From:  Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action

March 17^th, 2005

To:       Biology Department Interim Chair

            Dr. Randy Lecher

            Ms. Cassandra

Re:      Complaint of Discrimination

Dear Interim Chair,

Our office has completed its investigation of  Ms. Cassandra’s discrimination complaint in which Ms. Cassandra alleges that she experienced discrimination on the basis of sexual harassment and retaliation.  This letter will summarize the allegations, the investigative procedure used in this office, and our findings and conclusions with respect to the allegations.

ALLEGATION

Ms. Cassandra alleges that the University’s policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual harassment and retaliation was violated, based on the following actions:

1.  She began her studies in the Biology department in Spring 2002.

2.  In addition to being a graduate student in Biology, she became a teaching assistant for Mr. Lecher.  She also served as Mr. Lecher’s primary research assistant.

3.  In December 2002, Mr. Lecher sent her an email that contained sexual references.

4.  During a field study trip to South America in summer of 2003, Mr. Lecher began making un-welcomed sexual advances towards her like hugging, touching, and calling her pet names like “sweetie” and “love”.

5.  In fall 2003 and spring 2004, Mr. Lecher continued to make unwanted advances.  He resumed sending her inappropriate email with sex-oriented verbage and/or he sent email regarding his love life with another woman.

6.  She rejected Dr. Lecher’s advances in South America, and continued to do so after they returned.  In spring 2004, she again told Mr. Lecher that touching her in certain ways, sending her email, and calling her pet names like “sweetie” and “love” made her feel uncomfortable.

7.  During the spring of 2004, Mr. Lecher became hostile towards her.  He threatened to have her thrown out of the department and threatened to do things that would impede her progress towards her research and/or degree.

8.  She believes that if she had not rebuffed Mr. Lecher’s advances, she would not have suffered the adverse treatment described above.

Reporting the Allegations

Ms. Cassandra stated that she first told the Director of Graduate Studies about the sexual harassment in spring 2004.  However, her email to the DGS is mostly related to a dispute about the completion of revisions she was making to a laboratory manual.  It states that Mr. Lecher has been unprofessional and inappropriate, but falls short of laying out any details of sexual harassment.  Based on the information received in Ms. Cassandra’s email, it could be deciphered that a conflict between Ms. Cassandra and Mr. Lecher occurred based on professional discord related the lab manual revision process.  Ms. Cassandra admits not sharing the sexual harassment details with the DGS.

This office investigated the preceding allegations to the extent that they are relevant to a determination as to whether the University’s policies prohibiting discrimination had been violated.

INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS

Ms. Cassandra first contacted our office on or about July 14, 2004.  Following the initial intake, the matter was assigned to Ms. Kelly, Equal Opportunity Consultant.  Ms. Cassandra met wit Ms. Kelly on or about July 19, 2004 and stated her concerns outlined in the allegations above.

Following the July 2004 meeting, Ms. Cassandra expressed that she wanted to hold off on the investigation until after the summer session.  She was a teaching assistant for Mr. Lecher and feared retaliation (not being selected as a teaching assistant for the fall) if she brought her claim at that time.

On August 18, 2004, Ms. Kelly held a telephone conference with Ms. Cassandra to talk about commencing the investigation.  The next day, Ms. Cassandra provided Ms. Kelly with a written outline of her allegations.  Ms. Cassandra also provided Ms. Kelly with a list of witnesses, on or about September 16, 2004.  Ms. Kelly interviewed the witnesses in October and early November 2004.

Another issue came up with Ms. Cassandra, which delayed the investigation.  During the fall 2004, Ms. Cassandra requested to change advisors and expressed to Ms. Kelly that she wanted to complete the process before Mr. Lecher was contacted.  Ms. Kelly again complied with Ms. Cassandra’s request to delay the process.  Ms. Cassandra got a new advisor on or about October 12, 2004 and the investigation continued from that point.

On or about November 10, 2004, Mr. Lecher was contacted and informed about Ms. Cassandra’s allegations.  Ms. Kelly spoke with Mr. Lecher by phone and held an in-person interview with him on or about December 3, 2004.  Ms. Kelly conducted follow up interviews with both Ms. Cassandra and Mr. Lecher throughout the next several months.  She also continued to interview witnesses and receive relevant documentation.

At the conclusion of her investigation, Ms. Kelly met with me as Director of the office to review her investigative process, findings and conclusion.

DISCUSSION

Before South America

Ms. Cassandra began her graduate studies in the Department of Biology in the spring of 2002.  She stated that Mr. Lecher became her advisor about half way through spring semester.  Ms. Cassandra stated that from the beginning, Mr. Lecher had an informal style about him.  He often preferred meeting at coffee houses and restaurants.  However, Ms. Cassandra stated that Mr. Lecher did the same with his male students.  The first sign of anything being abnormal was when she received an email response on December 19, 2002 from Mr. Lecher that contained a sexual reference.  Ms. Cassandra did not take any measures to address the email situation with Mr. Lecher or anyone else at that time.  Ms. Cassandra believed she and Mr. Lecher otherwise had a good working relationship.

South America

Ms. Cassandra state that it was during a field study trip to South America that Mr. Lecher began to make un-welcomed sexual advances toward her.  She described that on the first night there, Mr. Lecher insisted that they share a room.  Once in the room, Mr. Lecher allegedly took off some of his clothing and began asking Ms. Cassandra to proclaim that she loved him and that he was her best friend.  He allegedly tried to persuade her to sleep in the same bed with him.  Ms. Cassandra stated that she slept on the floor and the next day asked to room with the other female student on the trip.

Ms. Cassandra stated that during the remainder of the trip, Mr. Lecher touched her repeatedly when speaking with her.  He allegedly called her pet names like “love” and “sweetie” and would request (in a demanding manner) that she come to his room at the end of the day so that they could talk.  She alleged that Mr. Lecher bought wine and was so persistent that she felt pressured to drink it.  Ms. Cassandra stated that all of these behaviors exhibited by Mr. Lecher were unwelcome and that she told him so.

After South America

Ms. Cassandra stated that Mr. Lecher continued the above-described behaviors after they returned from South America, i.e., during the fall of 2003 and into the spring of 2004.  She stated that he would come to the bars and restaurants she and other graduate students would frequent and sit next to her.  He would then touch her placing his hand on her shoulder, arm or knee.  Also, during the Spring 2004, Mr. Lecher began forwarding email to her of intimate conversations he was having with another woman, presumed to be a student.  Ms. Cassandra stated that she asked Mr. Lecher to stop sending her such email because it was inappropriate and offensive.  She conveyed her concern to Mr. Lecher in person instead of replying by email.  According to Ms. Cassandra, Mr. Lecher complied with her request and stopped sending her the email.

Spring 2004

Ms. Cassandra stated that Mr. Lecher became hostile and started doing things to sabotage her academic progress and her career.  Examples of his behavior include:  (1) Delaying the progress toward completing revisions to the lab manual set to be used in the fall 2004 by not submitting graphics he had promised to do in a timely manner; (2) threatening to get her “kicked out” of the department for no apparent reason; and, (3) reneging on his commitment to use the lab manual for the fall lab course.  Ms. Cassandra felt that Mr. Lecher did these things in retaliation for her having rebuffed his advances.

Mr. Lecher’s Response

Mr. Lecher agreed that he and Ms. Cassandra formed a very good working relationship, but further characterized it as a very close, congenial, and mutual friendship beginning in 2002.  He stated that they socialized together, which often included their respective mates.  In addition, Mr. Lecher stated that Ms. Cassandra confided in him very intimate details of her life.  As further illustration of their close bond, Mr. Lecher stated that Ms. Cassandra and her fiance once house-sat for him.  He stated that he knew details of Ms. Cassandra’s past boyfriends, her fiance’s legal troubles, the couples housing issues, and other very personal issues.  He stated that he confided  in her the same way.

Mr. Lecher denied that anything inappropriate occurred on the trip to South America.  He vehemently and unequivocally denied Ms. Cassandra’s allegations above.  Mr. Lecher stated that he never made any sexual advances towards Ms. Cassandra, either before, during or after the trip to South America.  He stated that he and Ms. Cassandra had a great friendship and working relationship.  As Ms. Cassandra’s advisor, he twice secured funding for her to do research in Canada; prior to the trip to South America and after they returned.  He helped her develop her research focus into something more useful regarding future employment, as he felt he should have in his role as her advisor.  Mr. Lecher cannot think of what may have prompted the “falling out” in spring 2004.  However, he noticed their friendship and working relationship changed drastically that semester.

Regarding the trip to South America, Mr. Lecher stated that he noticed Ms. Cassandra’s behavior to be somewhat erratic.  He also noticed that she, on her own accord, smoked and drank very much during the day and night.  She would go through cycles of accusing him of things.  For instance, Ms. Cassandra accused him of trying to steal her research, and that he attempted to harness the spotlight away from her and the other student during certain digs.  Mr. Lecher tried to rationalize with Ms. Cassandra and convince her that the allegations were untrue regarding her professional concerns.  However, Ms. Cassandra continued making these types of allegations and seemed to become depressed as the trip progressed.  She finally confided in him that she was having troubles with her fiance and told him of other very personal stories.

Mr. Lecher stated that both he and Ms. Cassandra engaged in sending “off color” email to each other .  he provided examples of the type of email he would receive from Ms. Cassandra to show some were equally in bad taste and/or contained some profane references.  Mr. Lecher stated that they had an inside joke stemming from their experiences in South America using the world “ass”, which Ms. Cassandra referred to in an email to him.  Mr. Lecher responded to the email acknowledging the joke and giving further commentary.  Mr. Lecher state that at no time did Ms. Cassandra tell him that any of the email they exchanged was offensive and/or that he should refrain from sending them.

ANALYSIS

Sexual Harassment

Both Ms. Cassandra and Mr. Lecher agree that they had a good working relationship and that they socialized together prior to the South America trip.  However, during and after the trip is where their accounts differ.  During the trip, Ms. Cassandra alleged that Mr. Lecher began making sexual advances toward her in a room they shared together on the first night.  However, there were no witnesses to corroborate either story, and Mr. Lecher denies it.  This matter came down to credibility.

Ms. Cassandra stated that after the summer in South America, she stopped socializing with Mr. Lecher.  However, Mr. Lecher provided information to the contrary.  For example, Mr. Lecher provided a copy of an email he received from Ms. Cassandra inviting him to come over to her house with his dog.  Ms. Cassandra was attempting to set up a play date with her puppy.  This was in September 2003, not long after they had returned from South America, which contradicts Ms. Cassandra’s assertion that the socializing had not continued.  Other examples include Ms. Cassandra inviting Mr. Lecher to her house for a barbeque in October 2003.  Again, later in the month, she invites him to a Halloween party at her house.  Mr. Lecher attended at least one of these parties.

Also, in late fall 2003, when Ms. Cassandra was robbed at gun-point, she called Mr. Lecher, who met her at a nearby bar to where she was robbed, to assist her.  While she admits calling Mr. Lecher, she tried to justify her call by state that she also called her fiance.  Essentially, Ms. Cassandra could not explain why she called Mr. Lecher, her alleged sexual harasser.  Further, the email provided by Mr. Lecher show that Ms. Cassandra continued to confide very personal details of her life to him such as information about her fiance’s legal troubles, their housing concerns, and other issues.  Mr. Lecher submitted samplings of email that illustrated a friendly relationship continued.  In the fall 2003, the tone and the content of Ms. Cassandra’s email to Mr. Lecher had not changed substantially after they returned from South America.  Ms. Cassandra was asked three times if she continued to socialize, or have substantial personal contact with Mr. Lecher after she returned from South America and all three times she said no.

Ms. Cassandra asserts that she finally decided to make a formal complaint about the alleged sexual harassment after Mr. Lecher threatened to have her “kicked out” of the department in spring 2004.  Until that occurred, she felt she could handle the situation on her own.

Mr. Lecher responded that he never threatened to have Ms. Cassandra thrown out of the department.  He admitted that he sensed something had changed in spring 2004 because Ms. Cassandra would not speak to him, or respond to his email the way she once did.  He stated that he could not figure out what was wrong.  After reflecting back on that time, Mr. Lecher formulated that Ms. Cassandra’s change in behavior and resulting allegations may have been due to disagreements about how the lab manual should be revised.

Mr. Lecher stated that occasionally, the department would hire graduate students to upgrade the lab manual for an introductory Biology course.  In spring 2004, Ms. Cassandra and another female graduate student began working on the revisions.  Mr. Lecher felt that only a few chapters should be revised and the remainder of the work should be correcting mistakes (only) to the other chapters.  However, all of the chapters ended up being revised against Mr. Lecher’s advice.  This began a chain reaction of conflicts regarding the project.

During this same time period (spring 2004), Mr. Lecher stated that Ms. Cassandra began going through one of her “cycles” of erratic behavior and although he now regrets it, he sent her a very terse email.  He accused her of “paranoid ranting” and in a very crude manner told her told her to get out of his life.  Although the language in the email was unprofessional and regrettable, Mr. Lecher’s actions afterward were supportive.

Mr. Lecher suggested that they try and get the lab manual published.  This would bring income to Ms. Cassandra and the other graduate student.  Therefore, a publisher was found and a contract signed.  Ms. Cassandra credits Mr. Lecher with this idea and follow-through.  Mr. Lecher agreed to use the lab manual for at least one year.  Between spring and November 2004, Mr. Lecher continued to assist Ms. Cassandra in securing grants for her research and he continued to request her as a teaching assistant throughout the summer and fall.  She was even appointed as the head assistant teaching assistant for one of those semesters.  He also was instrumental in purchasing lab equipment that Ms. Cassandra would have access to for her research, although the equipment was primarily purchased for a course the department vowed to develop in the future.  Mr. Lecher thought that the equipment could serve a dual purpose without over-utilizing it, provided certain measures were taken.

Retaliation

According to Ms. Cassandra, Mr. Lecher began taking adverse actions against her after she rebuffed his advances, specifically in spring 2004.  Ms. Cassandra state that Mr. Lecher would support the lab manual revision project one day, then later state that he had changed his mind about its use.  In her opinion, Mr. Lecher also stalled on completing the graphics he had promised for the lab manual.  Then, without provocation, Mr. Lecher threatened to have her kicked out of the department.  She also alleged that Mr. Lecher was preventing her from using the lab equipment he promised she could use for her research.

Mr. Lecher admits there were conflicts over the manner in which the lab manual revisions were handled.  However, he maintains that he was not retaliating against Ms. Cassandra based on her rejection of him, and questioned the validity of such claim given his denial of ever sexually harassing her.  They simply disagreed on procedure, but he continued to support the project.  To date, Mr. Lecher has fulfilled his one-year obligation to Ms. Cassandra (although he has expressed that he might be inclined to continue using the current manual if certain aspects of it are fixed).

FINDINGS/CONCLUSION

After considering the allegations in light of the information gathered in the investigative process, this office concludes, therefore, that the evidence was insufficient to find a violation of the University policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual harassment and retaliation.

While there were no witnesses to corroborate the sexual harassment alleged by Ms. Cassandra, several witnesses reported seeing Ms. Cassandra’s behavior change.  She seemed moody, disturbed, and depressed at times.  However, no witness had first hand knowledge to support Ms. Cassandra’s allegations.  They seemed to come to the conclusion that Mr. Lecher might have sexually harassed Ms. Cassandra only after Ms. Cassandra told them.  Ms. Cassandra showed several witnesses selected email to seemingly convince them that she was being sexually harassed.  She did not show them the email she had sent to Mr. Lecher that were similarly in bad taste.  There were some credibility issues regarding Ms. Cassandra’s testimony, regarding their post South America relationship, and it appears she may have manipulated several of the witnesses.  Much of the information they had came from Ms. Cassandra’s suggestions, and not what the witnesses contemporaneously thought of her and Mr. Lecher’s relationship.

The testimony does support that Mr. Lecher made statements tantamount to getting Ms. Cassandra out of the department.  What is not clear is whether these statements had anything to do with sexual harassment.  It seems more likely that the statement had to do with the deterioration of Mr. Lecher and Ms. Cassandra’s platonic personal and professional working relationship.  Whatever the reason for the threat, it never materialized.  Ms. Cassandra was not thrown out of the department and Mr. Lecher’s attitude and behavior towards her seemed to turn around well before he was informed about the above allegations.

It is apparent from the email exchange regarding a female love interest of Mr. Lecher’s that this person was probably a University student.  It is noted that the interest between Mr. Lecher and this presumed student seemed mutual.  The University has a policy regarding Nepotism and Consensual Relationships.  This department strongly encourages Mr. Lecher to become familiar with this policy.  While no complaint has been received suggesting a violation of this policy, the facts in this case should prove as a cautionary note for any future involvements.

Mr. Lecher did exercise bad judgment in exchanging sexually explicit messages with a student, even if they were consensual.  He made himself vulnerable to this situation and may have confused Ms. Cassandra.  The balance of personal exchanges in a professional faculty/student/teaching assistant/advisee relationship, especially when the relationship continues over several years, can become difficult, but it must be maintained.  His communications with Ms. Cassandra (the off-color emails, sharing messages involving the other woman, the terse email telling her to get out of his life) were unprofessional.  We will work with the department on an appropriate response to these items.

Please be assured that this office took the complaint seriously.  We remind everyone that retaliation for filing a complaint or participating in the investigation of a complaint is prohibited, and can be independent grounds for discipline.  If either of you have any questions or concerns about equal opportunity at the University in the future, please contact us again.

Sincerely,

EOAA Director