Office ofEquity/Diversity Services• University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee • Mitchell Hall Room 359

P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201

Telephone: (414) 229-5923 • Email: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229 -5592

Discrimi~ation Complaint Form

General Information

Complaining Party University Status Email Address

Home Mailing Address Phone Number

Responding Party 1 University Status Relatio ship to Complainant

Campus Mailing Address

·Allegation based on:

Race or Color Disa!;,iHty · Se>:ual Orientation
Veteran Status (>exual Harassmeii> Age (40 or Over)
Ancestry Pregnancy Marital Status
Religion . . Arrest or Conviction Record
Other, Explairi: ---------------------,'---+----'-'-¥-------.:....::-+:Pt-1---F
Date(s) of Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: ------------=------,''f--,.,,,,.--.....i.+-1-.'--+--I-

Incident Involved
~ :i:onclltions o Em lo ent
Terms and/or Conditions ofEducation
Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
I-
Complaint
Have you filed a discrimination complaint or appeal with another university department, union or state or federal
agency? Yes_ No L If yes, please state the name of the agency and date filed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Pleasedescribeyourcomplaint: delhof-cJ fhc 11Jr (-C-41,0/IJ ~f.

(Cli"0fI·7 J~,.,,,., ~
~14.{__ft
rrud· ()/ (hcr :t lr 1lvJt eva/vtvf-i"Ot1i ~h,.,),-:+- 1,Jl)q/J 1/14.. [0.::i 13 tl)l/00_jv. rc
;f ·th.€ 1'0cl"i/-c,,., f- i.J 6uJ,t1 0/1 ~<;eXuu{ J,..,u ( ;,_J./1}-J"l/]f, I Jcfr<!'t1(__
i.J ,7/!ov1y -+l-. ,J 6chl.{Uii>/ ,

Resolution Sou~ht: 0;, +::- J~ , ( c&c/

.'"Cj . --ft,,, 5 ~
! ,,,,,.., 1 T a
v<> u.. IJ !<' iLe JV k /h Ovc.tl fa /l-1 J /C
pv.. b/, l i,Jl'J,1 //:-··? -Uc. J ic> l"of- L,J~ 1 • To b~ C{ 10 1 c v, ·f(., ~' fl-1 ec..v:v ,t '. h /r..t: f' cur ....cJ ft_, :1 /..c /
(J ,--r1--, ). r 1/VCV-i /h'--f old 0/)b dc,vhcJ 6,,d:.; r-cl vi fhl(/"//,j/V () /1 :,,h: t,,-...>ha O<.d/x(/lk,-5
tD pro k rf A c (()) ,,.,,,.., -fv.-,·-h--v hJ it.f.//r, c..rit o.,--,i) lo: reh I,?i };',0,1,
The discrimination complaint process has been explained to me and I have received a copy of the policy. I certify that the
information given above is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge or belief. The Office of Equity/Diversity
Services has my permission to.conduct pertinent inquires in regard to my complaint and to use my name in such inquires.

? L?
I
Date

Referred By:
Advisor/Counselor Co-Worker Supervisor Union Steward
Campus Brochure Faculty Training Seminar Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ __

-
I (

UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN

lMMILWAUKEE
-~
-~
Office of Equity/Diversity Services Mitchell Hall 359
PO Box 413
Milwaukee, WI
53201-0413
414 229-5923 phone
414 229-5592 fax
www.diversity.uwrn.edu
To: Johannes Britz, diverse@uwrn.edu
Provost and Vice Chancellor

From: Francene L. Botts, vlf.J

Director, Office of Equity/Diversity Services

Date: June 3, 2013

Re: Discrimination Complaint #357

The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of the Office of Equity/Diversity Services'
(EDS) determination regarding the above referenced complaint. (Complainant), an
employed at filed a complaint against
(Respondent), and
, alleging sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex/gender.
Specifically, the Complainant alleges that she and other female employees at the
have been subjected to hostile environment sexual harassment in the form of unwanted physical
contact, being shown photos of women Respondent found attractive, as well as inappropriate
' comments, jokes and conversations. The Complainant also alleges that she suffered quid pro quo
sexual harassment when the Respondent, her direct supervisor, expected her to tolerate his
unwanted physical contact in exchange for having hired her. Complainant also alleges that
Respondent removed some of her duties, specifically her " " duties on
the ," effectively demoting her, so he could transfer these duties
to another female staff member more favored by the Respondent and more receptive to his
advances. Finally, during the course of EDS' investigation, the Complainant amended her
complaint alleging that she experienced other actions including an overall reduction in her -
and ignored requests for time off that she believed constituted retaliation. The Complainant
has requested several remedies, including the movement of her office .area to a location away
from the Respondent, the return of her previous job duties and - and retaliation
protection for her and her co-workers.

This complaint has been investigated in accordance with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct
Policy (Including Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence). The Policy provides in part:

UWM is committed to building and maintaining a campus environment that recognizes

the inherent worth and dignity of every person, fosters tolerance, sensitivity,
understanding, and mutual respect, and encourages the members of its community to
strive to reach their full potential.
 UWM defines discrimination as conduct that (1) adversely affects any aspect of an
individual's employment, education, or participation in activities or programs at UWM;
and (2) is based on one or more characteristics of the individual that are protected under
federal or state laws ... .

UWM defines retaliation as an adverse action made as a result of an individual's

complaint about conduct prohibited under this policy or participation in enforcement of
this policy.

Any individual who-feels that he or she is being subjected to discrimination, harassment, or

retaliation prohibited by the University's policies may file a complaint with EDS. The
complaint must be in writing, on a form provided by EDS, and must be filed within 300
calendar days of the most recent alleged prohibited act. EDS at its own discretion may
accept complaints that are not in writing or that are filed outside of the 300 day limitation for
good cause.

I . At the conclusion of the investigation, EDS will prepare written findings and
remedial recommendations to the Provost, with copies to the complainant,
respondent, the complainant's supervisor or Dean, the respondent's supervisor or
dean, and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Climate ...
2. Within ten working days of receipt of the Director of EDS' factual fmdings and
remedial recommendations, the complainant or the respondent may respond to the
factual fmdings and remedial recommendations. The response must be in writing and
sent to the Chancellor and Provost. The Provost will provide copies of any such
appeals to the other parfy, to the Director of EDS, the Dean or Division Head of both
the complainant and the respondent, and the University Committee (for faculty) or the
Academic Staff Committee (for academic staff). Responses may be based on (1)
whether the evidence supports the fmdings; and/or (2) whether the recommended
remedial actions are appropriate.

DISCUSSION
As stated above, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has engaged in gender
discrimination, as well as quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment. The
Complainant has stated that she and other female employees at have been subjected to
hostile environment sexual harassment in the form of unwanted physical contact (touching arms,
shoulders, legs), invasion of their personal space, or inappropriate comments, jokes and
conversations about the Respondent's personal life, including being asked to look at pictures of
beautiful women. The Complainant maintains that other female employees and former interns
have had similar experiences with the Respondent, but did not come forward for fear of losing
their jobs. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent, who is her direct supervisor,
took away some of her duties, specifically her " duties on the
," and gave the duties to another female employee that, "he has shown an
interest in and is flirty with" because this other employee was more receptive to his advances
than Complainant was. During the course of EDS' investigation, the Complainant submitted a
written statement amending her complaint to include retaliation, alleging that the Respondent

2
 had further decreased her " " and ignored her requests to take personal and/or vacation
time.

At the time she filed her initial complaint, the Complainant met with EDS and indicated that she
was afraid that the Respondent would retaliate against her once he became aware of EDS'
investigation. In light of this fear, the Complainant requested that her desk be relocated to
another more populated area away from the Respondent while EDS investigated this complaint.
EDS staff met with the senior administrators in the , who agreed
that moving the Complainant's office would protect both parties until EDS completed its
investigation of this matter. The Complainant's workstation was relocated to another part of the
office.

It is noted that the Complainant personally submitted her original complaint to EDS, but at her
in-person interview with EDS, she declined to respond to EDS' questions, insisting that she had
been advised by outside legal counsel to submit her answers in writing. In response, EDS
informed the Complainant that it is standard practice to interview all parties in these matters;
while she was welcome to submit a written summary of the interview, such document could not
substitute for the interview itself. The Complainant was further advised that she could have her
legal counsel attend the EDS interview, but the attorney would not be allowed to actively
participate; the Complainant would be expected to answer EDS' questions on her own behalf.
Unfortunately, the Complainant did not respond to multiple requests from EDS (telephone, email
and formal letter), to schedule an interview to more thoroughly discuss her written allegations.
However, despite the Complainant's failure to cooperate with its investigation, EDS thoroughly
investigated the allegations contained in her written complaint.

During the course of its investigation, EDS interviewed the Respondent, and sixteen witnesses,
including Respondent's supervisor, current or former employees who worked with the
Complainant and the Respondent, and several former and current administrators in the
. In addition, EDS reviewed email correspondence provided by both parties,
the Complainant's position description, her 2010 and 2011 performance evaluations, and other
relevant documents referenced by the Complainant in her written statement to EDS.
EDS' investigation established that the Complainant is an , who
has worked at UW11 since of 2011. The Respondent is an
who has been employed since

Sexual Harassment Allegations

In her written statement, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent "showed a tendency to
touch me in a way that made me uncomfortable," from the beginning of her employment in
of 2011. The statement referenced several incidents of unwanted physical contact,
including "placing a hand on my leg or hand and more frequently doing so on my arm.
Specifically, in her written complaint, the Complainant referenced one instance that occurred
after her first review. She wrote that the Respondent had asked her not to use the phrase "
so often; but the next time she used this expression, he slapped her wrist with two fingers,
chastising her, "as ifl were a pet."

3
 The Complainant also documented several occasions where the Respondent allegedly made
inappropriate remarks about how much .he enjoyed being in the company of young, attractive
women. In her written complaint, the Complainant also mentioned at least two incidents where
the Respondent showed her pictures of attractive women he had photographed using his cell
phone. The Complainant wrote that while she felt "personally objectified and very self-
conscious," she never told the Respondent that she found his comments and behaviors toward
women offensive, for fear of retaliation. She stated that she had also observed him lose his
temper with other colleagues and was afraid that he might "punch her in the face," since the
Complainant claims the Respondent told her that he wanted to punch a former co-worker in the
face when he sees her outside the building smoking because she caused the "financial struggles"
.

The Respondent denied that he touched the Complainant inappropriately; he explained that they
share a rather large office space, with her workstation on one end and his on the other. Since she
has arranged her desk so that her back is to him, he had occasionally tapped her on the shoulder
to get her attention. He also denied that he has shown her pictures of any "girlfriends,"
emphasizing that he is married and does not have any girlfriends. The Respondent admitted that
he has sometimes cursed and/or used foul language in front of the Complainant, but has never
cursed at her. He has never told any inappropriate or sexual jokes, nor has he ever touched any
part of her body other than a shoulder tap.

In her written statement, the Complainant alleges that her removal from the
of the ," the - and
constitute a de facto demotion. While she acknowledges that she retains her job title and salary,
the Complainant believes that the Respondent removed these important duties to impress another
female employee, who is young, attractive and whom she suspects that he wants to impress. In
addition, the Complainant insisted that the Respondent had no reason to change her main duties
so dramatically; she argues that she had excellent evaluations, and was
singlehandedly responsible for a The Complainant's
statement also itemized instances of her successful ; specifically, surpassing

The Respondent confirmed that, initially, the Complainant worked hard on her
, so he gave her some of the and other work. The Respondent
stated that things seemed to be going well, and in November of 2011, all staff were
asked to fill out a survey and describe what they did in detail. These surveys were used to update
individual position descriptions (PD), and although the Respondent thought that the Complainant
had embellished a bit on some of her job duties, he agreed with the revisions and approved the
new PD. Then the Respondent began to receive multiple complaints about
the Complainant. Third parties complained to him that the Complainant, "
," or that she was " ", or
" " and/or " He stated that told him that the
Complainant sounded unprofessional. One explained, "
." The Respondent stated these comments came from
; most of the complaints were oral, but some had been

4
 and others were logged in voicemail messages to his direct supervisor, the

The Respondent acknowledged that negative comments or in

emails wouldn't generally be shared with the but when he began to hear more of the
same complaints regarding the Complainant's performance, he went to his supervisor, the
to discuss the matter. He recalled that the initial discussion started in the late
summer of 2012. They both agreed to wait to see if the Complainant would show further
improvement. A short time later, a member of the staff suggested to the Respondent that
the staff, who had initially agreed to have the Complainant and others
.

Although he is responsible for the " the Respondent stated that he always consults
with the when he is considering making changes. When he decided to reassign
some of the Complainant's duties, he again consulted with his direct supervisor, told the
how he wanted to proceed and was given approval to do so. The Respondent then took
the Complainant off but kept her
. He advised the Complainant that it had been decided to have the
. Since the
Complainant worked about 12 feet away from him, the Respondent spoke to her directly, and
explained that some of her job duties would be modified.

The Respondent insisted that the Complainant's allegation that she had been demoted was
completely false, adding that she retains the task of , and other
special projects for the " " He stated that the Complainant also started doing
pointing out that conducting meant that she would be
( unable to in order to eliminate any potential conflict or
perception of bias. He also asked her to help him on other projects,

The Respondent maintains that there have been many changes and reassignments of both male
and female over the years and none of these changes or reassignments
were made as a result of gender. Respondent recalled that one former female
. Another current employee was a
who was given the opportunity to before returning to
as did another current female staff member. He disagrees with the comments raised by
some witnesses that striving for a constitutes a bias against younger
female He suggested that even experienced and can struggle with
and have been subjected to reassignment in the past.

The Respondent emphasized that the Complainant's realigned job responsibilities had nothing to
do with Complainant's unwillingness to tolerate any alleged sexual advances or with impressing
any female staff - he made these decisions both to accommodate the wishes of the team
unit and in response to the negative feedback that both he and the had received
about the Complainant. Regarding the Complainant's written statement referring to a "young
female staff person he's trying to impress," he did not know who the Complainant was
referencing, and the Complainant never provided her name. Respondent speculated that the

5
 Complainant may have been referring to a volunteer and former employee who is only helping
out on a short-term basis. This volunteer, the
.

The Respondent also takes issue with a number of the Complainant' s statements regarding her
performance. He confirmed that all staff are evaluated at least twice per year; the first is
meant to be an informal, interactive discussion on strengths, weaknesses, etc. The second
appraisal is the formal evaluation process, which begins at the end of December/early January.
Respondent met with Complainant in December 2012 and advised her of the areas that needed
improvement. According to the Respondent, he informed the Complainant that
and suggested that she needed to
The Respondent noticed that she seemed visibly shake·n, almost
devastated, so he resolved to be less candid in his descriptions of her performance. The
Respondent agreed that the Complainant had improved in the last two years that she's been
and emphasized the he gave her both positive as well as negative feedback on her
performance at their December meeting, repeatedly telling her that she needed to match
which he believed would help
her connect with

The Respondent recalled that at this last informal evaluation meeting in mid-December 2012, the
Complainant had difficulty accepting the decision to modify her duties. He recalled that when
she asked if would pay for her to work with would improve her
- performance, he told her that that would not be appropriate. Next, he recalled that she asked him
if she could retain the duties if she hired at her own expense, and he told her
"no."

The Respondent pointed out that Complainant's allegations of sexual harassment coincided with
the 2012 review process, noting that she filed her EDS complaint in early January 2013, shortly
after receiving the negative informal feedback. In light of the Complainant's pending complaint,
Respondent asked the Personnel Representative (PREP) from to observe his most recent
formal evaluation of the Complainant, which occurred on January 27, 2013. He gave a generic
review of her performance in 2012, and had commented positively about her
including that she and through the end of the year
(2012). However, the Complainant had a number of questions that he did not believe were
relevant to her evaluation, such as would he have taken himself off if the had
received complaints about him. The Complainant also pressed for more information about the
number of complaints he had received about her, and asked for confirmation that the
when she was doing the " ." The Respondent
emphasized that since the Complainant left the
.

In addition, the Respondent took issue with the Complainant's assertion that she was solely
responsible for increasing the and
The Complainant is not a so she hasn't and her claims fail to
recognize the contributions of the . The Respondent pointed out that
the Complainant had never raised any concerns about sexual harassment, nor had she ever
accused him of inappropriate behavior until after her duties had been changed; he believes that

6
 the Complainant is making these allegations in an attempt to blackmail him into restoring her
former duties.

Finally, the Respondent confirmed that when she asked for a letter of recommendation, he
provided one; but insisted that he would have done the same for any employee. The Respondent
also pointed out that the Complainant inappropriately forwarded an email announcing to him,
other staff and administrative staff in the that she had an
upcoming interview for a position. The Respondent believes that Complainant's
statement "given our situation and this chance for relief from it. . ." in that email was an indirect
reference to her EDS complaint.

Witness Statements
EDS' interview with the Respondent's direct supervisor corroborated the Respondent's version
of the events surrounding the decision to restructure some of the Complainant's job duties. This
witness confirmed that he also received several complaints (emails and telephone calls) about the
Complainant from he explained that the complaints were general in nature -
statements like, "she doesn't fit in," ", or she would
or . The witness
explained that are used to , similar to
the ones Since comprise the largest percentage of their
input was important and their comments are taken seriously. The witness explained that when
first start out, it usually takes awhile to get used to the so
initially both he and the Respondent agreed not to react too strongly to complaints.
However, in the Complainant's case, the complaints have been pretty steady, so he concurred
with the Respondent's decision to realign her responsibilities. He confirmed that the
Complainant is still and during the .

The Complainant's written statement contained an extensive list of current and former co-
workers that she claimed either experienced or witnessed the Respondent's offensive behavior
and/or hostile work environment. During the course of its investigation, EDS
conducted interviews with sixteen current and former employees from the
, and at as well as the Dean and other
administrative staff from the . All the witnesses stated
that they have a professional relationship with both the Respondent and the Complainant.

Of the sixteen witnesses interviewed, only one reported that the Respondent had
"touched my hand on occasion." This woman, however, did not characterize the touching as
being of a sexual nature. This same witness also recalled the Respondent "showing off his
pictures of women he finds attractive." She did not tell the Respondent that any of the pictures he
showed her or any statements he may have made about the pictures were inappropriate. Finally,
this witness also alleged that she had concerns about actions by the Respondent that were
upwards of five years old. Two witnesses agreed that the Respondent had "an unusual, offbeat
or quirky sense of humor," while another witness described him as "a professional jerk who likes
to make smart-ass remarks." Yet another witness described the Respondent as "a close talker; he
likes to lean in." Many of the witnesses pointed out that the workforce of is mostly
female; since each unit is located in a corner of the workplace, they are "like an island onto
themselves," and have limited contact with colleagues outside their own unit. However, none of

7
the other witnesses interviewed reported observing or experiencing any offensive or
sexually harassing behaviors by the Respondent, describing him as a knowledgeable and
competent professional. They also did not characterize any of the above-described behaviors as
being of a sexual nature.

One former employee who agreed to speak to EDS emphasized that she did not understand how
anyone could have accused the Respondent of engaging in sexual harassment; she always found
him to behave professionally. This witness, who worked at for twelve years, stated that
the Respondent was the best boss she had ever had and thought of him as a mentor. According to
this witness, the Respondent was a private individual and never showed her any pictures or
talked about his personal life; everything they discussed was work-related. This witness recalled
that there were 3-4 interns who worked with her and the Respondent during her tenure; none of
them ever complained about the Respondent. However, this witness insisted that if there had
been any problems involving inappropriate behavior, she would not have hesitated to go directly
to the

Many of the witnesses recalled that there had been some negative comments about the
Complainant's Some witnesses stated she had a " "
that does not appeal to many and were aware that there had been some criticism
about her . But several female witnesses mentioned tha~ they had heard the same
comments about their own years ago. These witnesses agreed that since negative
comments about one's are rarely shared, a management decision to reduce or restrict
someone's time could seem somewhat arbitrary. One witness stated that she believed that
seem to have a general bias against , and that this was pretty
common in the industry. Several other witnesses also pointed out that liking or not liking the
is based on some very subjective factors. However, the majority of
these witnesses agreed that any changes made regarding announcing were for the good of
so they did not take it personally.

A majority of the witnesses stated that their interactions with the Complainant were also positive,
describing her as a dependable and professional employee. Some commented that the
Complainant was "extremely organized, which made it difficult to adhere to a tight schedule;"
others mentioned that she is a little high-strung and does not respond well to criticism. While all
of the witnesses interviewed agreed that the Complainant had not shared any concerns with them
related to sexual harassment, three witnesses recalled that they had the impression that the
Complainant felt her days at were numbered, and subsequently either approached them
directly or called them to inform them that she was considering filing a complaint. It was only
after she filed the EDS complaint that she mentioned a hostile work environment for women.

Several witnesses mentioned that they had the impression that the Complainant was conducting
her own investigation of the workplace, and had heard that she asked several senior
employees about previous "incidents," (e.g., porn found on a co-worker' s computer, or past
assaults and/or lawsuits) unrelated to the Respondent. These witnesses stated that "everyone at
" is aware that the Complainant filed an EDS complaint and a number commented that
it was because the Complainant informed them of it, and they feel the Complainant's questions
have added to their stress and adversely affected the work environment. While most of
the witnesses have stated that is a pleasant and supportive place to work, they

8
 acknowledged that there is "a lot of pressure on
" - has already undergone some downsizing and no longer employs a
.

Finally, the Complainant's written complaint to EDS alleges that has had a "long
history of sexual harassment", and references an incident where
. EDS' investigation revealed that the incident referenced
occurred over thirteen years ago and did not involve the Respondent. Moreover, the alleged
perpetrator admitted the improper contact, was suspended during the investigation and
subsequently from his position.

Retaliation Allegations
As stated previously, the Complainant submitted a second written statement amending her EDS
complaint to include retaliation. While this document repeats the sexual harassment allegations
included in the original complaint submitted to EDS, the Complainant also alleges that the
Respondent had further decreased her " and ignored her requests to take personal
and/or vacation time. The complaint provides detailed estimates of both the number and time
allotted to the no longer performed by the Complainant as a
result of her EDS complaint. The Complainant also alleges that on two occasions, the
Respondent ignored her requests for time off work and admitted to deleting her email requests
for leave. Finally, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent told another employee not to put
her on a project because "she won't fucking talk to me;" and in another incident, threw a handful
of papers at the glass window of the on-air studio where the Complainant was located.

The Respondent denied that he had retaliated against the Complainant; he pointed out that he is
following an established practice; since the Complainant conducts for
she is not in a position to any or in this way there is no
potential conflict or perception of bias: Moreover, he stated that the Complainant is one of four
staff who and he does not count the number of minutes each staff
person is allotted, but emphasized that the Complainant is every day.

The Respondent insisted that at n_o time has he ignored the Complainant's requests for time off.
While he admitted telling the Complainant that he deleted her emails, he insists that his comment
was part of a larger conversation where he explained that the sizeable volume of email he
receives makes it necessary to periodically "clean out" his electronic mailbox. The Respondent
stated that he reads all his emails, makes the necessary notations and deletes them.

Regarding the Complainant's allegation that the Respondent "threw a handful of papers," and the
comment that she refused to talk to him, the Respondent emphasized that he had already
informed her that she had misinterpreted his actions. He explained that the papers he had were
logs that he simply deposited in front of the door at the end of a long, exhausting day; he insisted
he "let the papers drop near the door," and had not thrown them at her. According to the
Respondent, it was the Complainant who stopped talking to him as of mid-December 2012. This
lack of communication has made it more difficult for the Respondent to supervise her and, in his
opinion, contributed to the tension in the office.

9
 CONCLUSION
EDS has determined that there is insufficient evidence to render a finding of sexual harassment.
Other than the occasional shoulder tap, the Respondent denied engaging in any inappropriate
physical contact with the Complainant, and there were no corroborating witnesses to support her
allegations. Although, as detailed above, the Complainant refused to be interviewed by EDS,
EDS interviewed numerous former and current employees of and only one confirmed
that the Respondent had touched her hand and showed her pictures of attractive women.
However this witness acknowledged that she did not directly confront the Respondent about the
touching, nor did she indicate to him that she thought the photographs were inappropriate or
offensive. None of the remaining witnesses reported any inappropriate or unwelcome physical
contact of a sexual nature.

In addition, none of the witnesses interviewed substantiated the Complainant's allegations of a

hostile work environment. While several witnesses pointed out that the constant pressure to meet
goals had created a more tense work environment, not one witness had ever
seen the Respondent engaging in any behavior that was of a sexual nature or directed towards
anyone because of sex or gender; all reported that they were treated in a respectful, professional
manner. The Respondent admitted that he had sometimes used vulgar language, but insisted that
he had never directed this language to the Complainant. It is noted that, irrespective of the
recipient(s), vulgar language is inappropriate and unsuitable for a working/learning environment.

EDS' review found legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for the Respondent's restructuring
of the Complainant's duties. The evidence presented affirmed that the Respondent's basis
for this decision was the receipt of a number of complaints about the Complainant's
performance and not because she rejected his advances. The Respondent believes that the
"attractive female staff person" Complainant references may be a former employee and volunteer
who has not assumed the Complainant's duties. Both the Respondent and his direct supervisor
confirmed that the Complainant is still every day and has been assigned other
responsibilities.

Finally, EDS found no evidence to substantiate the Complainant's allegation that the Respondent
engaged in retaliatory behavior. While EDS' investigation revealed soine tension between the
Complainant and the Respondent there was no evidence to suggest that the Complainant was
treated differently as a result of her EDS complaint.
This concludes EDS' investigation· of this complaint. Page two of this report provides the
Complaining and Responding parties with specific appeal rights regarding the report's factual
findings and remedial recommendations. The parties must exercise these rights within 10
working days of receiving this report. The deadline for filing a report in this matter is June 18,
2013.

cc: , Complainant
, Respondent

Rodney Swain, Dean, College of Letters and Science

Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Diversity and Climate

10
 TO: Francene Botts
Director, Equity/Diversity Services

FROM: Johannes Britz

Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

DATE: July 17, 2013

RE : Complaint #357

On June 3, 2013, you submitted to me your findings and recommendations on the above-
referenced complaint, wherein (Complainant), at
, alleged that (Respondent),
and at subjected her to sexual harassment
and discrimination based on sex/gender. Specifically, the Complainant alleged that the
Respondent subjected her and other female employees to hostile environment
sexual harassment in the form of unwanted physical contact, being shown photos of women the
Respondent found attractive, as well as inappropriate comments, jokes, and conversations. The
Complainant alleged that she suffered quid pro quo sexual harassment when the Respondent, her
direct supervisor, expected her to tolerate his sexual harassment in exchange for having hired
her. The Complainant also alleged that the Respondent removed some of her duties, effectively
demoting her, so he could transfer these duties to another female staff member more favored by
the Respondent and more receptive to his behavior. Finally, the Complainant amended her
complaint to include charges of retaliation, alleging that Respondent subjected her to retaliatory
actions because she filed the original Complaint.

You found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual harassm~nt in
violation UWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy. That Policy defines sexual harassment as
unwanted conduct of a sexual nature. The Respondent denied engaging in inappropriate physical
contact or otherwise engaging behavior of a sexual nature with the Complainant, and there were
no corroborating witnesses to support her allegations. Moreover, none of the witnesses you
interviewed substantiated the Complainant's allegation of a hostile work environment. Your
review found that there were legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for the Respondent's
restructuring of the Complainant's duties. The evidence presented affirmed that the
Respondent's basis for his decisions were the number of complaints received about the
Complainant's performance and not because she rejected his behavior.

Finally, you found no evidence to substantiate the Complainant's allegation that the Respondent
engaged in retaliatory behavior. While your investigation revealed tension between the parties,
there was no evidence to suggest that the Complainant was treated differently as a result of her
EDS complaint.

As of June 18, 2013, I have received no appeals from either party in this matter. I have carefully
reviewed your findings and recommendations. Additionally, in light of the seriousness of the
allegations at issue, I requested and reviewed EDS' s file in this matter. Based upon the EDS
report and my own examination, I concur with your conclusions. In accordance with the UWM
Discriminatory Conduct Policy, this determination is final.

cc: , Complainant
Respondent
,
Rodney Swain, Dean, College of Letters & Science
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Diversity & Climate
 Office of Equity/Diversity Services• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Room 359
P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201
Telephone: (414) 229-S923 • Email: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229-5592

Discrimination Complaint Form

General Information
Administrator uwm.edu
Complaining Party University Status Email Address
2200 East Kenwood Blvd./Student Union 229-
Home Mailing Address Phone Number

Full-time /Classified Staff/manager Staff/subordinate /

Responding Party University Status Relationship to Complainant

229-4776
Campus Mailing Address Campus Phone Number

Allegation based on:

Race or Color Disabili Sexual Orientation Retaliation
Veteran Status Sexual Harassment Age (40 or Over) National Origin
Ancestry Pregnancy Marital Status Sex/Gender
Religion Arrest or Conviction Record Gender Identity/Expression
Other, E x p l a i n : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date(s) of Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Incident lnllOll.iei:t-------------..._
Terms and/or Conditions of Employment · Campus Housing
Terms and/or Con 1tions o • ucation · Student Programs
Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Complaint
Have you filed a discrimination complaint or appeal with another university department, union or state or federal
agency? Yes__ No XX If yes, please state the name of the agency and date filed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Please describe your complaint:

I received a forwarded email from a employee that was originally sent by UWM student,
. In her email, alleges that her employment as a student employee in
was terminated due to sexual harassment • . I am requesting the Office of Equity and
Diversity investigate this claim. I have included the original email with this complaint form.

Resolution Sought:
A full and complete review of
this allegation and follow-up
report.

The discrimination complaint process has been explained to me and I have received a copy of the policy. I certify that the
information given above is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge or belief. The Office of Equity/Diversity
Services has my permission to conduct pertinent inquires in regard to my complaint and to use my name In such inquires.

Signature of Complaining Party Date 4/22/13 ·

Referred By:
Advisor/Counselor Co-Worker Supervisor Union Steward
Campus Brochure Faculty Training Seminar Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ __
 UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN

U\t\MILWAUKEE
__:_.:.---!
-=----.!
Office of Equity/Diversity Services lvlitchell Hall 359
PO Box 413
Milwaukee, WI
53201-0413
To: ·· Johannes Britz 414 229-5923 phone
Provost and Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs 414 229-5592 fax
www.diversity.uwm.edu
diverse@uwm.edu
From: Jazmin Taylor j-1
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services

Date: April 7, 2014

· RK: Discrimination Complaint #366 ( 3rd Party)

The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of the Office of Equity/Diversity

Services' (EDS) findings and recommendations regarding the above-referenced
complaint. (Complainant),
filed a third-party complaint based on informatiqn reported to him by a UWM female
student employee. The complaint alleges that (Respondent) sexually
harassed a female student employee and terminated her employment
when she refused his sexual advances.

This complaint has been investigated in accordance with the UWM Discriminatory
Conduct Policy (Including Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence). The Policy
provides in part:

UWM is committed to building and maintaining a campus environment that

recognizes the inherent worth and dignity of every person, fosters tolerance,
sensitivity, understanding, and mutual respect, and encourages the members of its
community to strive to reach their full potential. .-

UWM defines discrimination as conduct that (1) adversely affects any aspect of
an individual's employment, education, or participation in activities or programs
at UWM; and (2) is based on one or more characteristics of the individual that are
protected under federal or state laws .. ..

UWM defines retaliation as an adverse action as a result of an individual's

complaint about conduct prohibited under this Policy or participation in
enforcement of this Policy.
Any individual who believes that he or she is being subjected to discrimination,
harassment, or retaliation prohibited by the University's policies may file a complaint
with EDS. The complaint must be in writing, on a form provided by EDS, and must be
filed within 300 calendar days of the most recent alleged prohibited act. EDS at its own
discretion may accept complaints that are not in writing or that are filed outside of the
300-day limitation for good cause.

1. At the conclusion of its investigation, EDS will prepare written findings

and remedial recommendation to the Provost, with copies to the
complainant, respondent, the complainant's supervisor or Dean, the
respondent's supervisor or Dean, and the Associate Vice Chancellor for
Diversity and Climate ...

2. Within 10 working days of receipt of the Director of EDS's factual

findings remedial recommendation to the Provost, with copies to the
complainant, respondent, the complainant's supervisor or Dean, the
respondent's supervisor or Dean, and the Associate Vice Chancellor for
Diversity and Climate . . . and remedial recommendations, the complainant
or the respondent may respond to the factual findings and remedial
recommendations . The response must be in writing and sent to the
Chancellor and the Provost. The Provost will provide copies of any such
responses to the other party, to the Director of EDS, the Dean or Division
Head of both the complainant and the respondent, and the University
Committee (for faculty) or the Academic Staff Committee (for academic
staff). Responses may be based on either: (1) whether the evidence
supports the findings; and/or (2) whether the recommended remedial
actions are appropriate . ,,,

DISCUSSION
The Complainant received a complaint from a UWM female student employee (female
employee), alleging that the Respondent sexually harassed her when the Respondent sent
her unwanted sexually suggestive messages and photographs of his penis via text
message and terminated her employment at the after she rebuffed his
sexual advances . As a remedy, the Complainant requests a full and complete review of
these allegations and asks that a follow-up report be issued.

As a preliminary matter, EDS notes that due to the female employee's failure to
cooperate and participate in an interview with EDS as well as EDS employee turnover,
EDS has exceeded the time allotted to conclude the investigation in UWM's
Discriminatory Conduct Policy.

During the course of its investigation, EDS interviewed the Respondent and two
witnesses involved in the management and daily operations of the . In
addition to these interviews, EDS reviewed email correspondence from the female
employee stating her claims of sexual harassment, student employee work schedules and

2
 timesheets and email correspondence from student employees related to absenteeism
and/or their unavailability to work scheduled shifts.

EDS established that the Complainant serves as the

for UWM. In his capacity, he oversees operations for the
and responds to complaints involving employees. When the
Complainant received the female employee's complaint, he filed a third-party complaint
with EDS based on the sexual nature of the allegations. The Respondent, at the time of
this complaint, was an
.

According to the report received by the Complainant, the female employee alleged the
Respondent engaged in sexual harassment when he: conducted her interview at a local
bar and guaranteed her employment; stated that he only hired her because of her good
looks; and sent her unwanted text messages that read "I want you so bad", "Come
downstairs and let me show you the ", and "Who cares if I wanted to
rip your tights open and fuck you right there in the middle of the The female
student also reported to the Complainant that the Respondent sent her unsolicited pictures
of his genitals and a text message asking whether she had "a pipe he can use." The female
employee claimed that when she failed to respond to the Respondent's texts and/or
communications in a favorable way, the Respondent lied about to
lure her to his house and then attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with her. The
female employee stated th?t the Respondent eventually terminated her after she
continually rejected his advances.

The Respondent denies that he sexually harassed the female employee. He specifically
denies that he treated her favorably during the interview and hiring process, sent her
sexually explicit text messages and pictures of his genitals, attempted to have sexual
intercourse with her, and terminated her because she refused his advances.

According to the Respondent, he did not conduct an interview with the female employee
at a bar. The Respondent explained the female employee failed to drop off her application
to his office prior to the end of the business day (4 p.m.). He stated after 4:00 pm, the
female employee sent him a text message inquiring as to how she could provide him with
her resume, to which he responded that she could bring it to him at G Daddy's BBC
where he was having dinner. The Respondent recalled the female employee brought him
the resume and sat with him for a while, but denies he conducted an interview or offered
her the position at this time.

The Respondent stated he did not consider the female employee's physical appearance in
his decision to hire her. He explained the female employee had previous work experience
in the , which he cites as a "standout qualification". He also
recalled the female student indicating that she was available during the desired hours.

The Respondent denies making any attempts to have sexual intercourse or engage in a
romantic relationship with the female employee. He acknowledged he was acquainted

3
with the female employee prior to her employment at the and that they
occasionally sent each other text messages, but he denies that these messages were sexual
in nature. The Respondent suggested a former girlfriend, who may have had a friendship
with the female employee, could have shared his sexual text messages to her (including
pictures of his penis) with the female employee. The Respondent stated once the female
employee began working at the he did not text her outside of work hours and
any texts were work-related. The Respondent does not recall whether he told the female
employee that , but denies such statement was an attempt to lure her to his
house for sex.

The Respondent also denies he terminated the female employee because she rejected his
sexual advances . According to the Respondent, the female employee frequently arrived
late to work and often failed to show up for her shift without calling in advance or later
providing an explanation. The Respondent acknowledged he is a lenient supervisor
because he supervises college students whose first priority is academic coursework;
however, he stated he expects employees to notify him in advance of tardiness and/or
absenteeism. The Respondent stated there were other student employees who were absent
or late for scheduled work shifts just as much if not more than the female employee, but
these employees either called in or provided justifiable excuses. The Respondent stated
that three "no call, no show" occurrences is a basis for termination, and the female
employee far exceeded that number.

EDS interviewed witnesses who serve in management capacities for the None
of these witnesses received reports regarding the Respondent behaving in a sexually
harassing or inappropriate manner toward employees. One witness recalled the
Respondent addressed the female employee's attire, which consisted of a skirt, tights and
heels, because he thought it was inappropriate for a position. Another witness
stated that the Respondent discussed terminating the female employee because of
repeated absences and not fulfilling employment obligations. This witness stated that he,
himself discussed with and provided counsel to the female employee about coming to
work late, calling in late or not coming in at all. The witness also stated he heard
"rumblings" about the female employee being angry about her termination and that "she
was going to get him [the Respondent]."

EDS also reviewed time sheets of student employees that served as during
the time period the female employee served in this position. Time sheets revealed .several
student employees were late and/or absent as much as or more than the female employee.
However, the Respondent provided emails from these student employees that provided
notice of their tardiness/absenteeism. There were no emails from the female employee.

CONCLUSION
EDS determines that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of sexual
harassment against the Respondent. The Respondent denied sending the female employee
text messages of a sexual nature. Because the female employee did not participate in
EDS' investigation, there is no evidence to dispute the Respondent's version of events.
Also, the Respondent provided legitimate reasons for hiring and terminating the female

4
employee that were not based on sexual interest in or a sexual relationship with the
female employee. Witnesses confirmed the female employee had previous work
experience in the and time sheets provided by the department supported the
Respondent's claim that he terminated the female employee for excessive tardiness and
absenteeism without notification.

This concludes EDS' investigation of this complaint. Page two of this report provides the
Complaining and Responding parties with specific appeal rights regarding the report's
factual findings and remedial recommendations. The parties must exercise these rights
within 10 working days of receiving this report. Accordingly, the deadline for submitting
an appeal is April 21, 2014.

cc: , Third-Party Complainant

, Respondent
, Director,
Michael Laliberte, Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and
Engagement

5
 UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN

U\\MILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

Provost and Vice Chancellor

Chapman Hall 215

TO: Jazmin Taylor P.O. Box 413
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services Milwaukee, WI
53201-0413
FROM: Johannes Britz 414 229-4501 phone
414 229-2481 fax
Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs www4.uwm.edu/acad_aff/

DATE: May 9, 2014

RE: EDS Complaint #366

On April 7, 2014, you submitted to me your findings and recommendations on the above-
referenced complaint, wherein (Complainant),
, filed a third-party complaint based on information reported to him by a female
UWM student employee. The complaint alleged that (Respondent), a former
, sexually harassed a female student employee
and terminated her employment when she refused his sexual advances.

You found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual harassment against
the Respondent in violation ofUWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy. The Respondent denied
sending the female employee text messages of a sexual nature. Because the female employee did
not participate in EDS's investigation, there is no evidence to dispute the Respondent's version
of events. The Respondent also provided legitimate reasons for hiring and terminating the
female employee that were not based on sexual interest in or a sexual relationship with the
female employee. Witnesses confirmed that the female employee had previous work experience
in the and time sheets provided by the department supported the Respondent's claim
that he terminated the female employee for excessive tardiness and absenteeism without
notification.

As of April 21, 2014, I have received no appeals from either party in this matter. I have carefully
reviewed your fmdings and recommendations and I concur with your conclusions. In accordance
with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct Policy, this determination is final.

c: Third-Party Complainant
, Respondent
, Director,
Michael Laliberte, Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement
Dev Venugopalan, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs
 UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN College of Engineering
U\\MILWAUKEE & Applied Science
Office of the Dean

EMS Building
May 16, 2013 P.O. Box 784
Milwaukee, WI
53201-0784
Francene L. Botts, J.D. 414 229-4126 phone
Director, Equity/Diversity Services 414 229-6958 fax
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Mitchell Hall 359
Milwaukee, WI 53224

Ms. Botts:

Through your office, I have received information that ,

Professor of , has been accused of sexual assault by
a student at another university. My understanding of this accusation is that the
student and met through activities related to a research project.
Due to the serious and yet sensitive nature of these allegations, I am requesting
your assistance in investigating this complaint given your experience and
expertise with sexual harassment/violence issues, which are beyond the scope
of the College to properly handle.

I would appreciate if you would investigate this matter and provide a report of
your findings to me. Please let me know if you have any questions or need more
information.

Sincerely,

Dean,

C: , Associate Professor of
Department Chair
 UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN

U\\MILVIAUKEE Global Inclusion and Engagement

• Office of Equity/Diversity Services

To: Mitchell Hall, Room 359

Dean, P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, WI
53201-0413
From: Jamie Cimpl-Wiemer (414) 229-5923 phone
Interim Director, Office of Equity/Diversity Services (414) 229-5592 fax
www.diversity.uwm.edu
Date: March 5, 2018 diverse@uwm.edu

Re: EDS File No. 371—

Dean

Recently, the Office of Equity/Diversity Services (EDS) conducted a review of its

investigation files from the last five (5) years (that is, from 2013-present). In conducting that
review, EDS discovered that the file referenced above does not contain a report or
memorandum indicating the disposition of this matter, which you requested that EDS
investigate via a letter to former EDS Director Francene Botts-Butler dated May 16, 2013.

I have conducted a review of all the materials contained within the physical file which EDS
maintained regarding this matter. From that review, I have concluded that there is
insufficient evidence of a connection between the alleged incident which prompted your
investigation request and work (i.e., his teaching and research) at UWM to
permit further investigation as EDS does not investigate conduct which is unrelated to a
faculty member’s work at UWM. Thus, EDS is closing its investigation of this matter.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about this matter.

Sincerely,

Jamie Cimpl-Wiemer
Interim Director
Office of Equity/Diversity Services
 Office of Equ1ty/Olverslty Ssrvlces • University ofWlscocsln•Mllwaukee • Mitchell Hall Room 359
P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201
Telephone: (414) 229-!i923 • F;mam diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229•5592

Discrimil:'lation Complaint Form

General Information

g
LlN'-li\5S?fl"t:n
University Status
2tocr: Email Address
~ uw01 .sw _

ng Address
_p m:;r. l.ll;nu\-<tt i C ~ 53 21)'.'l. ('-H '1) '1.7...C\ ~
Phon Number

G B ~ °1EAG)::(ID~ A~ Lle;~

Allegation based on:

Race or Color · Sel.'1Jal Orientation
Veteran Status Age (40 or Over)
Ancestry re Marital Status
Rellglon . Arrest Ol" Convict[on Record
Other,BXplain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-=-----,,....,....---=--~--=--,,......,,,.._-=~-...,----~
Date(s) of Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: =l;:"_,tsr::C:8,=--~,L&>,Eo&.. .__...f>
...f;)t)...._...,_!£~ff"\"t8-..._....__ _ __
Incident rn:;.V::,:Ol~ve::.:d=-:--:----::-----:'.:-:-:'"""--:-:-:---
~rms and /or Conditions of Bmploi:m}mu Campus Housing
Terms and/or Conditions ofEducation Student Programs
Other, Explain: _ _~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Complaint
Have you filed a dlscrlmination complaint or appeal with another university department. union or state or federal I I/,..,., .
agency'? Yes~ No__ If yes, please state the name of the agency :and date filed \JWW\ O§J"tl\) 0 P :%JV~ - ·,., ,.,,
Please descrJbe )'OW- cornpl:atnt: • .--
~ 8:":

Resolution Sought:

The discrimination complaint process has been explained to me and I have received a copy of the policy. I certify that the
1nrorrnation given above ls true .ind accurate to the best of my knowledge or belief. The Office of Equity/Diversity
ulres In regard to my compla[nt and to use my name In such inquires.

Date

Referred By:
Advisor/Counselor Co-Worker
Campus Brochure Faculty

:woJ~ 00:s1 £102-l2-~ON

 (

Complaint: The teaching graduate assistant is engaging in illegible verbal harassment with his
undergraduate students. Allegation is based on sexual harassment, sex/gender, gender
identity/expression of female-identified students.

Resolution Sought: Removal from his graduate program, permanently ineligible to be a student
at UW-Milwaukee, removal from his graduate assistantship, permanently banned as a graduate
(teaching, program, and research) assistant, and permanently disqualify as a UW•Milwaukee
employee in all capacities.

Class:

Section:

Class Number:

Times:

Days:

Dates:

Instructor: (Teacher Assistant)

Location:

Fir-st r-eported to me ( Thursday 11/21/2013 around 2:30PM by two female students

in my office.

STUDENT ONE:
He calls a girl in class Nipples since the first day. Calls another girl Chipmunk because she has
buck teeth. I think a girl may have dropped his because he always called her blonde and
dumb and other insults. Says he gets horny when he doesn't work out every other day. Once said
that this one girl isn't used to big things because of her boyfriend so she is used to small things.
Said that's how he "gets it up" when he was talking about something random. Since the first day
of class, he just says rude things like ''I'll fuck you up".

***** is going to message u too. I don't remember dates though because he says perverted things
like every day. He said something about like fucking a microphone in his ass or something.

Report Page 1 of Z
 /

And it's not always just perverted tlungs; it's like rude things a professional shouldn't say in
general

STUDENT TWO:

·First week of classes: (referring to a girl's picture of a cell) stated that it was too small and
she needs to draw it bigger. The girl said okay without any arguing and said ''you are just
used to small things because of your boyfriend" the girl replied "I don't have a boyfriend" and
moved on.

Still first week of classes: said to a different girl "are you fucking my microscope?"
(meaning to say are you fucking with my microscope) and the girl said "no that would be
uncomfortable" and said "especially for me because it would have to go in my ass" and this
girl has not returned to class (unsure if that is the reason)

Second week of classes: Refers to a student as "chipmunk" because she has big teeth, "nipples" is
a different student, and "blondie11 is a third student. Repeatedly tells blondie that she is dumb
because of her hair color and will not pass the class

Almost every class he brings up things that make him horny such as missing a day of exercise

Week 4 or 5 he called a girl ugly and pointed out acne on another girl in front of other classmates

Week 2 a student came to him genuinely concerned about failing the class and she said "I've
never failed a class before" and he said "well there is a first time for everything"

Week 4 he went up to a student taking a quiz and laughed at their answer which causes obvious
insecurity and embarrassment

Week 5 a student asked him if he was bullied as a child and that's why he is rude and he said 11 110
I was molested" then after receiving the laughter he was hoping for he said "by (another
students) parents" (this one was especially offensive because molestation is more common than
people think and I am willing to bet that multiple people in the class have been affected by it and
he made a joke out of it)

He said we could pass the class if we pay him 200 dollars for every grade we need up (but it
seemed like ajoke).

1bis is all I can think of right now but there are multiple inappropriate things that are said every
class.

Report Poge2 o/2

 -
{

-%-Fax 11/27/2013

From: Advisor
Phone:
Fax: 414.229.
Company
Name: , University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

To: Jazmin Taylor, Office of Equity/Diversity Services

Phone: 414.229.6008
Fax: 414 .229.5592
# of Pages: 04 (including cover page)

Comments:

Discrimination Complaint Form

J2sl. Urgent D For Review D Please Comment D :~;1;e D Please

Recycle
 UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN

U\t\MILWAUKEE
-~
-:---!
Office of Equity/Diversity Services Mitchell Hall 359
PO Box 413
Milwaukee, WI
53201-0413
414 229-5923 phone
To: Johannes Britz 414 229-5592 fax
www.diversity.uwm.edu
Provost and Vice Chancellor
diverse@uwm.edu

From: Jazmin Taylor ~J-'I

Interim Director, Office of Equity/Diversity Services

Date: February 25, 2014

RE: Discrimination Complaint #375 ( 3rd Party)

The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of the Office of Equity/Diversity

Services' (EDS) findings and recommendations regarding the above referenced
complaint. (Complainant),
, filed a third-party complaint based on information he received from students
alleging that (Respondent), Teaching Assistant in the Department of
subjected students to discrimination based on gender, gender
identity/expression and sexual harassment. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
made sexual comments and jokes, gave sexually explicit or otherwise inappropriate
names to students some of which were based on physical appearance, and used profanity
in the classroom setting.

This. complaint has been investigated in accordance with the UWM Discriminatory
Conduct Policy (Including Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence). The Polley
provides in part:

UWM is committed to building and maintaining a campus environment that

recognizes the inherent worth and dignity of every person, fosters tolerance,
sensitivity, understanding, and mutual respect, and encourages the members of its
community to strive to reach their full potential.

UWM defines discrimination as conduct that (1) adversely affects any aspect of
an individual's employment, education, or participation in activities or programs
at UWM; and (2) is based on one or more characteristics of the individual that are
protected under federal or state laws .. ..

UWM defines retaliation as an adverse action as a result of an individual's

complaint about conduct prohibited under this Policy or participation m
enforcement of this Policy.
 Any individual who believes that he or she is being subjected to discrimination,
harassment, or retaliation prohibited by the University;s policies may file a complaint
with EDS. The complaint must be in writing, on a form provided by EDS, and must
be filed within 300 calendar days of the most recent alleged prohibited act. EDS at its
own discretion may accept complaints that are not in writing or that are filed outside
of the 300-day limitation for good cause.

1. At the conclusion of its investigation, EDS will prepare written findings and
remedial recommendation to the Provost, with copies to the complainant,
respondent, the complainant's supervisor or Dean, the respondent's supervisor
or Dean, and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Climate . . .
2. Within 10 working days of receipt of the Director of EDS' s factual findings
and remedial recommendations, the . complainant or the respondent may
respond to the factual findings and remedial recommendations. The response
must be in writing and sent to the Chancellor and the Provost. The Provost
will provide copies of any such responses to the other party, to the Director of
EDS, the Dean or Division Head of both the complainant and the respondent,
and the University Committee (for faculty) or the Academic Staff Committee
(for academic staff). Responses may be based on either: (1) whether the
evidence supports the findings; and/or (2) whether the recommended remedial
actions are appropriate.

DISCUSSION

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent engaged in discriminatory and harassing
behavior wp.en he joked in a sexual manner with students in a lab he taught and
commented on their physical appearance. As a remedy, the Complainant seeks the
Respondent's removal from the graduate program and graduate
assistantship. He also requests that the Respondent be permanently banned from being a
student or employee at UWM.

During the course of its investigation, EDS interviewed the Complainant, the Respondent
and several students enrolled in the lab taught by the Respondent. EDS
also reviewed email correspondence between the Respondent and students and a study
guide for the lab posted on D2L by the Respondent.

EDS established that the Complainant serves as an Advisor

He received verbal and written complaints from students enrolled in
the taught by the Respondent, leading him to file this third-party
complaint. The Respondent is a student in the process of applying to a
graduate program. He served as a Teaching Assistant in the semester. He taught
sections of the during that semester.

2
 The Complainant received verbal and written reports from students c1tmg several -
examples of the Respondent's discriminatory and harassing behavior. According . to
students' reports, the Respondent gave female students nicknames such as nipples, ·
chipmunk and blondie; pointed out a female student's acne; called a female student ugly;
stated that he gets horny if he does not exercise; and commented to another female
student that she was used to small things because of her boyfriend. The Complainant
stated that students also reported the Respondent gave extra credit for non-academic
reasons such as sexual jokes and joked about being molested by a female student's
parents.

The Respondent acknowledged that he gave students nicknames, but explained that the
nicknames were not of a sexual nature. According to the Respondent, he referred to a
female student as nipples because when viewing cells through the microscope, the
student described one of the cells as looking like a nipple. The Respondent stated that the
student did not seem offended by the nickname and even referred to herself as nipples in
an email correspondence to him. The Respondent provided a copy of this email, and EDS
verified that the student referred to herself as nipples. The Respondent also admitted to
calling female students blondie and chipmunk. He explained that the blondie nickname
came about when he asked a student why she asked so many questions to which she
. responded because she is blond. He stated that when a second female student began to
ask a lot of questions, he called her blondie as well and told her that she was acting like
the other blonde student. The Respondent stated he called another female student
chipmunk because she has a high, sharp voice, not because she has bucked teeth.

The Respondent stated that he also gave a male student a nickname. According to the
Respondent, one of the male students told the class he was from so he
began referring to him as The Respondent stated that because students also
used the nicknames, he did not believe anyone was offended.

The Respondent also acknowledged that he made sexual jokes. He stated that when a
student's microscope fell apart, he asked her whether she was 'fucking his microscope',
to which the student replied 'that would be uncomfortable'. He stated that he ,then said,
"Especially for me because it would go in my ass ." The Respondent stated that this
exchange occurred with an older student, so he did not think it was inappropriate at the
time. The Respondent denies joking about being horny if he does not exercise or telling a
female student she was used to small things because of her boyfriend. He also denied
joking about being molested by a student's parents.

The Respondent admitted to commenting on a female student's physical appearance. He

stated that he told the female student that he referred to as nipples to 'do something about
the acne on her forehead because it looks ugly'. The Respondent stated that he did not
intend to offend the student and regrets making the statement.

The Respondent stated that he never received any training in regards to sexual
harassment or how to interact with students . He stated that he was only informed on what
to present in terms of curriculum. In his opinion, he would have benefitted from training

3
 on how to interact with students and what boundaries should exist between teaching
assistants and students.

EDS interviewed witnesses consisting of students in of the

course taught by the Respondent. Witnesses confirmed that the Respondent gave
female students nicknames including nipples, chipmunk and blondie. Some witnesses
found the nicknames unprofessional and offensive; others stated that the nicknames were
just a joke and believed that none of the students seemed offended. Most witnesses also
recalled the Respondent joking that he gets horny if he does not exercise and giving extra
credit points for jokes, some .of which were of a sexual nature. Several witnesses also
· confirmed that the Respondent told a female student that she was "use to" small things
because of her boyfriend."

Some witnesses provided additional examples of the Respondent's unprofessional

conduct unrelated to protected characteristics. They stated that he used profanity in class·
and that it was· sometimes directed at students. Examples such included the Respondent
saying, "I'll fuck you , up" and "You don't get this shit." One witness recalle.d the
Respondent referring to a male student as a 'fucking Illinois bastard' because the student
wore a Chicago Cubs hat to class . Another witness stated that the Respondent 'threw up
gang signs' and said he was 'from the hood'. Two witnesses stated that they stopped
attending the because of the Respondent's unprofessional behavior, and some
witnesses suspected a third student dropped the for the same reason .

CONCLUSION

EDS determines that there is sufficient ·evidence to _substantiate a finding of sexual

harassment against the Respon,dent. The Respondent acknowledged making certain jokes
and comments of a sexual nature in the classroom, and witnesses substantiated additional
instances of sexually . explicit statements, beyond what the Respondent admitted to.
Although the Respondent lacked the awareness to perceive that the students were
offended, these statements were indeed unwelcome by his students. Certain statements
were based on sex, and severe and pervasive enough to create a hostile learning
environment, in violation of UWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy. In addition, EDS
finds that the Respondent engaged in certain inappropriate conversations with students,
but those conversations are outside . of the scope of UWM' s Discriminatory Conduct
Policy as they were not based on protected characteristics.

Although the Respondent did not intend harm, that does not excuse his behavior. He fails
to recognize that he stood in a position of authority over the students and that this power
difference compromised the ability of students to protect their own rights . The
Respondent indicated that he did not receive sexual harassment training prior to his
teaching assignment and suggests that, as a result, he did not know the appropriate
boundaries . EDS rejects that claim; the Respondent's behavior was unacceptable by any
measure, irrespective of whet~er he has been formally trained on boundaries .

4
. In light of EDS's findings that the Respondent violated UWM's Discriminatory Conduct
Policy, EDS recommends that Dean Swain consider what discipline is necessary in the
context of the Respondent's employment in the College of Letters and Science. At a
minimum, EDS recommends that the Dean consider requiring the Respondent to take the
following steps prior to being permitted to resume employment: (1) undergoing
appropriate sexual harassment training, (2) being required to review UWM's
Discriminatory Conduct Policy, and (3) meeting with an appropriate administrator to
discuss UWM's expectations for employees.

This concludes EDS' investigation of this complaint. Page two of this report provides the
Complaining and Responding parties with specific appeal rights regarding the report's
factual findings and remedial recommendations. The parties must exercise these rights
within 10 working days of receiving this report. The deadline for submitting an appeal is
March 12, 2014.

cc: , 3rd Party Complainant

.· , Respondent .
, Chair, Department of , College of Letters and
Science
Rodney Swain, Dean, College of Letters and Science
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and
Engagement

5
 UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN

U\\MILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

Provost and Vice Chancellor

Chapman Hall 215

P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, VITI
TO: Jazmin Taylor 53201-0413
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services 414 229-4501 phone
414 229-2481 fax
www4.uwm.edu/ acad_aff/
FROM: Johannes Britz
Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

DATE: March 25, 2014

RE: Complaint #375

On February 25, 2014, you submitted to me your findings and recommendations on the above-
referenced complaint, wherein (Complainant),
, filed a third-party complaint based on information he received from
students alleging that (Respondent), Teaching Assistant in the Department of
, subjected students to discrimination based on gender, gender
identity/expression, and sexual harassment. Specifically, the Complainant alleged that the
Respondent made sexual comments and jokes, gave sexually explicit or otherwise inappropriate
names to students, some of which were based on appearance, and used profanity in the classroom
setting.

EDS found that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual harassment against
the Respondent. The Respondent acknowledged making certain jokes and comments of a sexual
nature in the classroom, and witnesses substantiated additional instances of sexually explicit
statements. Although the Respondent lacked the awareness to perceive that the students were
offended, these statements were unwelcome by his students. Certain statements were based on
sex, and severe and pervasive enough to create a hostile learning environment in violation of
UWM' s Discriminatory Conduct Policy.

EDS indicated that although the Respondent did not intend harm, that does not excuse his
behavior. He fails to recognize that he stood in a position of authority over the students and that
this power difference compromised the ability of students to protect their own rights. The
Respondent indicated that he did not receive sexual harassment training prior to his teaching
assignment and suggested that, as a result, he did not know the appropriate boundaries. EDS
rejected that claim, stating that the Respondent's behavior was unacceptable by any measure,
regardless of whether or not he had received formal training on boundaries.

Based on its findings that the Respondent violated UWM' s Discriminatory Conduct Policy, EDS
recommended that Dean Swain determine appropriate discipline in the context of the
Respondent's employment in the College of Letters and Science. At a minimum, EDS
recommended that Dean Swain require the Respondent to take the following steps prior to being
permitted to resume employment:
 1. Participate in appropriate sexual harassment training;
2. Review UWM' s Discriminatory Conduct Policy; and
3. Meet with an appropriate administrator to discuss UWM' s expectations of employees.

As of March 12, 2014, I have received no appeals from either party in this matter. I have
carefully reviewed your findings and recommendations and first want to state that the
Respondent's behavior, as documented in EDS's report, is abhorrent and contrary to both
University policy and the law. The fact that the Respondent contributed to a sexualized
atmosphere for students in the classroom is unacceptable. The Respondent's actions have
created an intolerable atmosphere for students and a poor image for the University. The
University has taken responsive steps to ensure that the Respondent is not working at UWM this
semester, however, it has the responsibility to ensure that the he does not engage in similar
behavior in the future.

As such, I am referring this matter to Dean Swain and the Department Chair, , for
appropriate discipline. I would recommend that a letter of reprimand be placed in the
Respondent's personnel file. It is unclear to me whether the Respondent intends to seek future
employment as a graduate student in or another department within L&S. Ifhe does,
I would ask Dean Swain to seriously consider whether it is advisable to rehire the Respondent
absent a significant showing that the Respondent has altered his behavior and accepts
responsibility for his actions. In the event that he is employed by the College in the future, I
would recommend that the Dean ensure that the Respondent has appropriate training and
superv1s10n.

Additionally, irrespective of whether the Respondent seeks employment with UWM in the
future, I have significant concerns with the Respondent's ability to interact appropriately with
others in the UWM community in his capacity as a UWM student. In light of this, I am also
copying the Dean of Students on this decision and ask that he consider whether additional
discipline is appropriate under UWM' s non-academic misconduct policies and procedures,
including requiring that the Respondent take comprehensive sexual harassment training.

On a final note, I commend the students who brought this matter to the University's attention as
well as the other student witnesses who participated in the investigation. To do so must have
taken courage and I am grateful for their assistance in this matter.

In accordance with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct policy, this determination is final.

c: Third Party Complainant

Respondent
, Chair,
Rodney Swain, Dean, College of Letters and Science
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement
Dev Venugopalan, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs
Tim Gordon, Dean of Students