Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
The University has destroyed the reputation of a young and talented assistant basketball
coach through its incomplete and inadequate investigation. The evidence exonerating Mr.
Hufnagel was readily available, but the University did not bother to look. Instead, it appeared
to be more concerned about making an example of someone in a sexual harassment matter,
even though the complaint here involved no touching whatsoever and was nothing like the
egregious cases of groping of students and employees by senior faculty. We laud the
Universitys goal of stamping out sexual harassment, but this is the wrong case in which to try
to set an example. The University has gotten it terribly wrong in this case.
We now detail the evidence that the investigators either missed or turned a blind eye
to. The University must now halt any final action against Mr. Hufnagel. The evidence
demonstrates beyond any doubt that Complainant selectively chose the texts she provided to
the University and withheld information in the investigation. The full record demolishes her
claim that she was the unwilling recipient of sexual innuendo because it shows that she was
actively engaged in a mutual flirtation that stopped when she decided to stop it. Complainants
1
The Sexual Harassment Policy in effect at the time of the alleged conduct, and under
which the complaint against Mr. Hufnagel was reviewed, provides that in adjudicating a
complaint consideration shall be given to the record of the conduct as a whole and to the
totality of the circumstances, including the context in which the conduct occurred. February
25, 2014 Policy, II (Definitions). The Universitys investigation, however, utterly failed to satisfy
this mandate because it relied on the few texts that Complainant chose to produce rather than
the full record. Review of the full record shows that a finding of sexual harassment cannot
stand.
It is notable that it was not part of Mr. Hufnagels job duties to be the press liaison. Report at
4. While Mr. Hufnagel did communicate with the press, so did other coaches. The investigators
conclusion despite this information that Mr. Hufnagel was the singular source
for obtaining information for Complainants assignment at
is simply false, leading to
the unprecedented and erroneous conclusion that Mr. Hufnagels texts to a woman who was
neither a student nor an employee of the University constituted a violation of the February 25,
2014 Sexual Harassment Policy. The full record proves that there was a mutual flirtation and
Mr. Hufnagel helped Complainant although it was not his job to do so.
2
Exhibit A is a 77 page print out of the text messages between Mr. Hufnagel and Complainant.
All references to pages within Exhibit A will use this convention: TEXT- [page number].
3
Complainant has published several items discussing her use of her gender in her work or
suggesting that it is an appropriate tool for the reporters toolkit. For instance, she later wrote
jokingly about her Cal Basketball reporting experience stating that, due to my lack of any
actual basketball acumen, Ive decided to rely solely upon sex appeal, as women generally do in
sports media. Im so excited to discuss it while clad entirely in beachwear! SB Nation Blog
post,
(Nov. 16, 2015), attached
hereto as Exh. B. In a YouTube video posted on January 29, 2013 when she was covering Cal
4
Exhibit D is a text exchange between Mr. Hufnagel and another reporter in April 2015
regarding the same potential recruit. In this text exchange, the reporter asks Mr. Hufnagel to
be real with him about the status of the recruit. Exh. D at 1. After Mr. Hufnagel avoids
directly answering a number of the reporters questions, he tells the reporter he has been
sworn to secrecy on all matters related to that recruit through a directive from his boss. Id.
at 3-4.
Between November 25, 2014 and December 8, 2014, Complainant asked Mr. Hufnagel to coffee six
times. TEXT-3 to TEXT-5. Mr. Hufnagel accepted one of the invitations and arrived at the appointed
time and location, but Complainant did not show up. TEXT-5.
At other times, Complainant initiated conversations with Mr. Hufnagel on topics completely unrelated
to recruiting. For example, in a January 6 text, Complainant commented nice hat, in reference to the
hat that Mr. Hufnagel was wearing on his way to a basketball practice she was watching. The next day,
she texted again and wished him good luck tonight, in reference to an upcoming game, and she again
commented on his hat: Be sure to wear your hat. TEXT-12.
8
She commented that she was both laughing and cringing at his joke. TEXT-21. Mr.
Hufnagel then texted Complainant that he was going to sleep (TEXT-21), but Complainant did
not let the conversation end there and continued texting Mr. Hufnagel.
On January 14, 2014, the night of the Cal Stanford game, Complainant texted Mr.
Hufnagel to wish him good luck in the game. 9 Mr. Hufnagel texted back an emoticon of two
hearts. TEXT-22. Complainant responded on January 16, telling Mr. Hufnagel she had been
holding her breath and waiting on [her] invite, presumably to Mr. Hufnagels apartment as
the two had discussed on January 13. Id. Complainant followed up with a second text, again
pressing for the invitation, Wheres my invite[?] Id. Mr. Hufnagel responded that he could
not invite her that night, because he was traveling to East Coast. Id. After a long conversation
about the talent levels of a number of the current Berkeley team members (TEXT-23 to TEXT25), Complainant asked Mr. Hufnagel, Whats your favorite place to eat in Berkeley[?] Mr.
Hufnagel responded Chez panisse upstairs. TEXT-25. Complainant responded that [u]pstairs
is for poor people, implying that she preferred the more expensive menu offered downstairs
at that restaurant. Mr. Hufnagel responded: So upstairs is on me and downstairs is on u.
9
Later that evening, Complainant posted a comment to her twitter feed about the tie Mr. Hufnagel
wore during the game. Exh. E (Official review is red. Admit its red, Yanni RT @CVWarrior: Can we get
an official review of the color of @yhufnagels tie?).
The Report also asserts that a text exchange between Mr. Hufnagel and Complainant on March 27,
2015 contains a sexual innuendo. Report at 23. Mr. Hufnagel disputes this assertion; there is nothing
sexual about this text exchange.
YH:
I never use it
LB:
YOU HAVE IT
YH:
Im
LB:
My sister has one and I had never been on it before tonight but had seen screen
shots
And it's amazing
And then I was like Yanni totally has this what if we run into him
YH:
Lacking the Tinder exchange, the investigators compounded the distortion by relying on
two other text messages isolated by Complainant to support her claim that Mr. Hufnagel
retaliated against her by cutting her off from information unless she acquiesced to his
advances. Report, 17-18. Again, the full record demonstrates otherwise. The first exchange is
from March 23 and involves Complainant asking whether recruit
was visiting the
University that day. As explained in the Report, Mr. Hufnagel told Complainant that he was not.
Report at 5. In fact, Mr.
had visited the campus the prior day. Complainant claimed that
Mr. Hufnagel led her and only her astray on the
lead and that he did so in order to
11
Tinder is an application widely known as a hook up application, where users look for casual sexual
encounters. It is not a dating application, where the users seek relationships. See Sales, Nancy Jo,
Tinder and the Dawn of the Dating Apocalypse, Vanity Fair (September 2015).
11
13
Complainants frustration with Mr. Hufnagel seems to have stemmed from two issues. First,
Complainant would regularly ask Mr. Hufnagel about recruits (e.g,
,
and
), about whom Mr. Hufnagel had limited information because he was not the assistant
coach charged with recruiting those individuals. What Complainant (wrongly) perceived as Mr.
Hufnagels unwillingness to share information, was in fact an inability to do so. Second, the Report
reveals that Complainant failed to cultivate any sources for covering her beat outside of Mr. Hufnagel.
Report at 12. When Mr. Hufnagel could not provide her with a scoop, she had no idea where to go.
Id. Complainant told Investigator 2 that without Mr. Hufnagels help or access she would have had the
untenable task of cultivating working relationships with multiple high school coaches and prospective
recruits parents. Id. Cultivating multiple sources is, of course, what reporters do to cover a beat. And
Mr. Hufnagel attempted to help her do this. TEXT-66 (providing contact information and telling
Complainant I will give u names and numbers . . . coaches numbers and all that. Anything u need!).
14
On November 3, 2014, Complainant introduced herself via text message to Mr. Hufnagel. TEXT-1. Mr.
Hufnagel responded by clearly setting out the reporting protocol for information for which he was the
source, i.e., that he was not to be referred to in any way in her articles: And you know I cant comment
so you can Just say a source told me or something like that[.] Id. Complainant acknowledged: Okay
thanks so much. Sorry I wanna be really really careful about how to handle this[.] Id.
14
Mr. Hufnagel admittedly gave her a piece of his mind during the call.
It is clear that the investigators did not believe these claims either. Complainant made these
allegations on August 25, 2015. The University kept Mr. Hufnagel in his job and on campus until
March 14, 2016, when it completed its 8-month long investigation. The only logical reason it
did not suspend Mr. Hufnagel immediately was because Complainants version of events simply
did not ring true. Report at 2 (no interim measures were deemed necessary or appropriate).
16
15
The Report relies heavily on a statement attributed to Mr. Hufnagel that, while in the garage,
he tried to trick Complainant into going upstairs to his apartment. First and foremost, it is
doubtful that the word trick was Mr. Hufnagels, as opposed to the investigators. What is
plain is that Complainant was not tricked or otherwise deceived. She specifically asked Mr.
Hufnagel if he wanted her to come up so that they could have a sexual encounter; he said yes;
she decided she did not want to do so and left.
16
///
///
17
THE UNIVERSITY IGNORED MR. HUFNAGELS RIGHTS AND ITS OWN POLICIES BY
PUBLISHING A PRESS RELEASE LEADING TO PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF THE
ERRONEOUS INVESTIGATION, ALL TO MR. HUFNAGELS DETRIMENT
A. The University Issued a Press Release About the Notice of Intent to Terminate in
Violation of Mr. Hufnagels Privacy Rights and Its Own Policies
On March 14, 2016, the University provided Mr. Hufnagel with its Notice of Intent to
Terminate (the Notice) his employment contract based on the Office for the Prevention of
Harassment and Discriminations (OPHD) determination that Mr. Hufnagel sexually harassed
Complainant. That notice specifically reminded Mr. Hufnagel of his right to respond to this
Notice of Intention to Terminate either orally in writing, within 8 calendar days from the date of
issuance. That advisory is consistent with PPSM Policy 65(B) which is incorporated into Mr.
Hufnagels employment contract. PPSM Policy 65(B) further provides, After the employee has
responded or after 8 calendar days, whichever comes first, management shall review the
response, if any, and inform the employee of the action to be taken. (Emphasis added). Thus,
under both contract and University policy, the University must consider Mr. Hufnagels
response to the Notice before it takes final action.
Rather than wait for Mr. Hufnagels response, the very same day that it provided the
Notice to Mr. Hufnagel, the University issued a press release notifying the world that it had
issued the Notice of Intent to Terminate him, in violation of his constitutional right to privacy
and PPSM Policy 80, which provides that staff personnel records shall be confidential. PPSM
Policy 80 provides in relevant part: Unless release is legally required, the University will not
release to the public information that the University has determined to be (a) an invasion of
personal privacy; (b) protected by recognized legal privilege; or (c) otherwise legally protected
from disclosure. Such information includes but is not limited to information relating to
evaluation of performance and goal setting records. In Section VII, PPSM Policy 80 gives
examples of what documents are considered staff personnel records, such as corrective,
release, and dismissal actions, precisely the information that it disclosed here.
B. The University Compounded the Injury to Mr. Hufnagel by Immediately Releasing
the Erroneous Investigation Report
The Universitys distribution of the press release regarding the Notice, in violation of its
own policies, 18 was designed to invite a Public Records Act request for the Investigation Report.
18
The Universitys disclosure of the Investigation Report is completely out of alignment with its
own Policy on Sexual Harassment, which purports to protect the parties privacy. E.g., February
25, 2015 Policy, Section V.B.4(i) In accordance with University polices protecting individuals
privacy, the complainant may generally be notified that the matter has been referred for
disciplinary action, but shall not be informed of the details of the recommended disciplinary
action without the onset of the accused, consistent with Section V.E. ). Conclusion of the
18
CONCLUSION
The University must and should take seriously a womans reported concerns that she is
being treated in a sexually harassing manner. The University must and should investigate such
allegations, and promptly address any wrongful conduct. But, where, as here, the evidence is
obviously incomplete and, where facts refuting sexual harassment are readily available, the
University may not terminate employment on the basis found here. The Universitys policies
recognize that a non-physical, flirtatious exchange between a University employee and a visitor
does not constitute sexual harassment.19 This is especially so when the visitor is the primary
mover in the flirtation and there is no effect on the visitors ability to do her job.
19
The University adjudicated this matter under the Sexual Harassment Policy that was in
force as of February 25, 2014 (Report at 2, n. 1), but it is not clear that off-campus conduct,
such as the vast majority of what is at issue here, is covered by it. Nothing in the Policy says so.
The University appears to have recognized the gap for off-campus conduct when it updated its
policy in December of 2015, midway through this investigation and long after the events. In the
updated policy, the University provides in new language as follows: The University has
jurisdiction over alleged violations of this Policy that occur on University property (such as
21
///
///
///
offices and residence halls) or in connection with University activities, programs, or events. In
addition, the University may exercise jurisdiction over conduct that occurs off-campus (i) that
affects the learning or working environment; or (ii) that would violate other University Policies
had it occurred on campus. December 18, 2015 Policy V.A.2(b)(Jurisdiction)(emphasis added).
While Mr. Hufnagel understood that sexual communications with staff would be in a realm
where the University would have jurisdiction, it was not apparent that the University had any
say in communications with non-University personnel off-campus. This is all that Mr. Hufnagel
meant when he stated that, as a coach, there should be no sexual undertones at all. Report at
8 (emphasis added).
22
Mary McNamara
Britt Evangelist
Swanson & McNamara LLP
and Jamie Dupree
Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP
23