Former Paterson Mayor Joey Torres Pleads Guilty to Contempt of Court for Violating Court Ban on Running for Office For Immediate Release: December 19. 2024 Office of the Attorney General \u2013 Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General Office of Public Integrity and Accountability \u2013 Drew Skinner, Executive Director For Further Information: Media Inquiries- Dan Prochilo [email protected] a Translate \u00bb Translate \u00bb 2/16/25, 10:26 Former Paterson Mayor Joey Torres Pleads Guilty to Contempt of Court for Violating Court Ban on Running for Office - New Jerse\u2026 1/7 \u2014 Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability (OPIA) today announced that Jose \u201cJoey\u201d Torres, the former mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, pleaded guilty in connection with his 2022 campaign to retake the mayor\u2019s seat, which violated a 2017 judicial order banning him from running for or holding public office. Torres, 66, of Paterson, pleaded guilty to criminal contempt-of-court (4th degree) during a hearing on December 19, 2024, before New Jersey Superior Court Judge Marilyn C. Clark, presiding in Passaic County. He had been indicted on that charge following an investigation by OPIA\u2019s Corruption Bureau. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the State will recommend that the court impose a sentence of non-custodial probation, the length of which will be determined by the court at sentencing, along with any mandatory fines. \u201cAfter his first conviction, the defendant had fair warning that any future attempt to return to public office or employment would result in a criminal charge. But he tried to run for his old seat anyway,\u201d said Attorney General Platkin. \u201cThe conviction secured by OPIA\u2019s Corruption Bureau sends the message that, when state law and the court say a disqualification is forever, they mean it. And those who don\u2019t take forfeiture orders seriously will see us in court again.\u201d \u201cAfter being convicted of a public corruption crime, the defendant tried to claim that the court\u2019s order didn\u2019t mean what it said,\u201d said Drew Skinner, Executive Director of OPIA. \u201cNo one is above the law, as this conviction demonstrates.\u201d Torres previously pleaded guilty on September 22, 2017, to a charge of conspiracy to commit official misconduct in a prosecution carried out by the Attorney General\u2019s Corruption Bureau. He was sentenced to five years in state prison. As a result of his guilty plea, he forfeited his position as mayor and was permanently barred from public office and public employment in New Jersey. The court\u2019s forfeiture order, entered on Sept. 25, 2017, forever disqualified Torres, pursuant to state law, from holding public office. That order provided that if Torres applied for public employment in violation of the \ue093 \ue094 \ue09a \ue0a3 \ue09d \ue0a6 a Translate \u00bb Translate \u00bb 2/16/25, 10:26 Former Paterson Mayor Joey Torres Pleads Guilty to Contempt of Court for Violating Court Ban on Running for Office - New Jerse\u2026 2/7 Recent Posts order, he would be subject to a fourth-degree charge of criminal contempt. The prior conviction related to Torres\u2019 directive to city employees to perform work at a private warehouse leased by his daughter and nephew while the employees were being compensated by city taxpayers. An investigation revealed that under Torres\u2019 supervision, employees of the Paterson Department of Public Works did work on the private property to benefit the mayor\u2019s family members. In March 2022, the Attorney General\u2019s Office filed a new charge of criminal contempt against Torres when he launched a new mayoral bid in violation of the court\u2019s forfeiture order. On September 26, 2023, a state grand jury voted to indict the former mayor for criminal contempt. The complaint against Torres alleged that, in February 2022, Torres made a public speech stating that he was running for mayor of the City of Paterson in the 2022 election and requesting that the people return him to City Hall. Torres subsequently went to the Paterson City Clerk\u2019s Office and presented a stack of purported nominating petitions in support of his illegal candidacy. The clerk rejected the petitions. Torres then filed a civil lawsuit seeking to compel the clerk\u2019s office to accept the petitions. As charged, and as reflected in today\u2019s guilty plea, by holding himself out as a candidate for mayor, soliciting signatures to gain the nomination, and attempting to submit those petitions at the clerk\u2019s office, Torres purposely and knowingly disobeyed the 2017 forfeiture order. The case was prosecuted by Deputy Attorney General Adam Gerken under the supervision of Corruption Bureau Deputy Chief Frank L. Valdinoto, Bureau Co-Director Jeffrey J. Manis, and Executive Director Skinner. Defense Attorney: Michael De Marco of De Marco & De Marco, P.C., North Haledon \ue093 \ue094 \ue09a \ue0a3 \ue09d \ue0a6 a Translate \u00bb Translate \u00bb 2/16/25, 10:26 Former Paterson Mayor Joey Torres Pleads Guilty to Contempt of Court for Violating Court Ban on Running for Office - New Jerse\u2026 3/7 Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin Stands with Transgender Military Members in Challenge to President Trump\u2019s Discriminatory Executive Order February 14, 2025 New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Announces January 2025 Total Gaming Revenue Results February 14, 2025 State Grand Jury Declines to Criminally Charge Elizabeth Police Officer in Connection with Fatal Vehicle Collision in Elizabeth, N.J., on December 10, 2023 February 14, 2025 Attorney General Platkin Announces Suspended Manville Police Chief Convicted at Trial of Official Misconduct, Sexual Assault February 13, 2025 Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and 13 Attorneys General Release Statement on Preliminary Injunction Issued in Birthright Citizenship Case Led By New Jersey February 13, 2025 Search \ue093 \ue094 \ue09a \ue0a3 \ue09d \ue0a6 a Translate \u00bb Translate \u00bb 2/16/25, 10:26 Former Paterson Mayor Joey Torres Pleads Guilty to Contempt of Court for Violating Court Ban on Running for Office - New Jerse\u2026 4/7 Meet Attorney General Platkin Divisions & Offices History News Media Library Division, Office, and Commission Seals Year in Review File a Complaint Event Request Form Public Records Request Constituent Services Racial Justice Combating Gun Violence Police-Community Relations Protecting New Jersey in Court Attorney General\u2019s Advocacy Institute \ue093 \ue094 \ue09a \ue0a3 \ue09d \ue0a6 a Translate \u00bb Translate \u00bb 2/16/25, 10:26 Former Paterson Mayor Joey Torres Pleads Guilty to Contempt of Court for Violating Court Ban on Running for Office - New Jerse\u2026 5/7 Together Behavioral Health Child Protection Civil Rights Combatting Gun Violence Consumer Protection Environmental Justice Excellence in Policing Fighting the Opioid Crisis Human Trafficking Unit Immigrants Rights Youth Justice Officer Resiliency Policing Initiative Public Integrity Sexual Assault Victims Sports Wagering Statewide Veterans Diversion Program Strengthening Community Trust Use of Force Policy Directives Guidelines Opinions Grant Opportunities Licenses & Permits Outside Counsel Victim Services \ue093 \ue094 \ue09a \ue0a3 \ue09d \ue0a6 a Translate \u00bb Translate \u00bb 2/16/25, 10:26 Former Paterson Mayor Joey Torres Pleads Guilty to Contempt of Court for Violating Court Ban on Running for Office - New Jerse\u2026 6/7 \u00a92025 | Privacy Notice | Accessibility Statement \ue093 \ue094 \ue09a \ue0a3 \ue09d \ue0a6 a Translate \u00bb Translate \u00bb 2/16/25, 10:26 Former Paterson Mayor Joey Torres Pleads Guilty to Contempt of Court for Violating Court Ban on Running for Office - New Jerse\u2026 7/7", "8925_102.pdf": "Title Call for Policy Expansion graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science By Mikayla Jakubecy-Gibson May 2024 The graduate project of Mikayla Jakubecy-Gibson is approved: Dr. Linda Alvarez Date Dr. Wendy Ashley Date Dr. Tom Hogen-Esch, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii Table of Contents Signature Page ii Abstract iv Section 1: Title Call for Policy Expansion 1 Section 2: Evolution of Title 2 Creation 2 Legal Battles 2 Discussion 5 Section 3: California School Systems 6 Title Manifestation 329 8 Section 4: Sexual Harassment 12 Cases 12 Cases 14 Section 5: Sex Education 19 Curriculum 19 Section 6: International 21 Netherlands, Denmark, and New Zealand 21 Section 7: Policy Expansion 23 Limitations 24 Conclusion 26 References 27 iii Abstract Title Call for Policy Expansion By Mikayla Jakubecy-Gibson Master of Arts in Political Science Title mandates equal access to education and addresses sex-based discrimination, including sexual abuse and violence, in federally funded institutions. However, despite its objectives, sexual abuse persists, notably in K-12 settings like the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). This paper compares the efficacy of Title in with institutions like the California State University (CSU) system and international models in Denmark, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Institutions with comprehensive sex education (CSE) programs demonstrate swifter case resolution and greater accountability, while those lacking such programs struggle with delayed reporting and inadequate consequences for perpetrators and administrators. This underscores the urgent need for policy revisions, specifically mandating in all federally funded schools. By integrating into Title IX, schools can equip students with the knowledge and skills needed to prevent, report, and address instances of sexual abuse and harassment effectively. Allocating resources for robust training and education programs, akin to successful international models, is crucial for achieving compliance and fostering a safe educational environment. These measures aim to establish a future where timely and effective responses to sexual abuse and harassment are the norm, thereby safeguarding students' well-being and ensuring equality in education. iv 1 Title Call for Policy Expansion Title was passed by Congress in 1976 to ensure that all students, regardless of sex, have equal access to educational opportunities. This means any school or education program, including those in K- 12, colleges, and universities, that receive federal funding from the United States, must provide equal opportunities for both male and female students. This ban of sex-based discrimination extends to sexual harassment or sexual violence and requires schools to establish policies and procedures to prevent and respond to incidents involving this form of discrimination. Despite current standards provided by the Title policy, sexual abuse still continues to terrorize children in schools, with an estimated 14,938 incidents of sexual violence occurring in grades K-12 between 2017 and 2018 alone in the U.S. (\"Sexual Violence,\u201d 2021 major reason for this inability to establish effective defenses against the perpetration of sexual assault in schools is the lack of appropriate policy guidance. To ensure a comprehensive and effective approach to combating sex-based discrimination in K-12 schools, the federal government must ensure compliance and expand Title so that it is proactive and not just reactive regarding sexual abuse. Specifically, Title should guarantee that Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) must be offered in all schools receiving federal funding at the K-12 and higher education levels. By mandating federally, schools can empower all students in the United States with the knowledge and skills to protect themselves, prevent incidents of sexual abuse and harassment, and clarify the reporting process, increasing the likelihood of effective reporting of wrongdoing. This policy expansion of Title with a focus on is essential for fostering a safer and more inclusive educational environment where timely and effective responses to cases of sexual abuse become the norm. This paper will use the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and California State University (CSU) system as case studies, comparing them with international states like Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand to investigate the impact of more expansive policies related to sex education. 2 Evolution of Title Title has undergone significant reforms and transformations over the years. The current policy of Title differs significantly from its original form. Like any federal policy, it was flawed upon its inception and required ongoing adjustments and refinements to adapt to evolving needs. Despite the numerous changes and reforms Title has experienced, it still falls short in adequately safeguarding our youth, lacking essential qualities that could enhance its protective measures. Creation Title was initially established to help promote the admission of women to colleges and universities, although it has expanded to cover more sex-based protections (\u201cWomen,\u201d 2021). At the time, these institutions were setting limits on the number of women they would allow to attend their programs or just prohibiting women\u2019s admission in general (Riley, 2022). In 1970, 2 years before the enactment of Title IX, only 11.2% of women ages 25 to 64 years old had a Bachelor\u2019s degree look at,\u201d n.d.), 49 years later in 2021, 59.9% of College students are women (\u201cWomen,\u201d 2021). At the time, this law was only applicable to higher education, like colleges and universities, since K-12 education is mandatory for all children regardless of sex (\u201cK-12,\u201d n.d.). However, since higher education is not mandated by the government, schools at the time had the option to ban or cap women\u2019s admission into universities. This is what prompted Title IX\u2019s creation, but it was not until 1997 that it was explicitly expanded to protect students from sexual harassment as it is intended to today. Legal Battles In 1997, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights from the Department of Education\u2019s Office for Civil Rights (DEOCR) issued \u201cSexual Harassment Guidance\u201d which was one of the first accounts of sexual harassment being explicitly listed as banned under Title IX. The document outlined the ways in which the investigated and resolved allegations of sexual harassment, and suggested institutions use the same standards. However, in 1998, the Supreme Court deliberated on Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent 3 School District and found that schools can held liable for monetary damages if a teacher or employee sexually harasses a student and someone in a position of authority is aware of it and does not do anything to address the situation (\u201cGebser,\u201d 1998). Similarly in 1999, the Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe Country Board of Education found that schools can also be held liable for monetary damages if a student sexually harasses another student (\u201cDavis,\u201d 1999). These rulings were important because although it was stated that sexual harassment was banned under Title in the \u201cSexual Harassment Guidance,\u201d which was added in 1997, these rulings were the first to explicitly outline the repercussions if steps were not taken by schools to prevent sexual harassment by both teachers and students, especially if individuals in positions of authority were aware of the misconduct occurring. In 2001, the released a revision of the \u201cSexual Harassment Guidance\u201d that kept in place some of the principles from the initial 1997 document, but in more detail defined what sexual harassment was and outlined how schools should investigate cases of it Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2001). Obama Administration: Obligations Must be Met In 2011, the released a supplemental letter to its 2001 document. In this 2011 document, three specific obligations were listed as a requirement for all schools receiving federal funding, including higher education, to meet in order to satisfy Title requirements: \u201cdisseminate a notice of nondiscrimination, designate at least 1 employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under Title IX, and adopt and publish grievance procedures providing prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee sex discrimination complaints\u201d (\u201cDear colleague,\u201d 2011, p. 6). It was now the schools\u2019 responsibility to respond effectively and promptly to sexual harassment against students. There was another letter in 2014 that also went into detail about compliance measures schools should be taking to prevent sexual harassment such as educating faculty, staff, and students about what sexual harassment is and how to prevent/report it. Despite the importance of these letters and the explicit 4 nature in which they describe the prohibition of sexual harassment in all federally supported schools across the United States, the Trump administration rescinded them. Trump Administration: Scaling Back In 2017, the then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced the revocation of the \u201cObama- era sexual assault guidance\u201d (Camera, 2017). The Trump Administration argued that this guidance provided the federal government with excessive oversight. In place of the 2011 and 2014 guidance, the Trump administration released a \u201cquestion-and-answer document\u201d (Camera, 2017) that placed the responsibility for investigating, preventing, and addressing sexual misconduct that is considered \u201csevere, persistent, or pervasive\u201d solely on schools (\u201cQ&A,\u201d 2017). Yet, schools could still be found monetarily responsible if found at a later point the mishandling of allegations by those in positions of authority (\u201cDavis,\u201d 1999). The document emphasized the need for equitable investigations conducted by the school, stipulating that whatever happens to one party must happen to the other (\u201cQ&A,\u201d 2017). Ultimately, the schools retained discretion in determining grievance procedures related to sexual misconduct, and there were no formal investigative guidelines for schools to follow (Anderson, 2017). While the schools were required to post and disseminate their procedures to all students, staff, and parents, the specific procedures themselves were left to the discretion of the school, removing any formal investigative guidelines that schools previously had to adhere to. Title As it Stands Today Many feared these new regulations from the Trump Administration tilted the balance towards the accused when it comes to the investigative or resolution process, leaving complainants with less protection (Anderson, 2017). The rescission of the 2011 and 2014 letters was criticized for causing a dramatic shift in the investigative process. On May 6th, 2020, the published the finalized edition of the updated Title Regulations, called the \u201cThe Final Rule.\u201d These amendments to Title took effect on August 14, 2020. Specifically, The Final Rule brings about changes in the mandatory response 5 procedures for institutions and local education agencies when facing allegations of sexual harassment. The objective of the new Title regulations, which have not been amended under the Biden administration, is to provide clarity on sexual harassment as a manifestation of sex discrimination and to broaden the definition of sexual harassment. The Final Rule guidance emphasizes the importance of preventing and remedying sexual harassment in schools to ensure a nondiscriminatory and safe learning environment. It covers incidents involving school employees, students, or third parties and addresses factors to consider, such as severity and persistence, when determining if an incident qualifies as harassment. The document emphasizes the role of school personnel in using judgment and common sense, and it clarifies that not all behavior with sexual connotations constitutes sexual harassment under federal law. The guidance also addresses issues such as confidentiality, constructive notice, and the interplay of Title with other legal considerations. It emphasizes the importance of schools being aware of their obligations under Title to prevent and address sexual harassment effectively. Discussion After numerous iterations and changes to Title IX, a crucial aspect remains absent: federal mandates concerning the education of youth to empower them against potential aggressors. While schools are tasked with investigating and addressing instances of sexual abuse, the existing framework, including The Final Rule, fails to provide sufficient proactive to help prevent victimization (Anderson, 2017). The absence of explicit provisions on leaves students vulnerable to sexual abuse because they are less able to recognize abuse and do not have the tools to combat sexualized aggression and seek help. Without a clear focus on CSE, the current system perpetuates the susceptibility of students to continued vulnerabilities. 6 California School Systems To gain a better understanding of Title and its practical implications within the United States educational landscape, this paper will look at its application within two distinct California school systems: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and California State University (CSU). Exploring the interpretation and implementation of Title within these specific educational entities is important due to the significant variations observed in how their policies have been manifested. Despite operating within the same state, the differing approaches taken by and highlight the complexities inherent in Title compliance and enforcement, which demonstrates the need for expanding Title IX\u2019s requirements to include Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE). LAUSD. According to LAUSD\u2019s \u201cFingertip Facts 2023-2024 is the second largest and one of most diverse educational systems in the nation. It encompasses a vast array of student demographics, instructional facilities, and programs. With a total enrollment of 397,623 students across transitional kindergarten (TK) through 12th grade has a multifaceted student body reflective of the rich culture of Los Angeles County. The district's student population is predominantly Latino/Hispanic, comprising 73.8% of enrolled students, followed by White (9.6%) and African American/Black (7.1%) students, among others. Within this diverse landscape, the district demonstrates a commitment to linguistic diversity, with English and 97 other languages spoken in its schools. Remarkably, over 86,000 students within are actively learning English, with Spanish being the primary language for the vast majority of English learners. Such linguistic diversity underscores the district's dedication to supporting students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2023). Overall, LAUSD's approach to education is meant to foster a supportive and inclusive learning environment that empowers students from all backgrounds to thrive academically, socially, and emotionally. The size and diversity of make it a prime site to investigate the impact of current Title regulations on sexual assault among K-12 students. 7 CSU. According to CSU\u2019s \u201c2023 Fact Book has nearly 460,000 students across 23 campuses and seven off-campus centers, making it the largest four-year public university system in the nation. With a focus on transforming lives and preparing a dynamically diverse workforce offers over 4,100-degree programs aligned with workforce demands. Recognized for affordability and quality tuition and fees are among the lowest nationally, ensuring accessibility to education for all. Through initiatives like Graduation Initiative 2025 aims to increase graduation rates while narrowing opportunity and achievement gaps. The institution's commitment to diversity is evident in its student body, where over half are from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds, and it serves as an engine of social mobility, particularly for first-generation college students. With strong alumni networks and impactful research contributions continues to shape California's future while providing a pathway to success for millions of students and their communities (CSU, 2023). The system\u2019s size and far reach make it a useful higher education counterpart in comparison to LAUSD, allowing a deeper analysis of sexual assault prevention in a wide range of student populations. Discussion and CSU, both among the largest educational institutions nationwide with enrollments surpassing 300,000, provide valuable insights into how Title is understood and implemented within progressive educational settings, particularly in California, known for its liberal laws. By examining how these institutions navigate and interpret Title within the context of California's progressive legal framework, we can gain a deeper understanding of how educational institutions address issues of gender equity and inclusivity, setting a precedent for schools nationwide. As the following case studies will show does not have compulsory comprehensive sexual education for students, while the does require this training for all students. An investigation into how each system responds to allegations of sexual assault suggests that compulsory sex education better equips students to self- advocate for justice against perpetrators. 8 Title Manifestation 329 While federal Title standards outline certain requirements for each state to resolve and investigate claims of sex assault, individual states maintain the autonomy to either expand upon or merely meet the established mandates from the federal government. In January of 2016, California passed the California Healthy Youth Act 329). This act was a supplement to Title and required districts throughout the state to provide comprehensive sexual education to youth at least once in middle school, and once in high school, but there is no requirement for elementary sex education. The act has 5 purposes: To provide pupils with the knowledge and skills necessary to protect their sexual and reproductive health from and other sexually transmitted infections and from unintended pregnancy; To provide pupils with the knowledge and skills they need to develop healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body image, gender, sexual orientation, relationships, marriage, and family; To promote understanding of sexuality as a normal part of human development; To ensure pupils receive integrated, comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased sexual health and prevention instruction and provide educators with clear tools and guidance to accomplish that end; To provide pupils with the knowledge and skills necessary to have healthy, positive, and safe relationships and behaviors. (\u201cCalifornia\u2019s,\u201d n.d.) While the legislation includes important preventative elements, there are significant drawbacks. The first being parents have the option to opt-out of these classes. The district is required to notify parents 14 days before the class, providing them with the opportunity to decline their child\u2019s participation. Also, despite the curriculum being designated as comprehensive, its content is subject to the discretion of each district. If the district meets the minimum requirements for human sexuality, contraception, and sexually transmitted infections, they fulfill the state mandates. The challenge with this approach lies in the lack of consistency and uniformity. Many schools within are not in compliance with Title as it currently stands. 9 System Compliance Educational institutions such as and are mandated to adhere to the requirements outlined by 329, Title IX, or both. Title outlines three key requirements: the appointment of a coordinator, the dissemination of policy, and the implementation of grievance procedures (Authority: 34 C.F.R. Sec 106.8). Furthermore, it emphasizes the overarching directive that there should be no tolerance for sex-based discrimination, including instances of sexual harassment 329 delves into more specific details regarding the curriculum that needs to be taught and the prerequisites related to sex education knowledge for students in grades through 12. Of these two school systems, only is mandated to follow both Title and 329 mandates. The manifestation and compliance of these two policies have resulted in differences within the two California school systems examined in this paper Compliance has an Educational Equity and Compliance Office (EECO) which \u201cserves as the District\u2019s office for supporting students\u2019 civil rights\u201d (\u201cEducational,\u201d n.d.) and is in place to ensure all schools located within the are in compliance with Title requirements. Their websites include resources for training administrators, reporting incidents involving discrimination (including sexual harassment), the complaint process, and flyers for disseminating in schools\u2019 hallways depending on the education level (i.e. elementary vs. middle school or high school). The has a PowerPoint presentation that was created by Julie Hall-Panameno, the District Title Coordinator to train Title coordinators within schools. In the presentation, it is explicitly stated that schools within the district must \u201cdesignate and authorize one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with its responsibilities\u2026 known as the Title Designee or Title IX/Bullying Complaint Manager\u201d (Hall-Panameno, 2020). It is mentioned later in the PowerPoint that the information of this designated person should be posted on the school\u2019s and the EECO\u2019s website for easier access. Unfortunately, these regulations are not consistenly complied with. 10 Many schools within do not have a Title representative listed under either of the titles in the PowerPoint presentation. Some of the elementary schools only have a Title Coordinator listed, schools like Plummer Elementary (\u201cPlummer,\u201d n.d.), Anatola Elementary (\u201cAdministration and Office,\u201d n.d.), Lemay Street Elementary, (\u201cAdministrators,\u201d n.d.), Chase Street Elementary (\u201cAdministration. Chase,\u201d n.d.), and Andasol Avenue Elementary (\u201cAndasol,\u201d n.d.). Although this is an incredibly small population out of the entire LAUSD, these few schools are out of Title federal compliance (\u201cDear colleague,\u201d 2011). There is also little to no information on the schools\u2019 websites regarding Title related to training, reporting, or investigating. This lack of information on the website can make it rather difficult for families to educate themselves on the procedures in place regarding sexual harassment. More importantly for the purposes of this study the lack of oversight means that the desperately needed may not be appropriately disseminated to students Compliance. Similar to LAUSD\u2019s Educational Equity and Compliance Office provides information related to Title procedures that all 23 schools within the system must comply with. However, unlike schools ensure that their Title information is easily accessible and prominently displayed on both the main website and all individual campus websites (\u201cTitle IX,\u201d n.d.). Specifically schools make available the contact information of their Title Coordinators, which is readily accessible on each campus' website. Additionally, the system has centralized the contact information for all 23 campus Title Coordinators on a single webpage hosted on the main website (\u201cCoordinators,\u201d n.d.). According Executive Order 1095, issued in 2015, CSUs are required to provide education and training on Title policies at least once per academic year Executive Order 1095, 2015). This order mandates that all new students, including undergraduate and graduate students, complete a Title training course called \"Not Anymore\" before they can enroll in classes. Continuing undergraduate and graduate students must take the \u201cEvery Choice\u201d refresher training once per academic year. Both courses 11 teach students about sexual misconduct, sexual violence, training, stalking, abusive relationships, sexual harassment, alcohol, and safety, as well as how to report any incidents that occur. Failure to complete either of these trainings will result in a hold being placed on the student's account, preventing them from enrolling in classes (\u201cFAQs Title IX,\u201d n.d.). Also, CSUs require all staff, faculty, administrators, graduate assistants, and student assistants who are active employees to complete annual sexual misconduct training (\u201cFaculty,\u201d n.d.). This training provides employees and students with the necessary tools to report incidents that come to their attention. 12 Sexual Harassment Despite these policies put in place to address and prevent sexual abuse within educational institutions, it remains a prevalent issue. The responses to such cases, however, vary significantly. In examining the cases between and CSU, it becomes evident that each educational institution grapples with the challenge of tackling instances of sexual abuse Cases In 2016 paid a sum of $88 million to 28 families in compensation for negligence. The cause of the compensation was due to the misconduct of two teachers at different schools. Robert Pimentel, a former teacher at De La Torre Elementary, was accused of sexually assaulting 10 girls under the age of 14 between 2011 and 2012. In 2014, Pimentel was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Although he was only charged for 10 victims in 2012, in 2016, 8 more of his victims were represented and all 18 were awarded a total of $58 million in damages (Gillman, 2022). Similarly, Paul Chapel, who was a teacher for 38 years and at the time of abuse was employed by Telfair Avenue, was sentenced to prison in 2012 for sexually assaulting 12 8-year-old girls between 2006 and 2011 officials were reported to have neglected several complaints from parents regarding Chapel's behavior (Gillman, 2022). Additionally, Chapel had previously been accused of sexual assault in 1997, but the case was dropped due to a lack of physical evidence. In 2016, the victims of Chapel's abuse were awarded a total of $30 million in damages. These damages were due to LAUSD\u2019s mishandling of both reports brought to their attention previously. One of the prosecuting attorneys stated, \u201cthe district is being dishonest and is lying about how they handled these allegations\u201d (Charles, 2013). Although these cases are unrelated, they were represented by the same attorneys and awarded the money in the same year, and the payout was therefore reported together in Gillman (2022). Two years later in 2018 reached another settlement, this time paying $22 million in damages. Ronnie Roman, a youth services coach at Cahuenga Elementary, was found guilty of sexually 13 assaulting 9 girls between the ages of 8 and 12 in June of 2016. Roman had prior history of alleged assault and was sentenced to 105 years in prison. Jaime Jimenez, a football coach at Franklin High, was accused of abusing 7 students between the ages of 13 and 16 (Lloyd, 2018). The plaintiffs\u2019 attorney, Morgan Stewart stated \u201cthese horrific cases provide two more sickening examples of LAUSD\u2019s continuing failure to protect children under its care\u201d (Stewart, 2018). The victims of each perpetrator were collectively awarded $22 million in damages from LAUSD. In 2019, Terry Gillard, a wrestling coach at Polytechnic High School, was sentenced to 71 years in prison for sexually assaulting approximately 14 students between the ages of 11 and 17 (Chow, 2022). The abuse allegedly occurred between 1991 and 2017, but it wasn\u2019t until 2019 that justice was served to Gillard. In 2016 Gillard was accused of a sexual misconduct incident but was eventually allowed to return to school with permission from the administrators (Chow, 2022). Another case, on behalf of Jane Doe, was pursued against for negligence and won $52 million in monetary damages. While the perpetrator was eventually brought to justice, it took 20 years to do so. An attorney representing the victims stated has a long and sad history of covering up child abuse by teachers and coaches\u201d (Chow, 2022); this is a recurring theme in the negligence cases against LAUSD. In 2020, another negligence lawsuit was filed against for failing to report sexual misconduct committed against six students at a school in North Hollywood, California, Oxford Street Elementary. Lino Cabrera, a 27-year-old teacher\u2019s aide at Oxford Street Elementary, was found guilty in 2020 for sexually abusing students from 2016 to 2019 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison (De Nova, 2020). The parents of three of Cabrera\u2019s victims (ages ranging from 10 to 12 years old) are suing for negligence, arguing that administrators and some faculty were aware of the abuse that was occurring and allowed Cabrera to remain on campus (Abunassar, 2022). The case has yet to reach a settlement. 14 Several recurrent themes emerge from these cases, with two of the most notable being the delay in bringing the perpetrators to justice and the allegations of negligence directed at for its handling of incidents within its school district. In total has paid almost $400 million in sexual misconduct settlements (Winston, 2023). This staggering figure is attributed to the district's failure to promptly act on reports of misconduct that have been shared with school administrators. This amount of money awarded shows the dramatic need for Title policy expansion. This issue reaches farther than administrative changes is not alone in facing sexual misconduct claims, though Cases Sexual misconduct cases in the system are often handled differently than those in the LAUSD. In February of 2016 the Academic Sexual Misconduct Database was created. The purpose of this database was to compile almost all sexual assault cases and other Title violations that occur between an administrator and student(s) in colleges and universities across the country (Libarkin, 2023). You input an institution you are interested in learning about and it will give you the person, institution, role, position, outcome/year, status, and articles that were published related to the case. This database has centralized a person\u2019s ability to look up how many lawsuits or accusations a particular institution has faced related to one of its staff or faculty members. It also provides the initial accusation and eventual outcome does not have a similar system; in fact, there is no central database for any information related to sexual misconduct. This database includes many cases several campuses have faced Fresno has cases listed in the database. In September of 2018 to December of 2019, Israel Silva, an assistant coach, was encouraging sexual harassment among student athletes. In January of 2020, this incident was reported and in the same year, his contract was terminated (Libarkin, 202). In 2019, Danny Wan, a staff member at Fresno state, was accused of sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment. The incident occurred February 12th, 2019 and was reported six days later on the 19th. After 15 it was reported, Danny Wan received a written reprimand and was demoted. The downside to this case is that Danny was permitted to stay on campus and maintain his employment. According to the database Fullerton has recorded a total of 9 cases, the majority of which have resulted in termination, resignation, or retirement. Among the listed incidents was an allegation of inappropriate touching by a part-time lecturer in Kinesiology, Richard Juliano, during a lesson in December 2019. The incident was reported promptly and Juliano was subsequently suspended for the remainder of the semester and directed to stay away from the complainant (Libarkin, 2022). It is worth noting that all other cases at Fullerton have been successfully resolved. Instances of sexual misconduct have also been reported at Los Angeles. In August of 2017, a student was subjected to sexual harassment by Riccardo DeSalvo, a professor at the institution, leading to his resignation from the university later that year. In 2018, Joey Torres, another faculty member, was accused of sexually harassing a student, which was reported immediately and he was suspended. Sexual harassment cases are not only limited to faculty. Prior to his appointment as Chancellor, Joseph Castro served as the President of Fresno. According to Jacoby (2023), during Castro\u2019s tenure at Fresno, a significant number of sexual misconduct complaints were brought to the attention of key officials including Castro, the department, and the Title coordinator\u2019s office. Specifically, at least 12 complaints involving the Vice President of Student Affairs, Frank Lamas, were reported. These allegations ranged from inappropriate physical contact and remarks to creating a hostile work environment. Despite this, the majority of the complaints were not addressed by Castro or the administration he oversaw. It is worth noting that Lamas was a close associate of Castro's and was specifically recommended by him for his position. It was not until Lamas solicited sexual favors from another administrator in exchange for a promotion that an internal investigation was launched against him. Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, Castro agreed to pay Lamas $260,000, offer full retirement benefits, and provide a letter of recommendation for his future job prospects outside of the 16 CSU, effectively facilitating Lamas\u2019 departure from the institution. Not long after Lamas\u2019 resignation, Castro was appointed as Chancellor. However, shortly into Castro\u2019s term, there was public outcry for his resignation from the position. In 2022, precisely two years following Castro's assumption of the position of Chancellor, he tendered his resignation. Notably, this was the most senior position within the system that was vacated due to his mishandling of an employee\u2019s sexual misconduct allegations (Jacoby, 2023). Between 2017 and 2021, the system has reported 54 cases spread across 12 campuses (Peele et al., 2022). Each of the employees involved in these cases have faced some sort of disciplinary action; whether it is termination or written reprimands, the complaints were not left unanswered (Peele et al., 2022). Even in the case of the Chancellor, no individual was deemed immune to the consequences of their actions. It is important to note that the aforementioned cases are not all instances of sexual misconduct that the has faced. However, the establishment of a centralized database has ensured accountability for the handling of sexual misconduct within the system. Notably, Castro's example highlights the CSUs population\u2019s commitment to holding all individuals accountable for their actions, irrespective of their rank or position. While it is worth acknowledging that the has also had instances of sexual misconduct between students, for the purpose of this paper, the focus will be on incidents involving faculty, administrators, and students and Responses The accessibility of information stands out as one of the most significant contrasts between and offers readily available Title coordinators' information and mandatory training for all faculty, staff, and students. While the sexual misconduct database is not a service offered by the CSU, it still serves as a centralized place of information related to sexual misconduct perpetrated within a campus, enabling the public to access this information easily. In contrast does not have a similar platform; some schools lack Title coordinators whose contact details are readily available on the 17 school's website (\u201cPlummer,\u201d n.d.; \u201cAdministration and Office,\u201d n.d.; \u201cAdministrators,\u201d n.d.; \u201cAdministration. Chase,\u201d n.d.; \"Andasol,\u201d n.d.) and does not mandate sexual education training for students, despite 329 requiring all schools in California to provide comprehensive sexual education at least once during middle and high school. The CSU\u2019s mandatory may be the cause of the greater self- advocacy in their system. One manifestation of the impact resulting from differences in procedural policies between and is the length of time between the perpetration and reporting of incidents. In numerous cases brought against LAUSD, abuse was allowed to continue for several years. In two of the listed cases, the perpetrator was previously accused of sexual misconduct but permitted to continue teaching on campus, despite the reports made against them. They were able to continue their abuse for several years after the initial reports were made against them due to lack of investigation by or physical evidence (Gillman, 2022). Terry Gillard was able to continue his abuses for at least 20 years before he was brought to justice. Because of the nature of sexual harassment cases, the years listed as perpetrated could be significantly smaller than what actually happened. Paul Chapel, one of the abusers listed above was a teacher for 38 years before going to jail, but was only found guilty of committing abuses for 2 years. In contrast to LAUSD, the reporting of incidents within the system is more streamlined and efficient because students, faculty, and staff have all had CSE. As demonstrated by the cases listed above, each incident was reported and subsequently met with some form of disciplinary action within the same year (Jacoby, 2023). Notably has taken a firm stance on those who mishandle cases, as exemplified by the termination of former-Chancellor Joseph Castro. Conversely has been criticized by many of the attorneys\u2019 representing victims of sexual misconduct for its continued mishandling and neglect of these incidents (Charles, 2013; Stewart, 2018; Chow, 2022). Despite this was unable to find any instances of firing administrators within the system for mishandling reports. For to effectively address 18 and investigate these instances, systemic change needs to occur. The increased education will improve the chances that victims will report and insist on justice. 19 Sex Education As of right now, there is no formal requirement for sexual education (sex-ed) in classes lower than middle school 329 only requires a comprehensive sex-ed training once in middle school and high school, and parents have the ability to opt their children out of this training. Comprehensive sex-ed encompasses the \u201cphysical, mental, emotional and mental dimensions of sexuality\u201d (Ruiz, 2017) but there is no uniform curriculum when it comes to comprehensive sex-ed. Schools have a standard they need to meet regarding what their students learn, but there are different ways of achieving these standards. Regardless, children who are younger than middle school age are not provided with the opportunity to take a comprehensive sex education course even though studies have indicated that sex education is vital for the prevention of sexual violence (Rollston, 2020). It can aid in preventing sexual and dating violence, bullying, and suicide by teaching the concepts of consent and healthy boundaries, which in turn can boost self-esteem (Rollston, 2020). Many argue that children younger than middle school are too young to be subjected to the teachings of comprehensive sex-ed, but depending on the age that is being exposed to the education, the curriculum can be adjusted Curriculum The \u201cNot Anymore\u201d and \u201cEvery Choice\u201d trainings students at the CSUs receive may be too much for children in kindergarten, but research suggests it does not necessarily have to be that explicit. Teaching children words such as \u201cvagina\u201d and \u201cpenis\u201d can help them better understand how to describe and understand healthy touch as well as molestation (Ruiz, 2017). If a child does not know how to describe certain areas of their body, they may not know how to communicate to an adult if they were touched inappropriately in that area. In the Cabrera case listed above, one of the mothers of the victims described how the report came about, stating her daughter was talking to her friends one day and they discovered they had all been inappropriately touched in the same place on their bodies (\u201cNorth,\u201d 2019). Once the girls discovered they 20 had all be touched in the same place and experienced the same feelings of discomfort, they felt the courage to report the incident as a group. The group was made up of 10- and 11-year-old girls. They were too young to have received mandated comprehensive sex-ed and likely were unaware of their own assault at the time. It wasn\u2019t until one of the girls in the group mentioned the inappropriate touching that the rest of them spoke up (\u201cNorth,\u201d 2017). If they had been taught their anatomy, the conversation with their friends or an adult may have happened quicker than it did. Comprehensive sex-ed \u201cbuilds a foundation for these conversations in age-appropriate ways\u2026 [it not only equips] young people with knowledge and definitions, but the ability to recognize sexual harassment and assault\u201d (Ruiz, 2017). It is always possible that those in charge will fail to protect students in their care, or respond inappropriately to report of sexual abuse despite policies in place. However, research shows that empowers students to advocate for themselves, which enables them to prevent some instances of sexual abuse and advocate for themselves when abuse occurs (Ruiz, 2017). Other countries around the world have put this theory into practice. 21 International The United States lags behind some other countries in the arena of Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE). Planned Parenthood (n.d.) found that between 2015-2019, 43% of female and 47% of male teens reported not having learned about having sex before experiencing it for themselves. Actually, 81% of female and 79% of male teens were taught to say no to sex and wait for marriage instead of being taught a formal sexual education. California has made larger strides than a large portion of the United States when it comes to comprehensive sex-ed (\u201cState,\u201d n.d.), but it still has substantive room for improvement. This country could improve by modeling on other countries. Netherlands, Denmark, and New Zealand The Netherlands mandates comprehensive sexual education in all schools. The Netherlands begins their sex education at the age of 4. At this age, they are learning about their bodies, and foundational anatomical vocabulary words (Abraham, n.d.). They are not taught specifically about sex or intimacy, but they are given the tools to identify appropriate versus inappropriate touching, and teach that every person deserves respect despite their race, sexual orientation, sex, religion, etc. As students get older, their curriculum shifts to better adapt to the environments the students may begin experiencing before they start experiencing them. For example, for students 12 and older, \u201ca video about orgasms (faces only)\u201d is shown among other sexually important subjects are discussed (Rough, 2018). According to the Federal Centre for Health Education, the collaborative efforts of national non- governmental organizations (NGOs) (Rutgers, SoaAids Nederland, and Movisie), along with diverse stakeholders like educators, young people, private institutions, and publishers, create educational materials like lesson packages and teaching guidelines for these sexual education classes. The \u201cLang Leve de Liefde (Long Live Love) lesson package, implemented by approximately 40% of secondary schools, and the \u201cKriebels in je buik\u201d (Butterflies in Your Stomach) package, utilized by around 30% of primary schools for 10 to 12-year-olds with 12 lessons, contribute to comprehensive sex education. These packages were 22 created to meet standards for Sexuality Education in Europe (Federal Centre for Health Education, n.d.). While the Netherlands teacher training is not mandated in their certification, the Netherlands provides more specific material to the teachers through the help of the collaborative efforts listed above. In Denmark, children are taught the topic of \u201cHealth, Sexuality, and Family Education\u201d starting at age 6 (Roien, 2018). The objective of the sex-ed in Denmark is to promote critical thinking skills in students and empower them to advocate for their own sexual well-being and health. In New Zealand, sex-ed is being taught in primary education starting from age 7 (Oliver, 2007). In primary school, the types of lessons that are taught to children include: \u201cthe human body and its growth and development, friendships, consent in relevant context (eg, at the doctor, in the playground, online), respect for themselves, each other, and people who are different\u201d (\u201cRelationships,\u201d 2022). Later in children\u2019s primary education they will learn about puberty, reproduction, and different types of relationships. Secondary education will teach New Zealand children about contraception, positive relationships, gender, and sexuality, and how to access resources to support their wellbeing. Discussion Each of these international programs have taken on alternative ways of approaching sex-ed that is not common in the United States. Most notably is parents\u2019 receiving notice of their child's sex-ed training approaching 14 days in advance, and having the ability to opt their child out of it. In New Zealand the sex-ed is written into its curriculum and if parents want to remove their child from the program they need to prove cultural or religious exemption (Oliver, 2017), which is a standard that was set in the United States for the Covid-19 vaccination, but not something that is enforced more readily for these types of instances. Places like the Netherlands, Denmark, and New Zealand have shown that it is possible to alter curriculum in ways that are best fit for children, which in the long run can help children report or protect themselves against potential sexual assault. 23 Policy Expansion Title mandates that educational institutions receiving federal funding must adhere to specific guidelines that address and prohibit sex-based discrimination, encompassing sexual harassment. Unfortunately, the policy not only lacks explicit instructions for educating students related to sex- education it also lacks language regarding the utilization of funding by schools to actively foster and implement Title policies within their educational settings, including the establishment of comprehensive sexual education training programs for students. Lieberman (2022) reports that approximately 93% of a school's income stems from state and local funding, while the remaining portion is subsidized by the federal government. This money provided from the federal government is used for \u201cprograms like Title I, Impact Aid for schools that serve on federal land, and Indian Education for Native American Students\u201d (Lieberman, 2022). Unfortunately, the explicit allocation of funds towards Title procedures in educational institutions is not specifically stated and therefore it is up to the institution to divert funds for specific Title implementations. We can assume that due to the existence of comprehensive Title procedures and the presence of dedicated training and coordinators at every campus that resources are being directed towards supporting Title programs. The lack of Title coordinators in numerous schools within LAUSD, particularly those not obligated under 329, implies that minimal or no financial resources are likely being allocated towards Title training and sexual harassment prevention in those specific schools. Due to this, the federal government should make explicit that funds, regardless of where they come from, should also be used towards Title programs. Title should be extended to explicitly mandate that all educational institutions receiving funding, from kindergarten through university, integrate Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) into their curriculum. This expansion should include specific guidelines for a standardized curriculum tailored to the educational level of the students. In primary education, before middle and high school, there is no 24 obligation for schools to teach children about sex-ed and therefore no need for schools to put money into that type of curriculum. In high schools it is reported that parents with students in sports spend approximately \u201c$671 per child annually\u201d out of pocket to play in sports (\u201cIncreasing,\u201d 2020). If the level of support for comprehensive sex education were equivalent to that of high school sports, there would be increased accessibility to funding. To address this discrepancy, it is imperative for Title to explicitly mandate that schools allocate a portion of their budget specifically towards the development of age- appropriate, comprehensive sex education courses. Any exemption from participation in these lessons should be granted solely upon presentation of legitimate religious or cultural evidence by parents or guardians, ensuring that the opt-out option is utilized appropriately. Limitations Extending Title to explicitly require comprehensive sexual education (CSE) in all educational institutions receiving funding faces several challenges within the US, including issues related to homogeneity, diversity, finances, and implementation. Homogeneous limitations stem from the varying cultural, religious, and social norms across different regions, making it challenging to implement a standardized curriculum that satisfies all citizens. Additionally, resistance from certain conservative groups or communities may hinder the adoption of CSE, leading to pushback against mandated educational requirements. Moreover, the diverse nature of the population poses logistical challenges in developing age- appropriate and culturally sensitive programs that resonate with students from different backgrounds. Creating a one-size-fits-all curriculum may overlook the unique needs and values of certain communities, potentially resulting in cultural insensitivity or alienation. Furthermore, enforcing mandatory could face opposition from parents or guardians who wish to retain control over their children's education, particularly in areas where conservative ideologies prevail. 25 Financial constraints and implementation also present significant limitations, as allocating funds specifically for may divert resources from other educational priorities or face opposition from budget- conscious policymakers. Additionally, ensuring compliance and monitoring the implementation of programs across 13,000 school districts would require substantial administrative resources and infrastructure. Overall, while mandating under Title could potentially address gaps in sexual education and promote gender equity, navigating the diverse cultural landscape and overcoming logistical, financial, and ideological challenges would be essential for successful implementation. Balancing the need for comprehensive sex education with respect for cultural diversity and individual autonomy remains a complex endeavor within the educational system. 26 Conclusion Title serves as a crucial framework to ensure equal access to educational opportunities for all students, irrespective of their gender. It mandates schools and educational programs to proactively address sex-based discrimination, including sexual abuse and violence. However, a significant hurdle in achieving compliance lies in the lack of resources, structure and effective policies, particularly in K-12 schools such as LAUSD. This deficiency becomes apparent when comparing the timeliness of case reporting between and LAUSD, as well as those who are held responsible in such cases. Cases within CSU, where comprehensive training and education programs are in place, were resolved significantly faster, and people in positions of power were usually held accountable. Whereas cases within took significantly longer to report, and although administrators were sued for negligence, none faced public consequences, highlighting the importance of training, education, and funding. To bridge this gap, the federal government must make revisions to the Title mandate and explicitly outline be taught to all students. It is essential that schools prioritize the allocation of budgetary provisions for Title compliance, including robust training and education programs, as exemplified by successful models in Denmark, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. By providing students with comprehensive training and education, they will be equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to protect their bodies and effectively prevent, report, and address incidents of sexual abuse and harassment. Such measures are crucial in safeguarding our youth and keeping perpetrators out of our schools. By addressing these crucial aspects and investing in training and education, we can foster a safe and inclusive educational environment, where timely and effective responses to cases of sexual abuse and harassment become the norm. 27 References look at Women's education and earnings since the 1970s. (n.d.). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1970s.htm Abraham, A. (2022, April 3). Sex education in the Netherlands. Amsterdam Mamas. Retrieved from netherlands/#:~:text=Moreover%2C%20sex%20education%20starts%20early,with%20partners%2 C%20and%20using%20contraception. Abunassar, L. (2022, October 20). Judge rules negligence allegation will stay in sex abuse lawsuit. abuse- lawsuit/#:~:text=A%20Los%20Angeles%20Superior%20court,in%20North%20Hollywood%20in%2 02019 Administration. Chase Street Elementary. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2023, from Administrators & Office staff. Lemay Elementary. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2023, from lausd-ca.schoolloop.com/administrators Administration and office. Anatola Ave. Elementary School: Administration and Office. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2023, from ca.schoolloop.com/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1476524566200 Andasol Avenue Elementary Administrators. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2023, from lausd- 28 ca.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2/view_page?d=x&group_id=1632472067524&vdid=is202 e2x02h1es Anderson, N. (2017, September 22). Trump administration rescinds Obama-era guidance on campus sexual assault. The Washington Post. Retrieved from guidance-on-campus-sexual-assault/2017/09/22/43c5c8fa-9faa-11e7-8ea1- ed975285475e_story.html California's Health Education Initiatives. California's Health Education Initiatives - Health Education Framework Dept of Education). (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2023, from h%20Act%2C%20which%20took%20effect%20in%20January,and%20once%20in%20middle%20sc hool Charles, B. (2013, May 9). Three girls testify that former De La Torre teacher molested them. Daily Breeze. molested-them/ Child abuse. (n.d.). Government of the Netherlands. Retrieved April 21, 2023, from Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) Justia Supreme Court Center. De Nova, J. (2020, March 9 sued for negligence in sexual assault case at North Hollywood elementary school. American Broadcasting Company (ABC) 7. Dear colleague letter: Sexual harassment and sexual violence [Letter] (2011, April 4). U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. 201104.pdf 29 Camera, L. (2017, September 22). Trump administration rescinds Obama-era Campus sexual assault guidance. U.S. News. Retrieved from news/articles/2017-09-22/trump-administration-rescinds-obama-era-campus-sexual-assault- guidance Chow, V. (2022, October 12). $52m settlement awarded to Children Sexually Abused by Wrestling coach. KTLA. by-lausd-wrestling-coach/ Educational equity compliance office (n.d Unified School District. Retrieved April 28, 2023, from Faculty and staff Title training. California State University, Bakersfield. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2023, from Frequently Asked Questions for Student \u201cTitle IX\u201d Training. (n.d.). California State University, Northridge. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274. (1998) Justia Supreme Court Center. %20high%20school,Lago%20Vista%20terminated%20his%20employment. Gillman, O. (2016, May 17). Los Angeles School District reaches $88million settlement with families of 30 children sexually assaulted by two pedophile elementary school teachers. Daily Mail Online. Retrieved from 88M-sex-abuse-cases.html Hall-Panameno, J. (2020). Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education. LAUSD; District Title Coordinator. Increasing cost of school athletics. Ohio University. (2020, February 3). Retrieved from 30 increasing/#:~:text=The%20Cost%20of%20High%20School%20Athletics&text=In%20the%20Unite d%20States%2C%20parents,000%20annually%20on%20school%20sports. Jacoby, K. (2022, September 29). 'blind spot': Report confirms Fresno State president bungled sexual harassment claims Today. Retrieved from administrators-sexual-harassment-review-finds/8129509001/ Jacoby, K. (2023, January 25). Fresno State president mishandled sexual harassment complaints. now he leads all 23 Cal State Colleges Today. Retrieved from depth/news/investigations/2022/02/03/cal-state-chancellor-joseph-castro-mishandled-sexual- harassment-fresno-state-title-ix-frank-lamas/9109414002/ K-12 schools in the United States. Study in the States. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved April 28, 2023, from started/kindergarten-to-grade-12-students Kumar, R., Goyal, A., Singh, P., Bhardwaj, A., Mittal, A., & Yadav, S. S. (2017, March). Knowledge attitude and perception of sex education among school going adolescents in Ambala District, Haryana, India cross-sectional study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR. Latifnejad Roudsari, R., Javadnoori, M., Hasanpour, M., Hazavehei, S. M., & Taghipour, A. (2013). Socio- cultural challenges to sexual health education for female adolescents in Iran. Iranian journal of reproductive medicine, 11(2), 101\u2013110. Libarkin, J. (2023). Academic Sexual Misconduct Database. Retrieved from misconduct-database.org 31 Lieberman, M. (2022, May 11). What America spends on K-12: The latest federal snapshot. Education Week. Retrieved from latest-federal-snapshot/2022/05 Lloyd, J. (2018, August 29 reaches $22 million settlement with sexually molested students Los Angeles. Retrieved from molestation-settlement/175502/ Lori Riley, H. C. (2022, Jun 20). Title celebrates 50 years breakdown of the law, its origins and what it means. Hartford Courant 50-years-breakdown-law/docview/2678259661/se-2 Los Angeles Unified School District. (2023). Fingertip Facts 2023-24. Retrieved from 710&FileName=FINGERTIP_FACTS_23-24.pdf Maginn, G. (2022). Beyond deliberate indifference: rethinking institutional responsibility and title ix liability in k-12 education. Law and Inequality: Journal of Theory and Practice, 40(2), 335-370. North Hollywood teacher's aide Lino Cabrera arrested, accused of sexually abusing 6 children. (2021, March 12 News. aide-lino-cabrera-arrested-accused-of-sexually-abusing-6-children/ Peele, T., Smith, A., & Willis, D. (2022, August 2). New Batch of records shows professors disciplined for sexual harassment. EdSource. Retrieved from records-show-professors-disciplined-for-sexual- harassment/676217#:~:text=Fifty%2Dfour%20faculty%20members%2C%20coaches,new%20infor mation%20released%20by%20 32 Plummer Elementary Staff. Staff Directory | Plummer Elementary. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2023, from Powell, Alvin. (2022, June 23). How Title transformed colleges, universities over past 50 years. Harvard Gazette. universities-over-past-50-years/ Prevalence of Child Sexual Abuse. (n.d.). Darkness to Light. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from abuse/prevalence/#:~:text=A%20range%20of%20child%20sexual,of%207.5%25%20%E2%80%93 %2011.7%25*. Relationships and sexuality education. Parents.education.govt.nz. (2022, December 1). Retrieved May 7, 2023, from education/ Roien, L. A. (2018, June 6). Sexuality education in Denmark's school curriculum: Tensions between policy and practice. Future of Sex Education. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from tensions-between-policy-and-practice/ Rollston, R. (2020, May 29). Sexual education & violence prevention. Harvard Health Publishing. Ruiz, R. (2017, October 25). Want to prevent sexual violence? teach kids everything they need to know about sex. Mashable. Retrieved from harassment-and-assault#pvKS3LNWrPqz State of Sex Education in USA: Health education in schools. Planned Parenthood. (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2023, from 33 us#:~:text=Sex%20education%20programming%20varies%20widely,education%20and%2For%20 HIV%20education. Stevenot, Z. (2023, April 03). California's Seven Regional Differences Explained. GeoJango. Retrieved from Title IX. The California State University. (n.d.). Title Coordinators. The California State University. (n.d.-a). Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2001, January). Revised sexual harassment guidance: Harassment of students by school employees, other students, or third parties. Department of Education. (2017, September on Campus Sexual Misconduct. 201709.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_te rm Winston, R. (2023, April 19 agrees to $6.5-million payout to a victim after administrators failed to report sex abuse by a teacher. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from sexual-abuse- case#:~:text=Los%20Angeles%20Unified%20has%20paid,during%20the%20last%20few%20decad es. Women increasingly outnumber men at U.S. colleges-but why FEED. (2021, September 10). colleges-but-why/"} |
7,686 | Christopher F. Givan | University of Central Oklahoma | [
"7686_101.pdf"
] | {"7686_101.pdf": "professor still in classroom after settlement Jim Killackey Published 12:00 a.m Sept. 16, 1999 - The University of Central Oklahoma is keeping a beleaguered English professor despite a $100,000 out-of-court settlement stemming from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former student against him and the university. Angela Minton, 52, alleged that Christopher F. \"Kit\" Givan in 1993 and 1994 exposed himself to her, made lewd and suggestive comments and made obscene telephone calls to her. Minton also accused of \"institutional cowardice\" in \"failing to adequately deal with the professor\" and \"completely disregarding\" her student and civil rights. The case prompted a internal investigation and a lengthy probe by the U.S. Education Department's Office of Civil Rights. Settlement details were released this week. Parties agreed to a \"commitment to resolve\" that required to reimburse Minton for educational expenses and damages, to revise the university's sexual harassment policy and to closely monitor Givan, a tenured professor in the department of creative studies. But Givan's attorney, Jim Priest, said Wednesday the settlement \"is clearly not an admission of any guilt.\" Priest said Givan and Minton had \"a brief and consensual romantic relationship\" that in no way violated faculty conduct codes officials said Wednesday they agreed to a settlement because further legal entanglements would cost taxpayers even more. \"This case has been rattling around in the court system for six years now, and we concluded that it would cost the taxpayers a lot less to settle it than to try it,\" said Bill Wiseman 2/16/25, 10:26 professor still in classroom after settlement 1/2 director of public relations. Wiseman said Givan has been monitored, in part because he recently married a former student. In her lawsuit, Minton alleged that a \"sexually hostile educational environment\" created by Givan \"destroyed her opportunity for a complete and meaningful education.\" Minton said the sexual harassment started in the fall 1993 semester, when she took Givan's class in literary criticism. At the time, Givan also was chairman of UCO's creative studies department. Incidents continued, she said, into 1994 when Minton was vice president of UCO's Creative Studies Writers' Institute, a group which had Givan as its sponsor. She also accused Givan of sexually assaulting her during a party at his house. Then equity officer Richard Dimit conducted an investigation and concluded that a violation of the university's sexual harassment policy may have occurred three-year U.S. Education Department investigation prompted the settlement, said Minton's attorney, George Freedman. In the Oklahoma City federal lawsuit, Minton had asked for $20,000 in damages. Freedman said she is upset that Givan continues to teach at UCO. In fact agreed to pay a portion of Givan's $45,000 attorneys' fees. In 1997 and 1998, Givan was ordered to allow to circulate a survey in his classes asking whether students ever felt uncomfortable or harassed by Givan. Priest said those surveys did not prompt a single complaint against his client. Givan has steadfastly contended the sexual harassment allegations are part of a witch hunt by administrators. The settlement was reached with and its governing body, the Board of Regents for Oklahoma Colleges. The settlement comes from taxpayers' money. Archive ID: 777227 2/16/25, 10:26 professor still in classroom after settlement 2/2"} |
7,278 | Sidney Peck | Clark University | [
"7278_101.pdf",
"7278_102.pdf",
"7278_103.pdf",
"7278_104.pdf",
"7278_105.pdf"
] | {"7278_101.pdf": "News Opinion Sport Culture Lifestyle For the past two years, Betsy Stanko has been leading an unprecedented investigation into why the police have The long read This article is more than 1 year old know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape Int Sign in 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 1/24 Elizabeth Stanko. Composite: Getty / Martin Godwin for the Guardian / Guardian Design been failing so badly to tackle sexual violence. But is there any chance of fixing a system that seems so broken? By Melissa Denes Tue 7 Mar 2023 06.00 n September 2021, the criminologist Betsy Stanko went into the Metropolitan police force to work out why they weren\u2019t catching rapists. The previous year, less than 3% of rapes reported to the Met had resulted in charges being brought; in 2021, that percentage almost halved. The Home Office had given Stanko a mandate to force the Met to open its files, and now she and her team \u2013 54 academics, 47 of them women, all of them scholars of sexual violence \u2013 gained access to everything: tens of thousands of case files covering the previous four years, shift observations, video-recorded interviews, conversations with officers at every rank wanted to rip the heart out of the police, put it on the table and do a bypass,\u201d the 72-year-old American told me last year. Six months earlier, Stanko had been working with the Avon and Somerset police force on a project to improve its rape investigations, when the news broke that a 33-year-old woman named Sarah Everard had been kidnapped from a London common. The man who was later arrested for Everard\u2019s rape and murder, Wayne Couzens, was a Metropolitan police officer. In the weeks that followed, there were demonstrations, vigils and calls for inquiries \u2013 an outpouring of rage that reminded Stanko of her time in the women\u2019s movement of the 1970s. If many people, especially people of colour, had long been distrustful of the police, others were for the first time questioning who they were really for. Before Everard\u2019s murder, the government had taken a cautious interest in Stanko\u2019s work at Avon and Somerset; afterwards, preventing violence against women became an urgent political priority. \u201cWe were courted left and right,\u201d Stanko told me. The Home Office awarded her a budget of \u00a36.6m to work out what was going wrong with the policing of rape. The project would take two years, and investigate 19 of the 43 forces in England and Wales. By the end, Stanko and her team would need to come up with a way of fixing a system that seemed impossibly broken. Stanko\u2019s project was named Operation Soteria Bluestone \u2013 Soteria after the Greek goddess of safety. Her team would spend its first year focused on just five forces, including the Met, analysing how their rape investigations actually worked, before collaborating with each force to produce a set of specially tailored recommendations. Then, Stanko\u2019s team would move more swiftly between the remaining forces, identifying problems and developing a new approach to investigating rape and serious sexual offences \u2013 one that would, in theory, be rolled out nationally in the autumn of 2023. One of the academics working on Operation Soteria described the project to me as a \u201conce-in-a-generation opportunity\u201d. The police had never opened their doors like this; the country\u2019s leading criminologists had never collaborated like this; the government, and the public, had never needed results like this. Between September and December 2021, Stanko\u2019s researchers spent 120 hours observing Met officers on shifts and analysed 37,000 recorded rape cases. They watched video interviews with complainants and suspects, convened 15 focus groups, observed three training courses and conducted their own interviews with victim-survivors and investigators. At the end of this period, the team\u2019s findings were shared in separate and often deeply uncomfortable meetings with the Met\u2019s senior leaders and members of the mayor\u2019s office. What Stanko\u2019s team found was alarming: investigations that focused on the victim (Was she drunk? Was she lying?); impossible workloads; inadequate 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 2/24 training. The austerity years had seen an exodus of senior officers, and the new officers, most of them hired since 2020, had little understanding of how to investigate rape cases. In an interim report published in December 2022, Stanko\u2019s team shared anonymised conversations with officers from four forces, including the Met. One recalled the junior colleague who asked a woman to swab herself vaginally, something that should be done by a forensic specialist; another said: \u201cWhen a sexual offence job comes in, there\u2019s almost like this panic of like, \u2018Oh my God, what do do?\u2019\u201d It wasn\u2019t just inexperienced officers who struggled to understand the crime. When Stanko presented her findings, the Met\u2019s deputy commissioner, Sir Stephen House, allegedly declared to the room that \u201cthe problem with rape is it\u2019s mostly regretful sex\u201d. \u201cAnd if he thinks that,\u201d Stanko told me, outrage in her voice, \u201cthen there is no leadership or commitment to change.\u201d House, who Stanko did not identify before a Channel 4 interview this month, and who categorically denies using the phrase \u201cregretful sex\u201d, has since left the Met, as has its then chief commissioner, Cressida Dick, who resigned last February after a fresh series of scandals involving Met officers accused of racism, bullying and misogyny. If the murder of Sarah Everard had catalysed Operation Soteria, the arrest of David Carrick, the month after Stanko began work in the Met, made clear the immensity of the task ahead. Carrick was eventually jailed for life for more than 85 serious offences, including 48 rapes. For years, he had used his position as a police officer to gain the trust of women, to threaten them and hold them against their will. The cases of Couzens and Carrick showed that there were two problems at the heart of the police: a failure to investigate rape, and a failure to police itself. While Stanko\u2019s brief was to address the former, the two were inseparable, produced by the same environment and the same failures. Couzens and Carrick are not anomalies: the Met is currently reviewing reports of domestic and sexual abuse involving close to 1,100 officers and staff. None of this was a surprise to Stanko. Between 2005 and 2014, she had conducted seven reviews of the force\u2019s rape investigations. Most had not been made public and leaders in the force had shown little interest in her findings. She recalled one meeting of senior Met officers in 2014. \u201cAnd they put up on the board that nearly 200 officers were under investigation for sexual assault thought, What the fuck are you guys doing? But nobody seemed bothered looked at that and went, Jesus Christ. So do know where a lot of the bodies are buried. They\u2019ve known about this stuff a long time.\u201d o understand why Betsy Stanko has made the study of male aggression her whole life, you have to go back to 1979. She had recently started her first job, as an assistant professor at Clark University, a liberal arts college outside Boston, Massachusetts. At the time, criminology was an overwhelmingly male field, which tended to focus on male perpetrators and victims. Stanko\u2019s research formed part of a new wave of feminist criminology, exploring the impact of gender on every area of policing, crime and the law. Her PhD, at the City University of New York, had explored the myth of the \u201cideal\u201d victim of crime: the respectable elderly white couple robbed by a teenager in the park; the wholesome young woman a jury would believe. Now here Stanko was, aged 29, teaching criminology and women\u2019s studies, and finding herself in the middle of a sexual harassment case against her head of department, Sidney Peck. Peck appeared to have form, though few of his colleagues were willing to say so prominent figure on the left, he had secured pay rises for Clark staff and been active in the anti-Vietnam war movement, allowing him to frame any complaint as a conservative smear. But in 1980, Prof Ximena Bunster, a 48- year-old Chilean scholar and protege of the anthropologist Margaret Mead, 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 3/24 filed a 10-page typewritten complaint against Peck. She alleged that he had tried to kiss her, made repeated sexual comments and promised job security in return for sexual favours. As a recent exile who faced likely imprisonment or worse if she returned to Pinochet\u2019s junta, this threat carried particular weight. Stanko became Bunster\u2019s co-complainant, and together they brought one of the first cases of sexual harassment in the US. It was national news, covered by Gloria Steinem\u2019s Ms magazine and debated on radio phone-ins. In 1981, Andrea Dworkin and Adrienne Rich, two torchbearers of the newly energised women\u2019s movement, travelled to Boston to give a benefit reading. Peck fought back with wine-and-cheese fundraisers, then a 104-page denial and finally a defamation suit, in which he sued Stanko, Bunster and three other women for reputational damage, for $23,710,000 \u2013 around $77m today. The university filed a motion to dismiss their complaints. Stanko received anonymous late-night calls from his supporters threatening to sexually assault her. She and Bunster were portrayed in letters, leaflets and interviews supporting Peck as vindictive, and as somehow responsible for his behaviour. (Bunster\u2019s \u201cLatin style\u201d, for instance, was deemed too sexy.) But it was a time of enormous change, when much seemed possible felt propelled,\u201d Stanko told me. \u201cIt felt like lots of worlds were being turned upside down. But it was also a world we felt we could turn.\u201d The second child of five, Stanko had grown up in Indiana and Illinois, the daughter of a research pharmacist and a teacher. As a student she had joined the first Take Back the Night marches; as a young professor she helped set up a women\u2019s refuge, baking cupcakes to sell for funds, running up curtains. (The refuge, in Worcester, Massachusetts, is still there.) In spring 1982, Peck dropped his suit and entered a settlement agreement, admitting that his legal action had been too aggressive. Clark University agreed to pay Bunster and Stanko\u2019s legal fees, and to hire a sexual harassment grievance officer. In a sense, the two women had won, but as Peck\u2019s supporters had promised, they had also lost. Peck returned to Clark (though not as head of department), while Bunster\u2019s teaching contract was not extended. Stanko, exhausted by four years of institutional hostility, lawsuits and countersuits, moved to London. There, she married a fellow academic and had a daughter, Rosa. (Stanko and her husband later separated.) In England, where Stanko and Bunster\u2019s case against Peck had been the subject of a television documentary, she accepted invitations to speak and offers of work. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, had recently been sentenced to life for the murders of 13 women, and Stanko joined researchers in studying the police failures that had allowed him to kill for so long. But gradually, she stopped talking about her experience at Clark got no \u2018Take Back The Night\u2019 rally in Boston in 1978. Photograph: Spencer Grant/Getty Images 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 4/24 money, but did get an extraordinary amount of insight and experience,\u201d she told me. \u201cIn terms of what abuse does to you asked whether she had thought at the time it was the end of her career was told it was the end of my career, if didn\u2019t shut up. But it\u2019s given me a capacity to unpick the bigger picture: that\u2019s what I\u2019m doing now.\u201d Stanko\u2019s redirected anger is something recognise in myself. When was 19 was raped by a police officer while living in Australia, and there have been times in the past two years when the headlines have made it hard to breathe. The officer used his position of power and trust to get me back to his house, and afterwards, even though ran to his neighbours for help, there seemed no hope of being believed. For decades, a male uniformed officer arriving on the scene has paralysed me with fear. Part of what shocked me about the protests that followed Sarah Everard\u2019s murder is that so many people clearly had had faith in the police. first spoke to Stanko over Zoom in December 2021, as she was wrapping up her work at the Met. She was at home, in Twickenham, west London, and full of energy: tucking her white bob behind one ear, she shooed her cat from the keyboard and gave long, emphatic answers (\u201cand boom! we were on the phone thought, my God, about bloody time!\u201d). There was a sense of the enormity of the work that still lay before her, the stamina it would take, and an excitement at finally having been given the means to do it. \u201cWhy did have to wait this long wish was younger.\u201d The previous year, she had been diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer, and she attributed some of her feeling of urgency to a fear that time was running out. Her very first proposal for Operation Soteria had been written between rounds of chemotherapy went under the knife, a seven-hour operation, my innards gone \u2013 and carried on from there,\u201d Stanko later told me. She didn\u2019t want to use the words \u201cin remission\u201d, but she was taking medication that meant there had been no signs of the cancer\u2019s return. Once the Home Office had confirmed her initial funding, Stanko told me, she had drawn up a wishlist for her team. She called the UK\u2019s leading criminologists, forensic psychologists and data scientists, and every one of them said yes. Dr Emma Williams, director of a research centre at the Open University, told me that, for her, the radical part was how closely the project would work with the police: \u201cThat\u2019s where other projects have failed. No one has captured the voice of the officer in trying to understand why reform in rape has not worked.\u201d For some of the academics, this proximity could be uncomfortable. One told me that, as a graduate, she had felt \u201cincredibly hostile\u201d to the police, and sometimes \u201cfound it difficult, especially with recent news, being a set of feminist academics who are propping the police up\u201d. But she had come to believe the police had to be part of the solution if it was to last. As her co-lead, Stanko had appointed Katrin Hohl, a 42-year-old professor of sociology at City, University of London. Hohl, who is German, has worked with Stanko since she was a master\u2019s student, when she was drafted in as an analyst on an early review of the Met. \u201cThey [the police] assume I\u2019m going to be the battleaxe,\u201d Stanko told me, \u201cand Katrin\u2019s the nice one, but that\u2019s not always the case.\u201d While working on Operation Soteria, the two women are writing a book about the project. When spoke to Hohl, she contrasted their prose styles as orderly (hers) and circuitous (Stanko\u2019s): it was her job to bring Stanko\u2019s ideas in to land. 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 5/24 Before she began advising the police and the Home Office, Stanko had a distinguished academic career, holding research posts at University College London, Royal Holloway, University of London and Brunel. In 1996, she received a lifetime achievement award from the American Society of Criminology. She flew around the world, giving two keynote speeches a week on the costs and causes of domestic violence. Criminology was a small and competitive world, in which Stanko forged strong alliances and some rivalries; in conversation with me she often rolled her eyes at the egos of others in her field. One friend recalled attending a lecture with her in Stockholm, during which Stanko grew so bored that she took out her knitting. \u201cShe wasn\u2019t quite Madame Defarge at the guillotine, but the speaker didn\u2019t know what to do \u2013 he couldn\u2019t very well ask her to stop knitting \u2013 but the lecture petered out.\u201d In 2005, the Met\u2019s newly appointed commissioner Ian Blair asked Stanko to write an urgent review of the force\u2019s rape investigations. He wanted to tackle the huge discrepancies across London boroughs in the number of allegations that ended in a charge, as well as the Met\u2019s part in a national decline in conviction rates. (At the time, 5.6% of all reported rapes ended in conviction; today the figure is less than 1%.) Two decades earlier, Blair had written a police handbook for the investigation of rape, in which he looked at four forces transformed by the women\u2019s movement. These forces had created specialist rape teams in response to the movement\u2019s demands, secured grants for the study of rape, and achieved an increase in convictions. Now, newly in charge of England\u2019s biggest force, Blair felt that an American feminist might be just the person to challenge a closed, majority-male institution. Lord Brian Paddick, then an assistant Met commissioner, was assigned to work with Stanko. As a gay man, Paddick told me, he shared her outsider perspective: \u201cShe was even more counter-cultural than was, very different from the average senior officer. Some of them can\u2019t handle her and some recognise her knowledge and experience. She doesn\u2019t say something unless she has the facts to back it up.\u201d Together, Stanko and Paddick wrote a highly critical internal report, which revealed, among other things, that cases were routinely dropped if the complainant had been drinking alcohol or had poor mental health. \u201cAnd then the Met\u2019s public affairs department recommended it be watered down,\u201d said Paddick. \u201cThey rewrote it.\u201d Stanko was bitterly disappointed, but continued to believe she could do more good inside the Met than without. She stayed on as a strategist, analysing all crime data and carrying out almost-annual reviews of the force\u2019s rape investigations, whether they were wanted or not don\u2019t think anyone ever championed her recommendations,\u201d a former colleague at the Met, who worked with Stanko during this time, told me. Elizabeth Stanko at home in London in January. Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 6/24 \u201cThe senior leadership changes regularly, they had different priorities. It was incredible that she persevered.\u201d In 2014, Stanko was awarded an for her services to policing and, soon after, took up a position in the mayor of London\u2019s office, where she advised on crime alongside her academic work. When asked Stanko why she had never taken a more public-facing role, she hesitated. It wasn\u2019t that she had never applied for those jobs; perhaps she was just not enough of a diplomat. If Stanko\u2019s previous reviews had not shifted the culture at the Met asked her what made Operation Soteria different mean, it\u2019s Groundhog Day,\u201d she said. \u201cBut this time the wedge is going in so deep they\u2019re not going to be able to pull it out.\u201d Unlike in those earlier reviews, her team would be studying police forces across the country; they would have complete access to every element of an investigation; they would implement the fixes as they went; and they had chief constables\u2019 full attention really feel like this is the best go I\u2019ll ever have at changing things,\u201d Stanko told me. But she acknowledged that she had encountered resistance, too. At the Met, she had heard that she had been declared a \u201ccritical incident\u201d by one senior leader \u2013 the name given to a potential threat to the force\u2019s reputation. It was clear that other officers, including at other forces, simply did not consider sexual violence a policing priority. Still, by the time we had our first conversation, Stanko\u2019s stint at the Met was almost over. She would soon be moving on to Durham, and from there to West Midlands police. While the Home Office had insisted on the Met\u2019s participation in Soteria, Durham had volunteered itself, and she was hopeful of a warmer welcome. he next time spoke to Stanko was almost six months later, in June 2022, when visited her at home. It was a warm day of sudden showers and steamy pavements, and Stanko\u2019s front garden was a jumble of enthusiastic planting. The house, her retreat from work that was often gruelling, had the joyful decor of a habitual optimist. In the living room, cushions were piled high on a blue velvet sofa, and the wall was hung with papier-mache animal heads. Chinese money plants stood like green explosions in a corner. Stanko made tea and pointed out the box of chemo medication on the kitchen counter: \u201cSix thousand pounds a month, thank you NHS.\u201d Stanko and her team were now nine months into Operation Soteria, and found her impatient with what she called the \u201cbullshitty political back and forth\u201d that surrounded the project. Despite frequent promises of transparency, a cross-parliamentary briefing on their findings so far had been cancelled by the Home Office at the 11th hour, and Stanko had been discouraged from talking to journalists. There were nerves about negative headlines, and the ministerial manoeuvring for credit or blame was driving her nuts. \u201cBut as long as they don\u2019t interfere with my work, then OK.\u201d Two months earlier, Stanko and Hohl had identified six principles for investigating rape and serious sexual offences, based on what they had observed across the three forces they had studied so far. They had presented them to senior police leaders and, in each of the three forces, for each principle, assigned an academic and an officer to take the lead on implementing them. Over the next year, Stanko would develop the principles into a detailed investigative model for use in every police force in England and Wales. The six principles were: 1) Investigate the suspect and not the victim. (Overwhelmingly, the academics found that the victim was the initial focus.) 2) Target repeat offenders new role of \u201cdisruption officer\u201d would use tactics similar to those deployed against organised crime, such as going undercover; or they might issue sexual harm prevention orders, to get in the 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 7/24 way of the most skilful offenders \u2013 those who deliberately target people who won\u2019t report.) 3) Look after victims. (About 50% end up withdrawing their cooperation, in some cases because they no longer want a trial, in others because they have simply given up. This poorly understood area is one that Stanko\u2019s researchers are scrutinising. Does the binary of trial-or-not-trial reflect what most people want? Or is there a greater place for restorative justice, as in New Zealand and Canada, where a victim and offender can agree on an admission of guilt and a mediation process instead?) 4) Train and support more specialist officers. 5) Improve the data stored on investigations, particularly those that did not result in a charge. (The impression the academics got was of an analogue force still stuck in the 20th century.) 6) Improve officers\u2019 skills in examining phone and social media records. (Ditto.) Importantly, all of the above would need to happen in dialogue with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which decides whether a case is strong enough to go to court. Stanko\u2019s team had identified long delays in communication between the two services, and recommended that conversations about a case start much earlier in the investigative process. Stanko told me that once she moved on from the Met, there had been a surprising amount of buy-in from officers in other forces \u2013 largely, she thought, because \u201cwe\u2019re not blaming individuals: the onus is on the corporation.\u201d But there had also been pushback: when police are under daily fire over burglary charge rates, why the focus on sexual violence? As we were speaking, there was a ping on Stanko\u2019s phone. She read out the news notification: the Met was to be reinvestigated for failures in the case of Stephen Port, who raped and killed four young men between June 2014 and September 2015. An inquest in late 2021 found that the most basic lines of inquiry had not been followed, yet no officer was suspended. What Stanko was arguing for applied to the Port case, too: a greater curiosity, empathy and intelligence. This would involve transforming the culture of the police, which remains a largely male institution. Founded in London in 1829 by men, to reduce crimes against men \u2013 through peaceful prevention rather than arrests \u2013 it has proven ill-suited to tackling violence against women, or against minorities. (Brian Paddick recalled being told at the Met in the 2000s that, \u201cIt\u2019s to be female, or black, or gay \u2013 provided you\u2019re not more than one of those, and provided you behave like a straight white man.\u201d) Women were not hired in significant numbers until after the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and now make up only 35% of the workforce \u2013 though there has been a dramatic increase in the number of women chief constables in the past four years. (Today, 40% of forces in England and Wales are led by women.) Cultural transformation is a long game, and when we spoke last June, Stanko said the effort required was keeping her alive. There had been times when she was so ill she had to crawl to her computer. Still, the rewards were there: in the \u201clightbulbs going on in officers\u2019 heads\u201d, the cases reopened, the suspects charged. Using disruption officers was proving particularly successful. In one case in Avon and Somerset, undercover police had posed as potential buyers of a suspect\u2019s car and obtained linking him, or someone related to him, to a sexual offence. (Later, they were able to charge his twin brother with two rapes.) As Operation Soteria reached its halfway mark, Stanko was as close as anyone had ever got to a real-time picture of policing as it is. And though it was worse than expected \u2013 more culturally stuck in the 1980s, more demoralised and depleted \u2013 she felt she knew the fixes. 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 8/24 Stanko\u2019s black cat stalked past the sofa after a mouse and a plane rumbled overhead. Two days later, Stanko would be on a plane herself, on her way to spend 10 days off-grid in the Arctic Circle. When asked her what she would read, she said \u201cnothing\u201d. She would fly to Norway\u2019s northern coast, and from there to the remote Svalbard archipelago, sailing round it as a way to recharge. After that, she would have one more year to smuggle everything she knew about male violence into the police, and hope that it would last. he English police force with the best record on rape is Durham, with an average charging rate of 8%. But the force has had recent experience of serious corruption. In June 2021, former Durham Kevin Bentley was sentenced to 28 years for 24 physical and sexual assaults carried out over three decades. Like Carrick, he had told his victims that his colleagues would never believe them few weeks before Bentley\u2019s sentencing, Durham\u2019s chief constable, Jo Farrell, had volunteered her officers for Operation Soteria thought, right, we need to be part of that,\u201d she told me when visited the force last autumn. Between February and April 2022, Stanko\u2019s team combed through three years\u2019 worth of Durham\u2019s case files and interviewed investigators. They had found, unusually, no evidence of a complainant not feeling believed. But there had also been the same problems as elsewhere: investigations that considered the suspect last, officers who lacked expertise or were simply burned out. Twelve miles south of Durham visited the force\u2019s safeguarding team at their base in Bishop Auckland police station. Here, officers handle \u201chigh harm\u201d crimes such as domestic violence, child abuse and rape. In the station\u2019s second-floor office met Helen Towns \u2013 34, blond, ironic. She loved her work, she said: the granular case-building, the relationships with complainants nurtured over months or years. She also acknowledged the ego that kept her at it: the unbeatable rush of seeing a repeat offender get a big sentence. \u201cIt\u2019s a superhero complex,\u201d she said. But the rush was no longer enough. She mentioned the punishing amounts of overtime \u2013 sometimes working as many as 29 hours straight \u2013 and told me that she had recently applied for a transfer to the major crime team. Like many officers who do this work, she was exhausted. All the good ones go to homicide, the director of a Rape Crisis centre told me last year: there was a higher chance of securing a conviction, and of promotion. Early the next morning joined a group of 20 officers at the Meadowfield training facility, a characterless corridor of prefabs on the outskirts of Durham, to learn how you interview someone about a rape. Rape is one of the few crimes in which the complainant\u2019s account is often the best, and sometimes the only, evidence. Teasing out every last detail is a particular skill. The officers \u2013 10 men and 10 women, who kept their coats on in the draughty room \u2013 would work on real and dummy cases, and share what they knew. Two lawyers from the sat at the back, to advise on the strength of each case. No one in the room had done anything like this in years. Their instructor was Patrick Tidmarsh, a 60-year-old actor turned criminologist based in Melbourne, who had recently flown to England at Stanko\u2019s invitation. Tidmarsh walked between the tables, experienced at holding a room. He told the officers they were pioneering a new way of working, a change of culture: \u201cSeriously, you are the vanguard.\u201d The day was gruelling, punctuated by trigger warnings. Tidmarsh played a video dramatisation of a real case, in which a young woman was assaulted during a massage week later, she went to the police. Who in the room would bring a charge? There was general agreement against doing so, even though the video was unambiguous about what had happened. One officer said that a jury member would give her \u201c10/10 for responsibility\u201d. After all, 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 9/24 she hadn\u2019t complained and she had paid. Tidmarsh pointed out that the first 15 observations from the officers had been about the woman: what about the masseur? Had he done this before? He gave them another case, playing a recording of a complainant, voiced by an actor, telling her story to the police: her partner was away, and she had bumped into a group of former schoolmates on a night out. One of them insisted on sharing a taxi home, invited himself in, crept out of the spare room and raped her. The next morning she made him coffee and gave him a lift to the station. Tidmarsh asked the officers where they would begin. \u201cThe defence will pull this apart,\u201d said one. But the lawyer called out that she would advise a charge: there were witnesses to show that the complainant had said no throughout the evening, and she had reported immediately. They should look at phone records, CCTV, forensics \u2013 but most of all, Tidmarsh said, they should interview her in a way that allowed her to tell the whole story. She had given her attacker a false phone number when he asked for it, and he had become angry on immediately calling it to find it didn\u2019t ring. Small details like these, with a digital trace, could build a picture of a non-consensual encounter. Tidmarsh closed by asking the officers about the cases they were working on. Many of these were complex, some involving generations of abuse, and what came across was the sheer difficulty and emotional weight of the work. When a violent relationship was key to unlocking your case, and that relationship wasn\u2019t over, what did you do? Tidmarsh ended by addressing his audience as if they were a team of superheroes: \u201cDurham, spread your knowledge.\u201d There was laughter, and the officers dispersed. Det Supt Victoria Cubby, Durham\u2019s officer in charge of crimes involving violence against women and girls, drove me to the train station. She told me how, in court, the defence barrister would sometimes take an investigating officer apart: \u201cThey portray you as inexperienced, incompetent.\u201d There was one case she had thought was nailed on: a man had raped a woman in her sleep; he even admitted it, but said it was what she liked. \u201cAnd he was awful on the stand, but [the verdict] was not guilty. As he walked out of the courtroom he winked at the complainant \u2013 it was everything we could do not to react.\u201d For some officers, defeats like these were the reason you moved on; for Cubby, it was why you stayed. To win next time. few weeks later, on a warm day in late October met Stanko and Hohl in the sociology department of City, University of London. The lobby was loud with students, but in Hohl\u2019s sixth-floor office, with its view of the Shard to the south, there was a professorial calm. In the four months since had visited Stanko at home, there had been more bullshitty political back and forth, which had delayed publication of their interim report: two changes of prime minister, a new commissioner of the Metropolitan police (Mark Rowley), four home secretaries (two of them Suella Braverman). The two women logged into a meeting with Phil Sparrow of South Wales police. South Wales was the fifth force Stanko\u2019s team had visited, between June and August, and they had continued to hold regular follow-up meetings. Sparrow, who is a veteran rape investigator, had recently completed an on the comparative efficacy of specialist units; his dissertation had proved their worth, and helped convince his superiors to introduce one in his own force. He now had 107 officers in a specialist rape unit, and in the past year, he said, south Wales\u2019 charge rates had doubled from 5% to 10.8%. When asked Sparrow what made a good rape investigator, he cited compassion, emotional resilience, attention to detail. \u201cIt\u2019s an area people have got to want to work in detective may be excellent at dealing with 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 10/24 robbers or drug dealers, but wouldn\u2019t necessarily want them dealing with my rape victim. Especially having heard some of the feedback around whether this is \u2018real\u2019 police work with proper baddies.\u201d \u201c\u2018Pink and fluffy\u2019 was the phrase used,\u201d Stanko interjected, referring to something she had heard at another force a few months earlier. \u201cWhich would have expected 25 years ago,\u201d Sparrow said. But the casual dismissiveness of \u201cpink and fluffy\u201d reflected a machismo that still runs through police culture. The author Alice Vinten, who served as a Met officer between 2004 and 2015, told me she had experienced the force as a \u201ctwisted brotherhood\u201d, which insists that \u201cyou\u2019re either \u2018job\u2019 (in the police) or not. And it\u2019s this us-against-them attitude that prevents the dangerous ones from being exposed.\u201d (She added that the good cops far outweighed the bad.) Vinten and others told me that the former commissioner Cressida Dick had been well liked within the Met, launching a mentoring scheme for female officers, but had become heavily institutionalised herself, had become \u201cjob\u201d. Another former Met staffer told me Dick had \u201chired poison\u201d among her senior team. After Sparrow logged off walked with Stanko and Hohl around the corner to buy lunch. The professors talked about Stanko\u2019s daughter\u2019s upcoming wedding, and which of them would visit the other three Welsh forces. They had developed strategies for looking out for each other: Stanko with her cancer to manage, Hohl with two young children and another demanding research project on the go. \u201cThere are quagmires and quicksand all around us, and it\u2019s really important not to get sucked into it,\u201d Stanko said. She was mindful of the ticking clock: they had less than a year before the Home Office money ran out. n early 2023 the drumbeat of bad news from the Met has got louder: David Carrick was given 36 life sentences; Wayne Couzens was sentenced to an additional 19 months after admitting three counts of indecent exposure; a former officer appeared at the Old Bailey charged with raping a woman after showing her his warrant card. In February talked to Det Supt Nicola Franklin, the Met\u2019s officer in charge of rape and serious sexual offences, who admitted the headlines had had an impact on everyone\u2019s work. But she had confidence in Stanko\u2019s new investigative model, and in Mark Rowley: \u201cHe does recognise that he\u2019s got thousands of officers who are committed, and hundreds that he will root out.\u201d Hundreds is a staggering number, and could be a conservative one. In the coming weeks many more police officers will be charged with sexual offences, and not just at the Met. In February, the Observer reported that in 2022 alone, about one in 100 officers in England and Wales faced criminal charges, including for sexual assault number of major reports into policing, both national and focusing on the Met, are imminent. All are likely to paint a bleak picture of missed opportunities, weak leadership and a culture in which misogynistic and racist prejudices thrive. When spoke to Sarah Crew, chief constable of Avon and Somerset, in February, she pointed out that corrupt officers often have good relationships with their superiors, \u201cnot because the superiors are stupid, but because they\u2019ve been groomed. These are the people who put themselves forward for extra duties, who say nice things.\u201d Crew\u2019s words weren\u2019t meant to excuse senior officers, but to critique the institution as a whole: the way it had been blind to the dangers within. After Carrick\u2019s sentencing in January asked Stanko if she ever worried that the Met was irredeemable. The feminist group Sisters Uncut last year urged the public to withdraw consent and funding from British policing; like other abolitionist feminists, they argue that public safety is better served by improved childcare, education and healthcare. But Stanko was firmly on the 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 11/24 More on this story How many rape cases are derailed by \u2018sexsomnia\u2019 claims? The doesn\u2019t know 8 Dec 2024 \u2018They covered up child rape\u2019: how the New Orleans archdiocese protected a priest who preyed on children 8 Dec 2024 Rape trials collapse as victims abandon cases amid long court delays 6 Dec 2024 side of reform as the best means of tackling the pervasiveness of sexual violence. \u201cOtherwise what do we do with men who continually target vulnerable women?\u201d Katrin Hohl was a committed reformist, for a different reason am German. Growing up in the shadow of Nazi times know you never let state authorities go unchecked.\u201d The Home Office had published Stanko\u2019s year-one report 10 days before Christmas, accompanied by an upbeat press release highlighting improvements in police referrals to the CPS. It was a successful misdirection: only a handful of national news organisations reported Stanko\u2019s damning account of badly mishandled investigations, officers who blamed complainants, and a lack of experience and specialist knowledge. Despite the muted response, Stanko was happy with the report\u2019s scope, and with the details she had been able to include: the senior staff who wrongly believed \u201cthe system is clogged with false allegations\u201d (research has shown these account for 2-3% of reports); the women who were asked in police interviews if they could tell the difference between truth and lies (a line of questioning meant to be reserved for a child). She was optimistic that what had been unleashed these past two years \u2013 the anger, the scrutiny, the accountability \u2013 meant there could be no going back. One passage in Stanko\u2019s report heard from complainants who wanted to talk beyond their own experiences and discuss policing more generally. The researchers described interviewees who were \u201cfatigued\u201d by politicians claiming to take sexual violence seriously while failing to hold the criminal justice system to account. Like many women know that fatigue. It is a form of anger rather than tiredness, the result of rage repeatedly meeting resistance or apathy. The man who raped me went on to have a 20-year career in the police, before working in local and national government. He has a dog, a family, a LinkedIn account, and doubt he has ever given that night more thought, or even remembers it. Yet it resurfaces for me every time there is news of a police assault, which is often. For decades have hoped that he didn\u2019t do it again, and that being a police officer didn\u2019t make it easy for him. What the past two years have shown is that this is wishful thinking. Stanko has largely avoided writing about her own experiences, especially that period in the early 1980s when she was the target of harassment and intimidation. Over the years, she and Ximena Bunster lost touch. But in 2018, after millions of women began sharing their experiences as part of the #MeToo movement, Stanko experienced the return of a that had been the daily reality of a high-profile harassment case: anxiety, tearfulness, flashbacks. She flew to Santiago and visited Bunster a month before she died, aged 87. She visited the city\u2019s Museum of Memory and Human Rights, wanting to understand the regime Bunster had fled. For Stanko, it was a reminder of the precarity of democracy, and the role of fair policing within it. \u201cThat\u2019s what learned from Ximena,\u201d Stanko told me would be dead in many countries for doing what I\u2019ve done. I\u2019ve been threatened, but they haven\u2019t shot me yet.\u201d Her work would continue. Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, listen to our podcasts here and sign up to the long read weekly email here. 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 12/24 Most viewed 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 13/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 14/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 15/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 16/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 17/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 18/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 19/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 20/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 21/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 22/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 23/24 2/16/25, 10:27 know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape | Rape and sexual assault | \u2026 24/24", "7278_102.pdf": "Educational Considerations Educational Considerations Volume 11 Number 1 Article 13 1-1-1984 Sexual Harassment in Higher Education: Institutional Liability Sexual Harassment in Higher Education: Institutional Liability Arlene T. Metha Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Higher Education Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Metha, Arlene T. (1984) \"Sexual Harassment in Higher Education: Institutional Liability,\" Educational Considerations: Vol. 11: No. 1. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Educational Considerations by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sexual harassment is a pervasive so- cial problem affecting institutions of higher education. Sexual Harassment in Higher Education: Institutional Liability by Arlene Metha Sexual harassment on college and university cam\u00b7 puses is a severe and complex problem. It not only thre at- ens the traditional bonds and relationships between tac\u00b7 ulty and students and between academic colleagues, it t>ecomes a barrier to Individual achievement and lnstitu\u00b7 tlonal productivity. University officials have estimated that as many as 125,000 women experience some type of sex\u00b7 ual harassment by instructors each year (Engelmayer, 1983). Dzelch (1983) argues in her book, The Lecherous Profes\u00b7 sor, that the credibility of higher education is damaged by sexual harassment and will be more threatened if sexual harrassment Isn't curbed heightened awareness of the magnitude and In\u00b7 vidiousness of sexual harassment has led to a multlpllca\u00b7 tlon of the number of complaints of sexual harassment be\u00b7 Ing filed with academic institutions, with agencies (e.g. Equal Emp loyment Opportunity Commission), and with the courts. Although adjudicating sexual harassment cases Is tricky and only a small percentage of the grievances re- sult in any disciplinary action, as a recent article In the Wall St reet Jo urnal noted, some institutions are cracking down: Harvard University recently reprimanded its third pro- fessor In four years for sexual harassment. San Jose State University fired a professor after five female stu\u00b7 dents accused him of maklng unwanted sexual ad\u00b7 vances. And at the University of Michigan, where har\u00b7 assment complaints against professors are up five\u00b7 fold since 1980, three professors have resigned under duress following harassment grievances. Hlllsbor\u00b7 ough Community College in Florida dumped its presi\u00b7 Arlene Matha Is associate professor of education at Arizona State University , Tempe. Educatlona/ Conslderations, Vol. 11, No. 1, Winter/Spring, 1984 dent after a state ethics commission found that he propositioned women colleagues (Engelmayer, 1963, p. 22). This article provides a brief discussion of the lega l basis for claims of sexual harassment, the extent of the problem in academe, and the Institution's responsibility in recog\u00b7 nlzing and handling complaints of sexual harassment. Legal Basis Both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commls \u00b7 sion (EEOC) and the courts have re cog n lzed sexual har\u00b7 assment as a form of unlawful sex discrimination under Title of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 1980 EEOC's Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex (29 CFR\u00a71604.1 1) specify that sexual harassment is a viola\u00b7 tion of Section 703 of Title VII. These guidelines state that unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature will be considered sexual harassment when: (1) submls\u00b7 sion to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment, (2) submission to or re\u00b7 jection of such conduct is used as the basis for employ\u00b7 ment decisions affecting the individual, or (3) such con- duct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with the individu al's work performance or creates an In\u00b7 timidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 CFR\u00a71604.11(a) (1980)). Sexual harassment also has been Judged to be a viola\u00b7 tion of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, which provides that: \"no person In the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.\" If faculty or staff members of edu\u00b7 cational institutions that receive federal assistance im\u00b7 pose or attempt to impose themselves sexually upon stu\u00b7 dents and condition their academic success upon submis\u00b7 sion to sexual demands, the incident more than likely con\u00b7 stitutes discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX. The rationale for including sexual harassment within the prohibitions of Title is that in Instances of sexual harassment a student of one gender is required to meet a different condition from that required of a student of another gender to receive the same educational benefit. Thus, discrimination on the basis of sex has taken place (Buek, 1978). Additi onally, with the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in North Haven Board of Education v Bell , 1 02 S. Ct. 1922, which extended Title coverage to em\u00b7 ployees, sexual harassment of employees also is prohib\u00b7 lted by Title IX. However, since prior to the North Haven decision sexual harassment of an employee by an em\u00b7 ployee In institutions of higher education was not covered by Title unless it could be shown to have a discriminat\u00b7 ing Impact on students, few complaints of sexual harass\u00b7 ment were filed under Tit le IX. Ti tl e does require schools and colleges to provide internal grievance proce\u00b7 dures for sexual harassment victims. In the provision of such grievance procedures academic Institutions can use the Title procedures already in place or, due to the son\u00b7 sitive nature of sexual harassment, may chose to provide special procedures. Recognizing the seriousness and Importance of the problem of sexual harassment, during the past few years several institutions of higher education have initiated studies to examine the extent of sexual harassment on their campuses. They are often surprised by their findings. 33 For example, a survey of sexual harassment at the Univer- sity of Florida (Oshinsky, 1980) found that 20 percent of the graduate women and 17 percent of the undergraduate women experienced some form of \" unwanted sexual at- tention from their instructor(s).\" Perhaps even more sig- nificant than the actual numbers of students reporting ha- rassment was that 70 percent of the female respondents did not feel free to report incidents of sexual harassment to university officials forfear of reprisal. Metha and Nigg (1980) surveyed Arizona State Univer\u00b7 sity and found that the incidence of sexual harassment among female students was 13:3 percent; among female staff, 11.2 percent; and among female faculty, 13.7 per\u00b7 cent The 13 percent of the female student body reporting sexual harassment represented more than 2,300 women. The same report indicated that only 20 percent of the harassed women attempted to lodge a complaint about the incident and less than half of these were satisfied with manner in which their complaints had been handled 1980Time magazine article cited cases at Yale, San Jose State, Berkeley and Harvard and concluded that harassment of female students by male professors was not an uncommon occurrence. The same article, entitled \" Fighting Lechery on Campus,\" reported that 10 percent of the American women with degrees in psychology indi\u00b7 cated that they had sexual contact with their professors. This figure (OSe to 25 percent for women who had earned their degrees within the past two years. The National Advisory Councl on Women's Educa- tion Programs, established by Congress to advise and re- port on matters of sex equity In education, also surveyed several institutions of higher education concerning sexual harassment (Till, 1980). Its findings revealed that institu\u00b7 tions typicaily have handled complaints of sexual harass- ment through inadequate or inappropriately designed mechanisms. The responses of sexual harassment vie\u00b7 tims depicted the harasser as a person with a history of similar incidents and with considerable stature, influence, and power on the campus. At the University of California, Benson and Thomson (1982) surveyed senior women undergraduates to deter- mine the nature and effects of sexual harassment by male instructors at Berkeley. Approximately 20 percent of the women sampled had been sexually harassed by male in- structors. Of the harassed students, about one third had experienced verbal advances; 20 percent, physical ad\u00b7 vances; and 6 percent sexual bribery. ?~rhaps more impor- tant, one in three of the women respondents personally knew another woman student who had been sexually ha- rassed by a male instructor study of sexual harassment of students at Iowa State University (Committee on Women, 1982) found only a small percentage of students reporting sexually harass- ing experiences such as physical advances, explicit prop- ositions, or sexual bribery. However, 13 percent of the fe- male respondents avoided taking a class from or working with a faculty member whom they knew or had heard made sexual advances to students. The Chronicle of Higher Education (McCain, 1983) recently reported the findings of a survey commissioned by the faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University. According to the study, 32 percent of the tenured female professors, 49 percent of those without tenure, 41 percent of the female graduate students, and 34 percent of the un- dergraduate women had encountered some form of ha- rassment from someone in authority at least once while at 34 Harvard. Of those reporting harassment, 15 percent of the graduate students and 12 percent of the undergraduates indicated they had changed their academic programs be\u00b7 cause of the incidents. Whitmore (1983) surveyed students, faculty, and staff at the University of California at Davis and found that one in seven women respondents (13.5 percent) had been sexually harassed and one in 100 men respondents (1.1 percent) had been sexuall y harassed. Among women re- spondents, 21.4 percent of the staff, 20 percent of the fac- ulty, 16.5 percent of the graduate/professional students, and 7.3 percent of the undergraduates had been sexually harassed during their tenure at Davis. These and other studies illuminate the seriousness of the problem of sexual harassment on college and univer- sity campuses. The legal responsibility of the institution in addressing this problem is discussed in the following section. Institutional Liability The doctrine of respondent superior says that the prin\u00b7 cipal is responsible for the neglige nt acts of his agenls. The extent to which this doctrine can be adapted to im\u00b7 pule the sexually harassing actions of employees to em\u00b7 ployers has been a subject of some dispute. However, since neither Title VII, the EEOC, or state law differenliate between private and public employers, to the extent that courts have said employer liability exists, institutions of higher education are liable in the same manner as private employers review of the more important cases in the private section then, should provide some indication of the liability of inslltutions of higher education Guideli nes on Discrimination Because of Sex (29 CFA\u00a71604.11) addresses the question of employer Ii\u00b7 ability. They state that employers are responsible for not only their acls but also those of their supervisory employ - ees or agents, regardless of whether the specific acts of sexual harassment complained of were authorized or even forbidden by the employer and regardless of whether the emplo yer knew or should have Known of the acts. How- ever, employers may rebut iabi lity for acts of sexual harassment committed by employees by demonstrating that they took \" immediate and appropriate corrective ac- tion.\" (29 CAF\u00a71604.11(d) (1980)1. In addition, the Final Amendment to the Guidelines on Discriminalion Because of Sex (29 CRF\u00a71604.11(e) (1980)1 refers to lhe possible lia- bility of employers for acts of non-em ployees toward em\u00b7 ployees. Such lia bility will be delermined on a case-by\u00b7 case basis, considering all the facts, including whether the employer knew or should have known of the conduct, the extent of the employer's conlro l and other legal re- sponsibility with respect lo such Individuals. Several recent cases have provided clarific ation as to the interpretation and appli cation of these guidelines and Title requiremenls. In Continental Can Company, Inc. v State of Minne- sota, 297 N.W. 2d 241(Minn.1980) the Minnesota Supreme Court found Conllnental Can liable because it took no ac- tion in an instance where the victim of sexual harassment notified her superior of offensive acts but refused to iden- tify Iler harassers. The court reasoned that if employers have reason to believe that sexual demands are being made on employees and fail to investigate they are giving tacit support to the discrimination in thal the absence of sanctions encourages abusive behavlor( Nol an, 1982). In Bundy v Jackson, 741 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981) the Educational Considerations 2 Educational Considerations, Vol. 11, No. 1 [1984], Art. 13 DOI: 10.4148/0146-9282.1758 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ad\u00b7 dressed not only the question of what constitutes sexual harassment under Title , but also the question of em\u00b7 ployer liability. The court held that sexual harassment, In and of itself, Is a violation of the law and is not conditional upon the complaining employee losing any tangible job benefits or being penalized as a result of the dis crlmlna\u00b7 tl Prio r to this decision it was unclea r as to whether ob\u00b7 jectlonable acts, derogatory remarks, and verbal or physl\u00b7 cal advances are sexual harassment per se, or whether It Is the adverse employment consequences which make these actions sexual harassment. As to employer liability, the Bundy court reiterated the liabilit y of the employer for sexual harassment committed by supervisory personnel when the employer had full notice of the harassment com\u00b7 mitted by supervisors and did virtually nothing to stop or even investigate the practice. tn higher education, the lead case using nue as the legal basis for a sexual harassment complaint is Stanko v. Trustees of Clark University, et.al. (Worcester Superior Court, No. 82\u00b722184). The case began when Bunster, a Chil~an exile and anthropologist who came to this country under the sponsorship of Margaret Mead, in June of 1980 filed a complaint with Clark University claiming she had been subjected to sexual harassment, and retaliation for refusal of sexual favors by her department chair, Sidney Peck. Prior to the filing of the complaint, Bunster had re\u00b7 peatedly complained to university officials who failed to Investigate her complaint storm of controversy erupted after the filing, with Peck's supporters, and Peck, claiming that the sexual harassment Issue was a ruse being used by the university to punish him for his leftist polit ical ac- tivities and his labor activities (Peck had been an anti-Vi et\u00b7 nam protester and had led the faculty negotiation of salaries the year before which had cost the university S1 million). In the lall of 198.0 the university's committee on per\u00b7 sonnel (COP) heard testimony from four other women, in\u00b7 eluding Stanko, another member of the sociology depart\u00b7 ment, all of whom testified 10 having experienced or wit\u00b7 nessed sexually harassing actions by Peck. Testimony was given with the assurance from the university that their names would not be revealed. The committee subse\u00b7 quently concluded that there was \"substantial evidence\" to support charges against Peck and recommended that the university president draw up charges against Peck. In December the university issued charges against Peck for sexual harassment, moral turpitude, and conduct unfit for a university professor. What followed was a series of charges and counter\u00b7 charges. In January 1981, Peck filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in which he al\u00b7 leged that the university's Investigation of him resulted from his participation in labor activities. Concurrent with or subsequent to the filing of the complaint, Peck drafted but did not file a multimillion dollar suit naming as defendants Clark Un iversity, Bunster and Stanko, as well as the three other women who testified to the COP. During this same period Stanko and Bunster com\u00b7 plained to the university about \"the inadequacy o\"f the uni\u00b7 versity's process for the handling of sexual harassment complaints as well as the negative impact on women who bring such complaints and the chilling effect upon other potential complainants.\" In November, Stanko and Bun\u00b7 ster filed discrimination charges against Cfark University with the protesting sexual harassment and sex dis\u00b7 Winter/Spring, 1984 crimination, and retaliation against them for making com\u00b7 plaints. By March when the university still had not acted, Stanko and Bunster refused to participate in any hearings or Peck, objecting to the procedures being either unclear or unfair and claiming that the institution was still not fully addressing the issue of sexual harassment and sex dis\u00b7 crimlnatlon. The next day, Clark University, with the knowledge of Peck's complaint and threatened civil action, en\u00b7 tered into an agreement with Peck. In this agreement the university agreed to drop all charges against Peck, Peck agreed he would not chair any department at Clark, and both parties mutually released one another from liability . The day after having reached an .agreement wit h the uni\u00b7 versity Peck filed a defamation suit for $23.7 million against Bunster, Stanko, and the other three witnesses (Sidney M. Peck v. Ximena Bunster, et.at., Mid dlesex Su\u00b7 perior Court, No. 81\u00b71423). Shortly thereafter Bunster and Stanko brought suit against Peck and Clark University (Stanko v. Trustees of Clark University, et. al., Worcester Superior Court, No. 82\u00b722184). The case was finally resolved when, in April 1982, Bunster, Stanko and Peck entered into a settlement which compromised the disputed claims and counterclaims. The parties affirmed that \"employees and students should have the right under Massachusetts and federal law to en\u00b7 gage In concerted action to improve their condition of work, Including the elimination of sexual harassment and/or other discrimination, and that this right Includes and should include the right to talk with other employees and students, to discuss conditions of their work or study, and to request that these conditions be changed.\" The parties to the settlement agreement also concurred that \"the failure of the Clark University administration to lmple\u00b7 ment and utilize a coherent, fair and prompt grievance pro\u00b7 cedure in order to resolve the complaints and denials of sexual harassment in this case was detrimental to all par- ties and resulted in an unnecessary escalation of the con\u00b7 fllct s among them.\" The implications to be drawn from this case are very important in that the events at Clark University provide a disturbing picture of what can result if institutions of higher education truncate their legal procedures and pro\u00b7 vide legal protection tor some parties and not for others (Fi eld, 1981). Clark University was eventually named by both parties in ensuing complaints. Since this case was never litigated, we are left without a specific answer to what institutional liablllty will be found in such instances. However, since the failure of Clark to not only provide grievance procedures but to fairly and promptly address complaints was apparently so blatant that the agrieving parties took care to so attest in their settlement agree- ment, It would seem to illustrate the necessity for Institu- tions to adopt adequate grievance procedures to protect themselves from such allegations and any attendant liabil\u00b7 ily. Employer liability under Title allegations of sexual harassment is less clear. It could be argued that the recip\u00b7 ient Institution would be liable for discrimination in the program regardless of whether or not It was itself the per\u00b7 petuator. However, because of the personal nature of sex\u00b7 ual harassment as a discriminatory act, a stronger posi\u00b7 lion might be that tor such a violation to constitute dis\u00b7 criminatlon, it must be based upon actual knowledge by the institution as evidenced by a policy, lack of policy or failure to act upon the complaint (Buek, 1978). 35 The only suit thus far to challenge sexual harassment of students under Title is Alex ander v. Yale University, 459 F. Supp. 1(D. Conn. 197n, Six plaintiff s suing individ\u00b7 ually as well as a class, cla imed a violation of Title by Yale University because of alleged lnclde.nts of sexual har\u00b7 assment against female students by male facult y and staff of the institution. The plaintiff s (five present and former fe\u00b7 male students and one male professor) charged Yale with condoning continued sexual harassment, and argued that the institution's \" failure to combat sexual harassment of female students and Its refu sal to institute mechanisms and procedures to address complaints and make investi- gations of such harassment Interferes with the educa- tional process and denies equal opportunity in education\" (459 F. Supp. 2). The district court refused to accept the class action suit and dismissed five of the original six plaintiffs for vari\u00b7 ous reasons. However, it did rule that one of the plaintiff s, a female student who all egedly received a poor grade in her major field due to her rejection of a male professor's sexual demands, was entitled to bring private action under Till e IX. The plaintiff further all eged that she had com\u00b7 plained promptly to the university but was not accorded a mechanism to deal with her charge of sexual harassment. The court addressed the question of institutional liability by stating that an institution which fails to respond to complaints \" may sensibly be held responsible for condon\u00b7 Ing or rati fying the employee's invidiously discriminatory conduct\" (459 F. Supp . 4). However, at trial the district court found in favor of Yale University, ruling that the plain \u00b7 tiff was not adversely affected by a lack of a grievance mechanism to deal with sexual harassment and that the original claim of sexual harassment could not be substan\u00b7 !lated. On appeal to the Second Circuit, the decision of the lower court was upheld. The appeals court also noted that Yale University had Institut ed a grievance mechanism and procedures to address complaints since the original complaint was filed. The court also found some of the complaints moot In that the complainants had already graduated from Yale (Alexander v. Yale University, 631 F.2d 178, 2d Cir. 1980). Conclusions Sexual harassment is a pervasive soci al prob lem af\u00b7 fee ting Institutio ns of higher education. Although the sev\u00b7 eral studies of sexual harassment in academe are not agreed as to the exact extent of tl'le pr oblem, they do agree that it is widespread and that It seriously affects the climate of learning. The past few years have witnessed a growing number of cases being litigated in the private sector under Title Vtl. As a result of this litigation a new body of law has 36 evolved that has served to further clarify what constitutes sexual harassment and the institution's liability for the acts of its employees. This case law suggests an increas- ing institutional responsibility. However, not only are em- ployees of institutions of higher learning covered by Title VII, but more recen tly, by Title tX. It is anticipated that with the extension of Title coverage to employees, more sex- ual harassment complaints will be filed under Title IX. As they are litigated the issues surrounding inslltutl onal re\u00b7 sponsibilities and liabiliti es will h opefully be resolved. References Benson, D.J. & Thomson, G.E. Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority rela\u00b7 tions, sexual interest and gender stratification. Social Problems, 1982, 29, 236-251. Buek, A.P. Sexual harassment: Fact of life or violation of law? Universit y li abi li ty under Title IX. Washington, D.C.: National Advisory Council on Women's Educa\u00b7 tional Programs, 1978. Committee on Women at Iowa State University. Sexual harassment of students at Iow a State University. Ames, towa: Iowa State University, 1982. Dzeich, B. The lecherous professor. Boston, MA.: Beacon Press, 1983. Engelmayer, Paul A. \"Violence by students, from rape to racism raises college worries,\" The Wall Street Jour\u00b7 nal, Monday, November 21, 1983. Field, A. Harassment on campus: Sex in a tenured posi \u00b7 tion? MS, September 1981, 69\u00b770, 73, 100-102. \"Fight ing lechery on camp us .\" Time, February 4, 1980, 84. McCain, N. Fem ale fac ulty members and students at Har \u00b7 vard report sexual harassment. The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 2, 1983, 27 (10), 1, 14. Metha, A. & Nigg, J. Sexual harassment on campus: An in- stitutional response. Journal of the Naflonal Associa\u00b7 lion for Women Deans, Administrators & Counselors, 1983, 46, (2), 9\u00b7 15. Nolan, D. Sexual harassment in public and private em\u00b7 ploy ment. West's Education Law Reporter, 1982, 227, 227\u00b7237 . Oshinsky . Sexual harassment of women students in higher education. Unpublished doctor al dissertation, University of Florida, 1980. Till , F.J. Sexual harassment report on the sexual harass- ment of students. Washington, D.C.: National Advis- ory Council on Women's Educational Programs, 1980. Whitmore, R. Sexual harassment at Davis, Davis, Cali\u00b7 fomia: University of California at Davis, 1983, 1-92. Educational Consid erations 4 Educational Considerations, Vol. 11, No. 1 [1984], Art. 13 DOI: 10.4148/0146-9282.1758", "7278_103.pdf": "From the Trash to the Archive: Preserving the Legacy of Ximena Bunster How does the personal library of a renowned academic and intellectual end up in the trash? What happens when academics who do not comply with gender mandates die Carla Magri January 27, 2023 From the Trash to the Archive: Preserving the Legacy of Ximena Bunster \u00bb News \u00bb Home 2/16/25, 10:27 From the Trash to the Archive: Preserving the Legacy of Ximena Bunster | Columbia Global Centers 1/4 May 2022. Julio Fern\u00e1ndez, a recent law school graduate, was walking along Malaqu\u00edas Concha, a street in the Providencia area of the Chilean capital of Santiago. It was night time but he spotted some boxes next to a municipal trash can. He stopped out of curiosity and realized they contained books. Shocked by the violence of the image of books being thrown away as garbage, he checked a few of them out. Realizing they all belonged to a \u201cXimena Bunster,\u201d he googled her name and learned about the work of this woman, an anthropologist, feminist, and university professor. He didn\u2019t hesitate; with the help of a supermarket cart, he moved the boxes to his apartment and spent the next days cataloging the books: 177 in total. He was astonished: \u201cSo many ideas, so much knowledge thrown out to the street!\u201d He immediately promised himself that he would only give them to someone who he knew would take care of them. But who was this mysterious woman? Let\u2019s rewind several decades. Ximena Bunster \uf08e (1931-2019) was 23 years old when she became the youngest university professor in Chile. Later, she was the first Latin American woman to win a Fulbright scholarship to pursue graduate studies in the United States. In 1968 she graduated from Columbia \uf08e with a Master\u2019s degree and a Ph.D. in Anthropology from Teachers College \uf08e (TC), at a time when the discipline was not yet taught as a degree in Chilean universities. One of the reasons for Bunster to choose was that there she could study under the guidance of Margaret Mead \uf08e, a renowned professor and thinker, and one of the most progressive minds of the 20 century, who not only became her mentor, doctoral supervisor, and biggest intellectual influence, but also her friend for almost two decades, until Mead\u2019s death in 1978. During her doctoral research Bunster lived for two years with a Mapuche community in the province of Caut\u00edn, in the south of Chile. After her Ph.D., she resumed teaching at Universidad de Chile \uf08e, spending a brief period of seven months at Oxford University in the and returning to Chile a month before the September 1973 coup. An opponent of the new dictatorial military regime that ruled over Chile, she moved to the United States as an exile. There, she worked at NYU, Clark and ten other universities, where she led a productive career centered around urban anthropology, gender studies, human rights, and the role of women during the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, publishing articles such as: \u201cWatch out for the little Nazi man that all of us have inside: The mobilization and demobilization of women in militarized Chile;\u201d \uf08e \u201cTalking pictures: a study of proletarian mothers in Lima, Peru\u201d \uf08e and \u201cFemale employment, occupational status, and socioeconomic characteristics of the family in Mexico.\u201d \uf08e She left an imprint in academia not only because of her work, but also because she was one of the first women to ever file a sexual harassment complaint \uf08e against a professor at a university. In 1979, Bunster denounced Sidney Peck, a tenured professor of Sociology at Clark University and head of her department. At the time, Bunster, who was working as a visiting associate professor of Anthropology, didn\u2019t hold permanent residency in the and was therefore in a vulnerable position if she were to lose her job, but decided to move forward with the case regardless. After the university refused to act on her several charges, she, along with fellow co-worker Betsy Stanko, filed a legal th 2/16/25, 10:27 From the Trash to the Archive: Preserving the Legacy of Ximena Bunster | Columbia Global Centers 2/4 complaint for sexual harassment, which came to be known as Stanko vs Clark et al (they used Stanko\u2019s last name to protect Bunster\u2019s legal status in the country). The lawsuit eventually included the versions of other researchers, students and witnesses who supported the allegations against Peck. After the return of democracy in Chile, between 1991 and 2005 Bunster resumed her work at Universidad de Chile\u2019s School of Social Sciences \uf08e as a tenured professor in the Anthropology Department \uf08e, becoming an emeritus professor in 2008 and focusing her research on ageing studies. She died in April 2019 at the age of 87, having had no children but leaving behind a fruitful academic career, as acknowledged by the Amanda Labarca Merit Award she received, the highest academic recognition given to women by Universidad de Chile. Now let\u2019s fast forward to May 2022. How does the personal library of an academic and intellectual like Bunster end up in the trash? That was the question that Julio Fern\u00e1ndez and Nicol\u00e1s Leiva kept asking themselves. About the same time as Fern\u00e1ndez's discovery, Leiva (a sociologist) found 25 of Bunster\u2019s books in the exact same place. Luckily, they both had the same instinct, and in November 2022 around 200 books of Ximena Bunster\u2019s personal library were donated to Universidad de Chile, where they are currently being catalogued and restored in the Central Archive \uf08e. Though the story has a somewhat happy ending, it raises a whole set of questions: How did Bunster\u2019s library end up in the trash? How many other books were there and are lost? Archivists from Universidad de Chile\u2019s Central Archive estimate that a person who dedicated their life to academia and research accumulates at least 2,000 books. Who inherited them and what did they do with them? And also, what happens when women who do not comply with gender mandates and do not have children die? Who takes care of their heritage? Read here \uf08e an article published by Universidad de Chile about the conservation of Bunster\u2019s library. Tags: Urban Studies and Anthropology feminsim Ximena Bunster Teachers College Alumni Club Chile Alumni Club of Chile Santiago Education Santiago Center Stories Santiago Center Santiago Feminist movement Education Santiago Student & Alumni Engagement Santiago Humanities News February 13, 2025 Columbia Global Emerging Scholar Adel Dashela Explores Chile\u2019s Transitional Justice Path February 10, 2025 2/16/25, 10:27 From the Trash to the Archive: Preserving the Legacy of Ximena Bunster | Columbia Global Centers 3/4 Climate Resilience Project Begins Work in San Jos\u00e9 de Maipo February 10, 2025 In Honor of Dr. Richard Joseph Deckelbaum February 06, 2025 Enhancing Disaster Resilience: Climate Hub Rio Hosts Workshop on Integrating Climate Risk into Disaster Management January 31, 2025 Exploring Religion and Culture: The Kraft Global Fellows' Kenyan Experience 2/16/25, 10:27 From the Trash to the Archive: Preserving the Legacy of Ximena Bunster | Columbia Global Centers 4/4", "7278_104.pdf": "5min chapter Best of 2023\u2026 so far know where the bodies are buried\u2019: one woman\u2019s mission to change how the police investigate rape The Audio Long Read chevron_right notes The Rise and Fall of Sidney Peck Sidney Peck was head of criminology at Clark University in Massachusetts. Professor Jimena Bunster filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. She alleged that he had tried to kiss her, made repeated sexual comments and promised job security in return for sexual favors. Stanker became Bunster's co-complainant and together they brought one of the first cases of sexual harassment in the United States. It was national news, covered by Gloria Steinem's Mismagazine and debated on radio phonemes. In spring 1982, Peck dropped his suit, and entered a settlement agreement, admitting that his legal action had been too aggressive. The university agreed to pay Bunster and St 05:23 Speaker 3 She had recently started her first For Podcasters share Get the app Transcript Episode notes 2/16/25, 10:27 The Rise and Fall of Sidney Peck | 5min snip from The Audio Long Read 1/5 Speaker 1 job as an assistant professor at Clark University, a liberal arts college outside Boston, Massachusetts. At the time, criminology was an overwhelmingly male field, which tended to focus on male perpetrators and victims. Stanker's research formed part of a new wave of feminist criminology, exploring the impact of gender on every area of policing, crime and the law. Her PhD at the City University of New York had explored the myth of the ideal victim of crime. The respectable elderly white couple robbed by a teenager in the park. The wholesome young woman, a jury, would believe. Now here Stanker was, age 29, teaching criminology and women studies and finding herself in the middle of a sexual harassment case against her head of department, Sidney Peck. Peck appeared to have form, though few of his colleagues were willing to say so prominent figure on the left, he had secured pay rises for Clark's staff and been active in the anti-Vietnam war movement, allowing him to frame any complaint as a conservative smear. But in 1980, Professor Jimena Bunster, a 48-year-old Chilean scholar and protege of the anthropologist Margaret Mead, filed a 10-page tight-pridden complaint against Peck. She alleged that he had tried to kiss her, made repeated sexual comments and promised job security in return for sexual favors. As a recent exile, who faced likely imprisonment or worse if she returned to Pinochet's hunter, this threat carried particular weight. Stanker became Bunster's co-complainant and together they brought one of the first cases of sexual harassment in the United States. It was national news, covered by Gloria Steinem's Mismagazine and debated on radio phonemes. In 1981, Andrea Dworkin and Adrienne Rich, two torchbearers of the newly energized women's movement, travelled to Boston to give a benefit reading. Peck fought back with wine and cheese fundraisers, then a 104-page denial, and finally a defamation suit in which he sued Stanko, Bunster and three other women for reputational damage, for $23,710,000, around $77 million today. The university filed a motion to dismiss their complaints. Stanko received anonymous late-night calls from his supporters, threatening to sexually assault her. She and Bunster were portrayed in letters, leaflets and interviews supporting Peck as vindictive and are somehow responsible for his behaviour. Bunster's Latin style, for instance, was deemed too sexy. But it was a time of enormous change when much seemed possible felt propelled, Stanko told me. It felt like lots of worlds were being turned upside down, but it was also a world we felt we could turn. The second child 2/16/25, 10:27 The Rise and Fall of Sidney Peck | 5min snip from The Audio Long Read 2/5 of five, Stanko had grown up in Indiana and Illinois, the daughter of a research pharmacist and a teacher. As a student, she had joined the first take-back the night marches. As a young professor, she helped set up a women's refuge, baking cupcakes to sell for funds, running up curtains. The refuge in Worcester, Massachusetts is still there. In spring 1982, Peck dropped his suit, and entered a settlement agreement, admitting that his legal action had been too aggressive. Clark University agreed to pay Bunster and Stanko's legal fees and to hire a sexual harassment grievance officer. In a sense, the two women had won, but as Peck supporters had promised, they had also lost. Peck returned to Clark, though not as head of department, while Bunster's teaching contract was not extended. Stanko, exhausted by four years of institutional hostility, lawsuits and countersuits, moved to London. There she married a fellow academic and had a daughter, Rosa. Stanko and her husband later separated. In England, where Stanko and Bunster's case against Peck had been the subject of a television documentary, she accepted invitations to speak and offers of work. Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, had recently been sentenced to life for the murders of 13 women, and Stanko joined researchers in studying the police failures that had allowed him to kill for so long. But gradually, she stopped talking about her experience at Clark got no money, but did get an extraordinary amount of insight and experience, she told me, in terms of what abuse does to you asked whether she had thought at the time it was the end of her career was told it was the end of my career if didn't shut up. But it's given me a capacity to unpick the bigger picture. That's Speaker 3 what I'm doing now. Get the Snipd podcast app Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future. 2/16/25, 10:27 The Rise and Fall of Sidney Peck | 5min snip from The Audio Long Read 3/5 More snips No god in the machine: the pitfalls of worship Hope Requires Action, Not Just Insight 01:30 From the archive: The unravelling of a conspiracy: were the 16 charged with plotting to kill India\u2019s prime minister framed? Insecurity Breeds Authoritarianism 01:33 As a former soldier and historian of genocide was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel Cautionary Lesson on Military Indoctrination AI-powered podcast player Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features Discover highlights Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode Save any moment Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI- generated key takeaways Get the app 2/16/25, 10:27 The Rise and Fall of Sidney Peck | 5min snip from The Audio Long Read 4/5 Home Top podcasts Popular guests 01:40 2/16/25, 10:27 The Rise and Fall of Sidney Peck | 5min snip from The Audio Long Read 5/5", "7278_105.pdf": "Search Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Research Guides Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America Research Guides Home Subject Guides How-To Guides Course Guides Visit the Library Search Ask a Schlesinger Librarian Home Archival Collections - Sex Discrimination Archival Collections - Ask a Schlesinger Librarian 2/16/25, 10:27 Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment - Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Research Guides at Harvard Library 1/10 Sexual Harassment Published Material Research Tips Ask a Schlesinger Librarian Sexual Harassment Unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, including uninvited sexual advances, such as requests for sexual favors and other verbal, nonverbal, graphic or physical conduct. Ad-Hoc Committee for Concerns of Women at Harvard and Radcliffe This collection includes agendas, minutes, memoranda, program fliers, and questionnaires on women's issues at Harvard University and Radcliffe College, including hiring of minority and women faculty and staff, pay equity, health, staff development, and sexual harassment. Additionally there are letters protesting the closing of the Radcliffe Forum office in 1980. Alliance Against Sexual Coercion The Alliance was an organization founded in Cambridge, Mass., in 1976 to help women who had been sexually harassed on the job. This collection includes brochures, fliers, a position paper, form letters, questionnaires, and clippings. Louise Bonar management and human relations consultant and expert on sexual harassment in the workplace, Louise Bonar began offering workshops in the 1980s on establishing sexual harassment policies as well as education and training in liability prevention in public and private workplace settings. She and her associate Ron Rechnitz regularly gave presentations on male-female communication, defining sexual harassment, etc. Bonar was also president of the it ti f h tt d ti Ask a Schlesinger Librarian 2/16/25, 10:27 Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment - Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Research Guides at Harvard Library 2/10 Images from Schlesinger Library Women demonstrate against sexual harassment in the arts and theatre Street harassment demonstration Catharine A. MacKinnon speaks to women at an anti- pornography workshop Young women demonstrate at Long Island Press because they want jobs as Women's Equity Action League of Massachusetts and active in Women Entrepreneurs Homebased. This collection includes training materials, research files, publicity, and clippings concerning sexual harassment. Boston Women's Fund The Boston Women's Fund was founded in 1984 by a group of women frustrated with the devaluation of women by mainstream charities and also with the feminist movement's focus on issues important to white middle class women. The purpose of the Boston Women's Fund was to help women by providing both grants and training in fundraising and organizational development to grassroots women's organizations working to improve women's lives. It was the first women's foundation in Massachusetts. Between 1984 and 2016 the Boston Women's Fund gave grants to a wide variety of organizations working on issues such as welfare reform, health care, child care, domestic violence, reproductive rights, homelessness, immigrant rights, sexual harassment, homophobia, teen empowerment, and racism. Susan Brownmiller (b. 1935) Susan Brownmiller is a journalist and author perhaps best known for her book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975). She attended Cornell University (1952-1954) and worked for Coronet magazine, the Albany Report, and Newsweek before resigning to aid the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee in its voter registration drive in Mississippi in 1964. Brownmiller was active in the women's liberation movement in the late 1960s and 1970s; she was a co-founder of the New York Radical Feminists. Her Ask a Schlesinger Librarian 2/16/25, 10:27 Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment - Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Research Guides at Harvard Library 3/10 URL: \uf02f Print Page Login to LibApps Report a problem. Subjects: Employment Law, History, Labor and Employment, Women & Gender Studies Harvard Library / Research Guides / Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America / Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment / Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment Tags: sex discrimination, sexual harassment Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America, Harvard Radcliffe Institute 3 James St. | Cambridge 02138 | 617-495-8540 Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Details and Exceptions. newspaper distributors and are refused because of their sex continuing interest in women's issues led her to help found Women Against Pornography in 1979. The recipient of numerous awards, Brownmiller lectures widely on rape, sexual assault, and the history of the women's movement. Cynthia H. Enloe (b. 1938 member of the Clark University Sexual Harassment Task Force (1980-81), Enloe gathered these papers to document the issues and lawsuits arising from charges of sexual harassment made by sociology professor Ximena Bunster against a fellow faculty member, Sidney Peck. This collection consists of reports, memoranda, and correspondence generated by the Clark University administration and the principal figures in sexual harassment cases there, as well as court documents and clippings. There are also statements and publicity from the Boston peace movement, in which a rift had developed over the accusations against Peck, one of the movement's supporters. Also included are correspondence, press releases, and financial records of the Committee for Fairness to Ximena Bunster and letters and statements of the Committee to Support Sidney Peck. Matina Horner (b. 1939) [in Records of Radcliffe College President Matina Horner] Please note: Radcliffe College administrative records are closed for 50 years from date of creation except with the permission of the Dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Student records are closed for 80 years from the time of separation. Please contact the Library for further assistance. This collection consists of Horner's correspondence, while she was president of Radcliffe (1972-1989), with Harvard Ask a Schlesinger Librarian 2/16/25, 10:27 Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment - Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Research Guides at Harvard Library 4/10 p ( ), and Radcliffe administrators and trustees, educational foundations, students, alumni/ae, parents, and Harvard faculty. There are university committee reports, surveys, and petitions from students that provide documentation of Harvard/Radcliffe institutional history, the evolving Harvard/Radcliffe relationship, and, more broadly, of U.S. women's higher education. The records illustrate women's issues of the 1970s and 1980s, such as the inequity and reform of women's athletics (crew, swimming, fencing, squash, etc.); discrimination against women in admissions; the changing status of women staff and faculty at Harvard; the development of women's studies; the participation of women in science; sexual harassment; women's experience of co-residence; and the attitudes and experiences of Radcliffe students, including African American and Native American students. Catherine A. MacKinnon (b. 1946) Feminist, lawyer, activist, and professor Catharine Alice MacKinnon earned her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1977 and her Ph.D. in political science from Yale University in 1987. While in law school, she organized the first course to be taught in the Yale women's studies program and conceived and worked to establish the legal argument that sexual harassment in the workplace is sex discrimination. This work grew into her first book, Sexual Harassment of Working Women (Yale, 1978). Her legal framework was adopted by the United States Supreme Court in 1986 in its first sexual harassment case, on which she was co-counsel and wrote the brief. Schlesinger Library's #metoo Digital Collection Ask a Schlesinger Librarian 2/16/25, 10:27 Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment - Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Research Guides at Harvard Library 5/10 Schlesinger Library's #metoo Digital Collection From 2018-2023, Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America at Harvard\u2019s Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study documented the #metoo movement and the accompanying political, legal, and social battles. This constructed collection includes archived websites and Twitter data. The #metoo Digital Collection guide contains information about the projects and links to the data Legal Defense and Education Fund The National Organization for Women Legal Defense & Education Fund LDEF; known as Legal Momentum since 2004), was one of the first legal organizations in the United States devoted solely to working for gender equality. It was established in 1970 to further women's rights through litigation and to raise funds to support legal and educational projects relating to women has focused its efforts on gaining legal rights for women in education, employment, and cases of physical abuse and sexual harassment, and changing marriage and divorce laws. It also runs larger programs, such as the Project on Equal Education Rights (PEER, 1974-1992), and the National Judicial Education Project (NJEP, 1980-ongoing). During the 1970s, it campaigned for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. In the early 1990s began lobbying in Washington, D.C., for the Violence Against Women Act (passed in 1994) and also worked to pass effective legislation on topics ranging from sexual harassment to welfare. Project on the Status and Education of Women The Project on the Status and Education of Women (PSEW) Ask a Schlesinger Librarian 2/16/25, 10:27 Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment - Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Research Guides at Harvard Library 6/10 was the first national project concerned with achieving equity for women students, faculty, and administrators in colleges and universities staff worked in conjunction with Congressional staff and other interested organizations and coalitions on the development and passage of Title of the Education Amendments of 1972, mandating that educational institutions that received federal funding could not discriminate on the basis of sex. Topics addressed in this collection include sex equity in education, Title IX, women's participation in college sports, sexual harassment and assault, campus rape, affirmative action, \"chilly climate\" for women on campus, employment issues, and government laws and regulations regarding gender equity. Bernice Resnick Sandler (b. 1928) Sandler was director of the Project on the Status and Education of Women (PSEW) of the Association of American Colleges from 1971 to 1991. She has worked with the Center for Women Policy Studies, the National Association for Women in Education, and the Women's Research and Education Institute. She pioneered research into campus sexual harassment, gang rape, and a \"chilly climate\" for women on campus. She was an active member of the Women's Equity Action League (WEAL) and the Fund in the 1970s, and from 1975 to 1982 was a member of the National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs. Materials in this collection relate to the Congressional passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, Title and the Fund, and the National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs, among other issues relevant to sex equity in higher education. Ask a Schlesinger Librarian 2/16/25, 10:27 Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment - Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Research Guides at Harvard Library 7/10 Jean Tepperman (b. 1945) Jean Tepperman was a poet, teacher, writer, and secretary and the author of Not Servants Not Machines: Office Workers Speak Out (1975). This collection consists of 51 transcripts of interviews Tepperman conducted with clerical workers for her book, notes on the interviews, transcripts, questionnaires, and leaflets. Most of the interviewees are women who were employed in offices in the Boston area; they range in age from their twenties to their eighties. The interviews contain descriptions of working conditions, pay inequities, race discrimination, sexual harassment and discrimination, and union organizing efforts. Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts Founded in 1978 in response to the needs and concerns of the unprecedented numbers of women entering the legal profession, the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts (WBA) is committed to the advancement of women in the profession and to the interests of women in society. It offers educational programs, mentoring, and networking opportunities, supports pro bono activities and candidates for all levels of appointments, writes amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, and lobbies the legislature. Through its Legislative Policy Committee, the has taken an active role in advocating for issues of concern to women, including domestic violence, reproductive rights, child custody, legal services, family medical leave, same-sex marriage, health care, and probate. In addition, the files amicus curiae briefs in cases affecting women and their children, including cases concerning alimony, child support, domestic violence, employment, sexual harassment, gender equality, Ask a Schlesinger Librarian 2/16/25, 10:27 Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment - Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Research Guides at Harvard Library 8/10 reproductive rights, and reproductive technology. Women's Walk Against Rape Coordinated by the Women's Anti-Rape Coalition, the second annual Women's Walk Against Rape took place Aug. 4, 1976, in New York City. The coalition organized the event in an effort to \"raise public awareness about the crime of rape and how the fear or rape has constricted women's lives.\" After a three-hour program at the Ethical Culture Society meeting house, which included skits, martial arts demonstrations, and testimonials, over 700 women walked through Central Park. Kristen R. Yount (b. 1949) From 1980 to 1981, Yount taught \"Deviance and Sex Role\" courses at the University of Colorado. That same year, Yount began research for her dissertation, titled Women and Men Coal Miners: Coping with Gender Integration Underground, by conducting oral history interviews with male and female coal miners in Colorado and Utah. This collection contains audiocassettes, transcripts, conference materials, and related articles by Yount documenting the integration of women workers into three coal mines in Colorado and five coal mines in Utah during the 1970s and early 1980s. Yount's focus was the integration of women into traditionally male jobs, and her research emphasized the multiple challenges faced by the female coal miners, including sexual harassment, gender discrimination, lack of seniority in the coal mining unions, lack of appropriately- sized protective clothing, and hostility from the male miners\u2019 wives. Ask a Schlesinger Librarian 2/16/25, 10:27 Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment - Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Research Guides at Harvard Library 9/10 Ask a Schlesinger Librarian 2/16/25, 10:27 Archival Collections - Sexual Harassment - Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment - Research Guides at Harvard Library 10/10"} |
8,401 | Phil Nemy | University of Texas – Los Angeles | [
"8401_101.pdf"
] | {"8401_101.pdf": "The Daily Texan \u2022 July 23, 2019 \u2022 result-of-unacceptable-conduct director Phil Nemy fired as result of \u2018unacceptable conduct\u2019 Katie Balevic Los Angeles executive director Phil Nemy was fired on May 13 as a result of \u201cunacceptable conduct,\u201d according to a University spokesperson. Nemy was placed on an \u201calternative work assignment\u201d in December 2018 following new allegations that arose after the Texan published a 2013 investigation by the Office of Inclusion and Equity that found Nemy to be guilty of sexual misconduct new Office of Inclusion and Equity investigation began as a result of the new allegations, but the findings have yet to be made public. University spokesperson Shilpa Bakre said Nemy had no oversight of students while on an alternative work assignment, but he continued performing other duties of his job and maintained his salary of $7,921 per month. Nemy, who did not respond to multiple requests for comment, had directed the program since 2005. \u201cIt was in the best interests of the University and the Moody College that Mr. Nemy\u2019s position be terminated and that the program be taken in a different direction,\u201d Bakre said in an email. \u201cThe University of Texas takes all allegations of wrongdoing, including sexual misconduct, seriously and strives to investigate complaints thoroughly and quickly while respecting the confidentiality of all involved parties.\u201d Mira Lippold-Johnson, a radio-television-film faculty member, was appointed interim director of the program for the coming year search for a permanent director will begin in the fall, Bakre said. In the 2013 Office of Institutional Equity investigation, originally reported on by the Texan, allegations against Nemy included inappropriate comments and unwanted touching directed at female students. Nemy was \u201creprimanded and received counseling consistent with the University\u2019s approach at the time spokesperson J.B. Bird said in an email. One former female student said she avoided Nemy because he flirted with students and made them uncomfortable, according to the report. At a beach party for students, Nemy made several lewd comments to female students, according to the report. One former female student said Nemy approached another student who was adjusting her shirt and said, \u201cAre you looking at your boobs because everyone else is doing that for you would never, under any circumstance, intentionally cause anyone distress, and most sincerely apologize if my attempt at humor offended anyone,\u201d Nemy said in an emailed response to the Texan\u2019s initial coverage am deeply saddened and sorry that may have caused some students to feel harassed.\u201d Caleb Kuntz Following the allegations of sexual misconduct, Stephen Reese, Moody\u2019s associate dean for academic affairs in 2013, said in a 2014 performance appraisal obtained by the Texan through an open records request that Nemy was not meeting expectations for professionalism. In the annual evaluation, Reese also said Nemy had not reviewed University trainings on sexual misconduct, which were assigned to him following the investigation, for four months. Reese concluded the evaluation by commending Nemy\u2019s work at know you have worked hard on behalf of the center, and students for the most part have responded with great appreciation for that work,\u201d Reese wrote. \u201cWe want to make sure we preserve the positive contributions you have made and the great potential you have for shaping these young lives in rewarding directions.\u201d In June 2018, Nemy\u2019s performance appraisal said he had a reputation for being difficult to work with, and those in the Moody College found him to be \u201ccombative and defiant.\u201d \u201cPhil repeatedly offers excuses and points fingers to deflect attention to his own performance,\u201d Michael Wilson, Moody College\u2019s assistant dean of external relations, wrote about Nemy. \u201cPhil might cite reasons for this, and some may hold true. He might also disagree with this assessment, but reality trumps all protests.\u201d Nemy responded to Wilson\u2019s evaluation, and both documents were sent to the head of the department, Dean Jay Bernhardt. \u201cIt is not fair to say that offer excuses or point fingers to deflect attention,\u201d Nemy wrote in response to the performance appraisal have and continue to passionately fight for what believe the Program needs to best serve the students who have and continue to enroll in the program. This is what was hired to do \u2014 serve them to the best of my ability will continue to do so as long as am allowed the privilege of doing it.\u201d"} |
8,793 | Scott Lowe | Bloomsburg University | [
"8793_101.pdf",
"8793_102.pdf",
"8793_103.pdf",
"8793_104.pdf",
"8793_105.pdf"
] | {"8793_101.pdf": "The Voice \u2022 October 5, 2018 \u2022 faces-1-2-years-for-possessing-child-pornography/ Former professor sentenced: Scott Lowe faces 1-2 years for possessing child pornography Julia Bagnata, News Editor Scott Lowe was sentenced to 1-2 years in prison on Thursday, Sept. 27 after being arrested in February for possessing child pornography.Lowe, a former Philosophy professor at Bloomsburg University, was taken directly to the country prison after his sentencing on Thursday. In February, multiple pornographic images were found on Lowe\u2019s computer in his office in Bakeless during a routine campus computer check. The images included children under 18 years of age. Lowe was then arrested at his home and suspended by Bloomsburg University. Lowe retired a few days after being suspended after teaching at Bloomsburg for 31 years. He pled guilty in June to four counts related to his possession of child pornography, and his sentencing was scheduled to take place in 90 days or more as the judge presiding over the case awaited a report from the state sexual offenders assessment board. The actions of the former professor sent waves throughout Bloomsburg University, as Lowe was beloved by many faculty, staff, and students. The consequences of his actions, however, were felt specifically in his own former department. Dr. Wendy Lee, who has been teaching Philosophy at Bloomsburg for 27 years, recounted when the department faculty found out about the situation, noting how shocked they all were to discover this about their good friend don\u2019t even have words to describe the day this all came down,\u201d she said.Lee remembers the day that her and her colleagues were called into a meeting to discuss what happened to Lowe, initially believing that there was some sort of emergency thought something bad had happened to him or someone in his family\u201d she said. Upon learning the real reason behind Lowe\u2019s absence, Lee recalls that everyone present sat in silence for a moment in a state of shock. \u201cHe was like everyone\u2019s dad,\u201d said Lee, \u201chis students loved him and he was a really good teacher.\u201d Lowe\u2019s actions particularly affected the department due to how tightly-knit the faculty there are, according to Lee, who at one point even shared an office with Lowe during her first years teaching at Bloomsburg before a wall was put up dividing their two offices felt betrayal,\u201d she said, describing her reaction to the news in greater detail. Not only were the faculty emotionally affected, but they also had to take on all of Lowe\u2019s classes upon his arrest. Lee describes that she was already overloaded in the amount of work she was taking on last semester, and she and other faculty had to then pick up courses from Lowe that some of them didn\u2019t specialize in. \u201cHe did irrecoverable damage to us as a department,\u201d said Lee, \u201cwhich is nothing compared to the damage he has done to his family.\u201d In reaction to Lowe\u2019s sentencing, Lee noted that \u201che\u2019s incredibly lucky; he has a pretty light sentence considering the crime that he committed. He also gets work release,\u201d she said, \u201cmeaning he gets time outside of prison.\u201d Lee further commented on the leniency of Lowe\u2019s sentence, emphasizing that he likely received such a light sentence due to his status. \u201cThis is not the sentence someone would receive if they were poor, or black,\u201d she said, \u201cHe may not yet know how lucky he is.\u201d Similar to Dr. Lee, sophomore Philosophy major Patrick Halye believes that Lowe\u2019s sentence is far too lenient for the crimes that he committed, saying he believes that Lowe should have gotten many more than one to two years. Halye, who recently became a Philosophy major, was not sure what to expect from the department after being shocked by the situation last February thought there might be a lot of focus on diverting attention from it but there really isn\u2019t,\u201d he said, \u201cthe department is fantastic and don\u2019t let this negate my view on it.\u201d The most important part of this issue to remember, according to Lee, is that this goes far beyond the pictures found on Lowe\u2019s computer and connects to a much larger industry. Anyone who downloads these types of pictures, Lee explains, contributes to a billion-dollar industry of trafficking and exploiting that can destroy the lives of young children. In closing on this issue, Lee stated that she hopes Lowe \u201cfeels ashamed\u201d and seeks therapy don\u2019t think can ever look at him in the face again,\u201d she said, \u201cthat guy was like my older brother, and feel like never knew him.\u201d Bloomsburg University declined to comment on the situation.", "8793_102.pdf": "\u00bb Philosophy Professor Charged With Possession of Child Pornography (updated) By Justin Weinberg. February 19, 2018 at 7:48 am professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania was arrested last Thursday after child pornography was discovered on his university-issued computer. Professor Scott Lowe, age 57, was charged with \u201cfour counts of sexual abuse of children, relating to the possession of child pornography, and related charges,\u201d according to a press release from Pennsylvania\u2019s Office of the Attorney General (and this Philly Voice article). He was detained at Columbia County Prison last week, and is currently out on $250,000 bail hearing is scheduled for February 28th. According to the Attorney General\u2019s office, \u201cmultiple photos that met the criteria of child pornography under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code were discovered on Lowe\u2019s 13 13 2/16/25, 10:29 Philosophy Professor Charged With Possession of Child Pornography (updated) - Daily Nous 1/7 computer after of a routine audit for all Bloomsburg University machines. After further investigation, it was discovered the images were accessed from Lowe\u2019s desktop computer in his office at Bloomsburg University.\u201d Lowe, a married father of four, was a professor at Bloomsburg for over 30 years, reports WNEP, and for period had been chair of the Department of Philosophy. He has been suspended from his position at the university (10/1/18): Dr. Lowe was convicted and will serve one to two years in prison, pay a $5,000 fine, and have no future unsupervised contact with children. Details here. \uf0e0Subscribe \uf0d7 Login 13 Join the discussion \uf03e \uf0e7 \uf06d Oldest \uf0dd 13 2/16/25, 10:29 Philosophy Professor Charged With Possession of Child Pornography (updated) - Daily Nous 2/7 s \uf017 6 years ago The Attorney General\u2019s press release arguably implies that university students are children or at least child-like when it says the following: \u201cThese charges are particularly heinous because the accused is a professor \u2013 someone trusted to work closely with students.\u201d It\u2019s not clear from the Attorney General\u2019s press release who did the initial audit wonder what other things on faculty computers were searched for during the \u201croutine audit.\u201d 0 Reply J.T. \uf086Reply to \uf017 6 years ago From the piece linked to in the post: \u201cAccording to arrest papers, it was earlier this month during a routine check of campus computers that an employee noticed malware and traced it to Lowe\u2019s desktop in his office in Bakeless Hall: an image of a young girl in her underwear.\u201d Where did your mind go? 0 Reply s Free Speech Matters \uf086Reply to \uf017 6 years ago It\u2019s more than just that image. That image in itself doesn\u2019t even sound like it meets the criterion of what they\u2019re charging him with. 0 Reply J.T. Lizard \uf086Reply to \uf017 6 years ago s 13 2/16/25, 10:29 Philosophy Professor Charged With Possession of Child Pornography (updated) - Daily Nous 3/7 don\u2019t think that students need to be children or child-like for this to be a particular concern. Students can be vulnerable, and professors have power over them. That seems enough. 0 Reply Former instructor \uf017 6 years ago taught for a year in the state) schools. It\u2019s mandatory that all employees pass background checks relating to child abuse and sex crimes. Part of the rationale is that as faculty and staff we do work with children, especially if we are teaching at extension or branch campuses where high school students often enroll in college courses had one class at an extension campus that had 3 (of 35 enrolled students) who were still in high school. 0 Reply Jared \uf017 6 years ago Someone has to say it Shapiro\u2019s remarks are outrageous. His talk of \u201czero tolerance for predators\u201d and abusers, and insinuations about Lowe\u2019s \u201cworking closely with students,\u201d all defame Lowe as a threat to children. This is false, libelous stuff. You don\u2019t have to defend Lowe \u2014 obviously a sick, sad dude \u2014 to point out the plain fact that he merely viewed a few pix on his computer and, by age 57, has evinced no threatening behavior to children, or anyone else, as far as anyone has uncovered. Maybe Shapiro is overcompensating for the fact that his office\u2019s sole \u201cinvestigative\u201d role in this sordid affair was to be handed over files by the college. Either way, Lowe should sue him. This story is an occasion for pity, more than outrage \u2014 unless the outrage is directed at the lying AG. 0 Reply Edgar \uf086Reply to \uf017 6 years ago Jared 13 2/16/25, 10:29 Philosophy Professor Charged With Possession of Child Pornography (updated) - Daily Nous 4/7 am not sure understand this line of thinking. Are you suggesting that the viewing of child pornography does not contribute to the sexual abuse of children? Or is it that since we don\u2019t have any specific allegations of physical child abuse, he shouldn\u2019t be labeled a threat? Are there philosophers out there defending child pornography? If so would genuinely like to read their work. 0 Reply Jared \uf086Reply to \uf017 6 years ago No, I\u2019m not suggesting that viewing child porn doesn\u2019t contribute to child abuse. Nor would suggest that wearing leather doesn\u2019t contribute to the flaying of cows. But wouldn\u2019t call the next person see in suede shoes a \u201ccow skinner.\u201d And false equation is still justified than in the present case. For very understandable reasons, the crime of child pornography is defined broadly, so that it can include viewing images that did not result from abuse and that were neither purchased nor voluntarily sought. Philosophers defending child pornography? Not that heard of, though Plato is perhaps too sympathetic in parts of the Symposium. Anyway, if you think any of this reasoning amounts to \u201cphilosophers defending child pornography\u201d, then there\u2019s a Pennsylvania Attorney General I\u2019d like you to meet\u2026 0 Reply Edgar ajkreider \uf086Reply to \uf017 6 years ago There\u2019s some work on virtual child pornography. It\u2019s a tougher case, because there aren\u2019t any actual children involved. Some still oppose it because they believe it encourages its consumers to abuse children. Others think it may reduce such abuse, because it gives potential abusers an outlet. It\u2019s been in front of the U.S. Supreme Court at least twice. Some, of course, oppose it simply on indecency grounds. There were also issues about laws concerning things like sexting. The way some child pornography laws were written, if a 17 year old sexts a picture of herself to her 17 year old boyfriend, he he guilty of possessing child Jared 13 2/16/25, 10:29 Philosophy Professor Charged With Possession of Child Pornography (updated) - Daily Nous 5/7 pornography, and she is guilty of disseminating it. And both would have to register as sex offenders \u2013 which seems pretty silly think most laws in the U.S. have been amended to avoid this consequence, though. 0 Reply Pa Philo prof \uf017 6 years ago Just to help anyone looking for relevant facts of the case\u2026This looks like the portion of the law in play (material must be of an underage person, <18yrs., as a matter of fact; viewer need not know the actual age) From: aws.html In addition, Pennsylvania law punishes the voluntary viewing or possession of child pornography within an individual's own home or another setting within the defendant's control. The prosecutor must show that the defendant kept pornographic photographs, books, videotapes, films, or computer files showing children. The prosecutor must also prove that the defendant intentionally viewed these materials or knowingly kept the materials in the defendant's possession. 0 Reply Tim \uf017 6 years ago Innocent until proven guilty. 0 Reply Robin \uf086Reply to \uf017 6 years ago Opps, guilty (10/1/18): Dr. Lowe was convicted and will serve one to two years in prison, pay a $5,000 fine, and have no future unsupervised contact with children. Details here.\u201d Tim 13 2/16/25, 10:29 Philosophy Professor Charged With Possession of Child Pornography (updated) - Daily Nous 6/7 0 Reply Hey Nonny Mouse \uf017 6 years ago hope he gets psychological help and is able to return to society without reoffending doubt that a prison sentence for him is going to make the world a better place. 0 Reply 13 2/16/25, 10:29 Philosophy Professor Charged With Possession of Child Pornography (updated) - Daily Nous 7/7", "8793_103.pdf": "Quotable... \u201cThat's been one of my mantras - focus and simplicity. Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it's worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains.\u201d -- Steve Jobs Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your browser. Case in Point: Lessons for the proactive manager February 2018 Vol. 10 No. 02 This month we begin our review and analysis of each specific category of Case in Point: Lessons for the proactive manager from 2017. We should point out that this review is not an in-depth study of these topics, but rather a simple analysis of the stories linked over the past year. We certainly believe Case in Point provides us with a good system for monitoring the events that are occurring throughout higher education, so this exercise has some value. Our focus this month is on the category of Information Security and Technology. Categorizing the stories published on this topic can be difficult and open to debate; however, generally speaking, our takeaway is this: the same things that have been happening the past few years continue to happen. Hackers are continuing to try to access our systems, employees are continuing to have devices stolen, scammers are continuing to be very creative with their phishing schemes and so on it goes. Our topical breakdown of stories in Information Security and Technology shows the following: Hack or Breach - 43% Accidental Disclosure and/or Theft of a Device - 19% Phishing Schemes - 12% Malware and/or Ransomware - 9% Inappropriate Use of Technology - 6% Keystroke Loggers - 4% Other - 7% We asked William ''Bill'' Miaoulis, Auburn University's Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), what three suggestions he would give our readers off the top of his head to protect themselves and our institution. Here is his response: 1. Protect your password, do not give it away and be never trust emails that request or ask you to login to confirm your username and passwords. 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 1/11 2. Store your data in secure, University-approved storage locations (Network Drives) 3. Do not leave your terminal active when you leave We thank Bill for his great suggestions. You will note that these are very basic (non-technical) suggestions. It's easy to fall into the trap of assuming the solutions to most of these issues are complex and up to someone else. But in fact, it's often the small, simple things that cause us the biggest headaches. (For additional security tips visit the Cybersecurity Center website.) We again invite you to review the events of higher education over the prior month with a view to proactive management of risks within your sphere of influence. As always, we welcome your comments, suggestions, and feedback. M. Kevin Robinson Associate Vice President Office of Audit, Compliance & Privacy Information Security & Technology Events Feb 27, 2018: Remember when universities used Social Security numbers as student IDs? Well, if you contact alumni, make sure you are no longer using their as their IDs. The University of Wisconsin-Superior Alumni Association is notifying an unspecified number of their alumni after they discovered that using old student IDs was a current risk. On February l, 2018, UW-Superior Alumni Association sent its alumni a Mississippi River Cruise brochure sponsored by the UW-Superior Alumni Association. In the process of preparing the mailing data, an number was sent to UW- Superior Alumni Association's travel vendor and appeared above each individual's name and address on the brochure. On February 5, 2018, UW-Superior Alumni Association was made aware that the number for its alumni who graduated during a certain time period may have been the same as the student number (social security number) used while in attendance at UW-Superior. (link) Feb 22, 2018 data breach at the University of Alaska has affected dozens of current and former employees and students according to university officials, who say action is being taken on the matter total of 50 people's accounts have been affected by the breach. \"The hackers had access to personal information through social media and other sources, which allowed them to answer security questions in the self-service password reset tool officials wrote. \"Since these users had chosen to not provide any custom security questions, the hackers were able to use the tool to change passwords.\" (link) Feb 21, 2018: University end users are pretty good at identifying a scam. The State of the Phish 2018 report found that users in education were less likely to click on a phishing attempt than those in technology, entertainment, hospitality, government, consumer goods, retail and telecommunications. Several industries, including transportation, energy and finance, fared better than education, proving that higher education institutions still have work to do. (link) Feb 21, 2018: he University of Virginia Health System is notifying patients of a cyberattack that gave a hacker access to over 1,800 medical records. The discovered that a physician's devices with the Health System were infected with malware, which allowed the hacker to see what the employee was viewing. \"It was malicious software -- malware - that this operator created and was actually able to infiltrate the devices of those individuals who were victims of his crime,\" said Regina Verde with the Health System. (link) 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 2/11 Feb 12, 2018 University of Georgia student is facing 80 felony counts for allegedly hacking into a professor's computer to change his grades. Michael Lamon Williams, 21, was booked into the Clarke County Jail Wednesday on nine counts of computer trespass and 71 counts of computer forgery. Williams, a student of UGA's Terry College of Business, was working for Enterprise Information Technology Services when he \"abused his privileges as an employee and changed grades to benefit himself,\" said Greg Trevor, UGA's executive director for media communications. (link) Feb 11, 2018: According to Mississippi State University officials, one former student is the target of a search warrant in an investigation into university record tampering Chief Communications Officer Sid Salter told Logan Kirkland of the Starkville Daily News that the student graduated in December. The identity of the suspect and the nature of the records were not immediately disclosed, but Salter said the tampering \"has an institutional impact\" that could affect both students and faculty.No charges have been filed yet, but could come in days or weeks, Salter told the Daily News. There is still a \"significant amount\" of evidence to be sorted out by law enforcement. (link) Feb 06, 2018: The private information of 12 University of Northern Colorado employees was compromised last week after an \"unknown person or group\" accessed their profiles on Ursa, UNC's online portal, according to a release from the university.Whoever is responsible for the breach logged in to the employees' Ursa accounts, then used the employees' social security numbers to reset their passwords and access their accounts spokesman Nate Haas said. From there, the perpetrator downloaded the employees' electronic W2 forms officials believe the employees' social security numbers were acquired outside the university. (link) Feb 05, 2018 Columbia University grad student was arrested for leaving key logger malware on sticks left throughout the campus. Bill Liang Lin Wu, 23 was arrested Thursday after he was caught on camera leaving the credential stealing devices on a host of university computers shared by 14 professors. Wu graduated last spring but despite having a diploma, authorities say he returned to his alma mater on Jan. 19, when he allegedly started using the key loggers. (link) Feb 02, 2018: Information security tops the list of critical issues for the third consecutive year, according to a report from EDUCAUSE, the higher education technology association. According to specialists, the finding points to a major blind spot in higher education. \"While colleges and universities continue to invest in information security, we security practitioners have failed to clearly define a strategy for cybersecurity, and thus our leadership feels unmoored in response to the public drama of large-scale data breaches,\" said Michael Corn, chief information security officer at the University of California, San Diego. (link) Fraud & Ethics Related Events Feb 21, 2018 Chinese national who is described as an expert in robotics has been charged with defrauding Michigan State University with false expense claims. Ning Xi (shee) also is accused of defrauding the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a professional organization. The says it has counted more than $420,000 in fraudulent reimbursements over a five-year period. Records show the money was used to pay off substantial credit card debt. Xi is the former director of Michigan State's Robotics and Automation Laboratory. (link) Feb 13, 2018: The former University of Notre Dame employee accused of taking close to $200,000 from the law school's Clinical Law Center entered into a plea agreement last week. Jennifer Ihns, 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 3/11 44, pleaded guilty to one count of corrupt business influence, one count of forgery and nine counts of theft. Ihns must pay $199,000 in restitution to Notre Dame and will be sentenced April 13. Her sentence was not set in the plea agreement. The audit showed between Jan. 2009 and June 2016, Ihns, who was the clinic administrator, cashed 129 checks from the clinic's operating accounting totaling more than $82,000. She also cashed 126 checks from the trust account for more than $96,000. (link) Feb 10, 2018: Federal prosecutors have dropped all criminal charges against the former director of an amateur basketball program who was among 10 people charged last year in a major corruption case involving college basketball, according to a court filing. In September, federal prosecutors in Manhattan accused Jonathan Brad Augustine of participating in a scheme to facilitate and make bribes to high-school basketball players so they would go to universities sponsored by Adidas AG. (link) Feb 08, 2018: The System Regents took UW-Madison administrators to task Thursday for a lack of controls that allowed a former Division of University Housing employee to allegedly defraud the university of an estimated $115,000 in property and cash. The alleged fraud came to light when the former employee was seen carrying TVs out of a university building. An internal investigation found ongoing fraud over two-and-a-half years through the use of two purchasing cards with limits of $200,000 each. (link) Feb 02, 2018: An ethics inquiry into the hiring of Southern Illinois University Carbondale Chancellor Carlo Montemagno's daughter and son-in-law has been passed from the university's internal ethics office to the state inspector general, according to the president. On Thursday President Randy Dunn opened up two inquiries into hires related to the chancellor. One investigation involves the hiring of Melissa and Jeffrey Germain, Montemagno's daughter and son-in-law, as part of negotiations of the chancellor's employment. The other involves Montemagno's reported recommendation of former colleagues to multiple campus positions. (link) Feb 01, 2018: In late 2014, the University of Northern Colorado contracted with a company to develop a pair of web and smartphone apps for online teaching paid a hefty upfront fee to the software developer and made scheduled monthly payments as work progressed. There was one problem -- the software developer, Bossage Inc., didn't legally exist, and it did only a fraction of the work paid it for. Ten months into the project, when officials finally realized the university was being defrauded, the university was more than $85,000 in the hole. (link) Compliance/Regulatory & Legal Events Feb 26, 2018: University of Texas President Gregory L. Fenves and his wife flew multiple times at university expense on premium class rather than economy in violation of university policy, according to an audit report by the System. Asked whether he planned to pay back the difference between economy class and the premium fares, the president replied: \"I've not been asked to pay it back.\" However spokesman Gary Susswein said Fenves would reimburse the university $27,000, the difference between economy and business class. (link) Feb 26, 2018: U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos today announced a new Title directed investigation into Michigan State University's (MSU) handling of reports of sexual violence against former employee, Dr. Larry Nassar. \"This new Title investigation will look at systemic issues in the University's handling of sex-based incidents involving Dr. Larry Nassar,\" said Secretary DeVos. 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 4/11 \"Our Office for Civil Rights team will be in East Lansing shortly where they will join the Federal Student Aid team already on site is currently performing a Clery Act compliance examination regarding MSU's reporting of crimes committed on campus. (link) Feb 25, 2018: The University of San Diego men's basketball head coach Lamont Smith has been placed on leave following an arrest Sunday on suspicion of domestic violence. Police responded to a hotel in San Francisco after a report of a domestic disturbance around 12:20 am on Sunday and \"made contact with an adult female who appeared to have injuries and stated the she was assaulted,\" according to a statement from the San Francisco police. \"Considering the serious nature of the charges, (Monday) morning we placed Coach Smith on administrative leave until further notice,\" the University of San Diego said in a statement. \"The university has initiated an investigation.\" (link) Feb 22, 2018: Lawyers for Baylor University said a suggestion that school officials destroyed records was \"incendiary\" and false, and that documents used to make the claim were unrelated to a wide-ranging sexual assault scandal that has dogged the private Waco university for years. The response was made in documents filed in federal court Wednesday evening, the latest exchange in one of several ongoing lawsuits against the school. Claims that Baylor officials destroyed evidence, made last week in a different court filing, are \"serious accusations that lack any reasonable basis in fact,\" Baylor's filing says. (link) Feb 21, 2018: Financial records, documents and wiretaps tied to prominent former agent Andy Miller and featuring his former associate, Christian Dawkins, have provided a detailed window for authorities into how the college basketball underworld operated, sources with knowledge of the ongoing federal investigation have told Yahoo Sports in recent days. Sources familiar with the probe told Yahoo Sports that there's a surprising level of specificity in the documents, bank records and wiretaps involving Miller's business. (link) Feb 21, 2018 neurologist who had pleaded guilty to groping women at a Philadelphia clinic was arrested on Tuesday on charges he repeatedly raped a patient in New York City. Dr. Ricardo Cruciani, who worked in Mercer County until late 2015, was taken into custody and will be arraigned in New York on multiple counts of rape and other sex crimes, police said. Cruciani pleaded guilty to assaulting seven patients in 2016 while he was chairman of Drexel University's neurology department. (link) Feb 16, 2018 professor at a Pennsylvania university is facing felony charges for possessing child pornography. The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General says 57-year-old Scott Lowe, a professor at Bloomsburg University, was arrested Thursday on four counts of sexual abuse of children for the possession of child pornography. Attorney General Josh Shapiro says Lowe had pornographic photos on the computer in his university office. The photos were discovered after a routine audit of all Bloomsburg University computers. (link) Feb 14, 2018: Arkansas State University may file a lawsuit against the University of Miami over a football game that was cancelled during the 2017 season letter released to Region 8 News from A-State indicates Miami must pay the Red Wolves $650,000 by Thursday, Feb. 15. The amount was based on a contract signed between the universities in 2013. (link) Feb 13, 2018 former Coastal Carolina University football player is suing the university because of the way they handled a rape allegation made against him in 2016 by a cheerleader. John Doe states after a second, unnecessary, student conduct board hearing regarding allegations, his education and varsity football career were \"stopped dead in its tracks\" and he lost a full tuition athletic football scholarship for the 2017 through 2020 Coastal football seasons and academic years. He was also permanently expelled from Coastal, according to the lawsuit. (link) 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 5/11 Feb 13, 2018: Michigan State University can't be held responsible for emotional distress suffered by a student sexually assaulted on campus or from the victim seeing the attacker again on university grounds, lawyers from argue in recent court filings. The lawyers also argue that the university taking a long time to discipline the attacker and not following its own rules for handling sexual assault accusations is not proof that the university was \"deliberately indifferent\" to Title requirements, which mandate that universities investigate all sexual violence and harassment allegations. (link) Feb 13, 2018 U.S. magistrate judge has recommended that a student accused of sexual assault at James Madison University be awarded nearly $850,000 after he successfully sued the institution.The student, called John Doe in court filings, sued the university in 2015 after he was found responsible for sexual assault university panel initially considered him not responsible, but his accuser, called Jane Doe in court documents, appealed that decision -- John Doe was then suspended until the spring 2020 semester and barred from campus. (link) Feb 12, 2018 former University of Michigan doctor has been jailed on child pornography charges after getting targeted in a broader probe: The federal government says he was having sex with a \"vulnerable\" female patient in his clinic, gave her pain pills that she didn't need and talked to her about his other teenage patients' \"hot\" bodies. According to a criminal complaint unsealed today in U.S. District Court, Mark Hoeltzel, a former pediatric rheumatology specialist at the University of Michigan, had a 2-year-long sexual relationship with a female patient who was referred to him when she was 17 for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. She also had a mental health diagnoses, court records show. (link) Feb 12, 2018: The Education Department confirmed Monday it is no longer investigating civil rights complaints from transgender students barred from school bathrooms that match their gender identity, a development those students say leaves them vulnerable to bullying and violence. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said states and individual school districts should be able to determine how to accommodate transgender students. They argued that Title did not obligate schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice. (link) Feb 10, 2018 federal appeals court ruled Friday in favor of a male student who blames gender discrimination for an Ohio university's finding that he violated its sexual-assault policy three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a lower court's dismissal of several claims against Miami University and school officials, but found that the student presented enough factual allegations to support a \"reasonable inference\" of discrimination. Miami and other U.S. universities have been accused in other cases in recent years of violating male students' rights as the schools step up efforts against campus sexual assaults amid pressure by federal education authorities. (link) Feb 07, 2018: Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) on Wednesday offered the state's historically black colleges and universities up to $100 million to resolve a 12-year-old lawsuit over inequality in public higher education. But the proposal may not be enough to satisfy the coalition of alumni from Maryland's historically black institutions who filed the lawsuit in 2006 to dismantle what they say are vestiges of racial segregation. The group has accused Maryland of insufficiently funding historically black colleges and allowing other state schools to duplicate their programs, placing pressure on enrollment. (link) Feb 06, 2018: The University of Washington College Republicans group is suing the university after being asked to pay $17,000 in security fees for a conservative rally planned for this weekend. The \"Freedom X\" law firm, representing the College Republicans pro-bono, filed a complaint Tuesday evening calling the university's policy unconstitutional and a tax on free speech. The College Republicans' invited guest this Saturday is Oregon activist Joey Gibson of the Patriot Prayer group. (link) 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 6/11 Feb 05, 2018: Graduate dental school students and a top University of Connecticut orthodontics professor took a selfie with two severed heads used for medical research at a training workshop at Yale University last year -- an episode Yale officials called \"disturbing\" and \"inexcusable\". The selfie was taken in June at the Yale School of Medicine during the 2017 DePuy Synthes Future Leaders Workshop, which focused on dental-related facial deformities. (link) Feb 02, 2018 former William & Mary professor who was charged with several counts of harassment by computer has filed a lawsuit alleging the college \"silenced\" him when he attempted to speak out about student mental health. David Dessler, 62, a former tenured government professor at William & Mary, alleges the college silenced him from discussing student mental health issues starting in fall 2015, after a string of four student suicides during the previous school year, according to court documents. (link) Feb 01, 2018: University of Montana women's soccer coach Mark Plakorus, whose resignation was announced Tuesday, was asked to leave after a investigation found he used a university-issued cell phone to text escort services during recruiting trips to Las Vegas Athletic Director Kent Haslam said Thursday that he and Senior Associate Athletic Director Jean Gee looked through Plakorus' phone records after players' complaints that their coach was texting them excessively and at inappropriate times, among other things. (link) Feb 01, 2018 month after a federal judge ruled that James Madison University violated the due process rights of a student suspended for sexual misconduct, attorneys are filing motions to prepare for a February hearing. In December, U.S. District Court Judge Elizabeth Dillon ruled that John Doe, the accused, didn't have a fair chance to respond to evidence, was hampered by rules prohibiting contact with witnesses and was not allowed to appear at the appeal board hearing. (link) Campus Life & Safety Events Feb 27, 2018 former Oregon State University student was arrested Tuesday after authorities say he threatened a shooting at the Corvallis campus on social media. Christopher A. Strahan, 22, was found outside a home in Corvallis by Oregon State Police around 2:30 p.m. and arrested after investigators linked him to a Twitter account with a series of tweets threatening violence, state police said. He is accused of first-degree disorderly conduct. The Oregon State threats join about half a dozen other threats of violence at Oregon schools since the Feb. 14 shooting at a Parkland, Florida high school that killed 17 people. (link) Feb 26, 2018 Union County College student was arrested Monday for bringing fake guns onto the college's Cranford campus, authorities said. Eric Jacobs, 20, of Millburn, was charged with fourth degree possession of an imitation firearm for an unlawful purpose and creating a hazardous condition, a disorderly persons offense college employee called campus public safety at about 10 a.m. to report that a person on campus appeared to be carrying a weapon. (link) Feb 26, 2018 Washington man was arrested on charges of incident exposure and child endangerment for an incident that took place Sunday at the University of Iowa Campus Recreation and Wellness Center. According to police complaints, Brian Timothy Shepherd, 36, was arrested Sunday for allegedly masturbating while looking at juveniles inside a locker room at the rec center spokesperson Hayley Bruce said Monday that Shepherd was not a student or employee and that he had a community membership at the rec center. (link) 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 7/11 Feb 24, 2018 student who collapsed at the 38th Annual Ace Miller Memorial Boxing Tournament Friday evening, has died, according to WBIR. Joseph \"Tanner\" Wray, junior studying aerospace engineering from Lawrenceberg, TN, was boxing for Chi Phi fraternity in the junior light heavyweight class when he collapsed in his corner after the second round. The event is a three- day amateur boxing tournament held each February for fraternities. The event consists of 11 weight classes and around 55 boxers. Proceeds from the tournament go to Knoxville's chapter of Golden Gloves, which provides boxing equipment for those who cannot afford it. (link) Feb 23, 2018: Two people were arrested in connection with a shooting early Friday (Feb. 23) on the Southeastern Louisiana University campus that left two student-athletes injured, a university spokeswoman said. \"Fortunately, they are not life-threatening gunshots,'' university spokeswoman Tonya Lowentritt said earlier Friday morning. \"The Southeastern Family can rest assured that this was strictly an isolated incident,\" said University Police Department Director Harold Todd. \"In fact, the incident appears to have stemmed from a dispute between individuals and was not in any way directed at the university.\" (link) Feb 22, 2018: Nancy Kolsti, a spokeswoman in the University of North Texas news department, tendered her resignation this week, according to spokeswoman Julie Payne. Kolsti came under fire over the weekend after she sent an email from her personal account to Student Government Association senator Misaki Collins. Collins created a petition asking officials to consider naming a new residence hall on campus after a person of color and/or a woman. Kolsti called the petition a form of \"reverse racism\" in her email to Collins. (link) Feb 21, 2018 Penn State rugby player reportedly admitted that he bought alcohol for three high school students who were in town for the university's winter rugby clinic last weekend. Ryan S. Cornell, a junior lock on the rugby team, was charged with four counts of furnishing alcohol to minors and four liquor code violations preliminary hearing is scheduled for March 21 Penn State athletic department spokesperson has not yet confirmed whether Cornell remains with the team. He is currently listed on the team roster. (link) Feb 20, 2018: One Georgia State University student is in custody and another is in the hospital after a stabbing early Tuesday inside one of the school's dorms. University and Atlanta police responded to a call of a fight between the students in Piedmont North police chief Joe Spillane said. (link) Feb 20, 2018: Free expression on campus isn't childproofed -- except at Polk State College, where part-time faculty member Serhat Tanyolacar's artwork was rejected from a faculty art exhibition for being \"too controversial.\" Tanyolacar submitted a piece titled \"Death of Innocence,\" which depicts several poets and writers juxtaposed with a number of pictures of President Donald Trump and other political figures engaging in sexual activity. In response to his submission, Polk State Program Coordinator Nancy Lozell informed Tanyolacar on Feb. 6 that his artwork would not be displayed. (link) Feb 19, 2018: The president of Adams State University has been placed on leave amid accusations that she bullied faculty and staff, failed to stem declining student enrollment and mocked blue-collar workers with an offensive Halloween costume that sparked an uproar when photos began circulating on campus. (link) Feb 17, 2018 20-year-old man was arrested Tuesday after he brought a handgun to the University of Denver's Centennial Halls, according to the Denver Police Department. Stefan El Baze is being held on charges related to the unlawful carrying of a weapon on university grounds and the possession of a controlled substance. He does not have a prior arrest, according to records from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. (link) 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 8/11 Feb 15, 2018 Stanford law professor leading the effort to recall a judge in a controversial sexual assault case said Wednesday that someone sent her an envelope containing \"white powder\" and a threatening note. The incident prompted Stanford Law School to shut down two rooms and send out a campus alert at 1:19 p.m. Investigators later determined the substance was an \"inert powder that poses no health concern,\" university officials said. (link) Feb 15, 2018 Carnegie Mellon University student is facing charges after sending an anonymous message about using a sniper rifle from a rooftop. According to police, the threat was received around 9:30 a.m. on Feb. 7 professor at the university received the threatening message through an anonymous student feedback form. The form was created to allow students to anonymously message the professor about the class. (link) Feb 14, 2018: Amid heightened concern about Russian election meddling, the on Tuesday warned U.S. universities about Chinese intelligence operatives active on their campuses, adding that many academics display \"a level of naivet\u00e9\" about the level of infiltration Director Christopher Wray told the Senate intelligence committee that China has aggressively placed operatives at universities, \"whether its professors, scientists, students,\" and the bureau must monitor them from its 56 field offices across the nation. The is also \"watching warily\" activities at dozens of Confucius Institutes, Chinese government-sponsored academies that are often embedded within universities and public schools to offer U.S. students Mandarin language classes. (link) Feb 14, 2018 University of Delaware student was robbed at gunpoint on campus early Wednesday morning. University police say the 21-year-old male student was robbed around 2:40 a.m. in a parking lot near the Thomas McKean Residence Hall on the Laird Campus. Police say the victim was walking toward the residence hall when two suspects approached him. One of the suspects pointed a semiautomatic handgun at the victim, while the other tackled him to the ground. Police say the suspects took the victim's wallet and cell phone. (link) Feb 13, 2018 Princeton University professor canceled a course he teaches on cultural freedoms and hate speech after his use of a racial slur during a class discussion led some students to walk out. Colleagues say Professor Emeritus Lawrence Rosen has often used the slur during lectures on free speech. They say this is the first time he's received such a negative response from students small group of students walked out of Rosen's anthropology class on Feb. 6 after he used the slur three times, according to DailyPrincetonian.com, the university's student newspaper which first reported Rosen's comments. (link) Feb 11, 2018: The University of Virginia Police Department is using the social media monitoring program Social Sentinel in an effort to more effectively respond to threats made online. The program will cost UVa $18,500 a year, according to documents provided by the university. Legal experts say they're concerned about privacy and creating a surveillance state, but police say the program is just one more tool in the race to stay on top of online threats and messages. (link) Feb 10, 2018: Five people were arrested at a College Republicans rally on the University of Washington campus Saturday that attracted a large crowd of protesters. The student Republicans invited conservative group Patriot Prayer to speak at their \"Freedom Rally\" in Red Square. They billed the rally as a free speech event, stating on their Facebook page that they'd teamed up with Patriot Prayer \"to encourage conservatives to stand up for freedom in a far-left University.\" (link) Feb 09, 2018 pro-family student organization at Georgetown University has received its donations back after an investigation of faculty and others who the group accused of misappropriating funds contributed to it. The group, Love Saxa, said that Georgetown officials had taken private donations intended for it and deposited them into other student organizations' 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 9/11 accounts. The organizations who received those funds hold views contrary to the Love Saxa mission. The money was reportedly deposited into LGBT-affiliated student groups' accounts. (link) Feb 09, 2018: Southern New Hampshire University has fired an online adjunct professor and apologized to an Idaho student after the professor gave the student a failing grade and insisted that Australia is not a country. Lauren Keane, assistant vice president of communications for the Manchester-based university, acknowledged that a story about what happened to online student Ashley Arnold of Idaho, reported by BuzzFeed News on Thursday, is true. (link) Feb 08, 2018: Northeastern University is distancing itself from comments made by a prominent economics professor who recently said he wouldn't mind seeing President Trump dead. \"Sometimes want to just see him impeached other times, quite honestly hope there are no agents here wouldn't mind seeing him dead,\" said Barry Bluestone, a professor of political economy, during a Jan. 31 lecture focused on the rule of law and inequality in the United States. The lecture was open and free to the public. (link) Feb 07, 2018 white Southern Connecticut State University adjunct faculty member has been suspended after he allegedly used a racial slur in class on Tuesday. Adjunct public health instructor Eric Triffin said Wednesday he has been suspended with pay by the university while the school investigates an incident involving the use of a racial slur. Triffin said in a phone interview with the Register that he used a variation of the n-word when singing along to a rap song played by a student in the class on Tuesday. The song was played as part of an ongoing custom: Triffin often starts his classes with an activity such as dancing or listening to music. (link) Feb 07, 2018: The Zeta Beta Tau fraternity chapter at Cornell University has been disciplined after holding a sex contest called a \"pig roast,\" referencing the weight of the women the brothers slept with. Following an investigation last year by university officials that concluded in January 2018, the chapter was put on probation for two years. Cornell began investigating the fraternity after the Office of Sorority and Fraternity Life received multiple reports of misconduct at Zeta Beta Tau in 2017, a university report said. (link) Feb 05, 2018: Coastal Carolina University police arrested a man who is accused of sexually assaulting a woman. On Sunday at 1:03 p.m. officers reported to a woman in a residence hall, located at 100 Township Circle, who said she had been sexually assaulted, according to a Coastal Carolina University police report. The assault allegedly happened at 2:00 a.m. Sunday morning. The victim told police she knew her attacker. (link) Feb 01, 2018: Virginia Tech police this week arrested a 19-year-old man on a weapons charge, a university spokesman confirmed Tuesday. Yunsong Zhao was arrested Monday and charged with one count of possession or transportation of certain firearms by certain persons, according to Mark Owczarski, a Virginia Tech spokesman. Zhao was a Virginia Tech student at the time of his arrest, but is no longer affiliated with the school. (link) Other News & Events Feb 05, 2018: American schools that coordinate with the Chinese Ministry of Education should end their agreements because they are trying to teach a warped version of history that benefits the government, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., warned Monday. Rubio asked several schools in his state to shutter the Confucius Institute, a cultural program he identified as one of China's \"foreign 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 10/11 influence operations\" against the United States. The program operates at an array of universities and secondary schools, despite warnings from academic associations and the U.S. intelligence community. (link) If you have any suggestions, questions or feedback, please e-mail me at [email protected]. We hope you find this information useful and would appreciate hearing your thoughts. Feel free to forward this email to your direct reports, colleagues, employees or others who might find it of value. Back issues of this newsletter are available on our web site at If you have any suggestions for items to include in future newsletters, please e-mail Robert Gottesman at [email protected]. Back to top Office of Audit, Compliance & Privacy Auburn University 304 Samford Hall M. Kevin Robinson, Assoc [email protected] 334.844.4389 \u00a9 Redistribution of this newsletter, with or without modification, is permitted provided Auburn University Office of Audit, Compliance & Privacy is listed as the source. 2/16/25, 10:29 Case In Point 11/11", "8793_104.pdf": "Bloomsburg University philosophy professor has been arrested on charges alleging he possessed child pornography, according to the state attorney general. Scott Lowe, 57, of Bloomsburg, was charged Thursday with four counts of sexual abuse of children and related charges for possessing child porn, according to prosecutors. \u201cThese charges are particularly heinous because the accused is a professor \u2014 someone trusted to work closely with students,\u201d state Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a statement. \u201cThis professor is charged with viewing child pornography on his computer in his university office. That is outrageous, and he will be held accountable.\u201d Prosecutors say the pornography was discovered during a routine audit for all university computers. The university referred the case to state prosecutors Wednesday. According to prosecutors, Lowe has been a professor at the university for decades. In a statement, the university said it was fully cooperating with law enforcement and announced Lowe had been suspended. \u201cEveryone here at the university is shocked and saddened with the news involving one of our professors,\u201d Bloomsburg University President Bashar W. Hanna said. \u201cWe have been cooperating with law enforcement officials since we became aware of this matter and will continue to so in whatever way we can. Due to the ongoing investigation, we cannot make further comment. \u201d Lowe was jailed with bail set at $250,000 Bloomsburg University Professor Facing Child Porn Charges Published 11:01 CST, February 16, 2018 Daytona 500 \u2018Saturday Night Live\u2019 Congo Shakira Severe weather 2/16/25, 10:29 Bloomsburg University Professor Facing Child Porn Charges News 1/2 Trump moves with dizzying speed on his to-do list. But there are warning signs in his first month Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to let the firing of whistleblower agency head proceed Justice Department\u2019s independence is threatened as Trump\u2019s team asserts power over cases and staff presented Ukraine with a document to access its minerals but offered almost nothing in return New York police find body of missing man they say was tortured for more than a month by 5 people 1 2 3 4 5 2/16/25, 10:29 Bloomsburg University Professor Facing Child Porn Charges News 2/2", "8793_105.pdf": "Home > News & Media > Taking Action Items UPDATE: Former Bloomsburg Professor Charged for Possessing Child Porn Pleads Guilty June 13, 2018 | Topic \u2014 Attorney General Josh Shapiro today announced that a former Bloomsburg University professor charged for possessing child pornography on his work computer pleaded guilty today in Columbia County Court. Scott Lowe, 60, of Bloomsburg, entered an open guilty plea to four felony counts of sexual abuse of children relating to the possession of child pornography. In February, multiple photos of child pornography were discovered on Lowe\u2019s computer after an audit of Bloomsburg University computers. Lowe entered his plea today before Common Pleas Court Senior Judge David Grine. Sentencing will occur at a later date, following a pre-sentence evaluation of Lowe. \u201cThis professor committed one of the lowest kinds of crime \u2013 preying upon children \u2013 by possessing child pornography,\u201d Attorney General Shapiro said. \u201cHe used his university computer as a tool to assemble a cache of child pornography. No one is above the law and we\u2019re holding him accountable.\u201d\u0000Bloomsburg University referred the case to the Office of Attorney General in February. The university suspended Lowe after the child porn was found on his computer, and he then retired. Attorney General Shapiro thanked the university\u2019s police department for its collaboration on the case. \u201cThe agents and prosecutors in our Child Predator section work every day to keep predators out of our communities and keep Pennsylvania\u2019s children safe,\u201d Attorney General Shapiro said. \u201cIf you suspect a child predator in your community want to hear from you.\u201d\u0000Suspected predators can be reported by calling the Child Predator Hotline at 1-800-385-1044. If you suspect an online predator, send anonymous tips by texting to 847411. The Lowe case was prosecuted by Senior Deputy Attorney General Christopher Jones. # # # Click a photo to enlarge \uf1c6 Download All Photos 2/16/25, 10:29 UPDATE: Former Bloomsburg Professor Charged for Possessing Child Porn Pleads Guilty Office of Attorney General 1/1"} |
7,539 | Jihad Al-Ali | Salt Lake Community College | [
"7539_101.pdf",
"7539_102.pdf"
] | {"7539_101.pdf": "36,344,231 articles and books Like 6.6K Share Syrian-born adjunct instructor loses discrimination suit against Utah College. Link/Page Citation Syrian-born adjunct faculty member has lost a lawsuit accusing Salt Lake Community College of discrimination based on his race, religion and Middle Eastern origin. Jihad Al-Ali, an adjunct mathematics and computer instructor, found himself dismissed by the college just six days into the 2001 spring semester following a \"verbal altercation\" with a student. That incident, combined with multiple student complaints of sexual harassment and \"an abnormally high withdrawal rate\" of students from his classes led the college to reject Al-Ali's further teaching requests, U.S. District Judge David Sam explained in his decision. Al-Ali had taught at the college for two years before his dismissal. He applied unsuccessfully to get re-hired until 2003, when he lodged formal civil rights complaints with the college and then the state. According to Al-Ali's discrimination and wrongful discharge suit, several college employees \"treated him differently than they would other white employees,\" and \"it became well established that these employees did not want him to work there any longer.\" He sought back pay, compensation for emotional distress and damage to reputation, reinstatement and punitive damages. The suit asserted that \"it cannot be for any other reason but for racial animus, because his performance record while at has been exemplary.\" He also claimed that employees \"routinely and regularly\" lied to him in an effort to convince him that they were raking his discrimination complaints seriously. The college disputed Al-Ali's claim that his performance record was \"exemplary.\" In addition to the high withdrawal rate of his Like 0 Share Periodicals Literature Search Keyword Title Author Topic 2/16/25, 10:30 Syrian-born adjunct instructor loses discrimination suit against Utah College. - Free Online Library 1/4 students, it cited two allegations of sexual harassment in two years. The first came in 1999 according to the court decision. Then in June 2001. two female students complained that Al-Ali had harassed them over the phone. Al-Ali's lawsuit faced several challenges, including the fact that his teaching contracts were on a semester basis, with no guarantees of future employment. On the civil rights claims, Sam found no direct evidence of discrimination or that other employees were treated differently. \"Contrary to Mr. Al-Ali's assertions has set forth legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions,\" the judge wrote. The other major problem was that he didn't file his complaint until two years after his dismissal, well past the statute of limitations. Sam rejected the excuse that Al-Ali waited so long because he hadn't realized he'd been permanently fired until 2003, when the college asked for his keys. At the time of dismissal, the department chair allegedly told Al-Ali he \"needed some time away\" but never explained that lie wouldn't be permitted to teach future courses, Al-Ali claimed, adding that the chair had assured him several times he'd receive a teaching assignment the next semester. But the chair denied making any such commitment, adding that \"neither I, nor the adjunct faculty coordinators at wanted Mr. Al-Ali teaching classes because of his previous conduct, i.e. harassing students, making religious comments and the altercation that led to his termination.\" The chair said he wrote a recommendation letter to help Al-Ali find alternative employment but that the letter wasn't a new contract with the college. In his decision, Sam noted that Al-Ali applied for unemployment insurance benefits only a few months after termination. \"There was simply no basis for him to conclude that Iris employment had not come to an end, for whatever reason, or that somehow he remained employed\" by the college. Assistant Attorney Gen. Richard Bissell, said Al-Ali has filed an appeal. Al-Ali represented himself in the case The college disputed the claim that Al-Ali's performance record was exemplary, citing a high withdrawal rate of his students and two allegations of sexual harassment in two years 2007 Autumn Publishing No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder. Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Please bookmark with social media, your votes are noticed and appreciated: Article Details Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback Title Annotation Author: Freedman, Ian; Freedman, Eric Publication: Community College Week Date: Apr 23, 2007 Words: 609 Previous Article: Two-year faculty pay raises outpace inflation. Next Article: Stage set for pitched higher education budget fight in Oregon. Topics: College faculty Cases College teachers Cases Sexual harassment Like 0 Share 2/16/25, 10:30 Syrian-born adjunct instructor loses discrimination suit against Utah College. - Free Online Library 2/4 The Free Library > Social Sciences > Education > Community College Week > April 23, 2007 The Free Library > Date > 2007 > April > 23 > Community College Week Publications by Name Publications by Date Authors Literature before 1995 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010 Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright \u00a9 2025 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Cases Teachers Cases Universities and colleges Cases 2/16/25, 10:30 Syrian-born adjunct instructor loses discrimination suit against Utah College. - Free Online Library 3/4 2/16/25, 10:30 Syrian-born adjunct instructor loses discrimination suit against Utah College. - Free Online Library 4/4", "7539_102.pdf": "From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division Feb 23, 2007 Case No. 2:04CV00547 (D. Utah Feb. 23, 2007) Copy Citation Download Check Treatment Rethink the way you litigate with CoCounsel for research, discovery, depositions, and so much more. Try CoCounsel free Case No. 2:04CV00547 DS. February 23, 2007 SAM, Senior District Judge Sign In Search all cases and statutes... Opinion Case details 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 1/13 Pending before the court are cross motions for summary judgment. Briefly stated, the relevant facts and allegations are these. Mr. Al-Ali, whose native country is Syria, applied with Defendant Salt Lake Community College (\"SLCC\") for an adjunct faculty position on November 20, 1998. He first taught at as an adjunct professor beginning Spring Semester of 1999. He was employed as an adjunct professor for seven additional terms or semesters until his termination on June 20, 2001. For each term he worked, Mr. Al-Ali signed a Salt Lake Community College Term Adjunct Teaching Agreement which expired at the end of the term. Each of those agreements, among other things, specified that Mr. Al-Ali was a \"temporary part-time employee\", and that his teaching performance was \"subject to evaluation as *2 determined by the COLLEGE\". By signing each agreement, Mr. Al-Ali acknowledged that he understood \"that there is no expectation of continued teaching or other employment at the beyond the term governed by this agreement.\" At the time of his initial hire, as evidenced by the Adjunct Faculty Orientation Checklist which he signed, Mr. Al-Ali was advised: \"Adjunct Faculty are hired with no expectation or obligation for employment beyond [the] current teaching assignment. Adjunct faculty receive no paid benefits and are not eligible for tenure. Adjunct Faculty should not serve on College committees.\" The Employee Grievance Policy, \u00b6 II.A, defines adjunct faculty as \"[a]ll part-time faculty who are hired and paid on a per term basis with no expectation of continued employment.\" 2 Mr. AL-Ali was terminated on June 20, 2001, just six days into the new term, following a verbal altercation with a student. He had previous complaints against him in the semester prior to June 2001, when he was alleged to have harassed two female students by telephone. He was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint *3 lodged by one of his students on July 1, 1999 also contends that during his employment as an adjunct faculty member students taking his classes had an abnormally high withdrawal rate. 1 3 1 Mr. Al-Ali disputes that he was fired and contends that he \"was sent home by Dr. Merrill claiming that Mr. Ali needed some time away, but for reasons never explained to Mr. Ali, Mr. Ali's Summer 2001 contract was never 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 2/13 honored or revoked, Mr. Ali never was permitted to teach another class since and no other contracts since have been accepted.\" Pl['s] Mem. Supp., p. 3. As discussed later, Mr. Al-Ali's contention that he did not learn that he had been fired until almost two years later is rejected. On September 21, 2001, Mr. Al-Ali certified to the Utah Department of Workforce Services that he voluntarily quit his job because he needed full time employment. In August of 2001, SLCC's Dr. Merrill issued a letter of recommendation for Mr. Al-Ali so that he could seek alternative employment. Dr. Merrill states that the letter was not provided so he could seek employment with SLCC. In September of 2002, Mr. Al-Ali contends that Dr. Merrill explained that he was not getting any teaching assignments because those assignment were being made by coordinators of the department, not him. Mr. Al-Ali states that he contacted those coordinators but was never called back for a job. Dr. Merrill clarifies: Neither I, nor the adjunct faculty coordinators at wanted Mr. Al-Ali teaching classes because of his previous conduct, i.e. harassing students, making religious comments, and the altercation that led to his termination. The coordinators are in an advisory role, and the ultimate decision on issuing term adjunct faculty contracts for the Department is mine. The reasons for not hiring Mr. Al-Ali did not change. Merrill Aff. \u00b6 9. *4 4 In November of 2002, Mr Al-Ali applied for another position with SLCC. SLCC's Dr. Merrill states that Mr. Al-Ali's last employment denial was November 17, 2002. In June of 2003, Mr. Al-Ali complained to Dr. David Richardson, SLCC's Vice President of Academic Affairs. On June 14, 2003, Mr. Al-Ali met with Dr. Merrill and with Dr. Richardson to discuss why he was terminated and why he would not be rehired. Mr. Al-Ali made allegations of discrimination and was referred to Kay Water, SLCC's acting Director, to file a discrimination complaint. 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 3/13 Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, affidavits, depositions or admissions establish there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden of establishing the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact is on the moving party. E.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). This burden has two distinct components: an initial burden of production on the moving party, which burden when satisfied shifts to the nonmoving party, and an ultimate burden of persuasion, which always remains on the moving party. See 10A C. Wright, A. Miller M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure \u00a7 2727 (2d ed. 1983). A. Mr. Al-Ali's Motion for Summary Judgment On August 11, 2003, Mr. AL-Ali filed a complaint with alleging harassment and discrimination in the hiring selection and in his termination based upon race, religion and national origin. On November 4, 2003 Mr. Al-Ali filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Utah Anti-Discrimination Labor Division claiming discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and retaliation. *5 5 2 The central inquiry is \"whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.\" Id. If the nonmoving party cannot muster sufficient evidence to make out a triable issue of fact on his claim, a trial would be useless and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202. *6 6 Mr. Al-Ali's Motion for Summary Judgment, which was prepared by counsel, is far from illuminating. He appears to assert that he is entitled to summary judgment because cannot demonstrate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its \"failure to rescue or failure to protect Plaintiff and others within protected classes from feelings of a hostile work 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 4/13 environment\". Mem. Supp., p. 11. The essence of Mr. Al-Ali's position seems to be that when in 2003, approximately two years after his employment was terminated, he finally got around to complaining to SLCC's acting Director Kay Waters failed to properly investigate his claims of discrimination disputes any such failure.3 3 Kay Waters, SLCC's interim Director states: \"Adjunct instructors are temporary, at-will and are not eligible to utilize the formal grievance procedure at pursuant to SLCC's policies and procedures in place as of June 2001 to the present day.\" Waters Aff. \u00b6 5. In a September 24, 2003 letter to Mr. Al-Ali, Waters wrote: \"According to the Salt Lake Community College Grievance Procedure that was in effect at the time of your termination (College Policy Chapter 2, Section 3:06, Employee Grievance Procedure), your complaint needed to be filed within 30 days from the last date of alleged harm. Your employment as an adjunct instructor was terminated June 21, 2001, and your complaint was filed with the College on August 11, 2003, well beyond the time limit.\" The Court is inclined to agree with that \"Plaintiff is complaining that the Defendant's failure to investigate his claims of unlawful discrimination relating [to] his termination and *7 refusal to be rehired following that termination is, in fact, a request that the Defendant undo the alleged discriminatory decision to terminate him and to refuse to rehire him following the termination.\" Def['s] Mem. Opp'n, p. 6. \"An employer's refusal to undo a discriminatory decision is not a fresh act of discrimination.\" Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, 456 F.3d 1215, 1228 (10 Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, November 3, 2006 (No. 06-638) (quoting Croy v. Cobe Labs, Inc., 345 F.3d 1199, 1203 (10 Cir. 2003)). 7 th th In any event, based on the pleadings and the record before it, the Court finds no basis in law or fact to award Mr. Al-Ali summary judgment on his claims. And contrary to Mr. Al-Ali's assertion, as noted in the discussion to follow has set forth legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. B. SLCC's Motion for Summary Judgment seeks summary judgment on all of Mr. Al-Ali's claims. Mr. Al-Ali alleges generally and in conclusory fashion that subjected him to 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 5/13 employment discrimination in violation of *8 Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Complaint, which was prepared by counsel, is not a model of pleading or clarity. It appears that Mr. Al-Ali purports to allege employment discrimination based on claims for disparate treatment, wrongful discharge, refusal to hire, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Specifically, Mr. Al-Ali alleges that \"Defendant disparately treated [him] differently than other white employees based upon his race, color, and or national origin\", Compl. \u00b6 60, that \"Defendant discharged [him] from employment inappropriately without just cause\", id. \u00b6 64, and that \"Defendant unjustly refused to hire [him] based upon his race, color or national origin\", id. \u00b6 68. *9 8 4 5 9 4 Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer \"to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin\". 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-2(a)(1). 5 In pleading jurisdiction in his Complaint, Mr. Al-Ali who was represented by counsel at the time, asserts that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction \"regarding state claims, including at the common law and other torts.\" Compl. \u00b6 2. While Mr. Al-Ali references injury for emotional distress and damage to reputation due to alleged disparate treatment, and claims damages for those injuries, they are not pled as causes of action nor are they supported by any factual allegations in the Complaint. To the extent that those allegations can be viewed as separate causes of action, they are summarily dismissed. 1. Statute of Limitations first asserts that Mr. Al-Ali's claims of discrimination are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Under Title a plaintiff shall file an employment discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission either 180 or 300 days after an \"alleged unlawful employment practice occurred\". 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000(e)-5(e)(1). Because Utah is \"a state that has an entity with the authority to grant or seek relief with respect to the alleged unlawful practice, an employee who initially files a grievance with that agency must 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 6/13 file the charge with the within 300 days of the employment practice\". National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 110 (2002). The Court agrees with that the facts of record establish that Mr. Al- Ali's employment as an adjunct faculty member was terminated on June 20, 2001. However, Mr. Al-Ali did not file his charge of discrimination with the Utah Anti-Discrimination Labor Division (\"UALD\") until November 4, 2003. Because he failed to file his claim with the until after 300 days from the date of his termination, his claim in that regard is barred, as is his claim of hostile work environment. Likewise, Mr. Al-Ali's claims that he applied for, but was denied, other positions with SLCC, the *10 last allegedly being November 17, 2002, are time barred for the same reason. Similarly, Mr. Al- Ali's claim of disparate treatment is also barred for failure to file his charge of discrimination within 300 days of the last alleged discriminatory act. 10 Mr. Al-Ali's contention, that the time for him to file his claims with the was equitably tolled because he did not learn that he had been fired from his summer adjunct position until two years later on June 14, 2003, is unsupported by the facts and is rejected. Mr. Al-Ali's last employment contract with expired by its terms at the end of the 2001 Summer Semester, Session III. It is undisputed that he was removed from his classroom just six days into the term and not permitted to return to employment for *11 that term or any term thereafter. The unavoidable fact is that Mr. Al-Ali's employment contract terminated at the end of the 2001 Summer Semester and he was not offered a new one. He applied for unemployment insurance in September of 2001. There was simply no basis for him to conclude that his employment had not come to an end, for whatever reason, or that somehow he remained employed with SLCC. Indeed, Mr. Al-Ali admits that his last contract was not honored. See notes 1, 6. It is beyond dispute that Mr. Al-Ali was on notice that his employment with was temporary and there was no expectation of continued employment. Even if, as Mr. Al-Ali claims, he was orally promised a position for the fall semester following his removal, he was placed on notice that he was not *12 going to be employed when no offer was forthcoming at that time. In sum, Mr. Al-Ali has failed to set forth any facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that actively deceived him regarding 6 11 7 8 12 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 7/13 the circumstances of his termination and that prevented him from timely pursuing his claims. 6 In this circuit a Title claim will be tolled only on a showing of active deception. Simons v. Southwest Petro-Chem, Inc., 28 F.3d 1029, 1031 (10 Cir. 1994). th 7 Mr. Al-Ali contends that \"[o]n June 21 , 2001 Dr. Merrill explained my removal of the Summer 2001 teaching assignment because was teaching continuously for eight semesters, and might been [sic] burned out. Therefore should take the remaining [sic] of the Summer 2001 off to rest, and he had in fact assured me several times that will get my teaching assignment for the following semester, Fall 2001. When the teaching assignments for the Fall 2001 were scheduled, and did not have an Assignment [sic].\" Mem. Opp'n to Def.['s] Mot. Summ. J., p. 11. In a variation of the same facts, Mr. Al-Ali contends \"Mr. Ali was sent home by Dr. Merrill claiming that Mr. Ali needed some time away, but for reasons never explained to Mr. Ali, [his] Summer 2001 contract was never honored or revoked, Mr. Ali never was permitted to teach another class since and no other contracts since have been accepted.\" Pl['s] Mem. Supp. p. 3. st 8 Claims by Mr. Al-Ali such as that \"[o]n or about May 5, 2003, [he] received a letter from the Key Office requesting the `(key)s' in his possession be returned signifying for the first time [he] may be permanently discharged\", Pl['s] Mem. Supp. p. 5, do not withstand scrutiny in the context of all the facts and fall far short of creating a disputed issue. 2. Disparate Treatment, Wrongful Termination, Refusal to Hire Not only are Mr. Al-Ali's claims for disparate treatment, wrongful termination and refusal to hire barred by the statute of limitations, but they also fail because has advanced a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for firing him and for not rehiring him that Mr. Al-Ali has failed to put into dispute as unworthy of belief. In support of his claim of discrimination, Mr. Al states: At some point for reasons not yet discovered by me (even despite years of litigation and discovery), these employees [Judd Morgan, 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 8/13 Randy Johnson, Dr. Merrill, and Kay Waters] treated me differently than they would other white employees, it became well established that these employees did not want me to work there any longer as it would later be discovered that they would routinely and regularly lie to me in apparent efforts to lull me into inaction or to deceive me that they were treating my discrimination complaint legitimately, when in fact they were not. It cannot be for any other reason but for racial animus, because my performance record while at the College has been exemplary. Al-Ali Aff. \u00b6 4. *13 13 Because Mr. Al-Ali has presented no direct evidence of discrimination, the court turns to the familiar burden shifting format set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Thomas v. Denny's, Inc., 111 F.3d 1506, 1509 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1028 (1997). Plaintiff first has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, Mr. Al-Ali must show \"(1) that he is a member of a racial minority, (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that similarly situated employees were treated differently.\" Trujillo v. University of Colo. Health Sciences Ctr., 157 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 1998); McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. If the plaintiff meets his initial burden, then the burden of production shifts to the defendant to \"demonstrate `some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason' for the adverse employment action\". Trujillo, 157 F. 3d at 1215 (citation omitted). Lastly, if the defendant meets its burden, \"the burden shifts back to the employer to show that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the employer's reason for the challenged action is pretextual and unworthy of belief.\" Id. Assuming, without deciding, that Mr. Al-Ali has established a prima facie case of discrimination has met its burden of producing a legitimate nondiscriminatory explanation to rebut any *14 such prima facie case \u2014 i.e., that Mr. Al-Ali's job performance was unsatisfactory in that he had an altercation with a student, other students had complained about him in the past, and he had an abnormally high withdrawal rate from his classes. 14 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 9/13 reason is not a `\"pretext for discrimination\" unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason.'\" Trujillo, 157 F.3d at 1215 (quoting St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993 is entitled to summary judgment unless Mr. Al-Ali can \"`offer evidence tending to show the defendant's innocent explanation for his employment decision was false.'\" Id. (quoting Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441, 451 n. 14 (10 Cir. 1995)). \"The relevant inquiry is not whether [the employer's] proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether [the employer] honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs.\" Bullington v. United Airlines, Inc., 186 F.3d 1301, 1318 (10 Cir. 1999), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Boyer v. Cordant Technologies, Inc., 316 F.3d 1137 (10 Cir. 2003). th th th Mr. Al-Ali has produced no viable evidence that SLCC's proffered explanation is a pretext for discrimination. His conclusory and self-serving statements regarding his qualifications fail to satisfy his burden of proof on the matter. Id. Likewise, *15 the few student comment sheets he submits as evidence of his teaching ability, at most, reflect another view of his teaching ability, not that discrimination was the real reason for his termination or his failure to obtain another contract. In short, Mr. Al-Ali has offered nothing sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that SLCC's explanation for removing him from the classroom during his last contractual term, and for not offering him further contracts, is unworthy of belief. 15 3. Hostile Work Environment claim of a hostile work environment, as notes, is not the thrust of Mr. Al-Ali's allegations. Nevertheless, he states that one of the discriminatory acts which form the basis of his law suit is \"[g]eneral harassment for the race/national origin based discriminatory conduct which is an unlawful employment practice\". Compl. \u00b6 52. Mr. Al-Ali cannot prevail on a claim of hostile work environment. First, the claim is time barred as discussed earlier. Second, there is simply no evidence of actionable conduct. To prevail Mr. Al-Ali must show \"`under the totality of the circumstances (1) the harassment was pervasive or severe enough to alter the terms, conditions, or privilege of employment, and (2) the 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 10/13 harassment was racial or stemmed from racial animus.'\" Witt v. *16 Roadway Exp., 136 F.3d 1424, 1432 (10 Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 881 (1998) (citation omitted). \"General harassment if not racial . . . is not actionable. The Plaintiff must show more than a few isolated incidents of racial enmity.\" Bolden v Inc., 43 F.3d 545, 551 (10 Cir. 1994) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 826 (1995). \"Instead of sporadic racial slurs, there must be a steady barrage of opprobrious racial comments.\" Id. The alleged harassment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive in order to survive judgment. Witt, 136 F.3d at 1432-33. There is simply no evidence to support a claim by Mr. Al-Ali of hostile work environment. 16 th th 4. Retaliation Retaliation, likewise, is not the thrust of Mr. Al-Ali's allegations. However, at paragraph 52 of his Complaint, Mr. Ali asserts that one of the acts of discrimination that form the basis of his law suit is \"[r]etaliation for complaint of employment discrimination\". Mr. Al-Ali cannot prevail on a retaliation claim because he has not established a causal connection between any protected activity and an adverse employment action. See Trujillo, 157 F.3d 1215 (to establish a retaliation claim, plaintiff must show (1) he engaged in protected opposition to discrimination; (2) he was *17 subjected to adverse employment action subsequent to or contemporaneous with the protected opposition; and, (3) that there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action). 17 Mr. Al-Ali was fired in June of 2001. He last applied for employment with in November of 2002. He did not file a complaint alleging harassment and discrimination with until August 11, 2003, and he did not file his Charge of Discrimination with the State of Utah until November of 2003. Based on the record before the court, these were his first acts of protected opposition to any alleged discrimination by SLCC. Therefore is entitled to summary judgment on any claim that he was not hired for retaliatory reasons related to his filing charges of discrimination because Mr. Al-Ali has failed to show that he was subjected to an adverse employment action subsequent to or contemporaneous with his protected opposition. *18 18 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 11/13 For the reasons stated, Plaintiff Mr. Al-Ali's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #105) is denied. Defendant SLCC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 119) is granted. The Clerk of the Court is requested to enter final judgment for the Defendant ORDERED. *1 1 About us Jobs News Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Instagram 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 12/13 Help articles Customer support Contact sales Cookie Settings Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information/Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information Privacy Terms \u00a9 2024 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 2/16/25, 10:30 Al-Ali v. Salt Lake Community College, Case No. 2:04CV00547 | Casetext Search + Citator 13/13"} |
8,611 | Mark E. Siddall | American Museum of Natural History | [
"8611_101.pdf",
"8611_102.pdf",
"8611_103.pdf",
"8611_104.pdf"
] | {"8611_101.pdf": "University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Newsletter of the American Society of Parasitologists Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Spring 6-4-2016 American Society of Parasitologists Newsletter, v. 38, no. 2, Spring 2016 Scott Lyell Gardner University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Parasitology Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Newsletter of the American Society of Parasitologists by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Gardner, Scott Lyell, \"American Society of Parasitologists Newsletter, v. 38, no. 2, Spring 2016\" (2016). Newsletter of the American Society of Parasitologists. 48. 1 Copyright - The American Society of Parasitologists 2016 Newsletter Vol. 38, No. 2. Spring, 2016 The American Society of Parasitologists Newsletter Usually Published Quarterly by the American Society of Parasitologists Newsletter: Released on the Digital Commons, June 3, 2016. From the Editor As you have seen in the past, we have included interesting and, sometimes, controversial non peer-reviewed white papers in the Newsletter. Send me a link to your favorite lecture on parasites or consider providing an actual parasite lecture. Your contribution is valuable and anything sent in to me will be considered for publication. There are only a very few items that have rejected over the years. Sincerely - editor William C. Campbell, Winner of the Nobel Prize Pages Topic 1. Editor\u2019s note and Contents 2. Letter to the - President Mark Siddall 5. Annual Meeting \u2013 Plan for Edmonton 7. Anti-Harassment /Discrimination 9 - Student Research Grants 10. Obituary - A. D'alessandro 13. Zika Data - Summer Travel Information 14 Again Cuts Collections Programs by 50% 15. Essay: What is the to you? 18. List of affiliate societies to the The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 2 President Mark Siddall Letter to the Membership This has been a terrific, and terrifically busy year to have had the opportunity to serve as your president. Thanks to the service and dedication of all of Council, a few of the items that had hoped to accomplish took shape immediately, including a streamlining of the bylaws and reformulating our committees, which in most cases now ensure student appointees to them. By far the most exciting event of my term, of course, has been Bill Campbell\u2019s receipt of the Nobel Prize in Medicine with all of the excitement and momentum that the prize carries for parasitology in general and the Society in particular. The significance of Dr. Campbell's contributions not only to science, but to this society, which has been his home for over half a century, were detailed by President Elect Esch in \"Our Nobel Laureate, Dr. William C. Campbell\" in our own Journal as well as for the public in Noble and Laudable Nobel Laureate: William C. Campbell\" by myself am thrilled that Dr. Campbell will be part of the presidential symposium in Edmonton where he will be receiving the society\u2019s prestigious Eminent Parasitologist Award. Accompanying Bill on stage for the president\u2019s symposium entitled \u2018Magic Bullets and Windows of Opportunity\u2019, will be two distinguished, and terrific friends of mine: Dr. Jane Carlton is Professor and Faculty Director of Genomic Sequencing at and was the 2010 Stoll Stunkard lecturer in Colorado Springs, and Dr. Frank Richards, Director of the Carter Center\u2019s River Blindness Elimination Program, Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination Program, and Schistosomiasis Control Program. My own \u2018Countdown to Zero: Defeating Disease\u2019 exhibition that curated jointly with the Carter Center opened at the American Museum of Natural history in New York in 2015 with an extended run at least to January of 2107. Of all of the exhibitions have curated in my 17 years at it is this one of which am the most proud. The motivation was, from the start, to be out-in-front of the story of Guinea-worm eradication; to celebrate its extinction as it was happening instead of waiting until it was i i f it l i l d th i t i The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 3 gone from humanity. The remains an important part of the telling of this story of human triumph. From the inception of the exhibition to it\u2019s being cloned and installed simultaneously at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in February, the number of people on our planet infected with Dracunculus medinensis has plummeted from more than 400, to exactly 22. We are a society of ecologists, of cell and molecular biologists, of taxonomists, of geneticists, and genomicists. Above all else, we are a society of scientists that are compelled by the power of questions more than we are compelled by methods alone. As thrilling as this year has been in terms of our intersections with human parasitology confess that these are not what motivate me in my own career, and nor were they what thrilled Bill Campbell about Parasitology as a grad student attending his first meeting in Wisconsin. For me, vertebrates are just the packages that the interesting stuff comes in. For me, Parasitology is like a never-ending birthday, a never ending holiday, unwrapping package after package, giddily anticipating and never knowing what\u2019s inside until the package unwrapped. Whether it was Apicomplexan hematozoa as a grad student, oyster parasites as a post-doc, leeches for most of my career, the bed-bug genome this last year, or Myxozoa, Haplosporida, tapeworms, trematodes, nematodes, bacteria or viruses... all of these have intersected with my fascination with parasites hope to put sense to this career of parasitological free-association in my presidential address and look forward to seeing you there. Meanwhile, of course there have been various matters with the potential to affect the membership and with which and your Council have been grappling. Importantly, we were operating without a clearly articulated Harassment Policy, in particular as it concerns attendees to our meetings, but more generally as well. Vice President Perkins and her committee have now seen to the formulation of a strong policy, and one that includes a responsible representative for each Annual Meeting; Sara Brant has volunteered for Edmonton. Lee Couch took over the Herculean role of serving as your Secretary Treasurer in January. While the Society is presently on solid financial footing, she along with President Elect Jerry Esch and Bob Grieve, Chair of the Business Advisory Committee, are grappling with the creation of a long-term budget, and with the uncomfortable fact that the Journal presently costs the Society more than the revenue it brings to us. Research funding for basic science continues to be more difficult to acquire than when was a young faculty member. The decision at to suspend funding for Collections in Support of Biological Research (CSBR) was particularly disconcerting this year, in response to which made a personal visit to the Division of Biological Infrastructure at in Arlington in April. Whether in response to the collective voice of the scientific community or not restored this funding in late May (but with a cut in the budget for the program by more than 50% -ed.) It has been my pleasure to serve you as your President. It is my fervent hope that we continue to transform this into one that is more of a Society of Parasitologists of the Americas in the coming years. To those ends note that we have agreed to meet in Cancun two years from now when Dr. Perkins is to be your President. Dr. John Hawdon on the other hand, gets to preside over our joint meeting with the other ASP, the The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 4 Australian Society, in 2019 in Hawai'i. It is terrifically important that members stand for election and allow themselves to be nominated. If you are interested in serving in any capacities, or on the Society\u2019s various committees ( you should let that be known respectively to the Nominating & Tellers Committee, or to those in the line of succession for the Presidency (Jerry Esch, Susan Perkins, and John Hawdon). Mark Siddall Curator and Professor, Invertebrates American Museum of Natural History President, American Society of Parasitologists Central Park West at 79th Street New York 10024 [email protected] Tel: 917.250.0575 The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 5 91st Annual Meeting of the ASP. July 11-14, 2016. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada See the call for papers- here. The 91st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Parasitologists will be held July 11-14, 2016, at the Westin Edmonton, an 4-diamond-rated hotel at 101 Ave and 100 St in the city center of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. All conference activities will occur at the Westin, with the exception of a planned evening at the Muttart Conservatory. The conservatory has 4 pyramids, 3 representing major biomes (desert, temperate, and tropical) and 1 that has seasonal exhibits. We will have exclusive access to the conservatory, and a catered dinner. Located on the North Saskatchewan River, between prairie and farmlands to the south and the boreal forest of the north, the area was first settled by Europeans in about 1795, although the early settlement history of the area is still hotly debated. Eventually, Fort Edmonton became a fur trading hub series of forts was built on the flats north of the river, below what is now the downtown area. The railway arrived on the south side of the river in 1891, where the community of Strathcona developed. Edmonton was chosen as the capital city of Alberta when the province formed in 1905, and Edmonton and Strathcona amalgamated in 1912. Although Edmonton has a history of booms and busts, the city today is the hub of a diversified regional economy, including agriculture, education, manufacturing, technology, the petrochemical industry, and government services. It is also a major service centre for aviation, forestry, mining and petroleum in the north, and has earned as 1 of its nicknames, \u201cGateway to the North\u201d. The Edmonton of 2015 is a multicultural city with a population of about 1 million, and is the northernmost large city in North America. Edmonton will be a great place to bring your family, with sights and activities to appeal to everyone. Within easy walking distance of the Westin you will find numerous restaurants, bars, cinemas and shops, the Art Gallery of Alberta, the Winspear Concert Hall, the Citadel Theater and the Edmonton Public Library longer walk, or a short bus ride, gets you to the Provincial Legislature building, the 124th Street gallery and boutique area, and the river valley trail system. By bus or car you can go to Old Strathcona area (popular for its bars, restaurants and eclectic shops), West Edmonton Mall (with its water park and indoor amusement center), Fort Edmonton Park, the John The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 6 Janzen Nature Center, Rutherford House Provincial Historic Site, the Valley Zoo, the Alberta Aviation Museum, the Telus World of Science, and Edmonton Northlands (thoroughbred or standard bred horse racing). Interesting day trips around Edmonton include the Devonian Botanical Gardens, Elk Island National Park, and the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village. Edmonton also has a string of festivals throughout the summer, such as the Edmonton Street Performers\u2019 Festival and Taste of Edmonton that usually occur around the dates of the meeting. National Geographic Magazine has listed Edmonton as one of its top 10 word travel destinations for summer 2015! If you want to plan a pre- or post-meeting trip, and have a vehicle, Edmonton is within a day\u2019s drive of several World Heritage Sites, such as Banff and Jasper National Parks, and Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, in the Rocky Mountains to the west, Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo Jump and Dinosaur Provincial Park to the south, and Wood Buffalo National Park to the north. Alberta\u2019s other major city, Calgary, is also just a few hours south of Edmonton, and many will likely make their air connections to Edmonton through there. Although most Edmontonians will not admit it, Calgary is also worth a visit. Edmonton is easily accessible by air, not only with non-stop connections to major cities across Canada, but also to Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Seattle and other cities, as well as several international destinations. There is convenient access from the airport to downtown by bus, shuttle, or taxi. Once at the conference, people will find numerous dining, shopping and sightseeing options within easy walking distance of the hotel. For exploration a bit further afield, Edmonton has a well-developed and inexpensive public transit system, with much of the city accessible via a convenient light rail transit system that stops right next to the Westin, as well as bus service to other areas. Edmonton in July is usually quite pleasant, with average min/max temperatures about 12C/ 23C and rainfall usually occasional and light. We are one of the sunniest places in Canada, and in July expect >16 hr daylight plus a lengthy dusk and dawn. The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 7 Discrimination and Harassment Policy for the American Society of Parasitologists Statement of Policy In accordance with the bylaws of the American Society of Parasitologists (ASP), the Society will afford an environment free from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The will not tolerate actions, statements, or contacts that discourage the free expression and exchange of scientific ideas. This includes unequal treatment or harassment of any person based on their age, gender, gender identity or expression, marital status, sexual orientation, race, color, national or ethnic origin, religious identifications, beliefs or practices, disabilities, veteran status, or any other reasons or expressions that are unrelated to their scientific merit. Harassment, sexual or otherwise, shall be considered as a form of misconduct and violators will be subject to disciplinary actions, including expulsion from a society function or from the society itself. Definition of Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment refers to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment does not refer to occasional compliments of a socially acceptable nature. It refers to behavior that is not welcome, is personally offensive, debilitates morale, and therefore, interferes with a collegial atmosphere. The following are examples of behavior that, when unwelcome, may constitute sexual harassment: sexual flirtations, advances, or propositions; verbal comments or physical actions of a sexual nature; sexually degrading words used to describe an individual; a display of sexually suggestive objects or pictures; sexually explicit jokes; unnecessary touching. What is perceived as acceptable to one person may be unwelcome by another. Those who have positions of authority or higher rank should be aware that others may be reluctant to outwardly express objections or discomfort regarding unwelcome behavior or language. Other Types of Harassment Remarks and behaviors based on other protected characteristics are also unacceptable to the Society. These include stereotyping, slurs, derogatory jokes or statements, and any hostile or intimidating acts. Policy Scope This policy applies to all attendees and participants at meetings and functions, including social functions, tours, or off-site activities during the course of meetings and functions, and include all members, guests, staff, contractors, and exhibitors. Reporting an Incident If any individual covered by this policy believes that they have experienced or witnessed harassment or bullying they should contact the society\u2019s designated individual [whose name will be posted in meeting programs, and the society website with names and emails included]. No complainant will be required to discuss any incident with a respondent, no respondent will be required to discuss any incident with a complainant. All individuals (complainant or respondent) may bring an accompanying individual of their choice with them for support at any point when they discuss the matter with the society\u2019s designated individual, or during any course of an ensuing investigation. Because allegations of discrimination, harassment and misconduct are sensitive matters with the potential to negatively impact the reputation of individuals, institutions, and/or our Society, confidentiality and discretion throughout the process is expected from all parties involved and is assured from the ASP's designated individual and all The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 8 involved in the investigation. Regardless, a complainant may speak in confidence with the society\u2019s designated individual without involving an official report, an investigation or a respondent. All complaints that are received will be treated seriously. and will be addressed promptly if that is the wish of a complainant. Any incidents of sexual assault should be immediately reported to the police. Note that many local and regional governments also consider a variety of behaviors to be reportable crimes regardless of the wishes of the complainant, respondent or of the society. Investigation Following the official report of an incident, the Society\u2019s designated individual, in consultation with Council, will name an impartial investigator, usually an elected officer or Council member, and the respondent will be promptly notified. No one who has a conflict of interest with respect to the complainant or respondent will serve in this role complainant will be asked to file a formal written complaint, the respondent will be notified immediately and prior to any discovery procedures respondent will be invited to respond to the complaint and allowed to bring evidence. The Council of the society reserves the right to interview other individuals as witnesses at its own discretion. The investigator is allowed to seek counsel if they are in doubt as to how to proceed. When the investigation is complete, the findings will be communicated to the elected officers, as well as both to the complainant and respondent. Those officers without a conflict of interest will decide on appropriate disciplinary actions. Retaliation The Society will not tolerate any form of retaliation against individuals who report an incident, against those who are subject to a complaint, nor against those who participate in an investigation. Retaliation will be considered a form of discrimination in and of itself and offenders will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including ejection from the society. Disciplinary Action If an individual harasses, retaliates, or knowingly makes a false claim, they will be subject to disciplinary action. These actions might range from a verbal warning to a request to leave the meeting or function without refund of fees and a reporting of the incident to the person\u2019s employer. Should repeated complaints, patterns of inappropriate behavior, or other events emerge, the society\u2019s by-laws permit its Council to exclude and eject members through a process that has no appeal. Appeal & Questions Should any person be dissatisfied with the result of an investigation or disciplinary action, they may appeal to the President of the Society, or to the highest ranking officer without a conflict of interest. Questions concerning the policy can be directed to an officer or the designated individual. The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 9 Willis A. Reid, Jr. Student Research Grants Keep in mind that there are student research grants available to student members of the - apply next year!! (-ed) Call for Applications In 2004, the American Society of Parasitologists began a new program to provide small grants to students studying parasitology. At this time, the is able to fund one graduate student ($1000) and one undergraduate student ($500) doing research in the field of parasitology. \u0002 Submissions must be received by January 20, 2016. \u0002 Awardees will be notified by April 1, 2016 and awards dispersed on that date. Eligibility The competition is open to undergraduate and graduate level student members affiliated with institutions or major professors who have limited or no grant money to support student research. Both the student and his/her major professor must be members of the at the time of application. (Applications for membership may be found at Documentation The application packet must include: 1 brief proposal written by the student (maximum of 3 pages, double-spaced, 11 pt typeface minimum in either Word, WordPerfect, or format only) outlining the student's proposed research must be submitted, along with a separate, detailed 1-page budget of how the money will be spent. Money can only be used for supplies, equipment, and travel expenses for research (not to attend and present results at meetings). 2 brief (1-2 pages). 3 letter of support from the student's major professor stating why the student needs funding and explaining why the student is a good candidate to receive the grant. NOTE: At the end of one year (April 1, 2017), awardees must submit a brief report (1-2 pages) summarizing their research activities over the year, outlining what was accomplished and the expenses incurred related to the initial proposal. Please submit proposals to: Dr. Ghislaine Mayer [email protected] The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 10 - Antonio D\u2019Alessandro MD, MPHTM, PhD Un hombre excepcional e insustituible, m\u00e9dico salubrista especialista en medicina tropical y parasit\u00f3logo argentino, educador genuino y de rigor infinito. Naci\u00f3 el 6 de abril de 1926 en Buenos Aires, Argentina y falleci\u00f3 el 28 de febrero de 2016 en esta misma ciudad a la edad de 89 a\u00f1os y con m\u00e1s de 6 d\u00e9cadas de una prestigiosa y productiva trayectoria profesional. Estudi\u00f3 la carrera de Medicina en la Universidad de Buenos Aires, fue Practicante y Medico Interno de la Sala Dr. Cosio Hospital de Cl\u00ednicas. En 1952 obtuvo el t\u00edtulo de Doctor en Medicina Cum Laude y Premio a la mejor tesis doctoral, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Argentina. La gran admiraci\u00f3n hacia su t\u00edo Juan Bacigalupo, eminente m\u00e9dico y parasit\u00f3logo Argentino ya fallecido, lo lleva desde 1945 a 1956 a desempe\u00f1arse como asistente y luego Jefe de la Cl\u00ednica de Enfermedades Parasitarias Instituto de Parasitolog\u00eda, piso 13 de la Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires. En 1956 parte a los Estados Unidos de Am\u00e9rica radic\u00e1ndose en Nueva Orleans. Guiado por sus mentores y maestros Profesor Paul C. Beaver y el Profesor Rodney Jung en 1957 obtiene el Master en Salud P\u00fablica y Medicina Tropical (MPHTM) y en 1961 un Doctorado en Parasitolog\u00eda y Medicina Tropical (PhD) en el Departamento de Medicina Tropical, Universidad de Tulane. Perteneciendo a la misma Universidad en 1961 el Dr. John Paterson lo manda al Centro Internacional de Entrenamiento e Investigaciones M\u00e9dicas, CIDEIM, en Cali, Colombia, hecho que cambio su vida. Fue el primer Director del y asimismo Jefe de la Misi\u00f3n T\u00e9cnica e Investigador Principal de dos programas de este Centro: tripanosomiasis y echinococcosis en humanos y en animales de Colombia. Fue igualmente Profesor de Medicina en la Universidad del Valle, mantuvo una consultor\u00eda activa en el Hospital de la Universidad del Valle e incluso contribuy\u00f3 activamente a la fundaci\u00f3n de la Escuela de Medicina en Cali, Colombia su retorno a Tulane desde Colombia fue el profesor responsable del programa en Salud Publica y Medicina Tropical a una generaci\u00f3n de m\u00e9dicos en entrenamiento a los cuales ofreci\u00f3 una mezcla de experiencia cl\u00ednica, pericia parasitol\u00f3gica y percepci\u00f3n human\u00edstica. En los 23 a\u00f1os de permanencia en CIDEIM, facilit\u00f3 el aprendizaje de innumerables investigadores en diferentes aspectos de parasitolog\u00eda, medicina tropical y salud internacional. Contribuy\u00f3 de forma multidisciplinaria al estudio de una variedad de par\u00e1sitos e infecciones parasitarias. Particip\u00f3 activamente en los primeros estudios exploratorios del proyecto leishmaniasis en el Municipio de Tumaco, posicionando al como instituci\u00f3n l\u00edder a nivel mundial en la investigaci\u00f3n, la prevenci\u00f3n y el control de esta enfermedad. Junto a al Dr. Dale Little de la Universidad de Tulane, investigaron paragonimiasis en casos humanos de Per\u00fa y Ecuador y su relaci\u00f3n con las especies de Paragonimus spp. encontradas en zarig\u00fceyas de zonas de Cali, Colombia, como as\u00ed tambi\u00e9n los primeros casos de onchocercosis en este pa\u00eds. Iniciador de los estudios de Trypanosoma rangeli. En el campo de la The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 11 Echinococcosis, junto con su colega y amigo el Dr. Robert Raush, llevaron a cabo estudios que tuvieron un impacto determinante en el entendimiento de las especies ind\u00edgenas E. vogeli y E. oligarthrus, revelando un papel decisivo en el contexto ecol\u00f3gico para la transmisi\u00f3n y perpetuaci\u00f3n de la echinococcosis neotropical poliqu\u00edstica y uniquistica en Am\u00e9rica del Sur. Antonio D\u2019Alessandro y Robert Raush \u201cpadres y maestros de la Echinococcosis Neotropical\u201d establecieron el diagn\u00f3stico microsc\u00f3pico diferencial entre los quistes de las cuatro especies de Echinococcus. Describieron la histog\u00e9nesis, el mecanismo de patog\u00e9nesis y reconocieron las caracter\u00edsticas cl\u00ednicas, diagn\u00f3sticas y terap\u00e9uticas de la echinococcosis poliqu\u00edstica. En Honduras, dirigi\u00f3 dos cursos internacionales de educaci\u00f3n cont\u00ednua en parasitolog\u00eda, con apoyo de la Organizaci\u00f3n Mundial de la Salud y la Organizaci\u00f3n Panamericana de la Salud/Washington/Honduras en 1994 y 1995. Estimul\u00f3 la creaci\u00f3n de un laboratorio docente para la pr\u00e1ctica de alumnos de medicina dentro del Servicio de Parasitolog\u00eda del Departamento de Laboratorio Cl\u00ednico, Hospital Escuela Universitario, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, que funciona desde 1997. La producci\u00f2n cient\u00edfica del Dr. D\u2019Alessandro incluye numerosos art\u00edculos con revisi\u00f3n de pares en revistas nacionales e internacionales y cap\u00edtulos de libros sobre temas en echinococcosis, trypanosomiasis, leishmaniasis, c\u00e9stodos, filariasis, amebiasis y otros temas diversos. Fue miembro de Sociedades Cient\u00edficas nacionales e internacionales. De regreso a su pa\u00eds natal en el a\u00f1o 2008, el Dr. D\u2019Alessandro continuo activo en el \u00e1rea cient\u00edfico-t\u00e9cnica y cultural. En el a\u00f1o 2011 fue nombrado Asesor de la Echinococcosis Neotropical y otras zoonosis, Departamento Parasitologia \u201cDr. Carlos G. Malbran\u201d, Ministerio de Salud de la Naci\u00f3n, Argentina asesorando y participando activamente en la documentaci\u00f3n de los casos de Echinococcosis Neotropical y otras parasitosis en el noreste del pa\u00eds. En 2014 fue nombrado Miembro consultor del Grupo de Echinococcosis Neotropical del Cono Sur y Pan-Amazonia, promoviendo junto con miembros del Grupo la inclusi\u00f3n de la Echinococcosis Neotropical en la Clasificaci\u00f3n Internacional de Enfermedades, CIE-10, logrando as\u00ed su gran anhelo\u2026 que esta enfermedad desconocida y olvidada por muchos sea considerada en el diagn\u00f2stico diferencial de masas poliqu\u00edsticas. Tal como lo manifest\u00f2 en el a\u00f1o 2001 \u201c\u2026esta enfermedad interesante que ya no es una curiosidad, sino un problema m\u00e9dico de f\u00e1cil manejo\u2026 no deber\u00edan tomarla como una simple curiosidad ex\u00f3tica, mas deben tener el conocimiento para reconocerla y considerarla en el diagn\u00f3stico diferencial de masas poliqu\u00edsticas que afectan a m\u00faltiples \u00f2rganos, principalmente el h\u00edgado\u2026 el n\u00famero de casos reconocidos de la enfermedad poliqu\u00edstica es probablemente la punta del iceberg\u201d. Por otra parte, el Dr. D\u2019Alessandro fue un hombre de vasta cultura universal y apreciador del arte general y en especial del arte precolombino. Quien en el a\u00f1o 2015 dono su colecci\u00f3n de 401 piezas precolombinas datadas entre el 1500 y el 1500 al Museo de Arte Latinoamericano de Buenos Aires, Argentina (MALBA). La colecci\u00f3n se conform\u00f3 durante los m\u00e1s de veinte a\u00f1os de residencia del Dr. Antonio D\u00b4Alessandro y su esposa, Raquel Montenegro, en Colombia. La colecci\u00f3n \u201cD\u2019Alessandro de arte precolombino\u201d permanece de forma permanente abierta al p\u00fablico. Por sus innumerables m\u00e9ritos mereci\u00f3 diversas distinciones que llevaba con gran orgullo pero con la sencillez de un hombre que hab\u00eda recorrido numerosos caminos en su vida profesional y personal y que regresaba con un haber de sabidur\u00eda que lo hac\u00eda distinguirse entre muchos. Algunos de ellos fueron: \u207b Doctor en Medicina Cum Laude y Premio a la mejor tesis doctoral. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina, en 1952. The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 12 \u207b Premio Lederle al mejor trabajo de Ciencias B\u00e1sicas: Ciclo de vida del Echinococcus vogeli, nuevo agente de la hidatidosis poliqu\u00edstica, en 1978. \u207b Miembro fundador de la Federaci\u00f3n Latinoamericana de Parasitologia, FLAP, 1963. \u207b Miembro Comit\u00e9 Asesor y T\u00e9cnico del Tropical Disease Research, TDR, OMS/WHO, Ginebra, Suiza, de 1983 a 1986. \u207b Profesor Em\u00e9rito, Departamento de Medicina y de la Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia, 1984, a\u00f1o que retorna a la Universidad de Tulane, en Nueva Orleans, Estados Unidos. \u207b Condecorado por la Escuela de Medicina de la Universidad del Valle por servicios a la misma como profesor durante m\u00e1s de 30 a\u00f1os en 1993. \u207b \u201cMaestro de la Parasitolog\u00eda Argentina\u201d otorgado por la Sociedad Argentina de Parasitolog\u00eda, por importantes contribuciones a esa especialidad, en 2000. \u207b Condecorado con la distinci\u00f2n \u201cCave Canes\u201d por la Filial Argentina Sociedad Internacional de Hidatidologia, por su trayectoria y aportes en el campo de la Hidatidosis, en 2014. \u207b Diploma de M\u00e9rito al Reconocimiento en la contribuci\u00f3n en el campo de la Equinococosis por Asociaci\u00f3n Internacional de Hidatidolog\u00eda. XXVIth World Congress on Echinoccocosis, Bucharest, Romania, en 2015. El Dr. Antonio D\u2019Alessandro nos regal\u00f2 el lujo de su sabidur\u00eda y experiencia; su elevado sentido del respeto y la \u00e9tica profesional; con alto concepto de la amistad y la familia. Nunca m\u00e1s lo veremos llegando a los eventos cient\u00edficos o reuniones, con su inigualable presencia: mo\u00f1ito al cuello y bast\u00f3n en mano, con su andar tranquilo su disponibilidad, su escucha atenta y su intervenci\u00f3n precisa, y su inigualable sentido del humor. Pero los grandes pensadores, los grandes maestros y los hombres de bien no se van aunque mueran. De Antonio quedar\u00e1n, en todos nosotros, siempre sus pensamientos y sus actos para seguir imitando. La vida para \u00e9l se resum\u00eda en dos l\u00edneas\u2026 Poco antes de su partida expres\u00f3: \"estoy agradecido a la vida, a este regalo extra que me da la vida\u2026 no le tengo miedo a la muerte porque vivo la vida y estoy en paz as\u00ed era, viv\u00eda cada d\u00eda como si fuera a vivir mil m\u00e1s haciendo llegar constantemente sus consejos con una infinita positiva visi\u00f3n de futuro. Los gigantes como el Dr. D\u2019Alessandro no desaparecen; dejan huellas eternas; echan fuertes ra\u00edces; son generadores de talentos y seguidores; multiplican sus semillas, dejan legados y hacen escuelas. De una gran amiga, disc\u00edpula y nieta del coraz\u00f3n Katherina A. Vizcaychipi Servicio Inmunolog\u00eda Parasitaria Departamento Parasitolog\u00eda \u201cDr. Carlos G. Malbran\u201d MSN, Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 13 Some Information for Summer-Time Travel at the Rare Disease Report - online. Dan states that believe we should adopt the biodiversity Precautionary Principle, which states that incomplete knowledge is not reason not to act. And in fact, there is much knowledge about the natural history of pathogens and vectors that can be exploited to develop policies designed to \"find them before they find us.\" My group of colleagues proposed last year a protocol with the acronym (Document, Assess, Monitor, Act).\" Brooks, D.R., et al., 2014. Finding them before they find us: Informatics, parasites, and environments in accelerating climate change. Comparative Parasitology 81:155-164. \u0002 The Zika Virus Information Page This page provides information about Zika virus, distribtion, Zika and pregnancy, Zika and travel, and countries and territories with active Zika virus transmission. \u0002 The Institut Pasteur Zika information page. This page gives good information on Zika from the French perspective. \u0002 European Commission - Public Health. This page lists latest developments in Zika virus distribution and research - Zika virus data. This is the page on the current Zika virus outbreak. Key Facts from the web site: --Zika virus disease is caused by a virus transmitted primarily by species of mosquitoes of the genus Aedes. --People with Zika virus disease can have symptoms including mild fever, skin rash, conjunctivitis, muscle and joint pain, malaise or headache. These symptoms normally last for 2-7 days. --There is scientific consensus that Zika virus is a cause of both microcephaly and Guillain-Barr\u00e9 syndrome. Links to other neurological complications are also being investigated. The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 14 National Science Foundation claim to reinstate the the program actually another 50% cut in funding for the Program: Collections in Support of Biological Research The recently reinstated program in the Division of Biological Infrastructure at the National Science Foundation sounds good at first mention (See Nature Article). But when you look at the way the has been cutting support for collections over the past few years, it is actually resulting in another big cut (50%) in funding of natural history and biodiversity resources in the US. Various people around the country who read of the \"reversal\" of the track that the has taken when they announced the decision to reinstate the program (on a two year cycle) indicated that they were delighted. This is because they are not thinking of biological resources and collections in the in the long term. Looking at the funding from 5 years ago to the present shows \"cut creep\" moving into the system. Since about 2010 with various cuts and combining programs (the living stocks and the natural history collections program - without a concomitant increase in budget), this actually resulted in a cut in the budget of the collections grants to the present time of about 75%. There is now an internal review of the program occurring and the whole program depends on the results of the internal review. This writer encourages anyone interested in the natural history museums, collections, and biodiversity resources of the to keep the pressure up on the by calling and writing directly to France A. C\u00f3rdova, who is the director of the and express your views. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 292-8000 Signed: Anonymous (This was submitted by a reader and passionate supporter of biodiversity preservation, collections, and natural history and has asked not to have her name revealed. -ed.) The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 15 The relevance of supporting your Scientific Society. During this brief essay want to talk about scientific societies, in particular and its regional societies will ask the readership to share their thoughts on the strengths of our society. In addition will offer a testimony of the direct benefits resulting from my participation in ASP, the regional and national meetings. During the annual meeting of the American Society of Parasitologists held in Quebec, Canada in 2013 had the chance to get re- acquainted with several colleagues. It was very rewarding to chat with people one has not seen in as long as 16 years. During this encounter, we had the chance to remember field experiences and realized that we remembered things very differently. In some cases we realized that one of us have forgotten events that, to the other part appeared crucial to the experience. It is frequent to realize this selective memory of events with siblings, family members and with people who were part of the crew of fieldwork. However, our conversations transitioned into more intellectual fields, ranging from the abnegated endeavor of doing science in different countries to the tenets of our discipline. As part of these conversations, we got engaged into the long-term goals of the American Society of Parasitologists and other organismal societies. During the same discussion, we compared to other scientific societies, their missions and their tendencies. One gets to discuss these topics as a result of a common objective. In this particular case was inspired to inquire about those topics because was elected as a Council Member. As such sat in the Council Meeting for the first time and was impressed by the fact that several topics in the agenda revolved around the dwindling membership of the Society and Journal subscriptions. Nobody seemed to have a firm answer that explained our decline when other national societies opened sections to study parasites and parasitism (as an example, the Section of Disease Ecology in the Ecological Society of America was founded in 2014 ). Some of my colleagues pinpointed the fact that the is an organismal society. Thus, it does not have a paradigm, a cohesive topic, and as a first consequence this would hinder its ability to attract new members that try to make contributions into the topics that propel science. The concept makes some sense, since there is no unifying theory that unites all of the topics covered during the meetings of the ASP. However was left thinking that some societies do not have a unifying theory or paradigm as well. If one seeks in the mission statements of non-organismal societies (i.e., the ones listed in the previous paragraph), one will note that they are not any different than the purpose of the ASP. The mission of is to promote the study of parasites and parasitism. And as such, the membership of has made substantial contributions to science and the wellbeing of humankind. As highlighted in the previous Newsletter, the effects of Avermectins in worms were first presented in an annual meeting of the in Chicago in 1978. The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 16 Little do have to explain to the readership the transcendence of these discoveries. But apparently we need to highlight the relevance of the findings of our membership and the communication of these findings to our colleagues. With the annual meeting about to start in Edmonton, Alberta wonder if the membership considers it important to share their findings with their peers do agree that it may be important to communicate our findings to non-parasitologists, yet suspect that presenting these ideas to the critical core of colleagues is fundamental wonder if the membership can share with me the most impacting presentations, papers, and concepts one has learned during the annual meeting of ASP. Feel free to send me a postcard (from Edmonton) or an e-mail with your impressions. These long lasting concepts are -in my opinion- what makes the relevant. The second part of this contribution also deals with the benefits of attending the annual meeting or the meetings of the affiliate societies (find the complete list of regional Parasitological societies here or at the end of this newsletter must tell you that am a member of four of those and will use the lines below to convince you that being a member of these societies does give enormous benefits as an individual should start by saying that had the privilege to serve as President of in 2008 also should say that served as a president of fairly early in my career, when traditionally that post would be left to seasoned academics feel that one of the reasons for this happenstance included the fact that the participation of more senior faculty in these meetings declined dramatically in the early 2000\u2019s. One could list several circumstances that resulted in this decline, including retirement and increase of workloads, among others. Thus, younger faculty and academics are left to play the important roles in these societies. Therefore, it is imperative that the younger faculty (we are all young, as long as we continue learning) increases participation in the meetings. Sometimes heard colleagues identifying societal participation as a burden. These same colleagues state that participation in meetings takes a substantial amount of time and results in no direct benefit do not intend to force people into attending and participating in these societal meetings. Sometimes there are more important things to do that prevent participation. However want to stress that this participation does have positive results and offer a personal testimony. First feel that my participation regenerates my intellectual curiosity. As faculty in a research institution there are not a lot of opportunities to engage in deep scientific conversations with most of my peers. This is not because of the lack of interest, rather is the result of lack of time for promoting interactions and increasing one\u2019s background on topics not directly related to one\u2019s research. When attend the meetings have the chance to interact with colleagues and students who introduce me to new and exciting problems in parasitology. Second, it strengthens my professional background credit my current position with my participation in parasitological meetings am now a tenured associate professor. The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 17 Serving as an officer in any scientific society provides the opportunity to learn the ropes in how to run (business) meetings. That is right, even after memorizing the Robert\u2019s Rules of Order practical experience with your friendly colleagues is key. It grants the proper experience so one does not make rookie mistakes when serving in an institutional wide committee (academy or industry). Acting as an officer also gives one professional experience and in every academic department this service counts towards workload. The most important aspect, is that this participation affords the chance to interact with one\u2019s peers. This is a golden opportunity because these individuals may vouch for your work sometime in the future. Just consider the process of promotion and tenure. In most cases you require letters from peers who are not your collaborators. The list of individuals who can evaluate your work may come directly from the membership book of the ASP. It is more likely that these people make an effort in evaluating your materials if you contribute to their societal goals (this is an idea taken from Kuhn hope you all have a great time in Edmonton. Feel free to send me your impressions from the meetings and ideas on how to increase membership in ASP. You can also share your thoughts directly with any member of the Council. Best regards. Agust\u00edn Jim\u00e9nez Department of Zoology Southern Illinois University Carbondale 62901-6501 Agustinjz @siu.edu The Journal of Parasitology Newsletter. Vol. 38, No. 2, 2016 18 Note to Members - The Newsletter welcomes news of parasitological interest. Please send your text electronically to the editor as an e-mail and attach as an Word document. Drawings, photographs, charts, or tables can be sent as files at 300 dpi. Thanks: [email protected] Editor Scott Lyell Gardner, Ph.D. Editor Newsletter Curator of Parasitology The Harold W. Manter Lab. of Parasitology W-529 Nebraska Hall The University of Nebraska State Museum University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0514 Tel: 402-472-3334 Fax: 402-472-8949 E-mail: [email protected] Scott Lyell Gardner -Annual Midwestern Conference of Parasitologists -Helminthological Society of Washington -New England Association of Parasitologists -Northern California society of Parasitologists -Parasitology Section, Canadian Society of Zoologists -Rocky Mountain Conference of Parasitologists -Southeastern Society of Parasitologists -Southern California Society of Parasitologists -Southwestern Association of Parasitologists Editor Newsletter ____________________________", "8611_102.pdf": "Mark E. Siddall 572 Amsterdam Avenue New York 10024 October 8, 2020 I, Mark Siddall, am over the age of 18 and of sound mind and body and do declare and affirm as follows. Michael Balter has re-published other persons\u2019 false statements regarding me on his blog ( has made false statements of his own regarding me on that blog and has posted false statements regarding me of his own on Twitter account ( The following statement on 24 Aug 2020 published by Michael Balter on his blog was false researcher Mark Siddall has been fired was an employee of the until September 3. The following statement made by Joanna Wolfe on Twitter on 7 September 2020 was republished by Michael Balter on his blog. The statement is false. \"Mark Siddall [was] my postdoc advisor from 2012-2014 am also a victim of his actions, especially gender and sexual harassment have never sexually harassed Joanna Wolfe have never gender harassed Joanna Wolfe. Jo Wolfe provides no evidence, instance or corroboration. Dr. Wolfe has not been in my lab since November of 2014. From September 2012 through November 2014, Dr. Wolfe was a \u201cresponsible employee\u201d under Title rules in New York state when she was a postdoctoral employee at the American Museum of Natural History and required by law to report any and all Title violations of which she was aware. The American Museum of Natural History had then and now has in place, mechanisms for anonymous reporting, and for reporting violations in confidence. She filed no complaint. Her fellow students and postdocs from that time that have been able to contact about this have said to me that they have no idea to what she is referring. Her statement is false. The following Twitter statement made by Joanna Wolfe on Twitter on 7 September 2020 was republished by Michael Balter on his blog. The statement is false. \u201cMy lack of publications during the years in Mark's lab have been used against me in job searches, as has my lack of recommendation letter... \" Joanna Wolfe was in my lab from September 2012 through November 2014. Her Google Scholar record shows that she published a paper in each of September 2012, June 2013, and August 2014. She also wrote 2 pre-proposals and a full grant proposal to the National Science Foundation in that time. She did not produce a paper in 2015; the year after she was no longer in my lab. In separate emails from Joanna Wolfe of 30 November 2015 and of 28 April 2016 she assigned responsibility for her lack of productivity on her advisor of 2015 and 2016, not on me have written 36 letters of recommendation for Joanna Wolfe. Twenty-five of those were from the time that she was in my lab. Dr. Wolfe\u2019s statement is demonstrably false. The following statement made by Maddy Foote on Twitter on 10 September 2020 was republished by Michael Balter on his blog. The statement is false. \"...[Siddall] messaged me incessantly until paid attention to him, often asking things like 'which bottle of wine should drink?' And when didn't pay attention he threatened to take away my research resources.\u201d Ms. Foote paid full attention throughout a suite of computational sequence clustering instructions simultaneously messaged to her and her advisor Sebastian Kvist on 6 September 2018 at her request. The messages were not \u201cincessant have those messages. Maddy Foote used to be in the restaurant industry and only once, not often, asked her for her opinion on a wine never threatened Maddy Foote have never threatened to take away any research resources from Maddy Foote have never had any control over any of Maddy Foote\u2019s research resources wrote Maddy Foote an unequivocally positive letter regarding her application to the graduate School at have those messages and emails. Maddy Foote\u2019s statement is false. The following statement made by former mentee of Susan Perkins\u2019, Kelly Speer, was republished by Michael Balter on his blog. The statement is false. \"It's horrible that Mark Siddall was allowed to hurt more people before action was taken filed a complaint against him for accosting me at a bar. [AMNH] determined it wasn't a pattern of behavior so no action was taken.\u201d On 6 April 2017, in a bar, immediately after defended the integrity of student who was besmirched in her absence (by another student), Kelly Speer and her husband (and that other student) blocked my egress was accosted did not accost anyone politely listened to them and followed up with a polite email that evening after verifying facts with the student who had defended in her absence and with another student have that email. Susan Perkins\u2019 student Kelly Speer reported the matter to which evaluated the matter and not just that it was not \u201ca pattern\u201d but, in fact \u201cfound no violation of the Museum's Anti-Harassment and Bullying Policy.\u201d This matter was resurrected by Dr. Perkins in a later dispute in 2017, whereupon it was also investigated by Protection and similarly was found to be without substance. The following statement by Michael Balter on his blog (and referencing me by my name \u201cMark Siddall\u201d) is false: \"in fact he had been reprimanded for sexual harassment some years back\u201d Also false is this statement by Michael Balter on his blog \u201cMark Siddall\u2019s abuses were widely known by the museum, by HR, by the administration (he had been reprimanded before), the president had never previously been reprimanded for sexual harassment or abuses. Ever. The following statements by Michael Balter on his blog (referencing me by my name \u201cMark Siddall\u201d) are false. \"Banned from teaching in the museum's graduate school am reliably told\u201d and \"Yes, the ban on teaching was apparently at the graduate school\u201d In an email as recently as 18 January 2017 the Graduate School asked me to teach declined because was overcommitted. Furthermore, as an instructor of record for Systematics and Biogeography in the Graduate school have continued to be involved in Qualifying Exams for graduate students was not banned from teaching in the graduate school. The statement is false. The following statement on Twitter by Michael Balter on 7 September 2020 (referencing me by my name \u201cMark Siddall\u201d) is false. With a stated intent to harm my ability to be employed and provide for my family \u201cdo not hire this man\u201d he wrote \u201cso many years of harassment and abuse (my protected opinion).\u201d The statement is false. Stating that they are \u201cprotected\u201d does not make them so. There was no \u201cyears of harassment and abuse.\u201d In that Tweet (and in an email to me at [email protected]) Michael Balter makes plain his intent to deny me reemployment thus denying my right to provide for my family. The following statement on Twitter by Michael Balter on 8 September 2020 (referencing me by my name \u201cMark Siddall\u201d) is false. \u201cJust the tip of the iceberg in a sea of abuse and harassment he committed against women at the museum over many years have not abused anyone, and there have not been any findings to that effect. There is no record of harassment committed against women at the museum over many years. His statement is false. The following statement on Twitter by Michael Balter on 9 September 2020 (referencing me by my name \u201cMark Siddall\u201d) is false pattern of years of abuse have not abused anyone, and there have not been any findings to that effect, there is no pattern, there is no pattern of years. His statement is false. The following statement on Twitter by Michael Balter on 10 September 2020 (referencing me by my name \u201cMark Siddall\u201d) is false. \u201cSiddall was always threatening to sue have never threatened to sue anyone have never sued anyone. His statement is false statement on Twitter by Michael Balter on 10 September 2020 refers to a \u201critual\u201d carried out at in which students were warned to stay away from \u201cMark Siddall long tradition going back many years.\u201d The statement is false. There was no ritual. The following statement on Twitter by Michael Balter on 10 September 2020 is false. He states \u201cDan Scheiner, while vice president for human resources at gave Mark Siddall one pass after another despite repeated complaints of abuse\u201d The record will show that Dan Scheiner never gave me a pass and there are no findings of \u2018abuse\u201d. This statement is false. The following statement on his blog by Michael Balter on 11 September 2020 is false. \"the abuse and oppression Mark Siddall (and those who enabled him, see below) was responsible for have not abused anyone have not oppressed anyone, and there are no complaints that abused or oppressed anyone. His statement is false. The following statement on Twitter by Michael Balter on 12 September 2020 is false. \u201cwe know that the @amnh division fielded reports of sexual harassment, severe bullying, retaliation, constant drunkenness at work, other abuses by curator Mark Siddall, over many years\u201d This statement was made without evidence or substance, it is false in all aspects. The following statement on Twitter by Michael Balter on 14 September 2020 is false. Michael Balter in his Twitter feed referred to me as a \u201chorrible predator\u201d and \u201csexual predator and severe bully, Mark Siddall.\u201d In New York State where he and both live, a sexual predator is someone who has been found guilty of a sexually violent offense as defined in section 168-a of the Correction Law. The statement is false. The following statement on Twitter by Michael Balter on 16 September 2020 is false. \u201cMark Siddall \u2026 is likely to get revenge on his accusers. That is his style, threats and more threats have threatened no one have never threatened revenge on anyone. The statement is false. The following statement on Twitter by Michael Balter on 22 September 2020 is false. Balter in his Twitter feed stated that \u201cMark Siddall \u2026he has a long history as an abusive bully and harasser have never prior to August of 2020 been found responsible for bullying or harassment. The statement is false. The following statement on his blog by Michael Balter on 24 September 2020 is false. \"Siddall got a chance to offer some lame denials of his well-documented behavior, and a survivor of his abuse--former museum microbiologist and current dean of science at the City College of New York, Susan Perkins--got a chance to briefly describe her experiences have not abused anyone, and there are no complaints that abused anyone. During a time in which Perkins was in a position of authority over me as Chair of the Faculty Senate she filed a single complaint in 2017 filed a counter complaint. Her complaint was not one of \u201cabuse\u201d. This was all investigated by Protection law firm and was found to be without substance. Balter\u2019s statement is false hereby declare, testify and affirm that the above is true, accurate and complete. Sincerely Dr. Mark E. Siddall", "8611_103.pdf": "Mark Siddall Mark E. Siddall is a Canadian biologist and former curator[1] at the American Museum of Natural History. Siddall has studied the evolution and systematics of blood parasites and leeches, and systematic theory[2]. Siddall was hired as an assistant curator at the American Museum of Natural History in July, 1999[3] and worked there as a curator until September, 2020, when he was terminated for allegedly having violated the museum's policy prohibiting sexual relationships between staff and mentees. Siddall denied the claim.[1] Siddall completed a Masters[4] and PhD[5] under the supervision of Sherwin S. Desser at the University of Toronto in 1991 and 1994, respectively.[6] After completing his PhD, Siddall completed a postdoc at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.[7] Subsequently, he was a fellow in the Michigan Society of Fellows from 1996-1999.[8] He also acted as treasurer of the Willi Hennig Society, publisher of the journal Cladistics.[9] Siddall has worked and published on parasitic and other animals, including leeches,[10] jellyfish,[11] guinea worms,[12] and bed bugs.[13][14] He is author of the science book Poison: Sinister Species with Deadly Consequences.[15] In 2016, Siddall, Jonathan Eisen, and others were involved in the Twitter controversy #ParsimonyGate.[9] The American Museum of Natural History fired Siddall in September 2020 for alleged sexual harassment, citing museum policy that prohibits sexual relationships between staff and mentees under their academic supervision.[1] An outside law firm representing the museum's interests found that Siddall had \"engaged in verbal, written, and physical conduct of a sexual nature that had the effect of unreasonably interfering with your academic performance.\"[1] Siddall denied that any sexual encounter ever took place, and claimed he was fired because \"he had found a serious error\" in a paper.[1] Education Career 2/16/25, 10:30 Mark Siddall - Wikipedia 1/3 Siddall studies phylogenetics and evolution.[10] Siddall has been described as \"a staunch supporter of parsimony and a harsh critic of maximum likelihood approaches\u201d, although \"having mellowed a bit on that\".[7] 1. Jacobs, Julia (October 2, 2020). \"Museum Fires Curator Who It Says Sexually Harassed Student Researcher\" ( New york Times. 2. Siddall, Mark; Kluge, Arnold (December 1997). \"Probabilism and phylogenetic inference\". Cladistics. 13 (4): 313\u2013336. doi:10.1006/clad.1997.0046 ( 46). hdl:2027.42/71951 ( 3 E. SIDDALL\" ( ba0e832e279739fb0691b74b947f6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41450). ProQuest. 4 of Magazine | Winter 2014\" ( Issuu. 10 December 2013. 5. \"Mark Siddall\" ( World Science Festival. Retrieved 2021-03-12. 6. Siddall, Mark E. (2016). \"Presidential Address: Reinvention and Resolve\". The Journal of Parasitology. 102 (6): 566\u2013571. doi:10.1645/16-113 ( 44810235 ( 27626125 ( nlm.nih.gov/27626125). S2CID 11802614 ( 7. Burreson, Eugene M.; Siddall, Mark E.; Connors, Vincent A. (2002). \"Society Business\". The Journal of Parasitology. 88 (6): 1053\u20131070. doi:10.1645/0022- 3395(2002)088[1053:IOMESA]2.0.CO;2 ( 8%5B1053%3AIOMESA%5D2.0.CO%3B2 3285473 ( 3 12537094 ( S2CID 44766356 ( manticscholar.org/CorpusID:44766356). 8. \"All Events University of Michigan Herbarium\" ( vents/all-events.detail.html/37412-6534097.html). lsa.umich.edu. 9. \"Twitter Nerd-Fight Reveals a Long, Bizarre Scientific Feud\" ( er-nerd-fight-reveals-a-long-bizarre-scientific-feud/). Wired 1059-1028 ( at.org/issn/1059-1028). Retrieved 2021-06-26. 10. Zimmer, Carl (2006-02-07). \"His Subject: Highly Evolved and Exquisitely Thirsty\" ( mes.com/2006/02/07/science/his-subject-highly-evolved-and-exquisitely-thirsty.html). The New York Times 0362-4331 ( Retrieved 2021-04-13. 11. Yong, Ed (2016-08-22 Tiny Jellyfish Relative Just Shut Down Yellowstone River\" ( theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/the-parasite-that-just-shut-down-a-montana-river-has-an- unbelievable-origin/496817/). The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-04-13. 12. Palmer, Brian (2015-03-10). \"We're on the Verge of the Greatest Public Health Triumph of the 21st Century\" ( bout-others-bring-a-public-health-victory.html). Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2021-04-13. 13. Borel, Brooke (2016-02-02). \"Bed bug genome shows how gnarly these creatures really are\" (http s:// cations). The Verge. Retrieved 2021-04-13. Research References 2/16/25, 10:30 Mark Siddall - Wikipedia 2/3 14. Kolbert, Elizabeth. \"Old Bugs\" ( The New Yorker. Retrieved 2021-04-13. 15. Mark Siddall (2014). Poison: Sinister Species with Deadly Consequences ( m/books?id=4PVBmQEACAAJ). Sterling Publishing Company, Incorporated 978-1-4549- 0764-0. Retrieved from \" 2/16/25, 10:30 Mark Siddall - Wikipedia 3/3", "8611_104.pdf": "\uf007Michael Balter \uf0179/04/2020 04:08:00 Home \uf054Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] Over the past weeks have been Tweeting about the misconduct investigation the American Museum of Natural History in New York City has been conducting on its long-time curator in the Division of Invertebrate Zoology, Mark Siddall. More recently reported that he had been fired. The official word comes today: \uf10d From: Michael Novacek <[email protected]> Subject: Message for Curators and Division of Invertebrate Zoology staff members Date: September 4, 2020 at 3:01:14 Cc: Michael Novacek <[email protected]>, Kala Harinarayanan <[email protected]> Dear Curators and Division of Invertebrate Zoology staff members, Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] \uf099 \uf09a \uf0e1 Social Media The truth at last, or at le some of it, about Peter Rathjen, the of Adelaid the of Melbourne, the of Tasmania, etc. [Updat Sept 3, 2020: University Melbourne \"leader\" final speaks] Popular Posts StatCounter Search Search this site My book about Neolithic Catalhoyuk in Turkey and the origins of civilization, th paperback edition. For more informatio about it, please visit The Goddess and the Bull The Goddess and the Bull \"Lying is done with words and also with silence.\" --Adrienne Rich Quotes of the Moment 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 1/13 We write to let you know that Dr. Mark Siddall was terminated from his employment with the Museum, effective September 3, 2020, due to violating the Museum\u2019s anti-harassment policies. As a result, Dr. Siddall will not be available for any Museum-related work. If you have ongoing projects with Dr. Siddall, please contact your supervisor or the Provost\u2019s Office. Michael Novacek, Senior Vice President and Provost Kala Harinarayanan, Vice President of Human Resources \uf10e It's too soon to say much about the details, but let's just say that he made the museum's women, and men too, miserable for many many years. He finally went too far, apparently, and now he is gone. Good riddance. By the way, reports have reached me that Siddall is trying to find a new job, and telling people that he left the museum voluntarily. That is obviously a lie. Don't let this harasser get passed, please. Update am still piecing together the full story here, but it is clear that the museum has known about Siddall's behavior for many years, and in fact he had been reprimanded for sexual harassment some years back. Banned from teaching in the museum's graduate school am reliably told. More to come. Update Sept 9, 2020 pattern of years of abuse, covered up by the American Museum of Natural History. Over the last 24 hours, a number of Siddall's victims and their allies (including people the victims have told) have taken to social media to briefly describe their experiences with him key, widely shared demand is that the museum engage in full disclosure of how and why Siddall was allowed to traumatize colleagues for so many years. That means disclosing who knew, when and what they knew, and what they did or did not do about it. Perhaps will take some lawsuits from survivors to pry that information loose, but the museum would be better off doing its own, fully transparent, inquiry now, and let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps even a fully independent inquiry would be necessary to get at the truth. The is evidently hoping that getting rid of Siddall after all these years, with a minimal internal announcement to museum staff, is enough to show that they take harassment seriously. Bullshit. My sources say that the museum administration was fully aware--right up to the top ranks--of Siddall's behavior all this time, but that the department was used as a shield to deflect all complaints. They got away with this for years. We still don't know what the actual findings were in the investigation of Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example; and the only time that the museum has shown any transparency was in the case of disgraced human origins curator and sexual predator Brian Richmond. Why? Because Science magazine already had the whole story. It is heartening to see the pressure building on the museum. But what about the New York media? The New York Times never wrote a word about the Richmond case, and reported next to nothing about the Tyson case. Why not? Another question that needs answering, although the overlap between New York elites that run the museum and the Times might provide some clues. Update Sept 11, 2020: Survivors begin to speak out. The search for accountability begins. Over the past couple of days, survivors of Siddall's abuses and other witnesses to aspects of them have been very vocal on social media. These expressions of outrage, grief, and anger represent acts of courage by women (and a few men) who have never been given the forum nor the opportunity to \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 \uf054 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Michael Balter View my complete profile About Me Enter your email address: Subscribe Delivered by FeedBurner Subscribe via email 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 2/13 be courageous, because the fear of retaliation--and the almost total negligence of their plight by the administration, from to the top echelons--made it almost impossible. I'm going to quote some of the statements people have made, leaving out the names, since these are not my stories to tell and have not talked to some of the survivors about their experiences. But since they are public think it is important to put all these reactions in one place, so that everyone can feel the weight of the abuse and oppression Mark Siddall (and those who enabled him, see below) was responsible for. --\"I'm overwhelmed by how many reaching out also suffered at his hands. We are not alone. We will get through this together carry an enormous amount of trauma in me that generally try to stamp down but these past weeks have reminded me that it's very much still there. Seeing his photo so much is jarring and painful. Reading the name is painful hope someday to not have these reactions and hope that the others are able to heal, too.\" --\"Mark Siddall [was] my postdoc advisor from 2012-2014 am also a victim of his actions, especially gender and sexual harassment... My lack of publications during the years in Mark's lab have been used against me in job searches, as has my lack of recommendation letter feared retaliation due to his volatile personality...\" --\"...[Siddall] messaged me incessantly until paid attention to him, often asking things like 'which bottle of wine should drink?' And when didn't pay attention he threatened to take away my research resources.\" --\"It's horrible that Mark Siddall was allowed to hurt more people before action was taken filed a complaint against him for accosting me at a bar. [AMNH] determined it wasn't a pattern of behavior so no action was taken call bullshit on there not being a pattern of behavior since don't know a single person who's had to interact with him in-person that hasn't had a bad experience stand with survivors 100%. The whisper network warned me about him practically as a matter of orientation.\" --\"Seconded. Was warned as a student, even wasn't even at or working on [invertebrates] and yet the whisper network still warned me about him knew as an student studying mammals at an entirely different institution, back in 2013.\" --\"Complaints against him go back years... [but he was allowed to keep teaching in the Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program even after being banned from teaching grad students.] ... Why was he allowed to supervise a group of vulnerable young (mostly female) undergrads when he was not allowed to teach in the grad school?\" --\"Years ago, a museum curator wrote me a long, vitriolic email after gave his exhibition a mixed review felt so scared, sure I'd done something very wrong. Now learn he's been fired for violating their harassment policy and duh, of course, the problem there hadn't been me.\" --\"Siddall was a bully and a jerk and when you build institutions that shelter or encourage bullies and jerks you often find yourself giving shelter to harassers as well.\" 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 3/13 --\"...there are indications that Mark is trying to get a new job in academia and/or rebrand himself as a scientist. Please don't pass the trash or perpetuate misinformation.\" --\"So too will add my voice and call on my institution, AMNH, to make a public statement on Mark Siddall's history of harassment, laying out what they knew and when they knew it. All members of AMNH--students, post-docs, and staff, alumni, former REUs--deserve to know.\" \"--I'm against 'cancel culture' but for real plz don't hire Mark Siddall. He has harassed not one not two but of my friends in professional settings. (Plus some acquaintances). That behavior makes women feel so unwelcome in science.\" Here are some messages sent directly to me by museum colleagues cautioned various people that know, not just students, to steer clear of Siddall because he could be verbally offensive, especially to curatorial colleagues, male and female...\" --\"The man... vowed he was going to destroy everything about my life.\" --\"[Brian] Richmond and Siddall are but two examples of a culture resistant to change. In my opinion, this is the bigger story than the single individual who was outed, and the circumstances in which that happened, for several reasons. The people who ignored or covered this up for years are still firmly in control. The steps taken to address the systemic problems are band-aid solutions, creating the appearance that something has been done when little has changed on the ground. Finally, and most importantly, there are others who have conducted themselves at least as badly, in terms of 'violating the Museum's anti-harassment policies', without ever being called to account. This is actually quite well known...\" --\"...while completely agree that the individual in question got what he deserved, it seems blatantly hypocritical to single him out while others escape scrutiny, and the administration gets a pass for turning a blind eye. As the saying goes, the fish rots from the head.\" Who who responsible for letting Mark Siddall harass and abuse colleagues for so many years? To answer this question, reporters are going to need to investigate what happened internally at the museum over the years, much as tried to do with my 2016 investigation for Science magazine of disgraced human origins curator Brian Richmond. When say reporters do not just mean me, although am obviously on the job (is it not shameful that so far no other publication other than this blog has reported on Siddall's firing? Not the home town papers, the New York Times, New York Post, New York Daily News; not Science or Nature or any other science publication. Do better!) To figure out who is responsible, one must start with the frankly useless Human Resources division, which also figured heavily in my Richmond investigation. Dan Scheiner, former vice president for human resources, was the key person responsible for Richmond and also for passing on so many reports of misconduct by Siddall. As one museum colleague put it to me: \"Mark Siddall is just one of many harassers in Invertebrate Zoology at AMNH. Look into the of Human Resources Dan Scheiner and Don Sposato, both of whom have left the museum recently. For decades, they brushed off complaints or turned complaints from women against them, even insinuating intimate interactions between the complainee with the harasser as cause for harassment. Scheiner and Sposato were enablers of/complicit in terrible, terrible harassment from several of the curators in the division. It is one of the most toxic environments.\" Okay, so we have evidence that not only turned a blind eye but actually enabled abusers. 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 4/13 Who else? The Provost, Mike Novacek, was fully involved in both the Richmond and Siddall cases, and fully involved in decisions about what to do about them. Novacek has declined to be interviewed over the years, but his role is clear from evidence from other sources. Who else am still working out the role of the museum's various deans and other administrators. But the museum's lawyers knew and were involved at every step of the way, which strongly suggests that museum officials all the way up to the top of the hierarchy were aware that complaints were being made and aware of how they were handled--perhaps even providing the instructions for how they should be handled. Indeed, multiple sources tell me that at one point, some years back, Siddall was offered a job in Canada (University of Guelph), but the museum bumped up his salary and his research funding so he decided to stay. Who are we talking about here? Ellen Futter, the president? To paraphrase how a colleague put it above, what did she know and when did she know it? What other museum execs were in the know about Siddall? Let's get at this, New York reporters; let's get to it, science journalists will do my bit, please do yours, and press for the kind of full accountability that the victims and survivors of Siddall, Richmond, and all the other abusers (their time will come, surely) roaming the hallways of the American Museum of Natural History. Let's get the accountability ball rolling. My email to Anne Canty, AMNH's Senior Vice President for Communications, Marketing, and Digital I've known Anne Canty since late 2015, when first began reporting on the Brian Richmond case. She contacted me after learning that was talking to colleagues at the museum and asked if she could help. One of her first questions was whether my story was for Science or \"one of the other publications you write for.\" After gave her the bad news, but also made clear that already had most of the details reported and needed comment from her, Canty began to cooperate to a certain extent, making disclosures that the museum normally keeps secret under its \"personnel matters\" policy (the policy that so many institutions use to protect their reputations and then pass the harasser as quickly as possible.) It does not look as though Siddall will be lucky enough to be passed, but there is still a lot to know about who enabled him all these years, as discussed above. As head of communications, Anne is the first stop for reporters who want to follow up on this story. My email to her today: Dear Anne hope you are doing well am aware that you do not want to answer my queries these days, perhaps because you think that since took my #MeToo reporting onto my blog can be ignored. In reality, that is not the case, as a number of abusers have recently learned, including the president of the University of Adelaide, the head of the ancient lab there, and many others continue to be active as a #MeToo reporter because survivors continue to ask me to do it. At the moment am the only reporter covering the Mark Siddall firing, and that may or may not change given the reluctance of the New York press to publish anything negative about the museum. But as the only reporter, current and former colleagues at the museum are literally flooding to tell me their stories. There is a major and growing call for the museum to exercise both transparency and accountability concerning who knew about Siddall, who protected him, who overlooked his abuses, and who put the institution\u2019s reputation before the health and safety of the museum staff. If the museum does not pay attention to these calls, there may be hell to pay this time. In many ways, the museum got a free pass on the Brian Richmond case, by at least adopting some momentary (and very partial) transparency about the investigation. 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 5/13 So would ask you not to ignore this email, which has the force of a lot of survivors behind it. Talk to me, tell me what the museum is doing, answer my questions, and most importantly, make a serious public statement about the Mark Siddall case and why his abuses were allowed to go on for so long. One thing is sure will not stop reporting on this, and the survivors of abuse will not stop talking to me look forward to hearing from you. This letter is on the record. Best wishes, Michael -- ****************************************** Michael Balter Writer/reporter (anthropology, #MeToo, mental health, environment) Adjunct Lecturer (Journalism), City College of New York Paris correspondent, Science 1991-2016 Adjunct Professor of Journalism \"emeritus,\" New York University and Boston University Email: [email protected] Tweet: @mbalter Web: michaelbalter.com Book: ****************************************** \"Lying is done with words and also with silence.\" --Adrienne Rich Further update, Friday afternoon: Museum officials say more to staff. To: amnh-staff <[email protected]> Subject: [AMNH-Staff] Message for the Community Dear Members of the Community: Last week, we informed curators and members of the Invertebrate Zoology Division that Dr. Mark Siddall\u2019s employment with the Museum was terminated, effective September 3. This action was taken following the Museum\u2019s receipt of formal complaints, a full investigation, and a finding that Dr. Siddall violated the Museum\u2019s sexual harassment and bullying policies. In addition to sharing this information, we want to underscore the Museum\u2019s commitment to a workplace and academic environment that is safe and respectful, and free from harassment of all kinds. We understand that many of you may have heard this news informally and may have questions or concerns, and we wanted to directly inform our community of our decision. We also share this information because many of you have collaborated with Dr. Siddall, and this decision may affect your work. We also recognize that an occurrence like this may raise questions about the Museum\u2019s work environment, and the desire for more details, particularly when some individuals are publicly sharing their own perspectives and personal accounts. However, the Museum does not share details of individual investigations or personnel decisions. We strive to balance our commitment to supporting the valid concerns of members of our community with the goals of ensuring a fair investigatory process and outcome, and an environment that encourages future complainants to come forward. It is also important to acknowledge the movements that have led to meaningful changes in recent years around issues of sexual harassment and discrimination. In recognition of those changes, the Museum has taken concrete steps to strengthen internal policies, training programs, and processes to make them more robust and comprehensive, and those improvements have been critical to this termination. These policies, and Dr. Siddall\u2019s termination, reflect the Museum\u2019s strong commitment to ensuring a workplace and academic environment that is free of harassment or bullying of any kind. 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 6/13 We affirm our commitment to maintaining an environment that is safe and respectful, and free from harassment of all kinds, and to continuing to listen and learn. We look forward to ongoing conversations about how we can best live up to the highest moral and ethical standards in our dealings with each other. To that end, we would also like to remind everyone of the processes in place to both prevent instances of harassment and bullying and to provide avenues for those who feel they have been harassed or bullied. Soon, all Museum staff will receive details on our required annual anti-sexual harassment training, which this year will be conducted online. Additionally, in the fall there will be outreach from the Museum\u2019s Title Coordinator and Equal Opportunity Specialist, Ben Marzolf, to schedule meetings to further discuss the resources available to the Museum community and how the Museum can support and improve workplace experiences. Finally, all members of the Museum community may contact Ben Marzolf at 212-769-5316 or [email protected] or call the confidential hotline at 1-800-620-5571. Taking advantage of the full spectrum of these resources is a crucial component of achieving our common goal of protecting our community. Michael Novacek, Senior Vice President and Provost Kala Harinarayanan, Vice President of Human Resources Several people have already commented to me about this particular passage, carefully worded to be somewhat ambiguous: \"We also recognize that an occurrence like this may raise questions about the Museum\u2019s work environment, and the desire for more details, particularly when some individuals are publicly sharing their own perspectives and personal accounts. However, the Museum does not share details of individual investigations or personnel decisions.\" Some are interpreting this think rightly, as a veiled admonition not to speak publicly about what has happened, including to the media. If that is wrong, perhaps museum officials can reassure museum staff that they have every right to speak out without fear of retaliation. As one researcher put it: \"If Michael Cohen can write a book then victims can Tweet.\" The passage also implies, as one colleague put it to me, that any experiences made public and outside the official investigation do not really count. But of course they do. (People wanting to comment on this letter or any other aspect of this case are very welcome to use the Comments section of this blog, which is moderated will moderate comments as fast as can.) Update Sept 18, 2020: There's likely to be important developments soon in the news coverage of this case hope that the issue of AMNH's accountability, or lack of it, will be raised. Meanwhile a colleague who knows Siddall writes: \"They hired him for his reputation as a renegade in his science and his sharp critique of those with differing views that always bordered on bullying, but was hailed as clever. Turns out those traits are not restricted to his scientific writing.\" Update Sept 24, 2020: Yesterday the New York Times posted a story on Siddall's firing, by reporter Julia Jacobs, which was good to see. Siddall got a chance to offer some lame denials of his well documented behavior, and a survivor of his abuse--former museum microbiologist and current dean of science at the City College of New York, Susan Perkins--got a chance to briefly describe her experiences. Perkins' comments at the end of the story, which suggest that the museum did far from all it could to deal with Siddall's long history of abuses, contrasted sharply with quotes from 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 7/13 33 Comments Anonymous said\u2026 If he was banned from teaching in the grad school, I'd love to know why he was allowed to take (all women students at least as late as 2018... September 7, 2020 at 10:38 Anonymous said\u2026 If this is true, then there need to be resignations higher up the chain. September 7, 2020 at 8:25 Benjamin said\u2026 communications Anne Canty, who attempted to avoid any accountability for the museum's failure to act. As have banged away about above, this really has to be the next step in any serious reporting on not only the case but previous ones that the Times has not seen fit to cover. The AMNH, a hugely important institution in New York City, has basically gotten a pass from the Times and other New York media from any serious coverage. Perhaps some enterprising reporters will now see that there is much that needs looking into; the comments below suggest that as well case study in lying to protect a serial abuser: Luis Jaime Castillo Butters and his \"friends\" [Updated Sept 6, and with dozens of comments] Posted by Michael Balter have been a working journalist for more than 40 years, beginning in Los Angeles as an investigative reporter and then in Paris as a travel, food, and science writer. For more than 20 years have covered anthropology and archaeology writer for Science, Audubon, Scientific American, SAPIENS, and other publications have also covered sexual misconduct for The Verge, Scientific American, and others write about mental health, especially schizophrenia; and engage in occasional media criticism returned to the in October 2017 after 30 years in Paris, and now live in the New York City area, where currently teach journalism at City College of New York previously taught journalism at Boston University and New York University.) For more about me and what do, copies of my articles, information about my book, and other goodies, please visit You may like these posts Sexual assaulter Peter Rathjen, the fired former Vice- Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, is back in Australian news. Sexual harassment in wildlife ecology: The case of Max Allen, University of Illinois Peruvian archaeologist and former culture minister Castillo, ejected from U.S. National Academy of Sciences for sexual harassment, sues Academy and its president for millions of dollars [Updated June 4, 2023: Judge grants defendants's motion for dismissal] Post a Comment 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 8/13 He was in fact the co on the program at AMNH, for the 2014-2020 period... September 8, 2020 at 11:46 Michael Balter said\u2026 Yes, the ban on teaching was apparently at the graduate school, whereas the program was for undergrads. Working to fine tune the reporting. One thing for sure: Siddall is no longer entitled to grants am checking on that now. September 8, 2020 at 12:20 Unknown said\u2026 The program is overseen by the graduate school. September 8, 2020 at 4:04 Anonymous said\u2026 Gee grant is up in 2020. That means the report is due. Can't help but wonder why they chose to can him now. Maybe bad optics to have a man with at least 3 years of formal harassment complaints penning a government funding document....or maybe am reading in too deeply. September 10, 2020 at 10:11 Anonymous said\u2026 If it's true that the New York Times has not been covering issues of sexual harassment by curators, what about the New York Post? September 10, 2020 at 10:17 Anonymous said\u2026 Siddall is not the only harasser at AMNH. September 10, 2020 at 3:23 Michael Balter said\u2026 Re the last comment: No, not by a long shot. Let the others be warned. Many survivors of his abuse are speaking out, everyone needs to hear them. September 10, 2020 at 3:26 Anonymous said\u2026 Just found this on twitter: \"Years ago, a museum curator wrote me a long, vitriolic email after gave his exhibition a mixed review felt so scared, sure I\u2019d done something very wrong. Now learn he\u2019s been fired for violating their harassment policy and duh, of course, the problem there hadn\u2019t been me.\" Posted by based in New York September 10, 2020 at 6:20 Anonymous said\u2026 This incident was quietly outed because they had no choice. This news needs larger traction in the media. But there is vitriol in other academic/cultural spaces that no one calls out because the suspect threatens and bullies victims, and people buy into it, or are in fear of their future that they go along with it because let's admit it, there's a lot of nepotism in hiring practices. Upper management don't see it because the suspect is \"one of them\", and those of a lower title are deemed not worth listening to. I'm a victim, I've seen other victims get bullied out when they don't go with the program is only there to protect the interest of the employer, they don't care about the employee. That's why so many don't go to HR, why bother. Don't need that blemish following your career, as unfair as it is. September 12, 2020 at 1:41 Michael Balter said\u2026 Re the last comment: Yes, this is clear from my reporting so far (and those higher up) knew about and tolerated Siddall's sexual misconduct, severe bullying, retaliation, and constant drunkenness for a decade or longer. The Brian Richmond case really changed nothing at the museum, only in anthropology more broadly (and even there have had to continue to report new cases where nothing was done until there was public exposure.) Let's get it all out there. September 12, 2020 at 3:34 Anonymous said\u2026 When the dismantled its joint student program with various universities (Cornell, Yale, NYU, Columbia, Hunter College, CUNY, etc.) to establish its own \"university\" and award degrees, this had to be approved the State of (Albany). Thus, governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and other representatives need to be made aware of their management and accreditation of their program. Who is the external reviewer of this education program? What student support services were established with the school and how many complaints have they received over the years? After these shameful sordid episodes with multiple curators, AMNH's education program should be dismantled is unable to self-police a small institute of ~40 curator-professors. (But see how fast they fire a cleaner or painter who looks at a female worker walking by.) September 13, 2020 at 6:42 Anonymous said\u2026 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 9/13 has been a hot mess for years; back in the 90s and 00s they developed a culture of \"bad boy\" curators who saw themselves as iconoclastic scientific rebels; really they were just nerds who were suddenly told they were rock stars. It was pretty routine for curators, staff, and students to hit the bars on Amsterdam Ave. and get roaring drunk together. All sorts of bad stuff ensued. The Administration treated Science like an unruly autonomous zone that was allowed to police itself. Bullying and unprofessional behavior was rife. Siddall was of that generation. I'll share a story of from back in those good old days, 10-15 years ago colleague of mine went to file a report about a notoriously nasty curator. The report concerned behavior observed towards a third party, so of course the deputy director told her that was hearsay and he wasn't going to do anything. But she stood her ground. The deputy director pulled out a bulging file and showed it to her. \"This is that guy's file,\" he said. \"Now, do you still want to file a report?\" The clear implication was that nothing would happen, other than putting her at risk of retaliation. It was widely believed that would routinely pass information about complaints to the curators concerned. She did not file the report, so of course it never happened would love to tell you that things have changed at since then, but from what hear there is still bullying and still abuse. If you're a tenured curator, especially one of long-standing, you can pretty much treat your staff however you want. They really need to clean house. September 23, 2020 at 6:45 Anonymous said\u2026 It is quite clear that a number of the comments here are written by people who are not at AMNH. The joint student program was never dismantled. That is just false information. If anything it was strengthened with the PhD program. It is also completely untrue that if you are a tenured curator there (even those who have been there for many years) that you can just strut around and treat people badly. This depiction of one of the older and most public scientific research institutions in the is just patently false. There isn't rampant abuse of everyone all over the place, and all faculty are not evil sociopaths. That's just ridiculous. Many people do care and are very concerned, including among the tenured and non-tenured senior scientific staff. And many people have fantastic experiences as students, postdocs and junior faculty, with many going on to some of the most spectacular careers with deep fondness for the institution and their mentors. Certainly there are some problems, but perhaps as Anonymous said \"They really need to clean house.\" Well perhaps that is exactly what they are doing? But to impugn everyone at the senior levels on the science side of the institution is just outright libel and promoting disinformation. In fact a number of the administrative and Education staff are also tremendous bullies or irresponsible, but the majority of the museum's 1000+ some-odd employees are really good and decent people who have dedicated their lives to science, the teaching of it, and the production of new knowledge, from the guards and custodial staff, to the teachers, exhibition designers and research staff sense of balance is needed here in this discussion. Not blanket anger and cancellation of an entire, complex and multifaceted institution. There are a lot of good people at too. September 24, 2020 at 12:01 Anonymous said\u2026 \"It is also completely untrue that if you are a tenured curator there (even those who have been there for many years) that you can just strut around and treat people badly.\" - oh come off it, Anonymous Sept 24. If you work at AMNH, you know that's not true. What is true is that many people end up deciding, for their own career security, that it's better not to make a fuss, knowing that their complaints will not be taken seriously. \"But to impugn everyone at the senior levels on the science side of the institution is just outright libel and promoting disinformation.\" Ellen Futter has been president of since 1993. Mike Novacek has been a curator since 1982 and Provost since 1994. Ann Siegel has been for Operations (which includes HR) since 2010 and was a senior administrator for at least a decade before that. All of the things that are being written about now, and which happened in the past, occurred on their watch. That's not libel - it's a statement of fact. Obviously there are many good and decent people at AMNH. Obviously many people (including me, BTW) find working there to be one of the most rewarding experiences of their life. But the \"few bad apples\" explanation is as inadequate here as it is for, say, discussing entrenched problems in the police. At some point, you have to take a step back and look at the wider institutional failings. For many of us that worked, or continue to work there, that fact is blindingly obvious. September 24, 2020 at 2:25 Jyrki Muona said\u2026 Having known so many of these people for a long time and visited the institution for more than 20 years would like to say a few words about these anonymous comments. First find it cowardly not to sign ones comments. It is awfully easy to shoot from the dark know many of the \"rock-star\" curators and believe it is very unfair to suggest they are bullies and whatever without exact acts and names to back it up. No one has the right to accuse groups on the basis of single guilty parties would think this is self-evident in these times. Sexual harassment is another matter and should always be acted upon and fast would not be surprised if the has the same problem as many other institutions - there is no systematic way to monitor this. Acting on official complaints only is nor a very good strategy. In this respect the administration is the one that failed. September 24, 2020 at 3:24 Anonymous said\u2026 \"First find it cowardly not to sign ones comments.\" AMNH's terms of employment make unauthorized disclosure of matters relating to the operations of the museum a disciplinary offense. Commenting publicly on this blog could, in theory at least, open 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 10/13 current staff up to action by the museum suspect this, rather than cowardice, is the reason many people are choosing to remain anonymous. BTW, this restriction does not apply to tenured curators. September 24, 2020 at 4:11 Jyrki Muona said\u2026 Indeed, and as you do not disclose anything about museum matters in your recent comment, what else than cowardice can this reflect, \"anonymous\"? September 24, 2020 at 5:22 Anonymous said\u2026 Ah, Jyrki.... sometimes justice must wear a mask. So long, everyone September 24, 2020 at 7:23 Anonymous said\u2026 As Anonymous 24 225PM said, \"Ellen Futter has been president of since 1993. Mike Novacek has been a curator since 1982 and Provost since 1994. Ann Siegel has been for Operations (which includes HR) since 2010 and was a senior administrator for at least a decade before that. All of the things that are being written about now, and which happened in the past, occurred on their watch. That's not libel - it's a statement of fact.\" Indeed, perhaps that is the key. Any institution needs turnover at the highest levels, to constantly refresh and improve a place such as a research institute. Almost no other universities or research institutions allow such lengthy terms for administrators, for good reason. Even if Futter and Gugenheim bring in money, the model they operate under is outdated, 1980s corporate sytle, and poorly imagined, with little initiative, except to boost themselves up with the board by doing the same thing over and over. Has anyone ever considered that Gugenheim, who runs Fundraising, Government relations and Education at AMNH, has a complete conflict of interest by the very nature of her job? You can't have the head of fundraising also running one of the mission goals, at the expense of others. No for-profit place would allow such a thing. No non-profit place should even even go near such a situation. By the way don't think that falls under operations. It is usually legal counsel, but don't know for have nothing to do with it, but do love that institution. It's a crown jewel of NYC, and even the country. September 25, 2020 at 2:25 Anonymous said\u2026 My heart goes out to those who suffered sexual and other harassment at the hands of Siddall and others at the museum have to say that I\u2019m experiencing schadenfreude over the news that Siddall has lost his job. He is a nasty piece of work. He may know his leeches, for all know, but his other work is complete garbage. (See his 1997 paper with Kluge titled \u201cProbabilism and Phylogenetic Inference\u201d if you want a good laugh.) My impression is that the is one of the few places where he could have gotten a job. In fact, most evolutionary biologists look askance at the fervent adherents to the parsimony method, with its peculiar philosophical justification, that the harbors. The scientific culture there is quite strange. (Strange beyond the sexual harassment mean.) They have (or had) what they called \u201cNew York Rules\u201d in the question and answer session after a talk. They feel free to be jerks in asking questions. Unfortunately believe that this type of scientific behavior has spilled over into the Hennig Society, which counts as members many scientists. The resources available at the are wonderful and it\u2019s a shame that so much was wasted on Siddall, along with several other mediocre scientists there. With luck, the will be able to replace Siddall with a decent scientist. September 30, 2020 at 8:42 Jyrki Muona said\u2026 This latest \"piece of information\" is a great example of what kind of nonsense people write when they can use \"anonymous\" as their weapon. Indeed, most \"evolutionary biologists\". This particular message is rubbish and has no content that would require anonymity. It is pitiful example of misuse of anonymity. Having no moderation invites this kind of rubbish. \"Mediocre scientists\" - who measured, where and how? Please, tell us your name and we can evaluate YOU. October 1, 2020 at 2:47 Anonymous said\u2026 It is naive to assume everyone has the luxury of not staying anonymous on the internet. There are many people out there who will retaliate against you if you so much as hint towards their bad behavior. Over the years, Mark Siddall retaliated against many of his students, post-docs, and colleagues. If you don't believe me go on twitter and see for yourself. The stories are popping up everyday and there are many who still will not speak up due to fear of retaliation. October 2, 2020 at 9:39 Anonymous said\u2026 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 11/13 He broke an ex-wife's arm in an argument. October 31, 2020 at 11:16 Anonymous said would love to give more information, but I'm not sure the ex-wife wants that information known. Btw, there's more than one ex-wife. Somebody should just ask him about it. November 1, 2020 at 9:36 Anonymous said\u2026 Why has no one mentioned vivisection? How many animals did he kill heard that he decapitated a snapping turtle and dispatched hundreds of fish for his graduate work. This man is a menace. December 29, 2020 at 10:31 Anonymous said\u2026 Siddall interviewed for a job at my grad program in the late 90s. I'll never forget the faculty member who said in response, \"We don't hire mean people here can personally vouch for the raucous, self-aggrandizing behavior of some of the museum's cladists described by those above. They were/are little people with big thirsts for booze and attention, who bullied continually. Not all curators by any means, of course, but a chosen few set a locker-room tone that was impossible to escape in certain parts of the museum. January 27, 2021 at 11:37 Anonymous said can personally vouch for the fact that people used to snort coke off of his desk at Christmas parties. And he had a fully functioning still in his office, like M*A*S*H*. He told me he learned that from Bruce Ranalla when they were grad students in Toronto. Ask Bruce if he had a still. Everyone, literally everyone would visit Siddall's office to booze-it-up: especially the \"woke\" people of the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation (ask about the \"hat parties\" they all got drunk at, there are plenty of drunken pics of half the people who have now tried to distance themselves from him) but also Vice President Novacek, Vice President Scheiner, and Vice President Guggenheim and wealthy donors besides saw the likes of Glenn Close, Adam Savage and Bob Shaye in his office drinking very heavily. Whatever Siddall's faults were, they were actively encouraged by the museum administration as long as it drove donations from the wealthy Upper East Siders they had him cozying up to. May 9, 2021 at 2:53 Jyrki Muona said\u2026 Well, now understand well that these are listed by \"Anonymous\". This contribution suggests that Siddall's faults included (\"whatever they are\") distribution of controlled substances and drinking at work, in addition to the previously suggested bullying and harassments that all these things were encouraged by the museum administration. He certainly had faults but to claim that the administration actively encouraged these should be backed by real evidence, not stories about some unspecified party. Easy to see why this person does not want to sign his/her \"testimony\". Perhaps again the justification is \"Justice has to wear a mask\" - well, not in a democracy. Only intentional malice needs one in real life - life is not a movie for children have personally only once and then shortly attended one of the Xmas parties. Strange how very normal it appeared. Perhaps that year the rave was not on. Jyrki Muona May 9, 2021 at 12:44 Anonymous said\u2026 Jyrki, Balter will not post this. But what you are missing is that the anonymous claims of wife-beating, vivisection, and hard drugs are just as specious as all of the unsubstantiated other crap Balter posts himself anonymously on his own blog in order to drive traffic. He learned this in his communist agitprop days of the 60s. He is not a reporter. He's a troll fighting a defamation suit. He used Mark's face illegally on his gofundme page. If you want to do something, do something for Siddall who was falsely accused the instant he uncovered data fabrication by an underperforming student who changed her story later. July 15, 2021 at 6:59 Anonymous said interacted scientifically with Mark Siddall 20 or so years ago and attended a couple of conferences with him, etc. Never saw any of this negative stuff, and recall how he ended a telephone conversation at that time to his wife love you very much.\" Maybe Mark doesn't have a halo shining brightly aboved his head don't know), but reading between the lines, some people here are using this debacle to do some back-stabbing, to whatever extent once heard a senior scientist in the U.S. (a dodgy character as far as am concerned) pass unethical behavior (such as back-stabbing) off euphemistically as follows: \"..... in a very competitive field.\" As if that is supposed to make it all okay. March 10, 2023 at 12:04 Michael Balter said\u2026 I've published this last comment just as an example of the kind of absolute nonsense the backlash against the #MeToo movement is generating. This writer has absolutely no knowledge of the allegations concerning Siddall, and all they can do is reassure us he is a nice guy and loves his wife. To basically accuse the victims of lying without any evidence is just amazing. 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 12/13 Copyright \u00a9 2025 Balter's Blog Again, an example of the kind of evidence-free, knowledge free thinking some who consider themselves scholars all too often engage in. March 10, 2023 at 7:15 Post a Comment 2/16/25, 10:30 Another harasser bites the dust. Please don't pass him. [Updated Sept 24 2020: The New York Times weighs in] 13/13"} |
Subsets and Splits