F'llifchc (I: - Discrimi1:1ation Complaint Farin

'
Office of Equity/Diversity Services• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Room 359

P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201
Telephone: (414) 229-5923 • Email: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229-5592
-Discrimi1:1ation Complaint Farin

General Information
f'llifchc(I
Home Mailing Address Phone Number
Campus Mailing Address Campus Phone Number
·Allegation based on:

Race or Color Disabili · Se>mal 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, Explairi: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
$.,_t..,l'.kJ.....,e..,,J...,17...,e"'
Date(s) of Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: _._6"""a.'-'-I._I.....,.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Incident rnvolved
sand or Conditions of ent Campus Housing
erms and/or Conditions of Educatio Student Programs
Other,Exp ain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Complaint
Have you filed a discrimination complaint or appeal with another university department, union or state or federal
agency? Yes_ No -1S,__ If yes, please state the name of the agency and date filed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Resolution Sought:
1nt. ~rudtnf wou.lJ like. fuv -Mu Gcvw.vi•v · to .sfof and. to

havt no fu.v--fiuY- c.ovrhcc+ wi-th -·
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
=r+ .
Services has my p_e rmissio/tonduct pertinentinqu'.res in _regard to my complaint and to use my name in such inquires.
~kl 1/1to~H
S ~ reofComp1aining Party date 1
Referred By:
Advisor/Counselor Co-Worker Supervisor Union Steward
Campus Brochure Faculty Training Seminar Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ __
.· UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN
U\\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
Provost and Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs wwv,,•.diversit:y.uwm.edu
diverse@uwm.edu
From: Jazmin Taylor J· f

Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services
Date: February 5, 2014
. RE: Discrimination Complaint #378 (EDS 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. EDS filed a third party complaint against (Respondent),
Teaching Assistant in the Departme_nt, after receiving allegations that
subjected a UWM student to sexual harassment. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that directed frequent and unwanted email correspondence to the
student.
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 mainta1mng 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
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 complaint alleges that the Respondent sexually harassed a UWM female student
when he repeatedly sent unwanted emails to her over the course of the winter break. As a
remedy, the student requests that the Respondent cease all communication with her and
be terminated.
During the course of its investigation, EDS interviewed the female student and the
Respondent. EDS also reviewed emails from the Respondent to the female student.
EDS dete.rmined that the Respondent is a doctoral student in the Department of

and has also served as a Teaching Assistant in the department since During the fall
semester, the Respondent taught in which ~he female student was
enrolled. The female student is a majoring in She is not
enrolled in any of the Respondent's courses for the spring semester, but she is
taking classes in the building.
2
The female student stated that during the fall semester the Respondent asked her to
come to his office, stating that he was available to "offer her help 24/7" and that she
could come to his office or call him anytime. She stated that although she never called or
went to the Respondent's office, she thought he was only extending himself because they
are both from The female student stated she realized the Respondent was being
more than friendly toward the end of the semester when he would get mad when she
spoke with male classmates.
The female student asserts that at the conclusion of the course, the Respondent began
"stalking" her via email by sending unwanted email correspondence on a daily basis .
The emails would bid the female student "Good Morning" and one particular email said
"missing you and the smile", while another contained song lyrics suggesting that the
female student had "a pretty smile." She stated that she never replied to any of the
Respondent's emails. The female student further asserts that she saw the Respondent
drive by her house on one occasion and pointed out that the he does not live in the same
neighborhood.
The female student stated that the Respondent has never asked her out on a date;
however, she stated she is "very frightened" because the Respondent is twice her age and
his behavior is not accepted in her · culture. She also stated that although she is riot
enrolled in any of his classes, many of her classes are in the building in which he teaches.
EDS informed the female student that she can report the Respondent to the UWM Police
if she believes his behavior warrants such action.
The Respondent acknowledged that he frequently contacted the female student. When
presented with copies of the emails submitted by the female student, he confirmed that he
sent them to her. The Respondent explained that he is attracted to the female student and
thought it was ok to contact her once she finished his class, so he emailed her almost
daily during the winter break. He also confirmed that the female student never responded
to his emails; however, he stated that he continued to email her because he wanted her to
respond and did not realize that his emails offended her. The Respondent stated that if the
female student had told him she did not want to receive his emails, he would have
stopped emailing her. EDS informed the Respondent that the female student does not
want him to email her and he agreed to stop contacting her. EDS followed up with the
female student and she stated that the Respondent has not contacted her since the filing of
this complaint.
The Respondent contends that he does not know where the female student lives;
therefore, he does not know whether he drove past her house. He also denies that he
invited the female student to his office for reasons other than to provide academic
assistance. The Respondent confirmed that the female student never came to his office or
called him.
3
CONCLUSION
EDS determines that there lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual
harassment. Although the Respondent's behavior toward the female student was
unprofessional and inappropriate, sending repeated emails to the female student wishing
her a "Good Morning" or song lyrics indicating that she has a "pretty smile", does not
rise to the level of a Policy violation. However, EDS recommends that the Respondent be
put on notice that any subsequent behavior of this nature will result in more severe
consequences. To assist the Respondent in refraining from such behavior, EDS also
recommends that the Respondent receive sexual harassment training. Finally, EDS
recommends that the Respondent initiate no further contact with the female student.
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
February 19, 2014.
cc: , Respondent
Rodney Swain, Dean, College of Letters and Science
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Diversity and Climate
bee: the UWM female student
4
UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN
lJ\t\MILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

Provost and Vice Chancellor
Chapman Hall 215

P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, WI
TO: Jazmin Taylor 53201-0413
If
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 #3 78
On February 5, 2014, you submitted to me your findings and recommendations on the above-
referenced complaint, wherein Equity/Diversity Services (EDS)(Third Party Complainant),
alleged that (Respondent), Teaching Assistant in the ,
subjected a UWM student to discrimination based on sexual harassment. Specifically, the
Complainant alleged that the Respondent directed frequent and unwanted email correspondence
to the student.
You found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual harassment in
violation ofUWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy. Although the Respondent's behavior was
unprofessional and inappropriate, sending repeated emails to the female student wishing her a
"Good Morning" or song lyrics indicating that she has a "pretty smile," does not rise to the level
of a policy violation. However, you recommended that the Respondent be put on notice that any
subsequent behavior of this nature will result in more severe consequences. To assist the
Respondent in refraining from such behavior, you also recommended that he receive sexual
harassment training. Finally, you recommended that the Respondent have no further contact
with the female student. As of February 19, 2014, I have received no appeals from either party
in this matter as to your findings and recommendations.
I have carefully reviewed your findings and recommendations, and I concur with your
conclusions. UWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy defines harassment as conduct that (1) is
of any type (oral, written, graphic or physical); 2) is directed towards or against a person because
of that person's protected status; and 3) unreasonably interferes with the individual's work,
education, or participation in activities at UWM or creates a working or learning environment
that a reasonable person would find threatening or intimidating. The evidence collected by EDS
does not suggest that the Respondent's conduct rose to this level. You did not find evidence that
the Respondent's behavior extended beyond sending emails, and those messages appear
innocuous and non-sexual in nature. I also note that that Respondent's role as a teaching
assistant had terminated before he began sending the emails at issue. Accordingly, there is no
evidence of an abuse of power or conflict of interest in violation of UWM' s Discriminatory
Conduct Policy.
Though I agree that the Respondent's behavior did not constitute a violation ofUWM policy, I
share EDS' s conclusion that the Respondent's behavior was unprofessional and inappropriate. I
want to reiterate EDS' s warning that any subsequent behavior of this nature will result in
disciplinary action. To assist the Respondent in avoiding future violations, I am asking his direct
supervisor to work with the Respondent on workplace appropriateness training.
In accordance with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct Policy, this determination is final.
c: , Respondent
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement
Dev Venugopalan, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs
\
-
•••
f!l'•~9r- w
1/11 rE [~ rE ~ rE ,,.....~
Office of Equity/Diversity Services-" University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Ro
Telephone: (414) 229-5923 • Email: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229 -5592
-DiscrimiJ;iation Complaint For ·

I
LJ
ru ,
L ... ,.
. · ;i0·
I_ :
II Ii
~•i . .,
"-U
1
I
~
General Information
cTazm-
/VliuheJf &U 3 sq
Relationship to Complainant

Race or Color · Se>.11al Orientation Retaliation
Veteran Status Age (40 or Over) National Origin
Religion . Arrest or Conviction Record Gender Identity/Expression
Other, Explairi: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Date(s) of Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: _ _ _~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Incident Involved
T ~t Campus Housing
erms and/or Conditions of Education Student Programs
Other, xplain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _,--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Complaint
. Have you filed a disc~i/nation complaint or appeal with another university department, union or state or federal
agency? Yes__ No Tfyes, please state the name of the agency and date filed _ _ _ _·_ _ _ _ _ __
0
:If wa.5 ve.fo'fta{ to _}'Vl.£. --Ht[(_+

Pieasedescribeyourcomplaint:
used se.KuaUcy cvza.J(_d_ [a_nqu~e.. duv1v:3. lcchtvc.s --rha..f-

oFfcndd- st&!d tn n. 0 ·
Resolution Sought:
~/jt::::;,uz- fr'-tf .- ·
Services has my permission to .conductpertinentinquires in regard to my complaint and to use my name in such inquires.
...dai 'll._ · 3 I3
I I I'-/
Signre oCompfaining Party Date
Referred By:
lMMILWAUKEE
-~
-~
PO Box 413
Milwaukee, i•\II
53201-0413
To: Johannes Britz 414 229-5923 phone
. Provost and yice Chancellor, Academic Affairs 414 229-5592 fax
www.diversity.uwm.edu
From: Jazmin Taylor 5.1 diverse@uwm.edu
Date: May 23, 2014
RE: Discrimination Complaint #381 (3 rd Party EDS)

Services' (EDS) findings and recommendations regarding the above-referenced
. complaint. EDS filed a third-party complaint against
(Respondent), Instructor in the Department of in the College of
Health Sciences, based on information it received from College of Health Sciences'
administration. Specifically, the complaint alleges created a hostile learning
environment based on sexually charged and offensive language used during classroom
instruction. ·
provides in part:
UWM is committed to building and maintammg a campus environment that

community to strive to reach their full potential.
. at UWM; and (2) is based on one or more characteristics of the individual that are
protected under federal or state laws ... .

complaint about conduct prohibited under this Policy or participation in
enforcement of this Policy. ·
with EDS . The complaint must be in writing, on a form provided by EDS, and must be
I
1. At the conclusion of its investigation , EDS will prepare written findings

Global Inclusion and Engagement .. .
2. Within 10 working days of receipt of the Director of EDS's factual

complainant, respondent, the complainant's ,supervisor or Dean, the
Global Inclusion and Engagement ... 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 complaint alleges the Respondent created a hostile learning environment based on
sexually charged and offensive language used during classroom instruction in the .
course·. As a remedy, a full investigation into the matter is
requested.
During the course of its investigation, EDS interviewed members of administration in the
College of Health Sciences, students enrolled in the course
instructed by the Respondent, and the Respondent. EDS also reviewed email
communication between students in the course and College administration and student
evaluations of the Respondent's course.
EDS determined the Respondent has been a visiting instructor in the Department of
since August During the Fall semester, the Respondent taught
, an assignment he received weeks prior to the start of
the semester. Both undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in the course .
2
EDS received information from administration in the College of Health Sciences that
student course evaluations suggested the Respondent might have engaged in discussions
containing sexually charged and offensive language during classroom instruction .
Specifically, students reported to administration and in their evaluations that the
Respondent used at least two offensive acronyms/mnemonic devices to describe various
anatomical structures of the body. Those mnemonic devices were: My Auntie Raped My
Uncle and I Twice Get Laid On .Eridays. EDS conducted interviews with randomly
selected students enrolled in the course taught by the
Respondent, and some of these students further alleged the Respondent stated he wished
he got laid twice on Fridays and one student wrote in the evaluation that the Respondent
suggested "ladies can improve sexual health and pleasure by engaging in pelvic floor
exercise ." Additionally, documents reflect and witnesses stated the Respondent used
students in his class as live models and would "palpate" them or examine a part of the
student's body by touch .
The Respondent admits to using the medical mnemonic device My Auntie Raped My
Uncle in a slide presentation during classroom instruction. He stated he copied the
presentation from the Internet and failed to notice the presentation contained the
acronym . The Respondent stated once he realized students were offended by the
acronym, he removed the slide from the presentation, apologized to the class, and
informed administration in the College of Health Sciences that he had inadvertently
presented the material during lecture. The Respondent denies he used the acronym I
Twice Get Laid On .Eridays . He stated that he has no idea what area of the body this
mnemonic device would represent and that he thought the phrase "get laid" meant to
sleep not to have sex.
EDS randomly selected students enrolled in the course

taught by the Respondent to interview as witnesses . Most of these witnesses recalled that
the Respondent used both mnemonic devices during class lecture. They specifically
recalled the Respondent's use of the acronym My Auntie Raped My Uncle offending
several students, who immediately voiced their concern. Witnesses stated the Respondent
removed the acronym from the lecture presentation; however, he did not seem to be
aware that use of the acronym was inappropriate. In fact, at least one witness stated that
the Respondent said "[w]hat's the big deal?" in response to students' objections . Also,
several witnesses confirmed that the Respondent did use the acronym I Twice Get Laid
On .Eridays and stated that he wished that he got laid twice on Fridays . Some witnesses
said the Respondent's statements ''made for an awkward classroom setting" and
"definitely crossed the line." Witnesses stated that the Respondent often made gender and
sexualized comments as jokes during class, and one witness stated that the Respondent
"seemed to prefer" using sexual acronyms. Many of the witnesses stated they attributed
the Respondent's behavior to him being " (i .e., from and the existence of
a "cultural" difference.
EDS also interviewed witnesses from the College of Health Sciences administration. One
of these administrators stated she initially received complaints about the academic
content of the Respondent's course, but later received an email from a student about
3
sexual content on a slide (i.e., My Auntie Raped My Uncle or MARMU). This witness
stated she discussed the incident with other members of administration, one of which she
believes spoke with the Respondent regarding the slide. Another administration witness
stated that he spoke with the Respondent about the acronym MARMU and did not
believe that this incident was intentional but rather a case of carelessness. This witness
stated that as shocking as it may be, MARMU is a standard mnemonic device commonly
used by medical colleges to remember the branches of the brachia! plexus . The witness
stated that he knows the Respondent did not create the phrase himself. The witness stated
that the Respondent admitted that the use of the phrase was a mistake, and the language
should not have been present on the slide. In addition, EDS conducted an Internet search
· for the acronym MARMU and found that's several websites listed MARMU as an
anatomy mnemonic for medical students.
The Respondent admits he used students as live models and palpated them in front of the
class during lecture. The Respondent stated he invited students to come to the front of the
class for demonstrations and that he never pointed or asked specific students to act as live
models. He stated that there was never any adjustment or removal of clothes and that he
did not touch students. The Respondent stressed that he used both male and female
students who volunteered, and the students never expressed feelings of discomfort about
live student model demonstrations .
The Respondent stated he also used state of the art technology to demonstrate 3D
movement of muscles, vessels, ligaments, nerves, etc. He explained the integration of
actual bodies, dissector software, cadavers, and 3D technology is important because each
technique is good for different reasons. For example, the Respondent explained, cadavers
are useful because they are "static" and do not move, and dissector software is good for
movements that cadavers are unable to perform.
Student witnesses stated that the Respondent often called students to the front of the class
where he used them as live models to "palpate" them or demonstrate muscle
manipulation for the majority of the class period. Witnesses objected to students being
used as live models because (1) the student model was unable to take his/her own notes
during the class period and presumably would have to rely on notes from other students
for that lecture; and (2) in some instances the student models looked uncomfortable being
palpated by the Respondent. Witnesses stated that the Respondent never touched the live
models inappropriately while he was palpating them and never made comments about the
physical appearance of the models.
A witness, who serves as an administrator in the College of Health Sciences, stated, "in 0
general, it [to palpate] is not a bad instructional technique, and [he] would not say that it
is inappropriate to palpate." However, the witness also stated that if there were instances
where sexually charged language or sexual innuendo was used during lecture, it would
have been inappropriate. This witness stated that he does not recall any other issues
regarding gender Of sex raised with respect to the course.
4
The Respondent suggested the information provided for this complaint was an attempt to
negatively impact his candidacy for the position of
in the College of Health Sciences. Although the Respondent
acknowledges use of a sexually charged and offensive acronym, he argues that he
apologized for his mistake and informed administration when the incident occurred. The
Respondent also alleged the information provided that resulted in this complaint against
him was a cultural misunderstanding because he is from ·
EDS interviewed witnesses from administration in the College of Health Sciences who
were participants in the Respondent's screening process for the
position. These witnesses stated that there was a
"unanimous lack of support for hiring" the Respondent, which had nothing to do with the
use of the mnemonic phrases or his nationality. Witnesses stated that members of the
Search and Screen Committee were not aware of the EDS complaint or the Respondent's
use of the cited mnemonic devices .
CONCLUSION
EDS determines there lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding that the
Respondent created a hostile learning environment based on his use of sexually charged
and offensive language during classroom instruction. Although the Respondent's
behavior during classroom instruction was offensive, inappropriate and unprofessional, it
does not rise to the level of a Policy violation . However, EDS recommends the
Respondent be put on notice that any subsequent behavior of this nature will result in
more severe consequences. To assist the Respondent in refraining from such behavior,
EDS also recommends the Respondent receive sexual harassment training .
factual findings and remedial investigations . The parties must exercise these rights within
10 working days of receiving this report. The deadline for submitting an appeal is June 9,
2014. .
cc: (Respondent)
Chukuka Enwemeka, Dean, College of Health Sciences
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and
Engagement
5
lMMILWAUKEE
~~
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
414 229-4501 phone
414 229-2481 fax
FROM: Johannes Britz www4.uwm.edu/ acad_aff/
DATE: June 23, 2014
RE: EDS Complaint #381
On May 23, 2014, you submitted to me your fmdings and recommendations on the above-
referenced complaint, wherein the Office of Equity/Diversity Services (EDS) filed a third-party
complaint against (Respondent), Instructor in the Department of
in the College of Health Sciences, based on information it received from
administration in the College of Health Sciences. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Respondent created a hostile learning environment based on sexually charged and offensive
language used during classroom instruction.
You found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Respondent created a
hostile learning environment in violation ofUWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy. Although
the Respondent's behavior during classroom instruction was offensive, inappropriate, and
unprofessional, it did not rise to the level of a policy violation. However, you recommended that
the Respondent be put on notice that any subsequent behavior of this nature will result in more
severe consequences. To assist the Respondent in refraining from such behavior, you also
recommended that the Respondent receive sexual harassment training.
Under the Discriminatory Conduct Policy, either the complaining party or the responding party
may appeal EDS's fmdings and recommendations by submitting a written appeal to me within 10
working days of receipt of the EDS fmdings and recommendations. An appeal may be based on
(1) whether the evidence supports the fmdings and/or (2) whether the remedial actions are
appropriate. I received an appeal from the Respondent dated June 11, 2014, asserting that EDS ' s
recommendation was unwarranted. Due to its late submission, I am not obligated to consider the
Respondent's appeal; however, I will do so because the appeal itself illustrates the propriety and
relevancy of your recommendations.
In his appeal, the Respondent asserts that there are no grounds for EDS' s conclusion that his
behavior in the classroom was offensive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. The Respondent
also contends that there is no basis for EDS's recommendations that he be put on notice that any
similar behavior in the future will result in more severe consequences and that he receive sexual
harassment training. Finally, the Respondent requests dismissal ofEDS's conclusion and
recommendation, a letter of apology, and investigation of the possibility that administration in
the College of Health Sciences filed this complaint for political purposes.
-·- --··-----· ---- . -- --- - · - - - -·· - · - · - - - - - - - -

I have carefully reviewed your findings and recommendations, and I concur with your
conclusions. Though the Respondent's actions do not rise to the level of a policy violation, his
behavior was nonetheless offensive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. The Respondent
concedes that he used sexually charged and offensive acronyms in class but excuses his actions
by claiming that (i) these acronyms are commonly used in academia, and (ii) his use of these
acronyms was inadvertent. I am not swayed by these excuses. Multiple students complained
about these acronyms, demonstrating that such acronyms are objectively inappropriate for use on
this campus. Additionally, it is not acceptable for a faculty member to disclaim responsibility for
his/her course content on the basis of inadvertence. The Respondent needs to take ownership of
the materials he presents to his students.
I am especially disturbed that the Respondent refuses to accept the fact that multiple students
found his teaching methods inappropriate. The Respondent instead chooses to question EDS's
methodology and investigatory procedures. Based on these accusations, I requested and
reviewed EDS' s file in this matter. My review of that file confirmed that EDS acted in full
conformity with UWM' s Discriminatory Conduct Policy and conducted a full and fair
investigation of this matter. The Respondent's appeal does not illustrate any problems with
EDS; however, it does highlight the Respondent's failure to understand UWM's behavioral
standards and the need to educate him regarding this issue.
Finally, I note that the Respondent has alleged that this complaint was brought against him for
"political" reasons. Based on my review ofEDS's file, I do not fmd any merit in this allegation.
Multiple students independently complained about the Respondent's behavior, and, as such,
bringing this matter to EDS's attention was a proper course of action. However, to the extent
that the Respondent feels it is appropriate to bring an EDS complaint of his own with respect to
this issue, he is free to do so, and I will issue a decision on the merits of such complaint at that
time.
In conclusion, I agree with your findings and recommendations in this matter. In accordance with
the UWM Discriminatory Conduct Policy, this determination is final.
c: , Respondent
Chukuka Enwemeka, Dean, College of Health Sciences
Office of Equity/Diversity Services. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee+ Mitchell
· P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, wr 53201
IrfiU o~A9P~R [El 7~ REC'Dw [E .~ "11·' ·!1,·. .
Telephone: (414) 229-5923 + Email: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229-
·Dis criffii1:} a ti O ll Complaint Fo

General Information
Complaining Part;y University Status
· ~2:\-qdeo-\- rmo\u11c:e,
Responding Pa!fy . University Status I Relationship to Complainant

Race or Color Disabili!J · SeKual Orientation Retaliation
Veteran Status ~arassmenI) Age (40 or Over) National Origin
Religion . Arrest or Conviction Record Gender fdentity/Expression
Other, Explairi: - - - - - - - - - - - - - : : : - - - ; - - - - , - - ; ~ . , . . . - - : : - - , - c - ; - - - - - - : - ~ - - - , - - - - - - , - - - -
Date(sJ of Alleged Discriminadon/Harassmen t: --'-LL-+-~-l-~='.L..L___~.L.1--<:...d._-l-<:..:...:!""-=-.!..-='~..."'\1.....-~d..L!::=..L..i.u.~
Incident Involved
. ·-··-···,-
C_Ierms
-- - - - - - - - --- - - .
and/or Conditions of Employment ~'
Terms and/or Conditions ofEducation
---
Campus Housing
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 .)s._ If yes, please state the name of the agency and date filed _ _ _ _· _ _ _ _ _ __
Please describe your complaint:
'::)Cc.. o. -\:\ccc..hed L~e.scr,~-hon
Resolution Sought:
see ct*· G\..C\fltc\ c\~')C..(\ ~-non

rhe discrimination complaint process has been explained to me and l have received a copy of the policy. I certify that the
Services has my permission to.conductpertinentinquires in regard to my complaint and to use my name in such inquires.
Signature of Complaining Party
Referred By:
Advisor/Counselor Co-Worker ~ Union Steward
lMMILWAUKEE
~:::::=j
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
From: Jazmin Taylor J--:'\ diverse@uwm.edu
Date: June 9, 2014
RE: Discrimination Complaint #386 ( 3 rd 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 reported
to her by student employees. The complaint alleges that
(Respondent) subjected student staff members to sexual
harassment.
provides in part:
UWM is committed to building and maintaining a campus environment that

at UWM; and (2) is based on one or more characteristics of the individual that are


Global Inclusion and Engagement. ..
2. Within 10 working days of receipt of the Director of EDS' s factual

Global Inclusion and Engagement. .. and remedial recommendations, the
Division Head of both the . complainant and the respondent, and the
academic staff). Responses may be based on either: (1) whether the
remedial actions are appropriate.
DISCUSSION
The Complainant received information from student

employees alleging the Respondent subjected them to sexual harassment when he sent
them unwanted text messages of a sexual nature. As a remedy, a full investigation into
the matter is requested.
During the course of its investigation, EDS interviewed the Complainant and the
Respondent. EDS also reviewed email correspondence detailing the Complainant's
internal investigation of this matter and a letter of termination issued by the Complainant
to the Respondent.
EDS established that the Complainant serves as an

She has held this position since June 2013 .
In this capacity, the Complainant supervises student employees, some of whom reported
receiving text messages of a sexual nature from the Respondent. The Respondent is a
2
. He has served as a
since
The Complainant stated on April 14, 2014, female student employees reported to her that
they received snapchat pictures of a sexual nature from the Respondent, who serves as
their She stated they specifically reported the snapchat they received from the
Respondent was a picture of him with the caption "Tit pie Tuesday", and he requested
they send him pictures of their breasts. According to the Complainant, the student
employees reported the Respondent sent the snapchats regularly and to multiple student
employees. They stated the Respondent always sent "something" on Tuesdays, and his
messages typically contained requests for images of body parts. The Complainant stated
she met with additional student employees and confirmed they too received the snapchats
from the Respondent. The Complainant stated the female student employees informed her
that the snapchats from the Respondent were unsolicited and offensive, and they never
responded to them.
The Respondent admits that he sent snapchat requests for pictures of body parts to
student employees. The Respondent stated that he commonly sent a
snapchat request for images of breasts to student employees on both Tuesdays and
Thursdays (i.e., "Tit Pie Tuesday" and "Tit Pie Thursday") as a joke. The Respondent
stated that he did not "single out" or target student employees as recipients of these
requests, but rather he sent the requests to everyone listed in his telephone contacts. He
stated that although he worked with the student employees and them, he
maintained a friendship with the same persons outside of the workplace. The Respondent
stated that he has never received negative feedback from recipients of his snapchat ·
requests, and that he has received images of breasts as a result of his requests.
The Respondent stated that his employer's treatment of him, as a result of this complaint;
is unwarranted. He stated he believes a student employee, with whom he had a brief
relationship prior to becoming a , made the complaint that
resulted in the filing of this EDS complaint. The Respondent stated the relationship ended
· badly, and she might hold some resentment against him.
During EDS' investigation of this complaint, the Complainant (as the Respondent's
supervisor) determined that the Respondent violated the UWM Faculty/Staff Code of
Conduct Appendix 1: 13 and Appendix 2:4.1 which state in relevant part:
Appendix 1: UWM Behavioral Standards and Expectations

13. Employees must respect the rights of others to be free of bullying,
harassment, intentional physical harm or intimidation in the workplace.
Appendix 2: UWM Respectful Campus Standards

4.1. Cyber bullying is defined as the use of electronic devices to convey a
message in any format ~-, text, image, audio, video) that defames,
intimidates, harasses, frightens, stalks or is otherwise intended to harµi,
offend or humiliate another individual or group of individuals in a
3
deliberate, repeated, hostile or unwanted manner under the perpetrator's
true or a false identity.
Subsequently, the Respondent's employment with the UWM

was terminated effective April 21, 2014.
CONCLUSION
EDS determines there exists sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of sexual

harassment against the Respondent. The Respondent acknowledged he repeatedly sent
unsolicited requests for images of body parts, specifically images of female breasts. This
behavior constitutes sexual harassment and is a violation of the University's
Discriminatory Conduct Policy (Including Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence). The
Respondent's conduct is further exacerbated by his status as to these student
employees. While in the workplace and acting in the role of the Respondent is
expected to conduct himself according to all relevant codes of conduct independent of
any personal, non-work related relationships that exist between him and his student
employees. The Respondent's suggestion that a badly ended relationship is the reason a
student employee reported his conduct is immaterial.
Based on EDS' finding of a Policy violation, it recommends the Respondent be put on

notice that any subsequent behavior of this nature will result in more severe
recommends the Respondent receive sexual harassment training.
factual findings and remedial investigations. The parties must exercise these rights within
10 working days of receiving this report. The deadline for submitting an appeal is June
23, 2014.
cc: (Third-Party Complainant)

(Respondent)
Engagement
Michael Laliberte, Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs
4
U\\MILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

Chapman Hall 215

TO: Jazmin Taylor
P.O. Box 413
FROM: Johannes Britz ~ 53201-0413

414 229-4501 phone
Provost & Vice C ~ r for Academic Affairs 414 229-2481 fax
DATE: July 2, 2014
On June 9, 2014, you submitted to me your findings and recommendations on the above-referenced
complaint, wherein (Complainant), Associate Student
Services Coordinator, filed a third-party complaint based on information reported to her by
student employees. The complaint alleged that (Respondent), a UWM
student and the subjected
student staff members to sexual harassment. Specifically, the Complainant alleged that
the Respondent sent snapchat pictures of a sexual nature to female student employees.
EDS found that there was sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of sexual harassment against the
Respondent. The Respondent acknowledged that he repeatedly sent unsolicited requests for images of
body parts, specifically, images of female breasts. EDS determined that this behavior constitutes sexual
harassment and is in violation of the University's Discriminatory Conduct Policy. As a this
action was inappropriate, irrespective of any personal, non-work related relationships that exist between
him and his student employees.
As of June 23, 2014, I have received no appeals from either party in this matter. I have carefully
reviewed the fmdings and recommendations, and I concur with EDS's conclusions. I am referring this
matter to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs for appropriate action. It is my understanding that the
Respondent has already been terminated from his employment. It is unclear to me whether the
Respondent intends to seek future employment with the Division of Student Affairs. If he does, I would
ask Vice Chancellor Laliberte to consider whether it is advisable to rehire the Respondent absent a
significant showing that Respondent has altered his behavior. In the event that he is employed in the
future, I would recommend that Vice Chancellor Laliberte ensure that the Respondent has appropriate
training and supervision.
Additionally, irrespective of whether the Respondent seeks employment with UWM in the future, I have
concerns with Respondent's ability to interact appropriately in the UWM community with other UWM
students. I have confirmed that the Dean of Students is already aware of this matter and has taken
appropriate responsive action under UWM's non-academic misconduct policies and procedures. In
accordance with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct Policy, this determination is fmal.
c: , Complainant
, Respondent
- - - --- - - ---- --------------------- ---------------- ·-- ~ - - -

( .
~J ~ [: ~ I WJ ~
LIU APR
Office of Equity/Diversity Services• University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee • Mite he Hall F bom 359
~ 1 REC'D
P.O. Box.413, Milwaukee, WI 53201
Telephone: (414) 229-5923 • Email: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 22 -5592 Eqwty / Diversity Services
-Dis crimi)?a ti On CO mp lain t Fttr+t+_u_w_- M_
i!w_au_;_ikee;_·_ __J
General Information
S-\-o,J.X:: @UV0M ~ <:ei\.,\
University Status Email Address
':tlY - 22 C,-

Race or Color -Disabili · SeKual Orientation Retaliation
Veteran Status exual Harassment Age (40 or Over) National Origin
Ancestry Pregnancy Marital Status .Sex/Gender
Religion . Arrest or Conviction Record Gender fdentity/Expression
Other, Explain: ------------.c---=------------,---,----,---=----,----,-
Date(sJ of Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: ?, -,3 \Nee ,\<.S i 90 ' 1; - Apr:i I
Mc.t,vC...h it) ~01 t.f)
Incident Involved .
Cferms and/or Conditions of EmploymenD Campus Housing
Terms and/or Conditions ofEducation Student Programs
Other,Explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Complaint
Have you filed a discrirp.ination complaint or appeal with another university department, union or state or federal
agency? Yes_ No_✓_ If yes, please state the name of the agency and date filed _ _ _ _· _ _ _ _ __
information given above is true and accurate to the best ofmy 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

I cf
Referred By:
Advisor/Counselor Co-Worker ~ Union Steward
Campus Brochure Faculty Training Seminar Other, Explain: _ _ _ __
U\t\MILWAUKEE
--~
-~
PO Box 413
Milwaukee, WT
53201-0413
To: Johannes Britz · 414 229-5923 phone
Provost and Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs 414 229-5592 fax
www.diversity.uwm.edu
From: Jazmin Taylor (f"-1 diverse@mvm.edu
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity
,-
Services
Date: June 20, 2014
RE: Discrimination Complaint #387 ( Third-Party)

complaint. · (Complainant),
, filed a third-party complaint · against (Respondent), -
, based on information reported to her by a
student employee. The complaint alleges the Respondent subjected a
student employee to sexual harassment.
provides in part:
UWM is committed to building and maintaining a ~ampus environment that

an indiyidual' s employment, education, or participation in activities or programs
at UWM; and (2) is based on one or~mor'e characteristics of the individual that are


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

Global Inclusion and Engagement. .. .
2. Within 10 working days of receipt of the Director of EDS's factual

complainant, respondent, the complainant' s supervisor or Dean, the
Global Inclusion and Engagement. . . and remedial recommendations, the
Division Head of both the complainant and the respondent, and the
academic staff). Responses may be based on either: (1) whether the
remedial actions are appropriate.
DISCUSSION
The Complainant received information from a ·female student

employee alleging the Respondent subjected her to sexual harassment when the
Respondent sent her an unwanted text message of a sexual nature. As a remedy, the
Complainant requests a full investigation into the matter.
During the course of its investigation, EDS interviewed the Complainant and the female
student employee. EDS also reviewed email correspondence detailing the Complainant's
internal investigation of this matter and the termination letter issued to the Respondent by
the Complainant as a result of her investigation. EDS attempted to contact the
Respondent via email and certified letter, in order to provide her an opportunity to
respond to the complaint, but she failed to respond.
EDS established the Complainant serves as an

. She has held this position since . In this capacity, the Complainant
supervises student employees including the Respondent and the student employee that
reported the Respondent's behavior. The Respondent is a
The Complainant stated on April 17, 2014, a female student employee reported to her that
she received a snapchat picture of a sexual nature from the Respondent, who serves as the
student employee' s The Complainant stated the female student employee
2
specifically reported the snapchat she received from the Respondent was a picture of the
Respondent with the caption "Tit pie Tuesday", which she interpreted as a request from
the Respondent to send the Respondent pictures of her breasts. The Complainant stated
the female student employee informed her that she did not solicit the snapchat from the
Respondent.
EDS interviewed the female student employee who stated she received a snapchat from
the Respondent. The snapchat is a photograph of the Respondent with the caption: "Tit
Pie Tuesday." The female student employee stated she only received the snapchat from
the Respondent once and did not respond. The female student employee indicated that
she did not know how to take the request because it could have been a joke. She stated
she was not offended because she assumed the snapchat was sent to a group and not just
her, although she did not know who the other recipients were. The female student
employee stated a couple of days after receiving the snapchat, the Respondent
approached her and said: "Thanks for replying to the snapchat", which she construed as a
facetious statement based on her failure to respond. She stated the Respondent then told
her she "still could have responded" to the snapchat even though it was sent to a group.
The Complainant determined that the other recipients of the snapchat were not student
employees.
During EDS' investigation of this complaint, the Complainant conducted a separate

investigation and determined the Respondent violated the UWM Faculty/Staff Code of
Conduct Appendix 1:13 and Appendix 2: 4 .1 which state in relevant part:
Appendix 1: UWM Behavioral Standards and Expectations

13. Employees must respect the rights of others to be free of bullying,
harassment, intentional physical harm or intimidation in the workplace.
Appendix 2: UWM Respectful Campus Standards

4.1. Cyber bullying is defined as the use of electronic devices to convey a
message in any format (i.e., text, image, audio, video) that defames,
intimidates, harasses, frightens, stalks or is otherwise intended to harm,
offend or humiliate another individual or group of individuals in a
deliberate, repeated, hostile or unwanted manner under the perpetrator's
true or a false identity.
Subsequently, the Complainant terminated the Respondent's employment with the UWM
effective April 21, 2014.
CONCLUSION
EDS determines that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of sexual

harassment against the Respondent. Although the Respondent's behavior is offensive,
inappropriate, and unprofessional, one instance of sending a sexualized text message does
not rise to the level of a Policy violation. Nevertheless, EDS recommends the Respondent
be put on notice that any subsequent behavior of this nature will result in more severe
recommends the Respondent receive sexual harassment training.
3
factual findings and remedial investigations. The parties must exercise these rights within
10 working days of receiving this report. The deadline for submitting an appeal is July 7,
2014.
cc: (Third-Party Complainant)

(Respondent)
Engagement
4
UNIVERSITY of WISCONSIN
l.MMILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

Chapman Hall 215

TO: Jazmin Taylor P.O. Box 413
~
53201-0413
FROM: Johannes Britz 414 229-4501 phone
414 229-2481 fax
Provost & Vice ~ l o r for Academic Affairs www4.uwm.edu/ acad_aff/
DATE: July 9, 2014
On June 20, 2014, you submitted to me your findings and recommendations on the above-
referenced complaint, wherein (Complainant),
, filed a third party complaint against (Respondent),
, based on information reported to her by a
student employee. Specifically, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent subjected a
student employee to sexual harassment.
You found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual harassment against
the Respondent. Although the Respondent's behavior was offensive, inappropriate, and
unprofessional, the circumstances surrounding the particular incident at issue did not rise to the
level of a violation of UWM' s Discriminatory Conduct Policy. Nevertheless, you recommended
that the Respondent be put on notice that any subsequent behavior of this nature will result in
more severe consequences. To assist the Respondent in refraining from such behavior, you
recommended that she receive sexual harassment training.
As of July 7, 2014, I have received no appeals from either party in this matter. I have carefully
reviewed your findings and recommendations, and I concur with your conclusions (though I note
that because the Respondent is no longer employed by UWM, your recommendations regarding
warnings and trainings will not be tenable at this time). In accordance with the UWM
Discriminatory Conduct Policy, this determination is final.
c: , Third Party Complainant

, Respondent
Michael Laliberte, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs
Office of Equity/Dlversity Services• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Room 359
P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, Wl 53201
Telephone: (414) 229-5923 * Email: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229-5592
-Discrimi~ation Complaint Farin

General Information
Jazin I lat/, Iov cfDV tDJ
Complaining Party University Status E il Address
l( I 4 - 2 2 'f - S12 3
Relationship to Complainant
4/4-zzc -
C Campus Phone Number

Race or Color ~ - - · Se)..11al Orientation Retaliation
Veteran Status S~rassmifilt'.' Age (40 or Over) . National Origin
Religion . Arrest or Conviction Record Gender fdentity/Expression ·
Other, Explairi: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Date(sJ of Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: ~'.:>
.....·-1-f'-"1,...._/J+'--'-,--"""2....,0"'-'-f..,_5_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Campus Housing
Student Programs
Complaint ·
Have you filed a discrimination complaint or appeal with another university department, union or state or federal
agen_cy? Yes_ No J rfyes, please state the name of the agency and date filed-_ _ _ _· _ _ _ _ _ __
0
PieasedescribeJ'OUtcomplaint: .:r+ u){tj Vepovr~ tD .vnc.. -thaJ

S(Ku.al V([uhlav1sh1p ()J~n ut U.~'\.Jtv? sh{cun+ IJJh'r le
waJ ehvJ//d ·in ~-i5 cfcus, and_ ·--fitcd-
d c --ru i c-/J.. -.50 . . h r· nu (cl ()ll5S 1 1j· ou.v s:.e .
The discrimination complaint process has been explained to me and J 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 be]jef. The Office of Equity/Diversity
Services has my permission to.conductpertinentinq_uires in regard to my complaint and to use my name in such inquires.
( ] / iYY/J/u~t1 /(';u1~ . · . 7 / 7 /., L{

·si;A~re Hr~o~plainin;;;-;ty J Date
·Referred By:
Campus Brochure Faculty Training Seminar Other, Explain: _ _ _ __
UV\MILWAUKEE
-~
-~
PO Box 413
Milwaukee, vVI
53201-0413
414 229-5923 phone
To: · Johannes Britz 414 229-5592 Jax
Provost and Vice Chancellor www.diversity.uwm.edu
diverse@uwm.edu
From: Jazmin Taylor (f1

Date: September 18, 2014
RE: Discrimination Complaint #389 (EDS 3rd Party)

Services' (EDS') findings and recommendations regarding the above referenced
complaint. EDS received information alleging Lecturer in the department
of engaged in a sexual relationship with a female student while she was enrolled
in his course and gave her a higher grade than what she earned because of this
relationship.
This complaint has been investigated in accordance ·with the UWM Discriminatory
provides in part:


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 Global Inclusion and
Engagement. . .
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
DISCUSSION
EDS received a phone call on Iviay 19, 2014 from someone outside of lTWM's
community alleging the Respondent and a UWM student engaged in a sexual relationship
during the semester. According to this person, the student was enrolled in
the Respondent's course when their physical relationship began and it resulted in the
Respondent giving the student a higher grade in the course than what she earned. Based
on the serious nature of the allegations, EDS determined that an investigation · was
warranted even though the allegations were not in writing and appear to be outside of
EDS's 300-day filing deadline .
During the course of the investigation, EDS interviewed the Respondent and one witness,
in addition to the complainant. EDS attempted to interview the student with whom the
Respondent was alleged to have engaged in a sexual relationship (hereinafter the
"Student"), but she declined to participate. EDS also reviewed the scores and final grades
of several students in the same course ( ) as the Student.
EDS determined that the Respondent was a Lecturer in the Department. He

served in this position for years. During the semester, he taught
courses, including sections of . Since the initiation of this
investigation, the Respondent accepted a new position and is no longer teaching at
UWM.
During the semester, the Respondent recalled that, for some reason, students,
mainly female students, flooded his office hours. The Respondent stated he interacted
casually with some of these female students and "mutual" flirting occurred between him
and them. Among other things, the Respondent stated he and some of the female students
exchanged Snapchat messages with jokes and images of a sexual nature and that. one
student sent a drawing of a penis . The Respondent indicates that he did not send sexual
pictures, but rather things like flowers and stars. The Respondent asserts that most of the
Snapchat exchange occurred after the course ended. (EDS notes that it is unable to
review the actual Snapchat messages because "Snaps" are automatically deleted after
receipt.) The Respondent maintains he never harassed any of the female students or
engaged in any unwanted interaction with any female student; instead, he asserts that any
flirting and sexual messaging was mutual. ·
2
The Respondent acknowledged that he engaged in a sexual relationship with one of the
female students who had been enrolled in the course he taught during the
semester. However, he stated their relationship began after the semester
ended. The Respondent confirmed the identity of this student as the student named in the
telephone · allegations received by EDS, which initiated this investigation {i.e. the
~-
Student). The Respondent explained that because the sexual relationship with the Student
began after the course ended and grades were submitted, it did not impact the Student's
grade.
The Respondent providep EDS with the Student's scores and final grade for .
She earned a after weighing her homework grade of (20%), quiz grade
(15%), on exam 1 (17.5%), on exam 2 (17.5%), on the final exam (30%)
and no bonus points for extra credit. Her final grade in the course was a The
Respondent acknowledged he "bumped up" the final letter grade of the Student, .which
would have otherwise been a . He stated that he wants students to do well and looks
for any reascm to give them a few extra points. To this end, the Respondent says that he
will adjust a: student's final weighted points up to 5%. According to the Respondent, the
Student began attending office hours during the last two or three weeks of class because
she was not performing well. He stated this led to the Student earning a much higher
grade on the final exam than she had earned on the two previous tests. The Respondent
stated because the student showed such a vast improvement, he adjusted her grade. The
Respondent asserts that he also "bumped up" the grades of other students who showed
improvement as the semester progressed. The Respondent admitted he adjusted the grade
of the Student more than the usual 5% adjustment provided to other students because of
her great improvement.
In the , the Respondent taught approximately 197 students in his sections

of At EDS's request, the Respondent provided a sample of other student's
points and grades. In looking at the samples, EDS note~ that another female student in
the course also earned , but unlike the Student who received a , this female student
received a . The Respondent explained this other female student's performance
- declined, so he did not "bump up" her grade. EDS observed that this other female
student's final exam score represented a decline ( ), but she her test scores otherwise
seemed to improve throughout the semester, earning a quiz grade, on exam 1,
on exam 2, all of which were higher than the Student's scores on those same tests.
Moreover, unlike the Student, this female student appears to have completed extra credit,
which suggests some extra effort on her part. This belies the Respondent's suggestion
that he looks for any reason to give students a few extra points. Similarly, EDS notes that
a male student earned but received the same grade ( ) as the Student. Neither the
other female student nor the male student engaged in the mutual flirting or Snapchat
exchanges with the Respondent during the semester.
EDS interviewed a witness who claimed to be a close friend to the Student. The witness
stated the Student told her about her relationship with the Respondent, but that she did
not personally observe any of their interactions: According to the witness, the Student
3
inforIT1ed her that the physical relationship with the Respondent occurred during the
semester while the Student was enroHed in the Respondent's class and
continued into the summer. The witness also stated the Student told her the Respondent
adjusted the Student's grade so she c.ould pass the class.
CONCLUSION
In this case, there are overlapping issues relating to consensual relationships between
students and staff, sexual harassment, and sex discrimination. As described below, EDS
determines that there is insufficient evidence to determine that the Respondent violated
UWM's consensual relationship policy or engaged in sexual harassment. However, EDS
finds that the existing evidence substantiates a finding of sexual discrimination against
the Respondent in the awarding of grades.
The first issue is whether the Respondent and the Student engaged in consensual sexual
relationship while she was enrolled in his class in In the event of a
consensual amorous and/or sexual relationship, UWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy
requires certain administrative reporting due to the conflicts of interest inherent in such
relationships .. While the Respondent admitted a sexual physical relationship with the
Student, he claims that it began after the course ended. On the other hand, the initial
telephone complainant and one witness indicated that it began while the Student was
enrolled in the Respondent's class and continued into the summer. The Student refused
to provide any information to EDS. Given the conflicting statements, there is insufficient
evidence for EDS to determine whether the physical relationship between the Respondent
and the Student began before or after the class ended. As such, EDS cannot find that the
· Respondent violated the consensual relationship policy .
The second issue is whether the Respondent engaged in sexual harassment of his
students. The Respondent admitted to flirting and exchanging messages with sexual
content with female students, including the Student. While the Respondent stated that
this behavior occurred primarily during the , he also admitted that it
occurred prior to the end of the semester. The Respondent suggests that his conduct did
not constitute a violation of the Policy because he believed that the flirting and
communications containing sexual content were "mutual." In order to constitute sexual
harassment under UWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy, the behavior must be
unwelcome, unreasonably interfere with the student's education, or create a hostile
learning environment. As such, it does not matter whether the Respondent believed it
was "mutual;" the focus is on the perception of the victim/recipient. Given that the
Student would not cooperate with this investigation, EDS is unable determine how she
perceived the Respondent's conduct. Also, in light of the significant passage of time and
the fact the instructor no longer works for UWM, EDS has not contacted other students in
the class. Thus, EDS could not conclude that the instructor engaged in sexual
harassment.
However, .even assuming that this behavior does not constitute harassment under the
Policy, it is still entirely unacceptable for an instructor. UWM instructors stand in a
4
position of authority over the students in their classes, and this power difference can
compromise the ability of students to protecttheir rights by, for example, objecting to
unwanted flirting or telling an instructor to stop. The Respondent should have been a
model of professionalism for the students in his class rather than creating, encouraging or
allowing a sexualized atmosphere.
While EDS cannot conclude that the Respondent engaged in sexual harassment based on
the available evidence, EDS does find the Respondent engaged in discrimination based
on sex in the awarding of grades. The Respondent adjusted the Student's grade beyond
what she earned, and in fact, adjusted her grade more than the 5% sometimes provided to
other students to reward their efforts. The Respondent claims that he did so in
recognition of the Student's improvement at the end of the Semester, but this rationale
appears to be pretext. Another female student with the exact same final point value as the
Student received a lower letter grade, and a male student with a significantly higher final
point value received the same letter grade as the Student. Neither of these two other
students engaged in the mutual flirtation or sexual exchanges with the. Respondent.
Based on the evidence available, EDS concludes that the Respondent adjusted the
Student's grade based on the fact that she participated in an inappropriate, flirtatious
relationship with him during the semester.1
Based on EDS' findings that the Respondent violated UWM's Discriminatory Conduct
Policy, EDS would have recommended that the College of Letters and Science's Dean's
Office consider appropriate employment action, up to and including extensive training for
the Respondent and/or termination of the Respondent's employment contract with UWM.
However, given that he is no longer employed by UWM, that recommendation would be
moot. Nonetheless, EDS believes that the College should be circumspect about rehiring
the Respondent in the future. EDS also recommends the Dean's Office consider whether
the staff in the department could benefit from training about appropriate student-
employee relationships, particularly in light of the Respondent's perception that flirting
and participating in sexual messages with students is acceptable.
This concludes EDS' investigation of this complaint. The Respondent's appeal rights are
described on page 9 of the Policy. The Respondent must exercise these rights within 10
working days of receiving this report. The deadline for submitting an appeal is October 2,
2014.
c: Respondent
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement
1Although it appears that the Student may have received a higher grade than sh·e deserved in the
Respondent's course, EDS is not recommending that her grade be altered as she should not be
punished for the inappropriate behavior of her instructor. Similarly, EDS is not recommending that
the grades of the other two students be raised, as they seem to have received the grades that they
actually earned based on their test scores.
5
lMMILWAUKEE
L:.:-~
Academic Affairs
l--~
Chapman Hall 2nd F1oor

P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, WI
53201-0413
414 229-4501 phone
TO: Jazmin Taylor
414 229-4502 2nd phone
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services 414 229-2481 fax
FROM: Johannes Britz {/J16
Provost & Vice Chan,,.ot for Academic Affairs
DATE: October 23, 2014
On September 18, 2014, you submitted to me your findings and recommendations on the above-
referenced complaint. The Office of Equity and Diversity Services (EDS) filed this third-party
complaint based on information it received alleging that (Respondent), a former
Lecturer in the Department of engaged in a sexual relationship with a student (Student)
while she was enrolled in his course and gave her a higher grade than she had earned because of
this relationship.
You explained that this case involves overlapping issues relating to consensual relationships
between students and staff, sexual harassment, and sex discrimination. You found that there was
insufficient evidence to determine that the Respondent violated UWM's consensual relationship
policy or engaged in sexual harassment. You did, however, find that the existing evidence
substantiates a finding of sexual discrimination against the Respondent in the awarding of
grades.
Under UWM policy, either the complaining party or the responding party may appeal EDS's
findings and recommendations by submitting a written appeal to me within 10 working days of
receipt of such findings and recommendations. An appeal may be based on (1) whether the
evidence supports the findings and/or (2) whether the remedial actions are appropriate. I
received a timely appeal from the Respondent dated September 20, 2014, (i) asserting that he did
not violate any UWM policy and (ii) providing arguments against EDS' s finding of sexual
discrimination on the basis of grading.
In his appeal, the Respondent reiterates that he and the Student did not meet socially until the
summer and that their relationship was not based on "any kind of improper exchange of
consideration or conduct." He asserts that the Student's grade was not adjusted based on
inappropriate interactions, but on her own honest and rigorous efforts to improve her grade. The
Respondent emphasizes that the Student was not the only student whose grade was adjusted, and
that all students were afforded the same opportunities.
I do not find the Respondent's arguments compelling. The Respondent attempts to justify his
adjustment of the Student's grade by explaining that he rewards students for improvement on
their final examinations. In the case of the Respondent, this reward resulted in an increase of the
final grade by 5.7 points (from to a the cutoff for a grade of ). However, a
comparable student in his course (described in the exhibit to the Respondent's appeal as "Other
Student #3") did not receive equal treatment. That student also showed consistent improvement
on exams, including substantial improvement on the final examination. Had that student also
received a 5. 7 point increase in the final course score, the student's final grade would have been
an ; instead it was a calculated as a . Consequently, I do not accept Respondent's argument
that the difference in grades was innocuous.
Respondent also argues that even ifhe was grading students inappropriately, he is not aware of
any administrative oversight on individual student letter grades. Respondent is incorrect in this
assertion. Though instructors enjoy significant discretion in grading, they cannot run afoul of
University policy or applicable law. Here, the evidence renders the conclusion that Respondent
used the grading process to favor a female student on the basis of her gender. This action
constitutes sexual discrimination in violation of University policy. As such, I agree that the
evidence supports your finding that the Respondent violated University policy by engaging in
sexual discrimination in the awarding of grades.
Because Respondent is no longer employed by the University, no employment action can be

taken against him at this time; however, I concur with your recommendations that the University
be circumspect about rehiring Respondent in the future, and the College of Letter and Sciences
consider whether its staff could benefit from training regarding appropriate student-employee
relationships. In accordance with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct Policy, my determination is
final.
c: Complainant
Rodney Swain, Dean, College of Letters & Science
r~l re ~ I [,rl WJ
Office of Equity/Diversity Services• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Room 59

ru 111)
OCT 2 3 REC'D
Telephone: (414) 229-5923 • Email: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229-5592
Equrtf / Diversity Services
-Discrimi1:1ation Complaint Farin UW- Milwau kee·
General Information -
s t-ud'C-/l -t /T,It-
Complaining Party University Status Email Address
/l-5Soc/'tx.t--C. fr:ohss-cr -fo ( M , :J e ro-fr.ssv/adY;'w

Responding Party University Sta_tus Relationship to Complainant

Race or Color · Se>mal Orientation Retaliation -
Age (40 or Over) National Origin
Marital Status . _Sex/Gender
.L' Gender Ic\~ntity/Expression , /,--, c,..JI.. __ l .1-.,-
f'vtC:Yv , V 0- ·-J- 1 o I\ ,--owafct.:::> .:>'(I lJD..V}u
20 ~
Incident rnvolved
Terms and/or Conditions of Employment Campus Housing
T d or Conditions ofEducation
Other, Explain: "f[L --t-- b-c J,,o.v i. o r {_),.fl. r-itu/:.V-amt-o Cl u.I r-csrr_c:tJ V-t'.. ro !cS
- - _,I
Complaint
. Have you filed a diXination complaint or appeal with another university department, union or state or federal
agency? Yes_ No If yes, please state the name of the agency and date filed _ _ _ _· _ _ _ _ __
Please describe your complaint: . c / r /' 1 · J b V /0 j ci. r-crroJ-rll,

Tl --C -f0-c U / f-f r-1,-c.Jv1-l""l,1 Jd ·t,Jt f J r 1 -e__c1- ct.. · O • -C " rvt. "C /r.o.Slq·
t La f J.. -e J ,")< -e- S ?'Yvi°'- k ✓- n. '1-- . 1,_ / S s t-u.d-tJi'rS c r y a. (\cl to.kts ~ ~ ,·:f:c
A~ d. w ),_ :..c,. t'L :F c,..J a... S /'n.. t·Ji, -c. J... --c Co... "',., -c U. f Fro rvi
b -c I. i' /\.cl- rV\ -c.. a. I\.. cl . -for C --c.d- ,n,1, -:c-,. fo c Io S -c. · /.. 'i S / Co.. f CCJ flfo.ct
R~l~tlfn~ought: ; ("--'1_ q__~o_ / A $ r MY w / ii Cl.IL {.,_)/ '/...our- MY COt1S~r,.·t:
1 w Ou. J cl j i1 k-e.. CL T/.. 0 r Ou. 9- i .r-e V ;' ~ u.J_ C(_/'\_ d : //\ v._~~ ~/ 7-af/0:1
0 + Th, i'" 5 -fa..c u:. I f-'/ }'v'l -C.r-1 b --c r e + -tC h Is _A --c l_a VJ? f' ts l/1._~rt(lJff,'!t
-row0--rr.,-l..S 6TA~-r stad·tJt"t-S cJ.__5 u.rGII ctS f'/1,'f_S-t,/-f tLc11 rt-rM ;t'la.TICt1
The· discrimination complaint process has been explained to me and I have received a copy of the policy. [ certify that the #
information given above is true and accurate to the best ofmy knowledge or belief. The Office of Equity/Diversity
Services has my permission to.conduct pertinentinquires in _regard to my complaint and to use my name in such inquires.
/0 - 2 S - 2 D./ L/
Signature of Complaining Party Date
Referred By:
Advisor/Counselor Co-Worker
Campus Brochure Faculty
U\\MILWAUKEE
-~
-~
To:
Office of Equity/Diversity Services
Johannes Britz
Mitchell Hall 359
PO Box 413
Provost and Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs Milwaukee, W'I
53201-0413
From: Jazmin Taylor <('f 414 229-5923 phone
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services 414 229-5592 fax
www.diversity.uwrn.edu
Date: January 30, 2015 diverse@uwm.edu
RE: Discrimination Complaint #398

complaint. Complainant), a UWM graduate student, alleges
(Respondent), an Associate Professor in the Department of
subjected her to sexual harassment. Specifically, alleges
engaged in nonconsensual, unwanted physical contact with her.
provides in part: -
sensitivity, understanding, and mutual respect, and encourages the members of its _
Harassment is a form of prohibited discrimination. UWM defines harassment as

conduct that (1) is of any type (oral, written including electronic, graphic or
physical); (2) is directed towards or against a person because of the person's
protected status .. . ; (3) and unreasonably interferes with the individual's work,
education or participation in activities or programs at UWM or creates a working
or learning environment that a reasonable person would find threatening and
intimidating. Sexual Harassment is one type of prohibited harassment and
includes unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.

harassment, or retaliation prohibited by the University' s policies may file a complaint
filed within 300 calendar days of the most recent alleged prohibited act. EDS at its owrI
Global Inclusion and Engagement .. .
2. Within ten working days of receipt of the Director of EDS' s factual
findings and remedial recommendation,, 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
DISCUSSION
The Complainant filed an EDS complaint on October 23, 2014, alleging the Respondent
subjected her to sexual harassment on December 2013, when he approached her from
behind and forced her into close proximity to him against her will and without her
. consent. She also states the Respondent acted sadistically toward her when the
Respondent repeatedly told her that he likes "making his students cry" and takes pleasure
in it As a remedy, the Complainant requests a full investigation into this matter and asks .
that the Respondent be .terminated if it is concluded that he has acted inappropriately
toward her and other students.
During the course of its investigation, EDS interviewed the Complainant, the
Respondent, Department faculty members, of the Respondent's
former graduate advisees, of the Respondent's former undergraduate advisees and
curr~nt doctoral student. EDS reviewed various email correspondence
between the Complainant and faculty members concerning her desire to secure a major
professor/advisor other than the Respondent. EDS · also reviewed Facebook posts
authored by the Complainant, which were provided and/or referenced by at least two
witnesses.
EDS de.termined that the Complainant is a UWM student in the
Department of she is pursuing a in with a
concentration in The Respondent is a tenured Associate Professor within
the Department; his field of expertise is The Respondent has
been a UWM employee since
The Complainant stated the Respondent was assigned as her advisor in Fall she
stated the Respondent was assigned as her advisor because he is the only Department
faculty member for her concentration (!&., The Complainant stated the
Respondent was also her advisor as an undergraduate and that she took her first course
with the Respondent in Fall The Complainant stated she changed graduate advisors
2
on , because the Respondent was very "inconsistent academically".
She stated it was difficult to get the Respondent to focus and follow through with
academic tasks.
The Complainant alleges the Respondent has subjected her to sexual harassment. She
stated that on December 2013, she attended a professional development
workshop/colloquium on writing in the ( The
Complainant stated that both she and the Respondent were present. According to the
Complainant, she was performing colloquium duties such as monitoring the availability
of.snacks and putting away supplies when the Respondent approached her from behind
and hugged her at the end of the workshop without her consent. The Complainant stated
she had no warning that this physical encounter was going · to take place. After the
incident, the Complainant stated she "blanked out" and left the library. The Complainant
also stated while she was a teaching assistant, the Respondent told her that he
derives pleasure from making his students cry. She claims the Respondent instructed her
to make her students cry as well, and she felt uncomfortable as a result of this instruction
and believes the Respondent is a sadist. The Complainant stated she has never had any
discussion with the Complainant about either incident.
The Respondent denies that he subjected the Complainant to sexual harassment. He
stated the Complainant was a very good undergraduate student and wanted to complete .
graduate study in with a concentration in The Respondent
stated the Complainant would not have been able to complete a graduate degree in
without being a teaching assistant. He stated the Complainant had been
accepted in the highly competitive graduate program but did not have · Department
support to be a teaching assistant. The Respondent stated he was approached by the
Department Chair who asked if he would support the Complainant as a teaching assistant.
The Respondent stated he believed the Complainant could handle being a teaching
assistant, and therefore, he "green-lighted" her admission and was assigned as her major
professor. The Respondent stated a major professor is assigned to a graduate student
based on the best possible match for the graduate student's research interests ~d goals.
He stated that he thought he had established good communication with the Complainant
and had every expectation that she would succeed. The Respondent stated his interaction
with the Complainant was generally positive although she struck him as being "socially
awkward."
The Respondent ·stated the Complainant encountered several challenges as a teaching
assistant within the Department and also as his grc1-duate advisee. For example, the
Respondent stated he was concerned because the Complainant missed meetings and
failed to meet expectations with regard to her teaching assistantship responsibilities. The
Respondent also stated the Complainant failed to exhibit the proper decorum for a
graduate student because she was unwilling to accept constructive critique and would
simply withdraw if she did not agree with the guidance being given. The Respondent
specifically stated the Complainant voiced frustration by avoidance and always presented
an excuse not to meet with him regarding the course of her graduate work. Additionally,
_the Respondent stated the Complainant was not prepared to do graduate work or produce
a thesis. He stated the Complainant had trouble transitioning from the concept of an
undergraduate term paper to the purpose of a focused graduate thesis. The Respondent
3
stated a graduate student's challenge is to contribute to knowledge, and the Complainant
had difficulty grasping this crucial concept. He stated the Complainant had a very
different model in her head about what graduate research was and the goal of graduate
research; she was "resistant to changing the template in her head."
The Respondent asserts that because of the above-mentioned difficulties, his efforts to
help her correct her thought process as it related to her thesis were not effective. The
Respondent stated that due to the Complainant's resistance to literature review and her
inability to understand his approach to learning, the Complainant got the idea that the
Respondent did not want her to do a thesis. The Respondent believes that the
Complainant's frustration with the process became personal. The Respondent stated he
heard from his colleagues that the Complainant was "shopping around" for a different
major professor/advisor. He stated that the Complainant changed advisors in
but that it was "not that unusual for students to shift advisors." The Respondent
contended that he did not feel any level of ownership over the Complainant as her major
advisor; he simply wanted her to succeed. The Respondent adamantly stated: "we
[professors] exist for the students ... to help them with their goals." He stated that he still
has no ill will toward the Complainant for switching advisors.
The Respondent denies that he approached the Complainant from behind and forced her
into a hug on December 2013, in the He stated that he remembers her being
there and remembered thinking that it was good that the Complainant was present
because that meant she had not completely withdrawn from her graduate study. The
Respondent stated the Complainant sat 3-5 people away from him during the roundtable
discussion. The Respondent stated that he believes he said "hello" to the Complainant
when the meeting was breaking up. He stated he thinks the Complainant left the
prior to him leaving with the group of colleagues that he had walked over with, but he
was not paying attention. The Respondent asserts that he has never had any type of
physical contact with the Complainant and giving her a hug is not something he would
have done casually as he is very conscientious of hugs. Lastly, the Respondent denies that .
he encouraged the Complainant to make her students cry or that he derives any pleasure
from doing the same. He stated he has generally stated, in a jocular fashion, after an exam
something to the effect of "he did not make any students cry so his exam must not have
been that bad." The Respondent believes that the Complainant has a difficult time
understanding social interactions and ·may interpret all spoken words literally; she is
unable to identify a joke. Witnesses agree with the Respondent's assessment in this
regard.
Witnesses consistently highlighted the Complainant's "social awkwardness," "inability to
take social cues" and "difficulty interacting with people." Witnesses stated the
Complainant is extremely literal meaning she is unable to identify a joke during the
course of a normal social interaction. Witnesses described the Complainant as "unwilling
to take advice," "headstrong" and having an "unrealistic grasp of her capabilities"
although she is very bright. Witnesses also described the Complainant's personality as
"difficult," "hostile," "mildly manipulative" and "vaguely delusional." Each witness was
aware of the Complainant's hostility toward the Respondent because the Complainant
had expressed these feelings to him.or her. Alternatively, witnesses routinely described
the Respondent as "always professional and appropriate," "one of the best graduate
4
advisors," open-minded and considerate," "truly concerned about the well-being of
students," "having a desire to see students succeed ... even the Complainant" and
"respectful of women." Witnesses were alarmed by the allegations contained in this
Complaint noting that the behavior alleged falls grossly outside the witnesses' personal
observations of the Respondent.
Finally, EDS became aware of inappropriate Facebook posts from the Complainant. In
those posts, dated several months prior to the filing of this Complaint, the Complainant
made disparaging comments about her former advisor accusing him of being a sadist and
mistreating her while she was his advisee. For example, the Complainant clearly states
" .. .I finally got what I wanted: to work with the one who inspired me to go into
[sic], teaching and graduate school! Regardless of what the official story was
... " This post suggests that the Complainant created a story in order to switch advisors.
She also states in another post that " ... there is nothing to date through the department that
was not achieved due to threats; first from switching advisers to tossing out the whole
program! I can't say that I a:m fond of what I may be teach.ip.g me." This suggests that she
used threats and the complaint process to obtain what she wanted.
CONCLUSION
EDS determines that there lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of sexual
harassment against the Respondent. EDS fmds the Respondent and each individual
witness to have been overwhelmingly credible. The Respondent has been consistently
described as the consummate professional who is fully and respectfully committed to his
role as a professor and advisor to students at this University. There has been no evidence
presented to suggest otherwise. On the other hand, witnesses described the Complainant
as having a "difficult" personality, which includes episodes of being "socially awkward,"
"hostile," "vaguely delusional'' and "mildly manipulative." Moreover, the Complainant
admits in her Facebook postings that she has achieved nothing from the Department
without generating threats including her 9emand to change advisors, which suggests
deceit. This post, coupled with the lack of any evidence in support of her complaint,
further supports our fmding. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Respondent
engaged in the alleged behavior, which EDS does not fmd to be the case, this single
incident on December 2013, would not rise to the level of sexual harassment. EDS also
notes that using UWM' s Discriminatory Conduct Policy to circumvent Department
policies and procedures would be an abuse of process.
factual fmdings and remedial investigations ..The parties must exercise these rights within
10 working days of receiving this report. The deadline for submitting an appeal is
February 13, 2015.
cc: , Complainant
, Respondent
Marija Gajdardziska, Dean, Graduate School
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement
5
UNIVERSITY of WISCONSIN
WMILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

Chapman Hall 215

P.O. Box 413
TO: Jazmin Taylor Milwaukee, Vil
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services 53201-0413
414 229-4501 phone
414 229-2481 fax
FROM: Johannes Britz www4.uwm.edu/ acad_aff/
Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
DATE: February 25, 2015
RE: Complaint #398
On January 30, 2015, you submitted EDS's findings and recommendations on the above-
referenced complaint, wherein (Complainant), a UWM graduate student,
alleged that (Respondent), an Associate Professor in the Department of
subjected her to sexual harassment. Specifically, the Complainant alleged that the
Respondent engaged in unwanted physical contact with her at an event on December 2013.
You found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual harassment against
the Respondent.
Under the policy, either the complaining party or the responding party may appeal EDS's
findings and recommendations by submitting a written appeal to me within 10 working days of
receipt ofEDS's findings and recommendations. An appeal may be based on (1) whether the
evidence supports the findings and/or (2) whether the remedial actions are appropriate. I received
a timely appeal from the Complainant, raising a number of concerns with EDS's conclusions and
process.
In her appeal, the Complainant provided some new detail relating to the chronology of events
leading to a new advisor. She also clarified what she intended by certain Facebook posts. While
this additional information provides some clarifying context, it does not evince that the
Respondent subjected her to harassment.
The Complainant also expressed concern that witnesses are not individually named in EDS's
findings . This, however, is EDS's standard practice, as protecting the confidentiality of witnesses
promotes their participation in the investigatory process and minimizes the likelihood that either
party could retaliate against them for doing so. I find that EDS interviewed relevant witnesses-
specifically, of the Respondent's colleagues, of the Respondent's former graduate
advisees (who would be similarly situated to the Complainant), Department doctoral
student, and of the Respondent's former undergraduate advisees. None of the witnesses
reported experiencing any unprofessional conduct from the Respondent. The fact that they are
not individually identified does not make their observations hearsay, as they provided their own
first-hand knowledge of the Respondent's conduct.
In her appeal, the Complainant suggested that, "no one will come forward to report these
incidents" if a witness is necessary. UWM's investigatory process does not require the
Complainant to furnish a witness. Indeed, in this case, EDS attempted to locate witnesses to
corroborate the Complainant's allegations, but none of the witnesses supported the
Complainant's allegations. There must be a preponderance of evidence to support allegations of
sexual harassment; the Complainant's allegations, in and of themselves, did not meet that
standard and EDS's investigation did not yield any evidence to support her claims.
In the absence of any evidence to support the Complainant's allegations, I concur with EDS that
there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual harassment against the Respondent.
In accordance with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct Policy, this determination is final. Finally,
the Complainant requests that her appeal be attached to her Discrimination Complaint. That is ·
EDS' s standard practice, but by copy of this decision, I am asking EDS to ensure that the
Complainant's written appeal is maintained in its file.
c: , Complainant
, Respondent
Marija Gajdardziska, Dean, Graduate School
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Diversity & Climate

F'llifchc (I: - Discrimi1:1ation Complaint Farin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

F'llifchc (I: - Discrimi1:1ation Complaint Farin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

'

Office of Equity/Diversity Services• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Room 359

-Discrimi1:1ation Complaint Farin

Campus Mailing Address Campus Phone Number

·Allegation based on:

1nt. ~rudtnf wou.lJ like. fuv -Mu Gcvw.vi•v · to .sfof and. to

From: Jazmin Taylor J· f

Date: February 5, 2014

. RE: Discrimination Complaint #378 (EDS 3rd Party)

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

UWM is committed to building and mainta1mng a campus environment that

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

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

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

EDS dete.rmined that the Respondent is a doctoral student in the Department of

bee: the UWM female student

lJ\t\MILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

Chapman Hall 215

DATE: March 25, 2014

-DiscrimiJ;iation Complaint For ·

Campus Mailing Address Campus Phone Number

·Allegation based on:

:If wa.5 ve.fo'fta{ to _}'Vl.£. --Ht[(_+

used se.KuaUcy cvza.J(_d_ [a_nqu~e.. duv1v:3. lcchtvc.s --rha..f-

Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services

Date: May 23, 2014

RE: Discrimination Complaint #381 (3 rd Party EDS)

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

UWM is committed to building and maintammg a campus environment that

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

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

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

EDS randomly selected students enrolled in the course

Chapman Hall 215

DATE: June 23, 2014

RE: EDS Complaint #381

-·- --··-----· ---- . -- --- - · - - - -·· - · - · - - - - - - - -

·Dis criffii1:} a ti O ll Complaint Fo

Complaining Part;y University Status

Home Mailing Address Phone Number

Campus Mailing Address Campus Phone Number

·Allegation based on:

Please describe your complaint:

'::)Cc.. o. -\:\ccc..hed L~e.scr,~-hon

see ct*· G\..C\fltc\ c\~')C..(\ ~-non

Signature of Complaining Party

Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services

Date: June 9, 2014

RE: Discrimination Complaint #386 ( 3 rd Party)

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

UWM is committed to building and maintaining a campus environment that

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

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

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

The Complainant received information from student

EDS established that the Complainant serves as an

Appendix 1: UWM Behavioral Standards and Expectations

Appendix 2: UWM Respectful Campus Standards

Subsequently, the Respondent's employment with the UWM

EDS determines there exists sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of sexual

Based on EDS' finding of a Policy violation, it recommends the Respondent be put on

cc: (Third-Party Complainant)