ATTORNEYS AT LAW

❖ DAN SIEGEL

❖ ALAN S, YEE

❖ JANE BRUNNER
April 23, 2020
❖ SONYA Z. MEHTA

❖ EMILYROSE JOHNS

❖ M1cAH CLATTERBAucH Via Email to eo-wbappeals@calstate.edu

OF COUNSEL
Equal Opportunity and Whistleblower Compliance Unit
❖ ANNE Systemwide Human Resources
BUTTERFIELD
WEILLS
Office of the Chancellor
401 Golden Shore, 4th Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
Re: Appeal of Frank Lamas
To the Office of the Chancellor:
Please accept this appeal of the April 9, 2020, conclusion by the
Title IX and Clery Compliance Office at California State University,
Fresno, that Frank Lamas violated Executive Order Executive Order 1096,
the Systemwide Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment,
Retaliation, Sexual Misconduct, Dating and Domestic Violence, and
Stalking against Employees and Third Parties and Systemwide Procedure
for Addressing Such Complaints by Employees and Third Parties (Revised
March 29, 2019).
This appeal is based upon the grounds that "The investigation
outcome is unsupported by the evidence, based on the Preponderance of
the Evidence standard." (EO 1096, Article IV. Appeal Review - Office of the
Chancellor (CO), B.1.)
Specifically, Mary Lee Wegner, the outside investigator, and the
Fresno State Title IX office failed to properly evaluate the evidence in three
major respects.
First, the evidence demonstrates unequivocally that Dr. Lamas is a
person of high integrity. He has a decades long history of highly acclaimed
professional and personal accomplishment and treats all people with
respect. He has no history of behavior that subjects anyone, much less a
professional subordinate, to harassing and bullying behavior that creates a
hostile working environment based on sex. The investigator and the
Fresno State Title IX office completely dismissed Dr. Lamas' denials of the
conduct alleged against him without any reasonable basis for doing so.

CITY CENTER ❖ 475 14TH STREET, SUITE 500, OAKLAND, CA 94612 ❖ PHONE: 510.839.1200 ❖ FAX: 510.444.6698
www.siegelyee.com
Equal Opportunity and Whistleblower Compliance Unit
April 23, 2020
Page2

Second, the investigator and the Title IX office uncritically credited

the narrative of the complainant against Dr. Lamas
despite the absence of any contemporaneous eye witness corroboration of
her complaints, her obvious motivation to fabricate accusations following
Dr. Lamas' criticism of her work performance, and her own problematic
work history.
Third, the investigator and the Title IX office utterly failed to
consider the chronology of a friendly professional and personal
relationship between and on the one hand and
Dr. Lamas and his wife on the other. Believing accusations
required the investigator to illogically conclude both that Dr. Lamas was
simultaneously mentoring and while the two
couples were having pleasant dinners and other social interactions
together and that he was at the same time subjecting her to frequent and
unwelcome sexual harassment.
Overall, the report prepared by Ms. Wegner appears result oriented
and careless. She rejected almost everything presented by Dr. Lamas and
credited all the adverse information provided by and others,
exaggerating and repeating even what people with an obvious ax to grind
had to say. In one example, she frequently cites Witness 18, ,
who obviously had an unpleasant relationship with Dr. Lamas but who left
Student Affairs in , before employment
began. never observed any interactions between Dr. Lamas
and .
A glaring deficiency of Ms. Wegner's report is the absence of a clear
chronology of events. The sequence of events is critical to the evaluation of
this matter. Although now claims that Dr. Lamas mistreated
her for almost the entire years they worked together, she made no
contemporaneous complaints to anyone and made no notes or any other
documents memorializing her experiences until a few days before she
resigned. Only then did she report her complaints to her direct supervisor,
Witness 1, , and others. Many of the witnesses who reported
Dr. Lamas' alleged misconduct to Ms. Wegner simply repeated what they
were told by or others to whom complained just
prior to her filing of her complaint and resignation.
Equal Opportunity and Whistleblower Compliance Unit
April 23, 2020
Page3

Dr. Lamas' long history at Fresno State and elsewhere,

and the high acclaim that he has received from colleagues,
contradict the conclusion that he is prone to sexually harassing
subordinate employees or anyone else.
Ms. Wegner's report barely mentions Dr. Lamas' history of
leadership and progressive levels of responsibility at Fresno State and
before that at the University of Texas, Rochester Institute of Technology,
State University of New York at Albany, McDaniel College, Ithaca College,
Youngstown State University, State University of New York at Oneonta,
and State University of New York at Potsdam, going back to 1976.
(Workplace Investigation Report1 Exhibits, pp. 107-123.) Likewise, she
ignores the 13 reference letters and character testaments submitted by
colleagues at Fresno State and prior places of employment. (Report
Exhibits, pp. 72-82, 129-133.)
Some of these letters supported Dr. Lamas' nomination for the
prestigious Fred Turner Outstanding Service award by the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators, which he received in
2018. Others, including several written by female colleagues, reflect
disbelief in the accusations made against him and the authors'
observations about his talent, commitment, and integrity.
Since arriving at Fresno State in 2014, Dr. Lamas has been
evaluated on five occasions by his immediate supervisor, President Joseph
I. Castro. (Report Exhibits, pp. 83-106.) Dr. Castro's evaluations can be
summed up in a single word- he consistently describes Dr. Lamas'
performance as "exemplary." In November 2018 he described the Student
Affairs and Enrollment Management Division led by Dr. Lamas as "one of
the strongest of its kind in the CSU system and the nation." (Report
Exhibits, p. 92.)
In short, in a case where the ultimate decision must be based upon
the factual determination of credibility between the accuser and the

1Ms. Wegner produced two reports based upon her interviews. For
unexplained reasons, the exhibits attached to her "Workplace
Investigation Report" are more complete than those submitted with her
EO 1096 report and for that reason are referenced here.
Equal Opportunity and Whistleblower Compliance Unit
April 23, 2020

Page4

accused, it was patently unreasonable for the fact-finder to ignore the

overwhelming evidence presented regarding the character and integrity of
Dr. Lamas.
ardently sought Dr. Lamas' professional
support and personal friendship for almost years and
then abruptly accused him of sexual harassment and resigned
when he criticized her work performance and told her that she
would have to compete for a promotion to a new position.
began working for Dr. Lamas in Student Affairs as
the in . At the
time Dr. Lamas hired , told him that
"had a bad experience working elsewhere." As was typical in her
investigation, Ms. Wegner did not question about this "bad
experience. "
2

was thrilled to have the job and joked that she was a
member of Dr. Lamas' "A team." Over the next years, she and
, who , asked Dr. Lamas to
mentor them. He agreed and went out of his way to support both of them.
He advocated for their placements in positions of greater responsibility
and compensation at Fresno State. Dr. Lamas worked on a with
Dr. Lamas and co-authored .
When Dr. Lamas became a finalist for a college presidency in December
2018, became upset and complained about being
abandoned.
became friendly with Dr. Lamas and his wife,
socializing and having dinner together. They shared family pictures and
talked about their dogs. Dr. Lamas invited them to the Top Dog Gala and
golfed with . went to campus events with Dr. Lamas.
As late as October 2019 she asked him for his tickets
and sat with him because his seats were better than those

2
Ms. Wegner's report fails to indicate that she challenged or
any of the witnesses who testified in her favor. Most notably, the report
does not establish the dates on which complained to others
about Dr. Lamas' actions.
Equal Opportunity and Whistleblower Compliance Unit
April 23, 2020

Pages

provided to , who was in charge of the event.

asked Dr. Lamas to obtain tickets for the
. brought her
and her to the game to meet her boss.
When Dr. Lamas learned that had applied and been
rejected for a promotional opportunity on the Fresno campus, he agreed to
create a in his division and discussed appointing her to it
on an interim basis. An appointment as would have given
her an inside track when the job was filled permanently. Human resources
staff discouraged Dr. Lamas from making the interim appointment.
On October 3, Dr. Lamas told that he could not appoint
her to the position on an interim basis and encouraged her to
apply for it on a permanent basis. alleges that when Dr. Lamas
told her that he could not promote her to an , without
warning or explanation he inexplicably put his hand on her leg. On
October 24, 2019, Dr. Lamas criticized for failing to complete
a work assignment. According to the witnesses interviewed by Ms.
Wegner, it was only after this incident that began to complain
to fellow employees about Dr. Lamas. It is only reasonable to conclude
that her complaints about Dr. Lamas were motivated by this criticism, not
by any alleged harassing behavior.
On October 28, announced that she would resign from
her job at Fresno State. On October 29, she made a Title IX complaint,
accusing Dr. Lamas of engaging in unwelcome comments and offensive
touching since early 2017. She claimed in documents that she only began
preparing in October 2019 that he told her that he hired her because she
was "pretty;" adjusted her bra strap when it slipped outside her blouse;
made sexual innuendos about plants given as gifts to staff; complimented
her on wearing a red dress; stared at her chest; commented about her
height; touched her back and her leg; closed the window blinds when they
met in his office; squeezed and commented to other staff about her
"muscular" arms; and asked her whether she thought that his sons,
especially one who looked like him, were "hot."
Dr. Lamas denies that he ever touched improperly or
made sexually inappropriate comments to her. None of the 26 witnesses
Equal Opportunity and Whistleblower Compliance Unit
April 23, 2020

Page6

interviewed by Ms. Wegner witnessed any of the harassing behavior or

comments described by , although many of them worked
together in the crowded vice president's suite in Student Affairs. Several
witnesses said that told them about her complaints just before
she resigned, and their statements circulated around the student affairs
offices and grew through a vigorous game of telephone. Ms. Wegner's
report includes numerous instances in which Witness A reported what she
heard from Witness B who reported what she heard from Witness C who
reported what told her.
Ms. Wegner's report gives short shrift to witnesses who reported
only positive interactions with Dr. Lamas and/ or shared criticisms of
work. Witness 13, , told
Ms. Wegner that work was not "up to snuff' and passed this
assessment to Dr. Lamas through her own supervisor. She sensed that
was feeling pressure to improve the quantity and quality of her
work because of complaints. Witness 12,
, said that indicated that she was
going to quit to train for and had become less engaged.
Most of the witnesses interviewed by Ms. Wegner, including those
who reported what other people told them about Dr. Lamas, indicated that
they had never experienced or witnessed any sexually harassing behavior
by him. Besides , the only employee who complained to
Human Resources about Dr. Lamas was
(Witness 1).
criticisms must be taken with at least a grain of salt. She was .
direct supervisor and thought highly of her.
complained that Dr. Lamas' plan to promote would take
away some of her own responsibilities. did confirm that
despite meeting with her every other week for years, did
not complain about Dr. Lamas' behavior until October 24, 2019.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from Ms. Wegner's report
and the evidence submitted to her is that the preponderance of evidence

3 On a few occasions, witnesses reported having seen Dr. Lamas and

in interactions which she did not complain about when they
occurred but did so when she filed her complaint in October 2019.
Equal Opportunity and Whistleblower Compliance Unit
April 23, 2020

Page7

does not support the conclusion that Dr. Lamas violated EO 1096 by
creating a hostile environment based on sex. Instead, the evidence proves
the truth of the adage that "no good deed goes unpunished." For
years Dr. Lamas went far out of his way to mentor and assist
and . He worked with , promoted their
careers, and along with his spouse befriended them. Never once did either
complain to him or anyone else about his conduct. But once he
disappointed by refusing her an interim promotion and
criticized her work performance, she responded with a contrived sexual
harassment complaint to expose Dr. Lamas to sanctions and threaten his

Thank you for you consideratio~ l r~

reputation and career. His appeal should be granted.

17 1
D:~%GEL