Melvin Hale Vs Emporia State University Amended Federal Lawsuit 1/21/16

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 99
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MELVIN HALE, PhD,

Plaintiff
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY (ESU); JACKIE
VIETTI, in her capacity as Interim President of
ESU; DAVID CORDLE, in his capacity as Provost
of ESU, JUDY ANDERSON, in her capacity as
Executive Director of Human Relations at ESU;
GWEN ALEXANDER, in her capacity as Dean of
the School of Library & Information Management
at ESU; CHRIS HOOVER, in his capacity as Chief
of Police at ESU; DEBRA RITTGERS, in her
capacity as Assistant to the Dean of the School of
Library and Information Management at ESU;
KEVIN JOHNSON in his capacity as ESU General
Counsel and as Co-Director of the Koch Center for
Leadership and Ethics at ESU; and RAY LAUBER
in his capacity as HR Specialist at ESU, and DOES
1 to 100,
Defendants.
Case No. 15-4947-SAC-KGS
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff Melvin Hale, Pro Se, and for his Second Amended Complaint against
Defendants, states and alleges as follows:
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues raised herein.
DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby requests that the trial of this cause be held in Topeka, Kansas.
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action seeking injunctive and equitable relief for damages caused by
defamation and false light invasion of privacy under Kansas law; a violation of liberty interests
under the Fourteenth Amendment; deprivation of property interests without due process under
the Fourteenth Amendment; wrongful termination as retaliation for the right to speak freely
under the First Amendment; and retaliation and wrongful termination under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. A right to sue letter is expected shortly from the EEOC.
2. As set forth in more detail below, Defendants, published false representations about
Plaintiff which a reasonable person would find highly offensive that he, an Assistant Professor
in the School of Library and Information Management (SLIM), falsely claimed that a hate crime
occurred on campus in April 2015. Defendants further claimed that Plaintiffs contract to work in
a tenure-track position in the University should be terminated, for among other things, stating his
belief that a long time Emporia State University employee was the highly probable suspect in the
writing of the racial slur.
3. On October 12, 2015, Plaintiff was told that his employment with ESU would be
terminated at the end of the fall semester ending in December 2015 unless he agreed to a set of
demands which included submitting a letter of resignation by October 30, 2015 in which he
would state his resignation was effective May 17, 2016. Plaintiff did not accept the terms of the
letter and refused to resign.
4. Plaintiff invited and accompanied an agent from the Topeka office of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on a tour of the scene of the hate speech incident at ESU SLIM on
December 2, 2015, and introduced said agent to Defendants Cordle and Johnson, to SLIM
Graduate Assistant Bridgid Reeves, and to SLIM Interim Dean Mirah Dow.
2
5. Plaintiff received a letter of termination from ESU Provost David Cordle dated
December 14, 2015.
THE PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Melvin Hale is a resident of Emporia, Lyon County, Kansas. At all times
relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an Assistant Professor at Emporia State University. He graduated
with a doctorate from the University of California, Los Angeles in March 2014.
7. Defendant EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY (ESU) is a Kansas State institution of
higher learning established as Kansas Normal School in 1863 in Emporia, Kansas, with a current
enrollment of over 6,000 students.
8. Defendant JACKIE VIETTI is the duly appointed Interim President of ESU and is
sued in her capacity as such.
9. Defendant DAVID CORDLE is the duly appointed Provost of ESU and is sued in his
capacity as such.
10. Defendant JUDY ANDERSON is the duly appointed Executive Director of Human
Relations at ESU and is sued in her capacity as such.
11. Defendant GWEN ALEXANDER is the duly appointed Dean of SLIM at ESU and is
sued in her capacity as such.
12. Defendant CHRIS HOOVER is the duly appointed Chief of Police at ESU and is
sued in his capacity as such.
13. Defendant DEBRA RITTGERS is the duly appointed Assistant to the Dean of SLIM
and is sued in her capacity as such.
14. Defendant KEVIN JOHNSON is the duly appointed General Counsel of ESU, and
the Co-Director of The Koch Center for Leadership and Ethics, and is sued in his capacity as
such.
15. Defendant RAY LAUBER is the duly appointed HR Specialist at ESU and is sued in
his capacity as such.
16. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of the defendants sued
fictitiously as DOES 1 to 100 (DOE DEFENDANTS) and will amend this Second Amended
Complaint to reflect such information as it is ascertained. Plaintiff alleges that the DOE
defendants are, each, separately or in groups, in some manner responsible for the acts
complained of herein. Plaintiff further alleges that the DOE DEFENDANTS were the agents,
employees or responsible individuals or entities in respect to the allegations set forth in this
Second Amended Complaint.
Jurisdiction and Venue
17. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of
42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title VII. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 1343(a), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and pursuant to Title VII.
18. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because the unlawful acts and
conduct complained of herein occurred within the State of Kansas.
19. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1391[b] because a substantial
part of the acts and conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs injury claims occurred in Emporia, Lyon,
Kansas, which lies within the District of Kansas and because Defendants transact business within
the District of Kansas.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
20. Plaintiff was engaged in his ordinary duties, attending a faculty meeting, as an
Assistant Professor on April 8, 2015, when he received a text message from his wife Angelica
Hale, who was the Assistant to the Dean for Marketing.
21. The text message indicated that the office of a student who worked with Angelica
had been entered and certain things had been tampered with, and that the word NIGGAZ had
been scrawled on the notepad on the students desk. A true and accurate copy of these text
messages is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint and is incorporated
by reference herein. The door to the students private office, located in a remote area of the
library school on the fourth floor not normally visited by strangers, was found unlocked.
22. Plaintiff and his wife were the sole black employees of SLIM.
23. Plaintiff is one of only two tenure-track black faculty at ESU.
24. ESU has no tenured black professors.
25. The Dean of SLIM, Gwen Alexander, was informed of the incident on April 8, 2015
by the Plaintiff and his wife, Angelica Hale. The Dean promised to look into the situation.
26. The student was contacted by Angelica on a regular basis following the incident for a
status, but the student indicated that the Dean did not approach her about the incident for more
than two months, and only then after the Plaintiff and his wife had approached the Provost and
the ESU Police.
5
27. After more than two months, with no action by the Dean, Plaintiff and his wife
contacted the Provost, David Cordle and the head of Human Resources, Judy Anderson on June
15 to set up a time to discuss the situation. A true and accurate copy of this email is attached as
Exhibit B to Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein. At
a meeting on, or about June 30, 2015, Dr. Cordle indicated that he had talked briefly with Dean
Alexander, and that she had told him that she had talked with the graduate student the day of the
incident, and that the student seemed to be just fine. This claim is untrue.
28. In June 2015, Angelica contacted Wendy Carlson, a nationally acclaimed forensic
handwriting examiner, and paid her to examine a high resolution photograph of the epithet, and
the handwriting of the Deans Assistant, Debra Rittgers. On or about June 9, 2015, Angelica
received a call from Carlson requesting more samples of Debra Rittgers handwriting, which were
provided. On or about June 19, 2015, Angelica received a call that went to voicemail from
Carlson stating that she had received the additional handwriting samples, but that in her expert
opinion, Debra Rittgers, the Deans Assistant, was still the most probable author of the racial slur
found in the students notebook, and rated it at a confidence level of eight on a nine-point scale.
A true and accurate transcript of this voicemail is attached as Exhibit C to Plaintiff s Second
Amended Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein. Carlson will need additional
samples of handwriting to arrive at a conclusive determination.
29. On, or about, July 1, 2015, Plaintiff and his wife went to the Emporia State
University Police Department, and filed a complaint about the incident with Officer Jerrod
Schumann, and provided him with the information given by Carlson, and asked the Emporia
State University Police Department to contact her.
30. Early the following morning Officer Schumann called Plaintiff and relayed the
message that in the opinion of Police Chief Chris Hoover, no crime had occurred, no formal
report would be taken, and that no physical investigation of the scene would be conducted.
31. Early in July, ESU Interim President Jackie Vietti instructed HR specialist Ray
Lauber to provide her with a private report on the hate speech incident.
32. In the Associated Press story that broke on July 29, 2015, the private report that Ray
Lauber was working on for Dr. Vietti suddenly was called an investigation with results that
would be made available to the public, campus and to the media. This is the exact opposite of
what Lauber called his report when Plaintiff and others met with him.
33. On September 9, Jackie Vietti and ESU General Counsel Kevin Johnson released the
results of Ray Laubers investigation with a statement that said in part that no hate crime had
occurred. A true and accurate copy of this email is attached as Exhibit D to Plaintiff s Second
Amended Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein. The following day Dr. Vietti
provided a follow up statement that read in part While the University concluded no hate crime
occurred, I want to make it clear that Emporia State is not hiding behind the legal definition of a
hate crime. A true and accurate copy of this email is attached as Exhibit E to Plaintiff s Second
Amended Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein.
34. In the same document referenced in the preceding paragraph (Exhibit E), Dr. Vietti
took issue with Carlsons expert opinion. Dr. Vietti wrote: While it has been publicly stated
that she [Debra Rittgers] is the most likely suspect according to a nationally known forensic
handwriting expert, no evidence has been produced to support that statement. Further, it is
problematic, if not impossible, at this point to conduct a formal handwriting test given that the
word now exists only as a picture on a cell phone. Both statements Vietti made are false.
35. In a move meant to quell all dissent, Dr. Vietti concluded her statement with the
following: Therefore, Emporia State University is taking this opportunity to formally and
publicly exonerate Debbie Rittgers of any wrong-doing in this matter. I solicit your support to
do the same (Exhibit E).
36. Earlier, on or about July 7, Dean Alexander also disparaged the credentials of
Carlson. Alexander stated: I checked on that handwriting expert. She is the first one that pops
up, and I dont acknowledge [Carlson] as a handwriting expert. If you sent her a different thing
to analyze, she would always say the same thing. A true and accurate transcript of this
discussion is attached as Exhibit F to Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint and is incorporated
by reference herein.
37. On September 15, 2015, Plaintiff and his wife conducted a protest march at ESU in
which over 125 people participated. The issues were the handling and outcome of the
investigation, and the treatment of the Hales by the University. A true and accurate copy of a
Bulletin story covering the march is attached as Exhibit G to Plaintiff s Second Amended
Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein. The website is www.marchonemporia.com.
38. On September 16, 2015, Dr. Vietti sent Plaintiff a letter outlining conditions for
continued employment at ESU. One condition was that Plaintiff issue a retraction of your
accusation of Debbie Rittgers as the author of the racial slur unless you provide the University
with credible, substantive evidence that Ms. Rittgers is the perpetrator. A true and accurate
copy of this email is attached as Exhibit H to Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint and is
8
incorporated by reference herein. Vietti concluded by stating: Please understand that these
expectations constitute the conditions of your employment, and are nonnegotiable. Failure to
meet them will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.
COUNT I
FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY
39. Plaintiff hereby adopts, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 38 above.
40. Plaintiff is a scientist, and as such, gives substantial credence to scientific methods
such as forensic handwriting examination.
41. By demanding that Plaintiff retract his opinion on who authored the racial slur, based
on forensic science, ESU sought to deprive and punish Plaintiff of and for freedom of speech,
and demonstrated malice towards Plaintiff, and by so doing, encouraged others to do the same.
42. ESU alleges that Debra Rittgers offered to take a polygraph and a handwriting test to
prove her innocence, but ESU insisted that she not. Vietti then exonerated Rittgers and told the
world not to consider her a suspect at all, and assured the public that she had nothing to do with
what happened.
43. ESU knows that if Debra Rittgers is conclusively shown to be the author of the slur
conclusively, the results of their investigation, which deliberately ignored forensic evidence,
would be invalidated, and the reputation of the institution would be badly soiled.
44. By claiming that no hate crime occurred and that there were no valid instances of
racial discrimination in SLIM during the 2014-2015 school year, ESU portrayed Plaintiff as a
liar and a fraud. The student newspaper, the Bulletin, wrote a scathing editorial comparing
9
Plaintiff and his wife to the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Numerous similar comments were made by
readers of the Bulletin and other online news venues where the story was posted. A true and
accurate copy of this story is attached as Exhibit I to Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint and
is incorporated by reference herein. The general story about their experiences was carried by the
Associated Press as a Big Story, both before and after the so-called results, and it was viewed
internationally. A true and accurate copy of this email is attached as Exhibit J to Plaintiff s
Second Amended Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein.
45. Defendants sought to bolster the validity of their investigation by claiming that it
was reviewed by two independent entities, neither of which has been made available for inquiry.
Defendants also falsely claimed that reviewers did an independent investigation.
46. Plaintiff has suffered severe embarrassment, great emotional pain, anguish, and grief
of mind as a result of Defendants actions, which were willful and reckless.
47. Defendants have presented Plaintiff with conditions for continued employment that
imply that Plaintiff has failed to perform his duties, yet Defendants have failed to follow
Defendants own processes for adjudicating job performance issues, and at no time have provided
Plaintiff a forum in which to discuss his performance..
48. Plaintiff was given a letter of termination by ESU Provost Cordle on December 14,
2015.
49. As a direct result of these actions by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered real and
actual damages to be determined at trial.
10
COUNT II
DEFAMATION
51. The audience for Defendants comments and conduct was international. Educators,
researchers and practitioners in the fields of library, education and archives who knew Plaintiff
offered letters of support for Plaintiff to the University and to the American Library Association.
A true and accurate copy of one such letter is attached as Exhibit K to Plaintiff s Second
Amended Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein. A letter was sent to the
administration from Black faculty and staff at ESU. A true and accurate copy of this letter is
attached as Exhibit L to Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint and is incorporated by reference
herein.
52. Plaintiff reentered the job market in 2014 at sixty years old after completing a
Masters in Library & Information Science and a PhD in Information Studies at UCLA. Plaintiff
was the first in his cohort of seven to defend his dissertation and to complete his doctoral degree.
53. Defendants knew that they were causing harm to Plaintiffs reputation, but they acted
with total disregard by purveying false and incomplete stories, and by shielding Debra Rittgers.
54. Defendants released a false statement regarding hate crimes that clearly shows
prevarication. Hate crimes include a spectrum of offenses, generally starting with vandalism,
graffiti and hate speech. A true and accurate copy of this statement is attached as Exhibit M to
Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein.
11
55. Defendants ignored best practices in addressing hate crimes. The Action Matters
program at the University of Wisconsin is an example of best practices. A true and accurate
copy of this program is attached as Exhibit N to Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint and is
incorporated by reference herein.
56. As a direct result of his activities to obtain justice, Plaintiff has lost numerous
supporters, and ESU has isolated the Plaintiff from his colleagues by forcing him to work from
home, denying him face-to-face courses with students. All of Plaintiffs classes are now
eliminated.
57. By Defendants actions, Plaintiff was given unreasonable and highly objectionable
publicity that attributed to him characteristics, conduct or beliefs that are false, and in so doing
harmed the good reputation that the Plaintiff worked hard to attain.
58. The allegations made against Plaintiff by Defendants were highly offensive and
would be considered highly offensive by any reasonable person.
59. Plaintiff earned his doctorate at from UCLA at a cost in excess of $250,000. In
publishing false statements about Plaintiff, Defendants acted with reckless disregard, creating a
setback and financial hardship for Plaintiff, limiting future earnings and upward mobility.
60. In a letter and a personal meeting on October 12, 2015 Plaintiff was told by ESU
Provost David Cordle to resign or be terminated. Plaintiff politely refused.
61. Plaintiff was given a letter of termination by ESU Provost Cordle on December 14,
2015.
12
62. As a direct result of these actions, Plaintiff has suffered real and actual damages to be
determined at trial.
III. COUNT THREE
LIBERTY INTEREST
64. The Due Process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment require that review of
laws impacting rights deemed fundamental are analyzed using the strict scrutiny standard of
review. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96
S.Ct. 2673 (1976).
65. The Due Process provisions of the 14th Amendment recognize a liberty interest in
ones reputation and good name. Plaintiff has demonstrated how Defendants conduct: 1)
impugned his good name, reputation, honor and integrity, 2) the statements made were false, 3)
the statements occurred in the course of terminating Plaintiff and foreclosed other employment
opportunities, and 4) these defamatory statements were published. Plaintiff has met its burden
to prove Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests. See Darr v. Town of Telluride, 495 F.3d 1243,
1255 (10th Cir. 2007), Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971), Board of Regents v.
Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972).
66. One need only consider Justice Stewarts language in concurrence in Rosenblatt to
see the judicially conceptualized grounding of reputation in personal dignity: The right of a man
to the protection of his own reputation from unjustified invasion and wrongful hurt reflects no
more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being - a concept
13
at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 92 (1966)
(Stewart, J., concurring).
67. In Monroe v. Pape, the modern watershed 1983 case, the Court had made clear that
the existence of a state cause of action was no bar to raising a 1983 suit in federal court: It is
no answer that the State has a law which if enforced would give relief. The federal remedy is
supplementary to the state remedy, and the latter need not be first sought and refused before the
federal one is invoked. 365 U.S. 167, 183 (1961).
68. Defendants actions were intentional and reckless and grounded in malice, although
malice is not a necessary component of defamation when the Plaintiff is not a public figure.
Defendants fully intended to engender public reaction against Plaintiff by characterizing Plaintiff
as professionally unfit, a false prophet, a teller of tales and a soon-to-be former employee.
69. The harm that is caused when state actors, without due process of law, label and
stigmatize individuals as wrongdoers thus runs more deeply than simply negatively impacting
ones social standing. Unchallenged stigmatic injury also frustrates individual self-invention, and
in that sense deprives the individual of liberty without due process of law.
70. Before publicly posting defamatory information about Plaintiff, Defendants were
required to give Plaintiff notice of the intent to post such information, and to provide Plaintiff a
hearing for the opportunity to present Plaintiffs side of the matter, see Constantineau v. Grager,
302 F. Supp. 861, 864 (E.D. Wis. 1969). The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling in explicit
terms: Where a persons good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what
the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential
14
(Constantineau, 400 U.S. at 437). In this case, Defendants were intent on silencing Plaintiffs
objections to their narrative, and even went so far as to publicly exonerate the only suspect.
71.
As a direct result of these actions, Plaintiff has suffered real and actual damages to
be determined at trial.
IV. COUNT FOUR
DUE PROCESS
73. Procedural due process may be implicated whenever the government threatens to
take a life, liberty or property interest from an individual. If a public employee has a contract and
is terminated in the middle of that contract period without any kind of a hearing, then that may
constitute a property interest triggering procedural due process protections.
74. Although due process tolerates variances in procedure "appropriate to the nature of
the case, Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950), it is nonetheless
possible to identify its core goals and requirements.
75. First, "[p]rocedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the
deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property" Carey
v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978). Thus, the required elements of due process are those that
"minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations" by enabling persons to contest the basis
upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S.
67, 81 (1972).
15
76. Defendants threatened to terminate Plaintiff if he did not retract beliefs based on
forensic science, while creating and dispersing false and misleading narratives regarding Plaintiff
and myriad aspects of the original incident.
77. Defendants refused to acknowledge the error of their narratives or to follow Title VII
procedures for reporting and investigating reports of racial bias.
78. Defendant Jackie Vietti refused all requests by Plaintiff to meet with him personally
to discuss the hate crime or the investigation, but Vietti met with Rittgers more than once.
79. In Paul v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that reputational harm alone was
insufficient to trigger a constitutional right to procedural due process, see Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S.
693, 712 (1976). Only if some more tangible loss (e.g., concurrent loss of government
employment) accompanies state-caused stigmatic harm does a constitutional right to procedural
due process arise (Id. at 701). These circumstances are fully met by the willful and reckless
conduct of the Defendants.
80. Defendants stigmatizing remarks were made in the course of Plaintiffs termination
and thus meet the stigma-plus standard.
81. That Plaintiff has, and is, suffering reputational harm is undeniable, as evidenced in
Exhibits O, P, Q, R, S, and T, which are incorporated by reference herein.
82. Plaintiff was threatened with termination in a letter from Provost Cordle dated
October 12, 2015, as evidenced in Exhibit U, which is incorporated herein by reference.
83. Plaintiff was notified of his termination in a letter from Provost Cordle dated
December 14, 2015, as evidenced in Exhibit V, which is incorporated herein by reference.
16
V. COUNT FIVE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
86. Defendants violated Plaintiffs First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech by
terminating Plaintiff for marching and speaking out against racial discrimination and a hate
speech incident that went unaddressed.
87. Plaintiff was retaliated against, subjected to a hostile working environment,
threatened with termination, and finally was terminated for exercising freedom of speech.
VI. COUNT SIX
RETALIATION & WRONGFUL TERMINATION
90. According to Title VII an employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise
"retaliate" against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a
discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination, yet Defendant ESU did exactly
that, prompting Plaintiff to file a discrimination claim with the Kansas Human Rights
17
Commission (KHRC). Plaintiff has requested a Right-to-Sue Letter from the EEOC as
evidenced in Exhibit W, which is incorporated herein by reference.
91. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the EEOC's view that a
Title VII retaliation plaintiff need demonstrate only that retaliation was one of several motivating
factors in the employer's decision, instead deciding that such a plaintiff must prove that the
employer's retaliatory motive was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action. UNIV.
OF TEX. SOUTHWESTERN MED. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 570 U.S., 186 L. Ed. 2d 503
(2013).
92. Plaintiff in the instant litigation claims that but for his demands that Defendants
address racial discrimination and a hate speech incident at ESU that he would not have been
subject to retaliation or termination.
VII. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
94. Paragraphs 1-93 are incorporated herein by reference.
95. The acts and conduct of Defendants was willful, wanton, reckless, and malicious, and
further, shows a complete and deliberate indifference to, and conscious disregard for, the rights
of Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive or exemplary damages in an
amount sufficient to punish Defendants or to deter Defendants and others from like conduct in
the future.
18
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant the relief
sought including, but not limited to, actual damages to be determined at trial, and all other relief
deemed appropriate by this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Melvin Hale, PhD, Plaintiff
Appearing Pro Se
P.O. Box 724
Emporia, KS 66801
reefresh@yahoo.com
916-690-7927
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case No. 15-4947-SAC-KGS
I hereby certify that I have served this Second Amended Complaint on Defendants on January
20, 2016. I personally mailed a copy of the document in the above action by first class mail,
postage prepaid, addressed to:
Anne Gepford Smith
Assistant Attorney General of Kansas
Memorial Bldg., 2nd Floor
120 SW 10th Avenue
Topeka, KS 66612-1597
I am not a party to this matter. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.
/s/ Angelica G. Hale

615 W. 15th Ave.
Emporia, KS 66801
Upon your return from your cooling off period, the following on-going conditions must be met for your
continued employment as an Assistant Professor in SLIM:
I) That you will acknowledge, accept, be aware of, and change your behaviors that are unacceptable in
the workplace. These behaviors include, but are not limited to, raising your voice, accusing others
using inflammatory statements, or engaging others in a way that may otherwise be perceived as
intimidating or bullvinz.
2) That you will issue a retraction of your accusation of Debbie Rittgers as the author of the racial slur
unless you provide the University with credible, substantive evidence that Ms. Rittgers is the
perpetrator.
3) That you will agree to follow University grievance process and procedures in the future, should
situations occur that warrant such action.
The mandatory referral to the Fit For Duty Program through HealthQuest, the Employee Assistance
Program (EAP), is in accordance with K.S.A. 75-2949(i) and Kansas Administrative Regulation 1-9-19
which authorize the appointing authority to relieve an employee from duty for the safety and protection of
persons or property and to place the employee on administrative leave with pay. You are mandated to
contact ComPsych, our EAP provider, no later than noon on Monday, September" 21, 2015. You may
reach ComPsych at this toll-free number - (888) 275-1205, Option 7. Please refer to your Client Record
# 3511127 when you reach a representative. They will assist in referring you to a counselor to complete
the steps of the program. Please be advised that you must sign the Authorization Form: Formal Referral
document by September 18, 2015 and return to HR with a postmark date of September 19,2015. You
must meet the above referral contact deadline and successfully complete any requirements specified by
your counselor to be compliant with this expectation.
Please understand that these expectations constitute the conditions of your employment, and are nonnegotiable. Failure to meet them will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.
Melvin, by investing in the steps outlined above, the University looks forward to your continued
professional growth in SLIM as well as at Emporia State University.
Sincerely,
Jackie A. Vietti
Interim President
EXHIBIT O
EXHIBIT P
EXHIBIT Q
EXHIBIT R
EXHIBIT S
EXHIBIT T
EXHIBIT U
EMPORIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
Campus Box 4045

1 Kellogg Circle
Emporia. Kansas 66801-5415
620-341-5171
www.emporia.edu
Office afTHE PROVOST
October 12, 2015
Melvin Hale, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Management
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Dr. Hale,
You have given no indication so far that you intend to accept the university's conditions for your
continued employment as Assistant Professor in the School of Library and Information
Management, as set forth in Dr. Vietti's letter to you dated September 16, 2015. If that is your
decision on this matter, Emporia State University extends the following offer as an alternative:
The university is willing to continue your employment as an Assistant Professor in the School of
Library and Information Management through the end of the 2015-2016 academic year under the
following conditions:
Emporia State University will continue to pay your salary and benefits through the end of
your 2015-16 academic year appointment, but will assign you no instruction or other
faculty obligations during Spring Semester 20 I 6;
You will resign your current faculty position with Emporia State University with an
effective date of May 17,2016, with written notice of your resignation submitted no later
than October 30, 2015;
You will continue instructing your current course load through the end of this semester
(Fall 2015) as is expected of any member of the faculty;
You will continue to abide by the terms of the "cooling off" period as they apply to you;
You will drop and waive any and all claims of any type or description that you have or
may have against Emporia State University, any administrator, faculty member, or staff
member of Emporia State University, or the Kansas Board of Regents;
You will take down the website <marchonemporia.com> no later than I I :59 p.m.,
October 27,2015, and will not begin or cause to begin any successor or related websites
containing the same or substantially similar content;
1
An E~ual Opportunity Employer
You will make no further public comments of any type or description in any format
whatsoever concerning, mentioning, or referring to Debra Rittgers.
The deadline for acceptance of this offer is close of business on Friday, October 16,2015.
Please make your response directly to me. Failure on your part to respond by the deadline will
be considered as your rejection of this offer.
If you accept this offer, a written agreement will be prepared setting out the above conditions.
Any violation of this agreement, if made, before the effective date of your resignation will
terminate this agreement immediately and either party will be free to pursue any legal recourse
or remedy it may have as a result of such a termination.
Dr. Hale, please know that this offer is motivated by an honest desire on our part to reach an
agreement. We urge you to give it thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
David P. Cordle
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
C:
Jackie Vietti, Interim President

Judy Anderson, Executive Director of Human Resources
Kevin Johnson, General Counsel
EXHIBIT V
EXHIBIT W
Dr. Melvin Hale

P.O. Box 724
Emporia, KS 66801
Joe Wilson
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1222 Spruce St # 8.100
St Louis, MO 63103
EEOC Case #28D-2016-00017
Kansas Human Rights Commission Case #38246-16
January 20, 2016
SUBJ: RIGHT-TO-SUE LETTER
Dear Joe,
Thank you for the information you provided. As I mentioned, I am requesting a right-to-sue letter so
that I can add Emporia State University to my complaint in Federal Court. Both my wife and I filed
complaints with the KHRC regarding racial discrimination at ESU, and in both instances ESU refused to
consider mediation, and the time for that has come and gone.
My case in Federal Court in Topeka is # 15-cv4947-SAC-KGS.
I understand that this has to be reviewed by the Department of Justice because ESU is a state entity, but
I do hope that I can receive a right-to-sue letter as soon as possible.
Regards,
Melvin Hale, PhD

Melvin Hale Vs Emporia State University Amended Federal Lawsuit 1/21/16

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Melvin Hale Vs Emporia State University Amended Federal Lawsuit 1/21/16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 99

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MELVIN HALE, PhD,

Case No. 15-4947-SAC-KGS

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 4 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 5 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 6 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 7 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 8 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 9 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 10 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 11 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 12 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 13 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 14 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 15 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 16 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 17 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 18 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 19 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 20 of 99

Case No. 15-4947-SAC-KGS

/s/ Angelica G. Hale

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 21 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 22 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 23 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 24 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 25 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 26 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 27 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 28 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 29 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 30 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 31 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 32 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 33 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 34 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 35 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 36 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 37 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 38 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 39 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 40 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 41 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 42 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 43 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 44 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 45 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 46 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 47 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 48 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 49 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 50 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 51 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 52 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 53 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 54 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 55 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 56 of 99

Case 5:15-cv-04947-SAC-KGS Document 13 Filed 01/21/16 Page 57 of 99