From:  Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action

To:       Biology Department Interim Chair

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.  I was accepted in Fall 2000, deferred my enrollment, and began my studies in Fall 2001.  This error isn’t a big deal except that it illustrates well the attention to detail that they invested  in the case.

2.  In addition to being a graduate student in Biology, she became a teaching assistant for Mr. Lecher (and for three other professors).  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” (not to mention forcing me to share a single-bed room with him, stripping to his boxer shorts, trying to persuade me to sleep with him, and demanding that I profess my love and devotion to him).

5.  In fall 2003 and spring 2004, Mr. Lecher continued to make unwanted advances  (I told them that things seemed to return to normal in Fall 2003, so I hoped that it was an isolated out-of-country episode, and that the inappropriate behavior resumed in Spring 2004).  He resumed sending her inappropriate email with sex-oriented verbage and/or he sent email regarding his love life with another woman  (AND/OR???  He did both.  Numerous times).

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 (inappropriate) 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 (these threats and hostile acts were interspersed between accusations of paranoia, allegations of unfounded lack of trust in him, and with attempts to regain the “upper hand” by dangling offers of academic or financial support).

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

Reporting the Allegations

Ms. Cassandra stated that she first told the Director of Graduate Studies about the sexual harassment in spring 2004  (I never claimed that I mentioned sexual harassment.  I told them that I had asked for help in finding a new advisor because Dr. Lecher had acted extremely inappropriately and was threatening to get me kicked out of the department.  I explained that I had been careful about my choice of words, as I was trying to avoid enduring a big investigation, and just wanted to get a new advisor and move on with my life).  However, her email to the DGS is mostly (mostly??  Are they acknowledging that I expressed other concerns?)  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  (see above, but isn’t it interesting how they phrased it?  It seems to suggest that I had said one thing and then later admitted to another, which was not the case).

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 (also note that they elected not to mention that I expressed the same concerns to the Interim Chair and told the whole story to another faculty member [Dr. Coward], to no effect.  I had described all of this clearly to the EOAA).

INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS

Ms. Cassandra first contacted our office on or about July 14, 2004.  Following the initial intake (during which the Director of the EOAA told me that they would want to contact, and see emails regarding, other potential victims), the matter was assigned to Ms. Kelly, Equal Opportunity Consultant.  Ms. Cassandra met with 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  (I had already signed a contract for a fall semester teaching position.  I was concerned that the summer students would suffer if there was that much conflict/tension between myself and the professor.  I was trying to act responsibly.  I was also afraid that Dr. Lecher would physically harm me, and expressed this.  I actually arranged to have my brother spend his week's vacation hanging out at our house, so that I wouldn't be alone during the day, while Archie was at work.  That was in August...the week that the EOAA had indicated that Dr. Lecher would be notified of my allegations...three month before they actually DID notify him).

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  (because I hadn’t had a chance to discuss anything that happened in 2004, including the threats, and wanted Ms. Kelly to have a better grasp on what my allegations were).  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  (this is complete hogwash.  Around that time, I called to ask if they had informed him yet, because the issue about my access to the lab equipment had surfaced, and I was trying to determine whether it was retaliaton for my filing the harassment claim, or simply an extension of his previous behavior).  Ms. Kelly again complied with Ms. Cassandra’s request to delay the process  (doesn’t she sound sweet and patient?  This is a major load of hooey, and is simply the EOAA’s way of covering their heinies for dragging out the "investigation" until my time to file a Title VII lawsuit had all but run out).  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  (Keep in mind, I had been bracing myself for this to happen since August 6^th).  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 (Fall 2001!!).  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 (I never said that, and have no knowledge of him doing that…for that matter, I can’t think of any males that are his primary advisees).  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 stated 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 (he had earlier insisted that I sign over my grant money to his travel agent, so I had no financial means of objecting).  Once in the room, Mr. Lecher allegedly took off some of his clothing (all but his underpants) and began asking (demanding) Ms. Cassandra to proclaim that she loved him and that he was her best friend (in the world).  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 (arranged, and then informed him) 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 (in front of academic dignitaries, where I wasn’t comfortable making a scene about it).  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 (we were supposed to be working on a paper for publication…I wouldn’t have gone to his room just because he wanted to “talk”, and I explained that to Ms. Kelly).  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  (I did tell him, many times, and he would either fly into a threatening rage, or sob like a baby.  I told the EOAA staff this, but they chose not to report it).

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 (see above…I told them that things seemed to improve in the Fall, and then got vastly worse in the Spring).  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  (he did this, and people noticed, and were appalled, and testified to the EOAA about it, but their testimonies were dismissed because they had asked me how I felt about it shortly after it happened.  By responding to them that I felt harassed by his behavior, I was apparently "manipulating" them, according to the EOAA).  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 (not to mention the emails he was forwarding regarding his breakup with his live-in girlfriend, who also was a former 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  (at the time he was my advisor, and I was trying to be tactful, thinking that I could manage the discussion better in person.  But, apparently the EOAA cannot comprehend that).  According to Ms. Cassandra, Mr. Lecher complied with her request and stopped sending her the email (about a week after I first requested that he stop.  I was very clear about this to the EOAA, as I thought it was important that I had to make repeated requests.  Apparently, they didn't find that worth mentioning).

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 (repeatedly threatening to renege) 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 (I told them that, at the very beginning, but they chose to ignore it).  In addition, Mr. Lecher stated that Ms. Cassandra confided in him very intimate details of her life (I never told him anything that I wouldn’t share with any casual acquaintance).  As further illustration of their close bond, Mr. Lecher stated that Ms. Cassandra and her fiance once house-sat for him (I told them that in our first meeting).  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 (see above).  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 (this is undoubtedly the MOST offensive of the many objectionable statements in this document.  He tried to manipulate me into shifting my research focus toward his own, trying to get me to author publications that he could put his name on.  When I finally agreed to research the topics he was interested in, I produced papers with conclusions that were counter to his.  He refused to publish my papers WITH me, and instead claimed them as his own, threatening that if I tried to publish them, he’d sue me for stealing “his” ideas.  I am now embarking on a rewarding career, thanks entirely to focusing on my OWN research interests, and NOT his.  Note that I expressed this to the EOAA, and they chose to omit my statements on the topic and to include only his).  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 (I wonder why they’d choose to include this, but to omit my characterizations of Dr. Lecher as “manipulative, domineering, and intimidating"?).  He also noticed that she, on her own accord, smoked and drank very much during the day and night (even if this WERE true, how would it be relevant??  It can only be described as a character assassination.  Keep in mind that they sent this report to the department's Interim Chair).  She would go through cycles of accusing him of things.  For instance, Ms. Cassandra accused him of trying to steal her research (at the time of the South America trip, I was still trying to work with him.  I didn’t accuse him of trying to steal my research until he DID, which was in late winter 2003 and spring 2004), and that he attempted to harness the spotlight away from her and the other student during certain digs (This is SO stupid, I can’t believe they put it in.  We were in South America, on an alleged “field school” with ONE paying student.  I was supposed to be the “Field Supervisor.”  As an undergraduate [long before meeting Dr. Lecher], I’d had a fantastic experience on my own field school, and I was determined to make Cathy’s experience as rewarding as possible, given the circumstances.  We spent two weeks digging at a World Heritage fossil site, not finding a thing.  Toward the end of our stay in that region, we began finding wonderful fossils.  As soon as we did, Dr. Lecher commandeered the area, and insisted upon being the only one to dig.  For me, that was the last straw.  I confronted him, and demanded that he allow the student, Cathy, to participate in digging up the fossils.  My efforts were in vain (Cathy didn’t get to dig), but I’m sure that was the basis for his assertion.  I explained this to the EOAA but they, once again, chose to omit my side of the story) .  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 (Note how they state these things as facts, and not prefaced by "he alleges").  She finally confided in him that she was having troubles with her fiance and told him of other very personal stories (another load of hooey.  Everything between me and Archie was fine.  Now we’re happily married.  I missed him throughout the trip, but that’s it).

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 (after receiving this report, I requested that the EOAA provide me with copies of these emails.  They finally did…less than two hours before the statute of limitations on my case ran out.  They were so cowardly that they didn’t even have anyone in the office at the time that they had scheduled for me to pick it up…there was just a package on the counter with my name on it.  There was nothing profane or in bad taste in the emails, and they were all from 2003…not a one from 2004, when I was enduring his hostile threats).  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 (At one location on our trip there were vehicles with bumper stickers on the back that said “Taxi Ass”. This referred to the “Taxicab Drivers' Association”, but it was amusing to all of us, including the field school student and the local academics that were present, as the stickers were, technically, on the “ass” of the taxi.  In Fall 2003, I was the Assistant Head TA for the Evolutionary Biology class.  Out of the blue, Dr. Lecher sent me an email stating that if we were in South America I would be the “Ass Head TA”.  I responded that he was probably right, and called him “Ass Professor Lecher” (he was an Assistant Professor).  Even though the EOAA was provided with copies of all of these emails, they chose to characterize this exchange as though it was initiated by me, and didn’t allow me the opportunity to explain what “Ass”, in this context, referred to).  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 (I testified that things seemed to go back to the pre-South America state once we returned, and that I tried to re-establish my original relationship with Dr. Lecher during the Fall of 2003.  However, I explained to the EOAA that I was not comfortable with the idea of spending time alone with him.  Instead, I preferred to limit my social encounters with him to situations in which other people would be present.  They outright ignored this testimony and, apparently, used HIS version of it to make their ultimate determination regarding my credibility).  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 (and his fiancee) to come over to her (and her fiance’s) house with his dog.  Ms. Cassandra was attempting to set up a play date with her puppy (at Dr. Lecher’s suggestion, and where our significant others would be present).  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 (hooey).  Other examples include Ms. Cassandra inviting Mr. Lecher (and the rest of the department) to her house for a barbeque in October 2003.  Again, later in the month, she invites him (and the rest of the department, among other friends and acquaintances) 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 (OK, talk about adding insult to injury.  First of all, the assailant tried to ABDUCT me, right in the street between my home and that bar, and I was fortunate enough to escape.  Secondly, I explained to the EOAA “vehemently and unequivocally” that I did NOT ask Dr. Lecher to assist me but instead called his home, hoping to speak to his fiancee, after I had exhausted all of the other numbers in my phone book. See the Nasty Professor document for additional details).  While she admits calling Mr. Lecher, she tried to justify her call by state that she also called her fiance (I told him that Archie was on the way, and that I was just looking for someone to chat with in the meantime.  The fact that Dr. Lecher felt compelled to leave his home and try to “assist” me, his student, at a bar across town when he knew my fiance was on the way was creepy, NOT gallant).  Essentially, Ms. Cassandra could not explain why she called Mr. Lecher, her alleged sexual harasser (see above.  I described the situation to them, at length, and in no uncertain terms.  Additionally, I should note that I was the one who pointed out to the EOAA that this episode occurred AFTER the trip to South America.  Dr. Lecher had brought it up as evidence of our “intimate” relationship, and I was trying to clarify that it was not what he made it out to be at all.  I was honest, silly me!).  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 (a property dispute that was resolved in short time), their housing concerns, and other issues (as stated above, I didn’t disclose anything to Dr. Lecher that I wouldn’t to any casual acquaintance).  Mr. Lecher submitted samplings of email that illustrated a friendly relationship continued (see above).  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 (I was asked if, in Fall 2003, I had the same kind of personal relationship that I had with Dr. Lecher BEFORE the South America trip.  I said “No.  I avoided meeting with him in a private, one-on-one situation.”  They didn’t give me any opportunity to view or respond to any of the emails that he provided.  If they had, I would have clarified that, at that time, I was trying to re-establish the appropriately friendly professional relationship that we had before.  I never denied that I socialized with him at department-wide events and functions in Fall 2003).

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 (note this statement and see below).  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 (this is innacurate.  We began working on the lab manual in Fall 2003, shortly after I returned from South America).  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 (I have email correspondence proving that each and every chapter was submitted to Dr. Lecher, and received his approval.  However, I was not given the opportunity to comment on this to the EOAA).  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 (Isn’t that a diplomatic way of phrasing it?  I have documentation of the entire email exchange leading up to his “terse” email, and my conduct was pleasant and businesslike.  The EOAA office has copies of all of these emails) .  He accused her of “paranoid ranting” and in a very crude manner told her told her to get out of his life (see the Nasty Professor document for the exact text).  Although the language in the email was unprofessional and regrettable, Mr. Lecher’s actions afterward were supportive (How so?  By threatening to have me thrown out of the department?).

Mr. Lecher suggested that they try and get the lab manual published (In Fall 2003. many months before the “terse” email).  This would bring income to Ms. Cassandra and the other graduate student (only a small amount of royalties, contingent upon the fact that Dr. Lecher and the other professors might choose to assign students to buy the lab manual).  Therefore, a publisher was found and a contract signed (In Fall 2003.  The EOAA office seems to be suggesting that this was part of his “supportive actions” AFTER the “terse” email, but this was not the case.  I supplied them with all of the relevant email correspondence, but they did not give me the opportunity to comment on this).  Ms. Cassandra credits Mr. Lecher with this idea and follow-through.  Mr. Lecher agreed to use the lab manual for at least one year (he actually told both myself, the other grad student, and the publishers that the manual could be marketed nationally after a couple of years, and that Sharona and I would continue to reap the benefits of our initial investments of time and effort for years to come).  Between spring and November 2004, Mr. Lecher continued to assist Ms. Cassandra in securing grants for her research (I went to Canada in April 2004 to do lab work, which was ultimately paid for, but I never received any confirmation of the grant that he allegedy arranged…I suspect that he paid for it himself, and lied about the grant to try to win me over after I told him that his behavior in South America was inexcusable)  and he continued to request her as a teaching assistant throughout the summer and fall (I had secured those positions DURING Spring semester).  She was even appointed as the head assistant teaching assistant for one of those semesters (that was in Spring 2004, and for a class that was taught by another professor.  It had nothing to do with him).  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 (see the Nasty Professor document.  I think that it was one of the many instances of Dr. Lecher trying to make himself “indispensable” to my research, so I wouldn’t report him).  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 stated 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 (and, ultimately, provided images that would be an embarrassment to academics everywhere, many of which were unusable due to federal copyright law).  Then, without provocation, Mr. Lecher threatened to have her kicked out of the department (see the Nasty Professor document).  She also alleged that Mr. Lecher was preventing her from using the lab equipment he promised she could use for her research (note that they chose not to mention how he riled up the other faculty with false information about the "hazardous nature" of my 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 (why, praytell, would they put that in the report?  I questioned the validity of many of HIS allegations, given the fact that he sexually harassed me and was trying to save his career, but they didn’t include MY statements!).  They simply disagreed on procedure, but he continued to support the project (sporadically, and in the meanest and most manipulative of ways).  To date, Mr. Lecher has fulfilled his one-year obligation (hooey!) 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) (Other omissions:  how Dr. Lecher, in a most unprofessional manner, told a visiting scholar [in my personal field of study] his side of the story and destroyed a potential research and career contact for me.  Also, how he repeatedly falsely accused me of stealing a department computer, and CC’d his accusations throughout the department.  The EOAA knew of these incidents and had promised me that they would address them.  See the Nasty Professor document for more info on this, as well).

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 (witnesses testified on my behalf who had personally seen Dr. Lecher manhandling me at the bar where the grad students hang out), 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 (the EOAA office dismissed my witnesses’ testimony because I had talked to them about what had happened.  These witnesses were my good friends, and I talked to them throughout the horrid experience, as I was trying to decide what to do.  The EOAA also ignored the fact that I had confided in some of the witnesses about what had happened as soon as I returned from South America in 2003, which would have debunked the theory that I had invented it all due to conflicts over the lab manual.  The EOAA refused to contact the other possible victims that I provided evidence about, and forbade me to contact them myself, stating that I would “compromise” the investigation).  Ms. Cassandra showed several witnesses selected email to seemingly convince (“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 (such emails do not exist, in fact, the “Ass Head TA” label is widely known throughout the department, and has been bestowed upon other grad student who subsequently held that position).  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 (I think this is tantamount to slander.  I did no such thing.  I never asked anyone to say anything other than what they personally experienced).  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 (hooey).

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 emails demonstrate that she was extremely uncomfortable, and simply seeking a letter of recommendation.  And, of course, they refused to contact her to ask how she felt about it).  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.

Please be assured that this office took the complaint seriously (Ha ha ha).  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 (there were three of us listed.  I assume that they are referring to Dr. Lecher and the Chair) have any questions or concerns about equal opportunity at the University in the future, please contact us again.