LRD A: Discrimination Complaint Form

/
I
.,
Office of Equity/Diversity Services• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Room 359

P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201
telephone: (414) 229-5923 * Email: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229-5592
Discrimination Complaint Form

General Information
,;,---, ------- I
University Status Email dd ess
oom 3S°I
Home Mailing Address Phone Number
Responding Party University Status Relationship to Complainant
Campus Mailing Address Campus Phone Number
Allegation based on:

Race or Color · Disabil=ity,;:...--_ _ Sexual Orientation Retaliation
Veteran Status @ua1 Harassmefil::? Age (40 or Over) National Origin
Ancestry Pregnancy Marital Status Sex/Gender
Religion Arrest or Conviction Record Gender Identity/Expression
Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---------------------
Date(s) of Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: --</, ---5~<~w~·-1'........
S:~k~t~~z~o_J_I.{~----------
Jncident !n~v~o!:tlv£ed,!__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
erms and/or Conditions of Employment ,, Campus Housing
Terms and/or on itions ofE ucation - Student Programs
Other,Explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Complaint
Have you filed a discriIJlination complaint or appeal with another university department, union or state or federal
agency? Yes_ No_✓_ If yes, please state the name of the agency and date filed _ _ _ _ _ _
.Please descri.be your complaint: J1 [.,,l) a_s Ve.., pqr fed.- fu ~ C- -+hat / 0..
s-rud__Qnf- emplq0ee. oJ r . s~G ectol .female co·- wovuv_J
to so<uud h~vc{~S_men+ 60 0f+?W1phn . fo cn:;f_J·{_ ~m in
unwa n+e cl drswss- ions o-P-.Jct se.x-u d ( · afuve_ • · .
J-f --fke a [(eqation is S()k?STZ(VI +i«aot
Resolution_sought: _ I
,4-JvnrnrsfVc{hon Scck_r re..1,:,/_ovol o.P a_.r {{h evn ;r

The discrimination complaint process has been explained to me and 1 have received a copy of the policy. 1 certify that the
'~r
)n formation given above is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge or belief. The Office of Equity /Diversity
Services has my permission. ~on duct pertinent inquires in regard to my complaint and to use my name in such inquires.
~<lrd;a
~tur ;Complaini~ty ..
I
. Dat~
t5//5
Referred By:
Advisor/Counselor Co-Worker Supervisor Union Steward
Campus Brochure Faculty Training Seminar Other, Explain: _ _ _ __
UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN
lMMILWAUKEE
-~
-:-!
Office of Equity/Diversity Services lvlitchell Hall 359
PO Box 413
Milwaukee, Vt[
53201-0413
To: Johannes Britz 414 229-5923 phone
414 229-5592 fax
Provost and Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs
www.diversit:y.uwm.edu
diverse@uwm.edu
From: Jazmin Taylor :f\
Interim Director, Office of Equity/Diversity Services
Date: March 13, 2015
RE: Discrimination Complaint #405 (EDS 3rd Party)
The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of the Office of Equity/Diversity

Services' (EDS) findings and recommendations regarding the above referenced
complaint. EDS (3 rd Party Complainant) received a report alleging
(Respondent) , student employee in the , engaged in sexual harassment.
Specifically, it is alleged that subjected co-workers to unwanted comments of
a sexual nature.
This complaint has been investigated in accordance with the UWM Discriminatory
Conduct Policy (Including Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence). The Policy
provides in part: ·
UWM is committed to building and maintaining a campus environment that
recognizes the inherent worth and dignity of every person, fosters tolerance,
sensitivity, understanding, and mutual respect, and encourages the members of its
community to strive to reach their full potential.
UWM defines discrimination as conduct that (1) adversely affects any aspect of
an individual's employment, education, or participation in activities or programs
at UWM; and (2) is based on one or more characteristics of the individual that are
protected under federal or state laws ....
Any individual who believes that he or she is being subjected to discrimination,

harassment, or retaliation prohibited by the University's policies may file a complaint
with EDS. The complaint must be in writing, on a form provided by EDS, and must be
filed within 300 calendar days of the most recent alleged prohibited act. EDS at its owrI
discretion may accept complaints that are not in writing or that are filed outside of the
300-day limitation for good cause. ·
1. At the conclusion of its investigation, EDS will prepare written findings
and remedial recommendation ·to the Provost, with copies to the
complainant, respondent, the complainant's supervisor or Dean, the
respondent's supervisor or Dean, · and the Associate Vice Chancellor for
Global Inclusion and Engagement .. .
2. Within 10 working days of receipt of the Director of EDS' s factual
findings remedial recommendation to the Provost, with copies to the
respondent's supervisor or Dean, and the Associate Vice Chancellor for
Global Inclusion and Engagement .. . and remedial recommendations, the
complainant or the respondent may respond to the factual findings and
remedial recommendations. The response must be in writing and sent to
the Chancellor and the Provost. The Provost will provide copies of any
such responses to the other party, to the Director of EDS, the Dean or
Division Head of both the complainant and the respondent, and the
University Committee (for faculty) or the Academic Staff Committee (for
academic staff). Responses may be based on either: (1) whether the
evidence supports the findings; and/or (2) whether the recommended
remedial actions are appropriate.
DISCUSSION
EDS received a report from a employee alleging that the Respondent

sexually harassed female co-workers when he attempted to engage them in unwanted
discussions of a sexual nature . The employee se~ks termination of the
Respondent from the if the investigation substantiates the allegation.
During the course of the investigation, EDS interviewed the Respondent and three female
student employees . EDS also reviewed a letter written by one of the
female student employees, detailing offensive behavior from the Respondent.
EDS determined the Respondent is a UWM student majoring in He works as

in the . In this capacity, he spends part of his work shift at
the along with a student employee, assisting
. of the
A employee stated on November 24, 2014; two female student employees

complained to her that the Respondent initiated conversations of a sexual nature while he
worked with them at the The employee stated after receiving the
complaint, she met with two additional female student employees and they recounted
experiencing similar behavior from the Respondent. One of the female student employees
submitted an email detailing interactions with the Respondent that she found offensive .
Based on these complaints, the employee confronted the Respondent on December 2,
2014 when he arrived to work. The employee stated the Respondent acknowledged
2
talking about sex with his co-workers, but was shocked that anyone was offended. The
employee suspended the Respondent from work effective
The employee reported the complaints to EDS on November 26, 2014 via email. EDS
contacted the employee and gathered additional information. The employee informed
EDS the female student employees were offended by the Respondent's behavior;
however, they never informed the Respondent they were offended and they never asked
him not to engage them in the sexual conversations. The employee told EDS that the
female student employees did not · want to file a complaint or be interviewed by EDS.
However, she provided the names of the female student employees and EDS emailed
them individually, requesting a meeting.
Only one of the four female student employees agreed to meet with EDS. The meeting
occurred on December 15, 2014 and Associate Dean of Students Tom McGinnity
attended as well. This female student employee recalled having discussions of a sexual
nature with the Respondent. She specifically stated he asked her about her penis
preference and whether she would have sex with her crush. However, the female student
employee acknowledged that she considers the Respondent to be a friend and was not
bothered by their sexual conversations until he repeated questions. She also
acknowledged asking the Respondent the same sexual questions he posed to her, but she
explained she only asked the Respondent the same sexual questions to deflect from
answering. She stated she never expressed to the Respondent that the questions offended
her or that she did not want to discuss sex. ·
During her' interview with EDS and Dean McGinnity, the female student employee cited
the Respondent's physical posture as most offensive. She explained when she works with
the Respondent at the , he sits very close to her ,:ind faces her with his legs
spread wide open. However, she stated she is 'pretty sure that's just how he sits' and
when she asks him to move his chair, he always does. The female student employee
stated she does not believe the Respondent intends to cause discomfort and she does not
believe he is aware that his behavior is offensive. She also stated she does not consider
his posture to be sexual. Based on this interview and the lack of participation from the
other female student employees, EDS and the Dean McGinnity decided not to move
forward with filing a complaint against the Respondent.
On January 2, 2015, EDS received an email from one . the four female employees
requesting a meeting. She explained that she was concerned about the Respondent
returning to work and was ready to participate in an investigation. Therefore, EDS filed a
third-party complaint on January 5, 2015. EDS and Dean McGinnity met with the female
student employee on January 15, 2015.
Like the other female student employee, she stated she has worked with the Respondent
for a while and considers him to be a friend. She believes their friendship led to the
Respondent's lack of boundaries and comfort with discussing anything, including sex·.
She recalled the Respondent asked whether she watched porn and whether she believes
people in relationships should watch porn. The female student employee stated she
3
provided academic answer instead of g1vmg her own opm1on because she was
uncomfortable with the question, but did not want to communicate her discomfort to the
Respondent. She also I stated the Respondent commented on pretty and
told her to let him assist the pretty girls . She stated that his sexual comments coupled
with the way he sits (legs spread wide open) at the caused her to feel
uncomfortable, but again she never expressed feeling uncomfortable to him.
The Respondent denies that he subjected any of his female co-workers to sexual
harassment by engaging them in unwanted conversations of a sexual nature . The
Respondent acknowledged having discussions of a sexual nature with co-workers, but is
adamant that such conversations were always consensual and mutual. The Respondent
explained that he has worked at the since and developed friendships with
many of his co-workers. He stated these friendships extend beyond work and that he and
some of his co-workers hang out at bars on the weekends. According to the Respondent,
he and his co-workers have some of the same conversations outside of work as well. He
stated that sometimes he initiates the conversations and sometimes a co-worker will
initiate the conversation. He also stated that the conversations of a sexual nature occur
with male and female co-workers. The Respondent stated none of his co-workers have
ever expressed being uncomfortable or offended by any of the conversations he has had
with them.
The Respondent confirmed that he works as the , mostly with female co-
workers . He explained that they occupy a small space and are in close proximity with one
another. The Respondent acknowledged that he sometimes engages in sexual
conversation with co-workers during his time at the . He stated when they
engage in such conversations, he might move his chair closer to his co-worker because
they do not want anyone to overhear their conversations .
EDS interviewed a witness, who works as a student employee in the This

witness stated she has worked with the Respondent at the and that he did
not engage her in any conversations of a sexual nature. She also stated that she has not
observed the Respondent stare at or comment on attractive . The witness
described the student employees in the as very friendly and stated that some of
them are closer. than others and interact outside of work. She stated that she is unaware of
any complaints about the Respondent and has never heard co-workers complain about his
behavior.
The Respondent's suspension was lifted on . However, he stated that he

received a different job and fewer hours. The Respondent expressed the belief that he was
treated unfairly. Dean McGinnity informed him of his option to address this concern.
CONCLUSION
EDS determines that there lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual
harassment against the Respondent. The female student employees acknowledge that they
participated in · sexual discussions with the Respondent. While they were offended on
4
some occasions, they failed to inform the Respondent or ask him to stop engaging in such
discussions. Instead, they admit to asking him the same sexual questions he posecl to
them. Absent of some indication that the sexual discussions were unwanted and
offensive, it was reasonable for the Respondent to believe such discussions were
acceptable.
Although EDS determined that there was no Policy violation, it respectfully suggests
professional development training for the student staff at the . The sexual
conversations in which they engaged are not appropriate for the workplace and pose the
risk of a hostile working environment.
This concludes EDS' investigation of this complaint. Page two of this report provides the
Complaining and Responding parties with specific appeal rights regarding the report's
factual findings and remedial investigations. The parties must exercise these rights within
10 working days of receiving this report. The deadline for submitting an appeal is March
27, 2015 .
cc: , Complainant
Timothy Gordon, Dean of Students, Office of Student Life
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement
5
UNIVERSITY of WISCONSIN
lMMILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

- ~
::---c....---; Provost and Vice Chancellor
Chapman Hall 215

TO: Jazmin Taylor P.O. Box 413
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services Milwaukee, v\lI
53201-0413
FROM: Johannes Britz ~ 414 229-4501 phone
414 229-2481 fax
Provost & Vice Cliancellor for Academic Affairs www4.uwm.edu/ acad_aff/
DATE: April 7, 2015
RE: EDS Complaint #405
On March 13, 2015, you submitted to me your findings and recommendations on the above-
referenced complaint, wherein Equity and Diversity Services (EDS) (Third Party Complainant),
alleged that (Respondent), student employee in thet subjected co-
workers to unwanted comments of a sexual nature.
You found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual harassment. The
female student employees acknowledged that they participated in sexual discussions with the
Respondent. While they were offended on some occasions, they failed to inform the Respondent
or ask him to stop engaging in such discussion. Instead, they admit to asking him the same
sexual questions he posed to them. Absent some indication that the sexual discussions were
unwanted and offensive, it was reasonable for the Respondent to believe such discussions were
acceptable.
Although EDS determined that there was no violation ofUWM' s Discriminatory Conduct
Policy, EDS recommended professional development training for the student staff at the
as the sexual conversations in which they engaged are not appropriate for the workplace
and pose the risk of creating a hostile work environment.
As of March 27, 2015, l have received no appeals from either party in this matter. I have
carefully reviewed your findings and recommendations and I concur with your conclusions. I am
copying , Director of on this decision and ask her to implement
appropriate and responsive training. In accordance with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct
Policy, this determination is final.
c: , Respondent
Timothy Gordon, Dean of Students
, Associate Provost & Director of
Cheryl Ajirotutu, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement
Dev Venugopalan, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs
r
,'
I (
TBJlE(C[~W~~
Office ofEquity/Dlverslty Services.• Univetsityo(Wisconsin,Mlhvaukee • Mitchell Ball Room
P.O. Box 413,Mllwaukee, WI 53201
Tehrphone: (414) 229-5923 • Emal!: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229-5592
Uu JAN 3 O REC'D U
I
Eqwty ! Diversity Services
UW • Miiwawkee
! U e,J M • .(:_clc-e
[;J . &c}lltJ p y (/ /
~~~~--~-t.£.J-- __ C. )
..
ca_m_p_u_s_M_a_n_in_g_A_d_dr_e_ss_ _ _ _ _ _ __.;.._ _ _ _~-'------......:;.,...._.:..t.....:t.L..--
A!legat:lon based on:

Race or Color · Disabili Sexual Orientation Retaliation
Veteran Status Sexual Harassment{ Age (40 or Over) National Origin
Ancestry -·· ~ancy _ ,.- Marital Status ~ex/Gender
Religion Arrest or Conviction Record Gend.er Identity/Exp1•ess!on
Other,Explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date(s) of.Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.::.
Incident Involved
Terms and/or Conditions ofEmployment Camp.us Housing
Terms and/or Condit:!oM of Education Student Programs
Other,Explain; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Referred By:
Advisor/Counselor Co 0Worker Supervisor Onion Steward
Campµs Brochure Faculty Trainit)g.Semlnar OtheJ', E>q>laiu: _ _ _ __
WMILWAUKEE
-~
-=- •J
Office of Equity/Diversity Services Mitchell Hall 359
PO Box 413
:tvlihvaukee, ·w1
53201-0413
To: Johannes Britz 414 229-5923 plume
Provost and Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs 4J4 229-5592 fax
www.diversity.uwm.edu
From: Jazmin Taylor s·1 diverse@uwm.edu
Date: June 24, 2015
RE: Discrimination Complaint #407 (

Services' (EDS) finding and recommendations regarding the above-referenced complaint.
(Complainant), graduate student and teaching assistant in the
, alleges (Respondent), Associate Professor of in the
College of Letters and Science, subjected her to sexual harassment. Specifically,
alleges attempted to engage in an inappropriate rehttionship with her
and began to use an aggressive tone with her after she rejected him.
provides in part: ·
UWM defines retaliation as an adverse action as a result of an individual's

complaint about conduct prohibited under this Policy or participation in
enforcement of this Policy.

filed within 300 calendar days of the most recent alleged prohibited act. EDS at its own
disc1:etion may accept complaints that are not in writing or that are filed outside of the
300-day limitation for good cause. ·
l. At the conclusion of its investigation, EDS will prepare written findings

and remedial recommendation to the Provost, with copies to the
respondent's supervisor· or Dean, and the Associate Vice Chancellor for
Global Inclusion and Engagement ...
2. Within 10 working days of receipt of the Director of EDS's factual
findings rernedial recommendation to the Provost, with copies to the
respondent's supervisor or Dean, and the Associate Vice Chancellor for
Global Inclusion and Engagement ... and remedial recommendations, the
complainant or the respondent may respond to the factual findings and
remedial recommendations. The response must be in writing and sent to
the Chancellor and the Provost. The Provost will provide copies of any
such responses to the other party, to the Director of EDS, the Dean or
Division Head of both the complainant and the respondent, . and the
University Committee (for faculty) or the Academic Staff Committee (for
academic staff). Respo11ses may be based on either: (1) whether the
evidence supports the findings; and/or (2) whether the recommended
remedial actions are appropriate.
DISCUSSION
The Complainant alleges the Respondent subjected her to sexual harassment when he
made sexual advances towards her. The Complainant stated, after rejecting the
Respondent's sexual advances, the Respondent began using an aggressive tone toward
her. Tl1e Complainant worries the Respondent will subject her to further harassment by
denying her the ability to continue serving as a teaching assistant and providing her with
a negative evaluation of her teaching performance.
As a remedy. the Complainant requests that the Respondent be prohibited from affecting
decisions regarding her role as a teaching assistant and that the Respondent refrain from
conta~ting her in any form.
After the filing of this complaint, EDS immediately gathered information pertaining to
the professional relationship of the involved parties to ensure that the Complainant's
status as a graduate student and teaching assistant would not be negatively affected. EDS
established that the Respondent is not responsible for evaluating the Complainant's
pe1formance as a teaching assistant, nor does he supervise her. The Complainant's
contract, as a teaching assistant, was renewed based on her remaining in good standing.
Also, EDS facilitated communication between the Complainant and the Respondent so
2
they could continue working on a paper they submitted for publication. They successfully
completed this process. ·
During the course of its investigation, EDS interviewed the Complainant, the
Respondent, and two witnesses who work in the . EDS also reviewed
email communication between the Complainant and the Respondent.
EDS determined that the Complainant is a third year graduate student pursuing a Ph.D. in
She also serves as a teaching assistant in the . The
Respondent is an Associate Professor of in the College of Letters and
Science. He has served in this position since· He also oversees the Program.
During the first two years of the Complainant's graduate studies, the Respondent served
as her major advisor. However, in , the Complainant changed her major
advisor because her interests were more a\igned with those of another ·professor's. The
Complainant made it clear that her decision to change major advisors was unrelated to
this complaint. After the Complainant changed her major advisor, she continued to work
with the Respondent on an abstract about and as she is from
and the Respondent is from They submitted the abstract to the
Symposium on and it was accepted. The Respondent assisted
the Complainant in preparing to present the abstract during the conference.
The Complainant alleges, during the conference in the Respondent

began to make sexual advances toward her. She stated after she presented the abstract, the
Respondent sent her a text message stating, "I wanted to give you hugs arid kisses." The
Complainant stated she initially interpreted the Respondent's text message as praise of
her presentation. However, she stated late in the evening on , the
Respondent came to her hotel room, hugged and kissed her on the lips. The Complainant
stated she asked the Respondent what he was doing and pointed out that he is married.
She stated he proceeded to hug and kiss her several more times, before she began to cry
and again pointed out that he is married. The Complainant stated she and the Respondent
sat together in her hotel room for a couple more hours, and then he left for his own room
at a different hotel. The Complainant stated on , the Respondent took her
to dinner to celebrate her birthday and he hugged and kissed her again. She stated she
said nothing.
The Complainant stated the Respondent's sexual advances continued after they returned
from the conference. According to the Complainant, the Respondent requested to
meet with her and, dudng these meetings, he wuuld occasionally get close to her. She
also stated during the summer of while out of the they sent each other text
messages and communicated twice via Skype. The Complainant explained they
communicated because the Respondent was assisting her with writing a paper based on
the abstract presented during the conference. The Complainant stated, when they
returned to campus in the , they met at Starbucks twice and the Respondent
tried to hug and kiss her. She stated she informed the Respondent that she now had a
fiance. The Complainant stated the Respondent still sent her text messages stating that he
3
wanted hugs and kisses. She stated the Respondent later met with her and apologized for
his behavior. The Complainant stated the Respondent behaved very formally toward her
after his apology. She explained that they continued work on the paper via email instead
of in-person. The Complainant acknowledged working on the paper with the Respondent
via email, as opposed to in-person, did not impact the quality of the paper. She stated she
informed the Respondent on December l, 2014 that her fiance discovered and read their
text messages and email correspondence, and that she intended to file a formal complaint
against him.
The Respondent denies that he subjected the Complainant to sexual harassment by

making sexual advances toward her. He stated he never attempted to hug or kiss the
Complainant and he never requested hugs or kisses from her via text message or in-
person. The Respondent stated that he might have sent the Complainant a congratulatory
text message after she successfully presented the abstract, but the message did not include
a request or desire to hug or kiss her. The Respondent also denies visiting the
Complainant in her hotel room during the conference. He stated the only time he
went to the hotel, at which she was staying, was to check in and checkout out her and the
other graduate student because he used the department credit card to pay for their rooms.
The other graduate student, in attendance at the conference 1 confirmed the
Respondent stayed at a different hotel. He stated he only recalled seeing the Respondent
at the hotel, at which he and the Complainant stayed, during check-in and checkout.
The Respondent described his relationship with the Co'mplainant as professional. He

acknowledged that they met off campus, but only for the purpose of working on an
abstract that they later developed into a paper and submitted for publication. The
Respondent stated that he has advised and worked with many graduate students over the
years, and that it is not uncommon to meet with them at coffee shops off campus. The
Respondent acknowledged that he was friendly with the Complainant. He explained the
Complainant expressed feeling isolated because her family and friends are in
where she is originally frotn. The Respondent stated he tried to be somewhat of a support
system because he is from and they share a similar background.
The Respondent believes the Complainant's fiance coerced her into filing a sexual
harassment complaint against him. He explained that the Complainant never accused him
of any wrong doing until her fiance discovered emails and text messages that indicated
she was involved in previous relationships. He suggests the Complainant's fiance made
incorrect assumptions about their professional relationship based on these emails and text
messages. The Respondent provided emails he received from the Complainant to support
his assertion. On November 28, 2014, the Complainant emailed the Respondent and
requested that he call her, writing that it was urgent. He also received an email from the
Complainant's fiance on November 28, 2014, in which the fiance wrote that he knew
what happened between the Complainant and the Respondent, and he wanted to inform
the Respondent's department. The Respondent forwarded the fiance's email to the
Complainant and told her he considered it a threat. He stated the Complainant called and
informed him that her fiance went through her emails, when he fixed her laptop, and
discovered her past relationships. The Respondent stated the Complainant to1d him her
4
fiance was also upset that she met with the Respondent at coffee shops and they had
attended the conference. The Respondent stated the Complainant told him that her
fiance was angry, threatening to inform her family and call off the wedding. He recalled
that the Complainant feared . In an email dated November
30, 2014, the Complainant provided the Respondent with her fiance's phone number and
asked the Respondent to block the number from calling him.
The Respondent stated on December 1, 2014, the Complainant came to his office. He
recalled that she was crying and appeared distraught. The Respondent stated he suggested
to the Complainant that she seek help, but she told him she was going to see her fiance in
The Respondent stated he did not have any contact with the Complainant until
January 20, 2015, when he emailed all of the teaching assistants in regards to planning
for 2015 conference to be held in He provided an email dated January
21, 2015 from the Complainant, in which she writes that she is ready to assist with the
planning and would be present at the meeting. However, on January 22, 2015, the
Complainant emailed the Respondent stating that she was no longer willing to assist with
planning the 2015 conference. In this same email, she also requested that the
Respondent refrain from emailing her because he attempted to initiate an inappropriate
relationship with her in the previous semester. The Respondent stated he was shocked by
the email because he never attempted to interact with the Complainant outside the
boundaries of their professional relationship and she never accused him of such behavior
in the past. He stated he talked to her the following day, and she admitted to him that she
did not want to write the email. The Respondent stated he asked the Complainant whether
her fiance forced her to write the email, to which she responded, "No comment."
In a follow-up interview with the Complainant, she denied that her fiance pressured he1·
into filing a complaint against the Respondent. She reiterated that the Respondent made
sexual advances toward her by hugging and kissing her at the conference and
asking for hugs and kisses on multiple occasions via text messages and in-person. The
Complainant stated she was unable to retrieve text messages from the Respondent, but
she did provide some email correspondence.
EDS reviewed the email correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent
submitted by the Complainant. In an email dated March 25, 2014, the Complainant wrote
to the Respondent asking whether he cared about her, stating that she felt cheap and
mentions both of them feeling guilty. In this same email, the Complainant writes, "I do
not want to lose you! I do not want to lose our good relationship! Please talk to me!" In
another email date October 15, 2014, the Complainant writes to the Respondent. "I never
rejected you and I was single in the past when things changed in Florida right? It is not
my fault that you were not single! And it is not my fault that I am trying to have a family
with just like you have a family. What's wrong?" The Complainant explained she
wrote the emails to express feeling bad for herself and the Respondent's wife because the
Respondent tried to engage in an inappropriate relationship with her. She also stated she
was trying to explain to the Respondent, that when she rejected his advances, she was not
rejecting him as a friend, and wanted to continue their friendship and professional
5
relationship. The Complainant denies that she engaged in a consensual relationship with
the Respondent.
EDS asked the Respondent about the context of the emails submitted by the Complainant.
He stated has was not clear on what the Complainant intended to communicate in the
emails, so he only responded to the academic concerns. EDS specifically asked the
Respondent, what he believed the Complainant was referring to, when she wrote about
being rejected and not wanting to lose him. The Respondent replied that the Complainant
was worried about their friendship changing because they met less frequently. According
to the Respondent, there was no reason to meet with the Complainant because she could
not contribute to the analysis portion of the paper. He also explained that he was
experiencing family issues, so he was less available. The Respondent stated he regrets
"hand holding" the Complainant because it caused her to rely on him more than she
should . He provided an email from the Complainant dated March 22, 2014, in which she
wrote that she needs a hug. The Respondent believes this email demonstrates that the
Complainant was comfortable with him and initiated p·hysical contact, although with no
sexual intention.
EDS interviewed two witnesses who work in the with the Complainant
and the Respondent. The witnesses stated that they observed the Complainant and the
Respondent interact in a friendly, but professional manner at all times. They stated the
Complainant never confided to either of them that she was uncomfortable in any way
with the Respondent's behavior toward her. They recalled noticing a change in the
Complainant's and the Respondent's behavior late 2014/early 2015. They described their
interactions as tense and stated they tried to nvoid each other. The witnesses stated they
eventually learned the Complainant accused the Respondent of attempting to initiate an
inappropriate relationship with her. One witness stated in a conversation with the
Complainant, she stated the Respondent tried to establish a relationship with her. The
witness stated, in this same conversation, the Complainant denied that the Respondent did
anything physically inappropriate, but stated her fiance became suspicious after viewing
email correspondence and text messages between her and the Respondent. The witnesses
stated they believe the Complainant's fiance pressured her into making allegations
against the Respondent. According to the witnesses, the Complainant's fiance is
controlling.
One of the witnesses stated he wanted to resolve the issue between the Complainant and
the Respondent. He stated he approached the Complainant and they devised a plan to
meet with her fiance and discuss the allegations against the Respondent. He explained
their intention was to convince the fiance that the complaint was unnecessary. The
witness stated when he and the Complainant met with her fiance, he asked the
Complainant whether the Respondent harmed her or sexually harassed her, to which she
replied, "No." The witness stated he then expressed that the Respondent did not deserve
to have a complaint filed against him. He stated the fiance disagreed. and stated that the
Respondent deserved to be punished for the email correspondence and text messages.
The witness stated he later received text messages from the Complainant and her fiance
in which the Complainant accused him of manipulating hei·.
6
CONCLUSION
EDS determines that there lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual
harassment against the Respondent. The Respondent denies that he hugged and kissed the
Complainant or that he requested hugs and kisses from the Complainant. The email
correspondence provided by the Respondent indicates that is was the Complainant who
requested a hug.- Also, according to witnesses, the Complainant acknowledged that the
Respondent did not sexually harass her, bot on one occasion stated the Respondent sent
her an inappropriate text message.
The Complainant acknowledged that she was not negatively impacted as a graduate
student or teaching assistant based on her relationship with the Respondent. She stated
she selected another major professor based on the direction of her work and not because
of the alleged harassment. The Complainant's teaching assistant contract was renewed
based on maintaining good standing in the program and her teaching performance was
evaluated by the Coordinator, as is customary. The Complainant is also
supervised by the Coordinator, as are a11 teaching assistants. The Complainant
and the Respondent continued their collaboration on a paper that was successfully
submitted for publication.
Complainant and Respondent with specific appeal rights regarding the report's factual
findings and remedial recommendations. The parties must exercise these rights within 10
working days of receiving this report. The deadline for submitting an appeal is July 8,
2015.
cc: , Complainant
, Respondent
. Marija Gajdardziska, Dean, Graduate School
Rodney Swain, Dean, College of Letters and Science
7
U\i\MILWAUKEE Acadeinic Affairs

Provt>st .a11d Vice C:ha11cellor
Chapman Hall 215

TO: Jazmin Taylot
P.O. Box413
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services Milwaukee, V,1
FROM: Johannes. Britz ~ 53201-0413

414 229-4501 phone
Provost & Vice Ch~orAcademic Affairs ·H4 229-2481 fax
mvw4.uwm,edu/;lc:ad_aff/
DATE: August 5,2015
RE: Complaint #407
On June24,2015, EDS submitted to me its findings and recommendations on the above-referenced

complaint, wherein (Complainant), graduate student and teaching assistant in the
Program, alleged that (Respondent), Associate Professor of in the
College of Letters and Science, subjected her to sexual harassment. Specifically, the Complainant alleged
that the Respondent attempted to engage in an inappropriate relationship with her EJnd began to use an
aggressive tone an~ retaliate against her after she rejected him. EDS found that there was insufficient
evidence to support a finding that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant in violation
UWM'sDiscriminatory Conduct Policy,
Under the policy; either the complaining party or the responding party may appeal EDS's findings and
recommendations by submitting a written appeal to me within 10 working days ofreceipt of the EDS
findings and recommendations. An appeal may be based on ( 1) whether the evidence supports the
findings and/or (2) whether the remedial actions are appropriate. I received a timely appeal from the
Complainant dated July 3, 2015; however, the Complainant asked that portions of her appeal not be
shared with other parties, For the reasons set forth below, my decision does not depend on which version
of the appeal is used.
In both vets.ions of her appeal, the Complainant raises incidents that werenotpreviously reported to EDS
and others that occun·ed after she filed her complaint. The Complainant goes on to request investigation
of these newly disclosed incidents. It was the Complainant's responsibility to raise all claims and
evide11ce relating to her complaint when she discussed this matter with and was interviewed by EDS
investigators. I understand that certain matters arose after her complaint was filed; however, the
Complainant had the opportunity to discuss those matters with EDS while the investigation was pending.
In fact, the Complainant knew she had this ability because~ in at least one instance, the Complainant
reported subsequent issues, thus EDS was able to consider that report when makiug its findings.
Furthermore, theDisc1iminatory Conduct Policy allows the Complainant to appeal on the basis that the
evidence does not support the findings; it does not aUow the Complainant to present new evidence and
request a new investigation. Complainants need to provide all pei1inent information to EDS during the
course of its investigation; new information should notbe provided solely upon adverse findings by EDS.
As such, I will not consider new evidence presented in the Complainant's appeal; however~if the ·
Complainant has allegations ofdiscrimination that were not previously raised, she is able to file a new
complaint with EDS.
In its report, EDS concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual
harassment in violation of the Discriminatory Conduct Policy. UWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy
defines harassment as conduct that (1) is of any type (oral, written, graphic or physical); 2) is directed
towards or against a person because of that person's protected status; and 3) unreasonably interferes with
the individual's work, education, or participation in activities at UWM or creates a working or learning
environment that a reasonable person would find threatening or intimidating. EDS's investigation did not
conclude that all of these factors were present in this case. The Respondent denies that the alleged
conduct occurred, and the Complainant has not provided sufficient corroborating evidence to the contrary.
Additionally, the Complainant has acknowledged that her professional and academic career have not been
negatively impacted by her relationship with the Respondent.
I have carefully reviewed your findings, and I concur with your conclusions. I note that the Complainant
does suggest two corrections to the findings in her appeals. Both corrections provide more precision to the
timing of exchanges between the Complainant and the Respondent. Even if both corrections are accepted,
these do not impact my decision.
In accordance with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct Policy, this determination is final.
c: , Complainant
, Respondent
Rodney Swain, Dean, College of Letters and Science
RECEIVED
Office ofEquity/Diversity Services• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Room 3 9

MAY 2 2 2015
P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, \\Tl 53201
Telephone: (414) 229-5923 • Email: diverse@uwm.edu • Fax: (414) 229 -5592
Equity/Diversity Services
Discrimination Complaint Form UW - MILWAUKEE
General Information
, la zw rh ·Uwl or University Status

El)[ ia2 f-Ylf n@ UW/11 •effil-~
ComplainingParty \. _} Email&ress
Mitchell m?rl 35°l

Home Mailing Address
22<1- s0 23
Phone Number
yDt.
Responding Party University Status ip to Complainant

Race or Color Disabili Sexual Orientation Retaliation
Veteran Status exual Harassmen Age (40 or Over) National Origin
Religion Arrest or Conviction Record Gender Identity /Expression
Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Date(s) of Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Incident Involved
ffi::m:.:s:.:a:..n--=d--:-/o-r--:c=--o-n-:d:--iti:--.o_n_s_o:--fE::-m--"'.pl:-o-ym-nenb Campus Housing
Terms and/or Conditions ofEducation Student Programs
Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Complaint
Have you filed a discrimination complaint or appeal with another university department, union or state or federal
agency? Yes_ No~ If yes, please state the name of the agency and date filed fj
.Pleasedescribeyourcomplalnt: Jf ve;Jovfoi W BQS 1af_PYutt:SS"OV
i,A)tU
unwanf-(d 1 50.c,tollcj sujcys hve cumvniyrl:r ,
who pvuv1cltJ fcchnr ca f amshrn1-c.
The discrimination complaint process has been explained to me and 1 have received a copy of the policy. I certify that the
information given above is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge or belief. The Office of Equity/Diversity
Services has my permission t conduct pertinent inquires in regard to my complaint and to use my name in such inquires.
. - fi · . · r; 22- IS
Date
Referred By:
Advisor/Counselor Co-Worker Supervisor Union Steward
Campus Brochure Faculty Training Seminar Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ __
uN'rviRSITYofWISCONSIN
lMMILWAUKEE
-~
-=--.1
Office of Equity/Diversity Services lVIitchell Hall 359
PO Box 413
Milwaukee, v\11
53201-0413
414 229-5923 phone
To: . Johannes Britz 414 229-5592 Jax
Provost and Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs www.cliversity.uwm.edu
cliverse@uwm.edu
From: Jazmin Taylor ~

Date: August 28, 2015
RE: Discrimination Complaint #415 (EDS Third-Party)

Services' (EDS) findings and recommendations regarding the above-referenced
complaint. EDS received information alleging that (Respondent), ·
Professor Emeritus in the , subjected a UWM
student employee to sexual harassment. Specifically, it was alleged that Professor
directed unwanted, sexually suggestive comments at the student employee.
provides in part:

UWJVI defines discrimination as conduct that (1) adversely affects any aspect of
UWM defines harassment as conduct that (1) is of any type (otal, written
including electronic, graphic, or physical); (2) is directed towards or against a
person because of the person's protected status ... ; and (3) unreasonably interferes
with the individual's work, education or participation in activities or programs at
UWM or creates a working or learning environment that a reasonable person
would find threatening or intimidating. Sexual Harassment is one type of
prohibited harassment and includes unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.
with EDS. The complaint must be in writing, on a form provided by EDS, and must
be filed within 300 calendar days of the most recent alleged prohibited act. EDS at its
own discretion may accept complaints that are not in writing or that are filed outside
of the 300-day limitation for good cause.
1. At the conclusion of its investigation, EDS will prepare written findings and
remedial recommendation to the Provost, with copies to the complainant,
respondent, the complainant's supervisor or Dean, the respondent's supervisor
or Dean, and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Global Inclusion and
Engagement, and the Vice Chancellor for Global Inclusion and Engagement ...
2. Within 10 working days of receipt of the Director of EDS's factual findings
and remedial recommendations, the complainant or the respondent may
respond to the factual findings and remedial recommendations. The response
must be in writing and sent to the Provost. The Provost will provide copies of
any such responses to the other party, to the Director of EDS, the Dean or
Division Head of both the complainant and the respondent, and the University
Committee (for faculty) or the Academic Staff Committee (for academic
staff). Responses may be based on either: (1) whether the evidence supports
the findings; and/or (2) whether the recommended remedial actions are
appropriate.
DISCUSSION
It was reported to EDS that the Respondent made sexually suggestive comments to a
· student employee. The student, however, did not want to be specifically named in this
matter. Based on the nature of the allegation, EDS completed a complaint form on behalf
of the alleged victim (referred to as a "third-party complaint"), which allows EDS to
· initiate a formal investigation into the allegation.
During the course of its investigation, EDS gathered information from the student
employee and the student's supervisor in
. EDS also reviewed an incident report contemporaneously created by the
supervisor that details the interaction between the st.udent employee and the Respondent
as reported by the student employee. EDS reached out to the Respondent to schedule an
interview in order to allow to respond to the allegation. The Respondent declined to
participate in an interview with EDS, but submitted an affidavit via attorney, which
EDS reviewed.
EDS determined that the UWM student is an employee in and provides
. The Respondent is a Professor Emeritus in the

retired from UWMin .
2
On Friday, April 27, 2015, a supervisor reported to EDS that the Respondent
sexually harassed a stud~nt employee. This alleged harassment occurred during a
phone call between the student employee and the Respondent on April 24, 2015, while
the student employee attempted to provide technical assistance to the Respondent. It was
reported that, during the phone call with the student employee, the Respondent
encouraged the student employee to "look for a mate now" and told her, "You're a young
woman, you should find a man." The Respondent also allegedly commented to the
student that if weren't so old, he would "go after her" These comments
allegedly offended the student, and she informed a supervisor, who immediately
.took over the call with the Respondent. This supervisor who took over the call reported
that the Respondent claimed not to understand why the student was offended, and the
Respondent stated, "Next time I call, I will · make sure to request a man." The
. Respondent also indicated that was stuck with a that did not work because
the student employee was offended and stated, "This woman had this reaction for no
reason."
Through an affidavit submitted by attorney, the Respondent denies that subjected

the student to sexual harassment or that directed unwanted, sexually suggestive
comments at her. The Respondent aclmowledges contacted the on
April 24, 2015 and worked with a female student employee to onto
The Respondent stated after discussing the student employee's professional
interests and aspirations, commented to her that she "struck as an impressive
young student" and that "there should be a lot of youngsters who would be interested in
her because of her accomplishments." The Respondent admitted also told the student
employee, "If I were a youngster, I might also be interested because of her
accomplishments." The Respondent confirmed that the student employee became upset.
He stated a supervisor took over the call and he explained to the supervisor that his
comments were complimentary and not sexually suggestive.
CONCLUSION
EDS determines that there lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of sexual
· harassment against the Respondent as defined by the Policy. The comments at issue,
which occurred within the context of a telephone call, did not, in and of themselves,
unreasonably interfere with the student's work or create an environment that a reasonable
person would find threatening or intimidating, particularly since the student's supervisor
intervened immediately. There is only one rep011 of the Respondent making such
comments, and an isolated incident does not typically rise to the level of a Policy
violation.
Nonetheless, EDS finds that the comments were unprofessional and inappropriate,
despite the Respondent's alleged intention to merely compliment the student. Rather
than simply compliment the student on her impressive academic accomplishments,
chose to encourage her to find a mate, which objectifies her and undermines her
accomplishments. This is not the message that UWM should be sending to its
accomplished female students, nor is it consistent with a faculty member's role as
3
intellectual guide. The Respondent also framed "compliment" in terms of his own
potential interest in dating her, albeit under different circumstances (i.e. if were
younger), which suggests an attraction to her. This type ofunwelcome attention is not
something UWM's student employees should need to deflect during their work time.
EDS finds that the student employee's offense was warranted under the circumstance.
EDS recommends that the Respondent be put on notice that any subsequent behavior of
this nature will result in more severe consequences. To assist the Respondent in
refraining from such conduct, EDS recommends that the Respondent attend sexual
harassment prevention training. In the affidavit submitted by the Respondent's attorney,
.the Respondent points out that is no longer a UWM employee. However, continues
to utilize UWM resources and services, as evidenced by use of the .
As such, is expected to abide by UWM policies, including UWM's Discriminatory
. Conduct Policy.
Complainant and Respondent with specific appeal rights regarding the report' s factual
working days of receiving this repmi: Accordingly, the deadline for submitting an appeal
is September 12, 2015 .
cc: , Respondent
Supervisor,
, Dean,
Joan Prince, Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement
bee: Student Employee
4
lMMILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

~ Provolt and Vice Cha11cellor
Chapman Hall 215

TO: Nelida Cortes
P.O, Box 413
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services Milwaukee, WI
53201-0413
FROM: Johannes Britz 414 229-4501 phone
Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 414 229-2481 fax
,1'11'1v4.m1~n.edn/acacl_aff/
DATE: October 9, 2015
On August 28, 2015, EDS submitted to me its findings and recommendations on theabove,-referenced
complaint, wherein EDS (Third-Party Complainant), alleged that (Respondent}, Professor
Emeritus irt the , subjected a UWM student employee to sexual
harassment. Specifically, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent directed unwanted; sexually
suggestive comments at the student employee. EDS found that there was insufficient evid,ence to support
a finding of sexual harassment against the Respondent as defined by UWM's Discriminatory Conduct
Policy but found that the Respondent's comments were inappropriate and unprofessional and
recommended sexual harassment prevention training for him.
Under the policy, either the complaining party or the responding party mayappeal EDS's .findings and
recotnmendations by submitting a written appeal to me within 10 workirtg days ofreceipt of the EDS
findings and recommendations. An appeal may be based on (1) whether the evidence supports the
findings and/ot(2} whether the.remedial actions are appropriate. !received a timely appeal from the
Respondent dated September 9:, 2015, asserting that evidence did not support "EDS 's commentarial
'findings''' and that the recommended remedial actions were inappropriate. In his appeal, the Respondent
raised many questions and objections regarding procedural issues; however, he presented no riew
evidence to support his claims.
I also received a letter from the Respondent's attorney, Peter Earle, on September 17; 2015. I will not
consider that letter in my decision for several reasons. First, to the extent this letter is intended to be part
of the Respondent's appeal, it is untimely. The deadline to file an appeal was September Tl, 2015.
Second, the Discriminatory Conduct Policy allows a compla:inantorrespondentto submitan appeal. The
policy does notaIJow a third party to submit an appeal on a party's behalf orfor one party to submit
multiple appeals ..Finally, the letter raises the same procedural issues as the Respondent's appeal but does
not present new evidence to support the Respondent's claims; as such, my decision notto consider this
letter will not prejudice eitl1er party.
As to the Respondent's underlying claims, I note at the outsetthat the majority of the Respondent's
remarks suggest that has been deprived of civil procedure. To that end, I feelit is necessary to cladfy
that UWM investigations are governed by UWM policy, not federal or state codes of civil procedure. It is
not clear what procedures the Respondent feels have been violated in this case, as the Respondent's
procedural complaints do not appear to be grounded in the applicable UWM policy; the Discriminatory
Conduct Policy. As I have not been presented with evidence of any violation of UWM policy, I do not
find that any procedural issue requires that I reach a conclusion that differs from EDS' s findings and
recommendations. ·
I also am not persuaded by the Respondent's assertion that did not receive sufficient information
regarding the claims against The Discriminatory Conduct Policy requires EDS to provide the
Respondent with a copy of the Complaint as well as its ultimate findings. The Respondent received these
documents; thus, EDS acted in full compliance with the policy. To the extent that the Respondent believes
is entitled to additional information, I note that (i) demands go beyond the scope of UWM policy,
and (ii) the affidavit provided to EDS suggests that was fully aware of the incident that gave rise to
the Complaint, so he was not in any way barred from responding accordingly. Therefore, I am not
persuaded by the Respondent's claims that received insufficient information regarding the charges
against him.
While I do·not see any violations ofUWM's policy with respectto the investigatory process in this case, I
feel it is necessary to specifically address the Respondent's claims that EDS and the Office of Legal
Affairs have acted improperly. I have reviewed the documents relating to this case and concluded that
EDS followed its proper role throughout the process. It is correct that an EDS official was listed as the
Complainant. This is fully permissible under UWM policy which, consistent with Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, allows individuals to maintain confidentiality when making abuse and
harassment complaints. In such situations, EDS is named as the complainant in order to .initiate the
complaint while maintaining confidentiality. This label does not make EDS "prosecutorial," as the
Respondent alleged. Rather, EDS maintains its role as a neutral investigatory body. No one, as the
Respondent alleged, is "charged" in EDS cases; rather, all grievances, regardless of the level of infraction,
are investigated.
I also see no evidence of misconduct with respect to UWM's Office of Legal Affairs. Ms. Goetz, who
represented EDS in communications with the Respondent's attorney, explained the EDS process to the
Respondent's attorney on multiple occasions. These communications included an explanation that,
pursuant to UWM policy, the Respondent was expected to work directly with EDS. The Respondent did
not provide any basis for receiving special treatment in this regard, so was subjected to the same
procedures as any other subject of an EDS investigation. This was appropriate.
Finally, I note that the Respondent makes numerous claims and requests related to a recording of the
incident underlying the Complaint. As far as I can tell, this is the first occasion on which such requests
have been made, so I find the Respondent's claims that such evidence has been withheld disingenuous.
With that said, I have confirmed that no recording was ever made of this incident. As such, the
Respondent's claims and requests in this regard are moot.
In conclusion, I have carefully reviewed your fmdings and the Respondent's appeal and I concur with
EDS's conclusion. I understand the Respondent disagrees with EDS's decision; however, in reviewing the
record in.this case, I did not see any information that suggests the findings were inaccurate or the
conclusions unwarranted. I also do not find any basis to grant the requests set forth in the Respondent's
appeal and therefore decline to do so. In accordance with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct Policy, this
determination is final.
c: , Complainant
Ann Nehring. Help Desk Supervisor, University Information Technology Services
, Dean,
Joan Prince, Vice Chancellor for Global Inclusion and Engagement
\
RECEIVED
Office ofEquity/Diversity Services• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Room 359
P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201
Telephone: (414) 229-5923 •Email: diverse@uwm.edu •Fax: (414) 229-5592 Jllt 1 0 2015
'4uftyJDivmity Servicea
General Information UW-MfLWAUKEE
Email Address

Race or Color Disability Sexual Orientation Retaliation
Veteran Status (liexual HarassmenD Age ( 40 or Over) National Origin
Religion Arrest or Conviction Record Gender Identity/Expression
Other, E x p l a i n = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - , = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date(s) of Aileged Discrimination/Harassment: ~M~;;).eNl\-\~\~-~~ ......__.~~~--------------
Incident Involved
Terms and/or Conditions of Employment Campus Housing
Terms and/or Conditions ofEducation Student Programs
Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Complaint
Have you filed a discrimination complaint or appeal with another university department, union or state or federal
agency? Yes_ No :i.._ If yes, please state the name of the agency and date filed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Please describe your complaint:
1:"0<)Cb9c-O.ik m.\ ~il~~ ~ ),,.\•\°\~\or
Resolution Sought:
, Tu"a-ffto\)<\ ~ ~'83\.ot" ~~ "\C\.\ ~~ Q~~. ~~ \lc),\i;w~~ \~ ~~
ref ,c/.1s-
·"t. ~ ._ ~ Ci ~\~ ~~r
The discrimination complaint process has been explained to me and 1 have received a copy of the policy. I certify that the
information given above is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge or belief. The Office of Equity/Diversity
Services has my permission to conduct pertinent inquires in regard to my complaint and to use my name in such inquires.
P.cty -://~9.11" .
Referred By:
Advisor/Counse!01· Co-Worker Supervisor Union Steward
Campus Brochure Faculty Training Seminar Other, Explain: _ _ _ _ __
lMMILWAUKEE
-~
-~
Office of Equity/Diversity Services .Mitchell Hall 359
PO Box 413
tviilwaukee, ·wr
53201-0413
414 229-5923 phone
To: Johannes Britz
414 229-5592 Jax
Provost and Vite .Chancellor,
./ '
Academic Affairs www.diversity. uwm'. edu
/ r. \
diverse@uwm.edu
From: Nelida Cortes 1~\t~
Interim Dir~~,r, Office of Equity/Diversity Services
Date: October14, 2015
RE: Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Compliant, # 419

complaint. (Complainant), Student Employee/ Union
, alleges that the Respondent, (Respondent),
Union subjected her to
sexual harassment. Specifically, the Complainant alleges the Respondent, who is her
supervisor, sent her inappropriate text messages, found reasons to isolate her and
meet with her outside of the office, and when she limited communication with the
Respondent, she was removed from various projects and her dedication was
questioned. On September 10th, 2015, the Complainant added retaliation to her
original complaint. On September 14th, 2015, a Witness to this matter reported
possible retaliation from the Respondent for participating in EDS's investigation.
provides in part:
sensitivity, understanding, and mutual respect, and encourages the members
of its community to strive to reach their full potential.
protected under federal or state laws ... .
UWM defines harassment as conduct that (1) is of any type (oral, written
including electronic, graphic, or physical); (2) is directed towards or against
a person because of the person's protected status ...; and (3) unreasonably
interferes with the individual's work, education or participation in activities
or programs at UWM or creates a working or learning environment that a
reasonable person would find threatening or intimidating. Sexual
Harassment is one type of prohibited harassment and includes unwanted
conduct of a sexual nature.
UWM defines retaliation as an adverse action as a result of an individual's

complaint about conduct prohibited under this Policy or participation in
enforcement of this Policy.

harassment, or retaliation prohibited by the University's policies may file a
complaint with EDS. The complaint must be in writing, on a form provided by EDS,
and must be filed within 300 calendar days of the most recent alleged prohibited
act. EDS at its own discretion may accept complaints that are not in writing or that
are filed outside of the 300-day limitation for good cause.
1. At the conclusion o-f its investigation, EDS will prepare written

findings and remedial recommendation to the Provost, with copies to
the complainant, respondent, the complainant's supervisor or Dean,
the respondent's supervisor or Dean, and the Associate Vice
Chancellor for Global Inclusion and Engagement . . .
2. Within 10 working days of receipt of the Director of EDS's factual
findings remedial recommendation to the Provost, with copies to the
respondent's supervisor or Dean, and the Associate Vice Chancellor
for Global Inclusion and Engagement . . . and remedial
recommendations, the complainant or the respondent may respond to
the factual .findings and remedial recommendations. The r~sponse
must be in writing and sent to the Chancellor and the Provost. The
Provost will provide copies of any such responses to the other party,
to the Director of EDS, the Dean or Division Head of both the
complainant and the respondent, and the Yniversity Committee (for
faculty) or the Academic Staff Committee (for academic staff).
Responses may be based on either: (1) whether the evidence supports
the findings; and/ or (2) whether the recommended remedial actions
are appropriate.
2
DISCUSSION
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent subjected her to sexual harassment
and retaliation. According to the Complainant, in and around May, 2015, the
Respondent sent her multiple text messages that were not work related and
inappropriate; scheduled one-on-one meetings both in and outside of the office,
making the Complainant feel isolated and not able to refuse these meetings;
assigned projects in a way that seemed to result in the Complainant not receiving
the better projects; and the Respondent keeping a "close eye" on the Complainant in
and outside of the office. Finally, the Complainant reported to EDS multiple
instances of possible retaliation during this specific timeframe when the alleged
sexual harassment had occurred and after. These instances of possible retaliation
were, not being scheduled the hours that she had previously been assigned before
filing her complaint with EDS, being offered and then denied the
promotion, the Respondent still commenting on and directing the Complainant's
work through the System and finally, the Respondent "pushing his spatial
boundaries" with the Complainant in the office.
As a remedy, the Complainant seeks the inappropriate behavior of the Respondent

to stop, a change to a different supervisor, and to prevent further behavior as
alleged from happening in the future to another student employee. On September
10ili, 2015, the Complainant contacted EDS to amend her original resolution to
include having the Respondent terminated from his employment.
During the course of the EDS investigation, EDS interviewed the Complainant, the
Respondent and two witnesses. Furthermore, EDS reviewed photo printouts of
Complainant's text messages from her cellphone, dated May 1st, to May 2nct, 2015,
May 27, 2015, June 10th, June 15ili, June 19ili, and June 24ili, 2015 and emails from the
Complainant. EDS also received an email from the Respondent explaining his job
description, work assignments, and the specific projects in the system that
the Complainant was assigned to for the past 3-4 months.
Immediately upon receiving the Complaint and meeting with the Complainant and
her mother, EDS contacted Brandon James, Interim Assistant Director of Student
Affairs, , Supervisor, and UWM Police Sergeant, Brian Switala
to implement Intermediate Measures to ensure a safe work environment and to
limit any contact between and Complainant and the Respondent. This included
changing the Complainant's supervisor from the Respondent to another supervisor,
changing her workstation, and encouraging no contact or communication between
the Complainant and the Respondent.
EDS determined that the Complainant is a UWM Student, in the

and a Student Employee/ at UWM Union
Complainant is expected to graduate and she has been
employed at the UWM Union since Respondent has
worked at the UWM Union for the past years, first as an
3
and then as a full time employee. He has held the position of
, since Respondent has supervised the
Complainant since 2013. However, the Complainant's supervision was changed to
accommodate the Complainant's case with EDS and the Intermediate Measures.
The Complainant reported that prior to the beginning of May, 2015, her
communications and interactions with the Respondent were appropriate and
professional. Complainant states that on Friday, May 1st, 2015, she received 34
inappropriate text messages from the Respondent that stated that he thought the
Complainant was a "beautiful woman" and "gorgeous." The texts from the
Respondent included comments stating, "[s]o if you ever feel down you can always
call me up and I'll make you smile cuz you make me smile," "you are amazing and I
know you will be amazing no matter where you go," " .. .I'll miss you more than
anyone else," and " .. .I'm just going to keep bugging you till you get me fired." These
34 text messages all came in within a 3 hour' and 14 minute timeframe, from 8:01
pm to 11:15 pm, on May 1st, 2015. The Complainant responded as minimally as
possible, with typically one word replies, as she stated the texts made her feel very
uncomfortable.
At one point, the Respondent texted, "drunk," and repeatedly apologized as he

continued to text the Complainant throughout the evening. The Respondent then
texted the Complainant again the next day, on Saturday, May 2nct, at 8:02 am, stating,
"ugh ... sorry about the texts," with six text messages expressing his apologies and
regret for texting the Complainant. The Respondent explained that, "I sent about a
million text to a million people, don't know what all that was about ... " Here again,
the Complainant assured the Respondent to forget about it, in a minimal text.
The Complainant stated that the Respondent avoided her most of the following
week until, Thursday, May 7th, 2015, when the Respondent requested that they have
a one-on-one meeting outside of the office. The Complainant stated that this was
"abnormal" and it made her feel uncomfortable, however, she felt she could not
refuse. The Respondent repeatedly apologized and the Complainant kept telling him
that she did not want to discuss it any further. The Complainant stated they
continued with the meeting, and it lasted for about an hour, which the Complainant
explained was an uncommonly long length of time.
EDS met with the Respondent in this case. It was noticeable from the outset of our
meeting that the Respondent was extremely remorseful and ashamed of his text
messages to the Complainant. The Respondent stated he had been out drinking with
a few friends on Friday, May 1st, and had overindulged in his alcohol. The
Respondent stated that he had never commented on the Complainant's physical
appearance apart from the text messages. He expressed regret for causing the
Complainant to feel uncomfortable. The Respondent stated he apologized to the
Complainant when he returned to work and thought she had accepted his apology,
and it was not discussed between them much more than that.
4
However, the Complainant further reported that starting in mid May, the
Respondent requested more one-on-one meetings with her outside of the office.
These meetings would occur throughout the Union or outside on campus, in
sparsely populated locations. The Complainant stated she felt that she needed to go
outside with the Respondent, as he requested, because he was her supervisor. She
explained that the Respondent would often discuss non-work related topics during
their meetings. The Respondent told the Complainant that he wanted to meet with
her twice a week, on Mondays and Fridays, and that he wanted her to do personal
projects, so that they could discuss them during their meetings.
The Respondent stated that he did meet with the Complainant outside of the office
on a few occasions, he could not recall how many times. The Respondent agreed
that they met on the second floor of the Union outs!de of the Ballroom. He explained
it was related to a project of " that space." He did admit to meeting with
the Complainant on a park bench outside of Mitchell Hall. He explained that it was
not his intention to isolate her and that the Complainant was the student
employee during the of 2015, and it would make sense that these areas
were less populated, given not as many students were on campus.
The Complainant stated that the Respondent continued to implement personal

projects that started out as group projects, that then progressed into just the two of
them meeting on these projects. The Respondent informed the Complainant that
these personal projects would increase her skills and that it was implied that if she
did not do these extra projects, then she was not serious about her work. Eventually,
the Complainant could not dedicate the extra time to these suggested personal
projects and still accomplish her work duties. The Complainant stated that when she
told the Respondent this, he told her that if they did not have these personal
projects to discuss, they needed to find something else to talk about in their ·
meetings and that she might not be assigned preferred projects.
The Respondent admitted to encouraging the Complainant to work on personal

and He described the Complainant as having a more artistic
perspective. The Respondent explained that to ease the struggle with the technical
aspect of , he had encouraged her to He did admit that once the
Complainant informed him that she did not have time for personal he
told her to stop. The Respondent stated that he never told her that if she was not
dedicated to do her personal that she would not be assigned the better
projects.
In addition to the Monday and Friday meetings, the Complainant stated that the
Respondent would call her into his office to often discuss topics unrelated to work
The Complainant explained that her workspace and desk was directly outside of the
Respondent's office and there was a glass window that separated them. The
Respondent could directly see her from his desk. It became such a frequent
occurrence that the Respondent would call her into his office, that it took up a lot of
5
her time in the office. The Complainant reported that it was even noticed by a
supervisor and he inquired with the Respondent why they were meeting so often.
The Complainant states that as the summer continued she became more reserved
and quiet in their meetings. The Complainant received an after hours text message
on June 1Qth, from the Respondent stating, "we'll get ice cream tomorrow, it's on
me." The Complainant did not respond and this text message, as it made her feel
uncomfortable. The Complainant explained that she told the Respondent the next
day that she had a and that she was unable to go and get ice
cream with him.
Finally, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent had been keeping a "close-eye"
on her and a "weird obsession" as to her whereabouts. The Complainant offered as
an example an occasion were she had to leave the office to
of a space for a project she was working on. Upon her return, the Respondent called
her into his office and said it was unacceptable that she left without telling him. The
. Complainant expressed that leaving the office to had never been
a problem before.
The Respondent did acknowledge that a supervisor addressed the long meetings
that he was having with the Complainant. The Respondent stated that these
meetings were not as long after he was spoken to and that his intensions were to be
a mentor to the Complainant. The Respondent admitted to texting the Complainant
on June 1Qth and offering to·go to the ice cream shop in the Union. The Respondent
offered that, in the past, he has met with other students outside of the office and has
gone for ice cream and coffee, both in a group and individually. The Respondent
explained that his style of leadership was more casual and more laid back. However,
he has now reconsidered his style of leadership and operates in a more conservative
fashion when approaching the students he supervises.
Regarding Complainant's claims of retaliation, she stated that during her evaluation
in the Summer of 2015, she felt that the Respondent began to question her ability to
be promoted to , if she did not talk to him more. During this
performance evaluation, the Respondent questioned her ability in this promoted
position if she was quiet with him; he wondered how she would interact with the
other The Complainant stated that she had no problems with work
performance until the texting incident with the Respondent. The Complainant stated
she "gets things done on time" and yields quality work.
Ultimately, during her performance evaluation, the Complainant was promoted to

and signed off on receiving this promotion. However, there was an issue
as to the correct process the Respondent needed to follow in securing the final
approval for this promotion. This resulted in the Complainant not receiving the
promotion right away. It appeared that the delay of the Complainant's promotion
was more of a function of the Respondent not going through the proper channels
and offering it to the Complainant before it was discussed among the administrators
6
in the office. The Respondent explained that there were some concerns as to the
Complainant's maturity in leadership and remembering to attend meetings, even
after being reminded through calendar notices. Ultimately, the Complainant was
granted the promotion and given retroactive compensation from the date
it was initially awarded.
As to a second claim of retaliation, the Complainant stated she noticed that once she
limited her contact with the Respondent, projects that were typically assigned to her
or to the employee, were now being assigned to other The
Complainant explained that she was not assigned . Similarly, the
Complainant had a long-standing good working rapport with the
and they had requested that she be assigned to their
project. However, the Respondent took the project for himself. Finally, the
had historically been the responsibility of a
Student, however, after the Complainant was granted the promotion, the
Respondent decided it would alternate among all of the student
In a third claim of retaliation, the Complainant stated she had always worked
hours per week. However, she noticed that once the other students returned
back to the office, in mid-July, they had been offered the option to work 30 hours per
week. This opportunity for more hours was not initially offered to the Complainant,
even though she was now the Student employee. However, the
Complainant explained she was eventually offered the oppOrtunityto work 30 hours
after she inquired into why she was not offered it initially.
On August 10th, EDS received a message from the Complainant of a recent instance
where she was directed by the Respondent to close out of a project that she had
been working on. The Complainant explained that her new supervisor had informed
her that the Respondent emailed him through the System, requesting that
she close out her hours on a particular project. The Complainant was under the
impression that only her new supervisor was to be the one supervising and
directing her projects. She was confused and frustrated that the Respondent would
still be overseeing her work. The Complainant was also frustrated as she thought
that if she closed out her hours, it might be reflected negatively upon her.
EDS immediately followed up with these complaints and possible retaliation. EDS
spoke directly with the Complainant's new supervisor who clarified that the
system is an inter-office computer project management database and everybody can
view all the projects. The new supervisor further stated that a large part of the
Respondent's job was to manage and keep the system updated for the entire
office. He had received a message from the Respondent to have the Complainant
close out her hours on a particular project, even though it was in the
. It was explained that this was requested as an attempt to get a good
idea of what the office was actively working on. The new supervisor took this recent
occurrence seriously and said that he would speak with the Respondent about it
immediately. He also assured EDS that he would be willing to make any
7
accommodations for the Complainant if she desired and that he wished that she
would have come to him directly about this issue and he could have remedied it
immediately.
The Respondent explained that he was not attempting to communicate with the
Complainant directly and that is why he emailed her new supervisor to tell the
Complainant. He explained that he had a meeting on August 4th and was directed to
get a good assessment on how many open projects the office had. The Respondent
still had the duty of keeping the system updated and needed to report the
statuses of the current projects and that was his only motivation for emailing the
new supervisor regarding the Complainant's project. The Respondent also explained
that having the Complainant close out her hours on the system would not be
a poor reflection on her or her work.
On September 10th, the Complainant informed EDS of recent instances of retaliation

and violation of the initial Intermediate Measure to ensure no contact between the
Complainant and the Respondent. The Complainant stated that the Respondent had
assigned her to a "rush order" project, and that he had been disregarding
boundaries during meetings and generally in the office.
- Specifically, the Complainant reported that the Respondent assigned her a "
project. The Complainant explained that this type of assignment usually is
assigned to an " person and she was not scheduled to be " However,
the Complainant overheard the Respondent tell the front desk staff member to
assign it to her. She explained that it was a remedial project and that any.
"lower level could have handled it and she was frustrated that she was not
provided with the ' "assets" to complete the project within it's deadline. She
explained that this was just "one example of the kind of remedial projects she had
received" since her initial complaint against the Respondent. She explained that his
assigning her " " violated the Intermediate Measures that were put in
place to avoid the Respondent assigning her any projects.
The Complainant explained that the Respondent had also violated the Intermediate
Measures by frequently attending professional staff meetings in the office her
workstation was moved to. The Complainant explained that initially theses meetings
would be held to avoid any contact between them and that she would be informed
when the meetings were going to take place, allowing her to leave her workstation
while the meetings were being held. The Complainant reported that because she
was forced out of her work area, she would be in the common area of the office
conversing with fellow colleagues where the Respondent would come out of these
meetings and join in on group conversations. Other times the Respondent would
come out of his office and started talking to a particular student, while she was in
the group, which made the Complainant uncomfortable.
EDS re-interviewed the Respondent addressing these new complaints of the

Complainant. The Respondent explained that he did not recall assigning the
8
Complainant to a " " task, but he agreed that he might have told the front
desk to assign it to who ever was available and that he might have suggested
assigning it to the Complainant if she was available. He stated his intentions were
not to assign any projects to the Complainant in an attempt to intimidate, threaten
coerce or give her remedial work.
As to the Respondent "pushing spatial boundaries, " he recalled a recent meeting

where he had assumed that the Complainant had left the room, as this was the
practice during the office meetings. He explained that one of the attendees to the
meeting even called out "where's to which he responded, "I am coming," as
an attempt to alert the Complainant that he was on his way into the office. The
Respondent recalled that when he arrived in the office he was surprised to see the
Complainant sitting at her workstation. He explained that he neither looked at her
nor talked to her. He explained that this was inadvertent and unintended. The
Respondent explained that he has made every effort to avoid the Complainant since
the case with EDS. The Respondent admitted that he and others have tried to
accommodate the Complainant and respect the Intermediate Measures, however, it
has been awkward at times and not always easy to accomplish.
EDS received an inquiry from a Witness who feared a poor performance evaluation
due to him limiting his communication with the Respondent. EDS explained to this
Witness that the fear of a potential poor performance evaluation was not retaliation.
This Witness had also reported to that the Respondent had assigned him a confusing
and incorrect work schedule. This Witness explained that he had informed the
Respondent of his hours of availability for the semester and the Respondent
disregarded it when setting his weekly work schedule. It was determined by EDS
that this was not retaliation and that after speaking with a Supervisor in the
department, it was likely confusion and a clerical mistake that could be remedied
fairly easily and immediately. EDS offered this Witness an opportunity to file his
own complaint against the Respondent, however, the Witness decided he wanted his
claims of possible retaliation to be included with the Complainant's original
complaint.
CONCLUSION
EDS determines that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of

Discrimination and Sexual Harassment against the Respondent regarding the text
messages sent to the Complainant commenting on her physical appearance and
gender. The Respondent acknowledged that he sent the Complainant text messages
that commented on her physical appearance and how he felt about her. These text
messages offended the Complainant and made her feel uncomfortable in the work
place. Similarly, a reasonable person would find them intimidating and sexual in
nature. The Respondent failed to recognize his position of authority over the
Complainant in his supervisory role, and this power difference compromised the
Complainant's right to a non-adversarial and non-hostile work environment. As to
the other allegations of the Complainant, the one-on-one meetings, difference in
9
project assignment, and wanting to keep track of the Complainant's whereabouts,
these all seem to be an extension of the Respondent failure to recognize the power
differential and how he made the Complainant's work environment hostile.
The retaliation allegation of the Complainant not being granted the

promotion, appears to have been due to the Respondent not following the proper
administrative protocol for approval and the Complainant was granted this
promotion and retroactively compensated. The allegation of the Complainant not
being offered more hours was remedied and addressed relatively quickly and was
not retaliation. The Respondent's email request in the system directing the
Complainant to close out her hours on a project was done as a function to assess
what projects were still open in the office, rather than a way for the Respondent to
threaten, coerce or intimidate the Complainant. The Respondent assigning the
Complainant a " " project did violate the Intermediate Measures to ensure
no contact and communication and should have been avoided by the Respondent,
but not retaliation. The claim that the Respondent entered into the office for a
meeting where .the Complainant was present, appeared to have been an unintended
mistake and the Respondent tried to alert his entrance, but did violate the
Intermediate Measures, but not retaliation. The Complainant's last claim of
retaliation, where the Respondent joined in on group discussions in the office while
the Complainant was present, appears to have been an unintended failure to comply
with the Intermediate Measures, but not retaliation.
Based on EDS finding that the Respondent violated the UWM's Discriminatory
Conduct Policy (Including Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence) relating to the
text messages, it is the recommendation that the Respondent attend and complete
sensitivity training to better assist the Respondent in the important role of his
supervisory position and professional leadership.
This concludes EDS' investigation of this complaint. Page two of this report
provides the Complaining and Responding parties with specific appeal rights
regarding the report's factual findings and remedial recommendations. The parties
must exercise these rights within 10 working days of receiving this report.
Accordingly, the deadline for submitting an appeal is October 27, 2015.
Cc: , Complainant
, Respondent
Timothy Gordon, Dean of Students, Student Affairs
Michael Laliberte, Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs
10
UNIVERSITY of WISCONSIN Academic Affairs
Provost and Vice Chancellor
U\\MILWAUKEE
Chapman215
PO Box413
Milwaukee, WI
53201-0413
TO: Nelida Cortez 414 229-450Iphone
Interim Director, Eq~uity/Di~ersity Services 414 229-248lfax
http://uwm.edu/academicaffairs/
FROM: Johannes Britz •

Provost and Vice Ch. ncellor for Academic Affairs
DATE: November 23, 2015
RE: Complaint #419
On October 14, 2015, you submitted to me EDS ' s findings and recommendations on the above-
referenced complaint, wherein (Complainant), Student Employee/
Union Services, alleged that (Respondent),
Union Services, subjected her to sexual harassment. EDS found that
there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of "discrimination and sexual harassment"
against the Respondent regarding certain text messages he sent to the Complainant.
Under the policy, either the complaining party or the responding party may appeal EDS's
findings and recommendations by submitting a written appeal to me within 10 working days of
receipt of the EDS findings and recommendations. I received a timely appeal from the
Complainant dated October 25, 2015, asserting that the EDS report did not provide a fair
representation of events and that the remedial actions are inadequate.
Because of the seriousness of the allegations contained in the Complainant's appeal, I requested
and reviewed the EDS file, which contains the text messages at issue, copies of email
communications between EDS and the parties, as well as summaries of the witness interviews.
My conclusion, based on that review, is that EDS ' s findings and conclusions are not supported
by the evidence.
While I will not readdress each point raised by the Complainant in her appeal, I would like to
discuss the issues that I believe are most significant in this matter. As a starting point, on the
evening of Friday, May 1, 2015, the Respondent sent 35 text messages to the Complainant
between 8:01 p.m. and 11: 15 p.m. Most of the texts were short comments such as "Loi" or
"Ok .. . Awesome." However, some of the texts commented on the Complainant's appearance or
how the Respondent felt about her, including:
• "So if you ever feel down you can always call me up and I'll make you smile cuz you
make me smile"
• "You are amazing and I know you'll be amazing no matter where you go"
• "You are a beautiful woman"
• "Gorgeous is how I would describe you. Butifule [sic] women. I can't describe how
Butifule [sic] you are"
While I disagree with EDS that this incident, in and of itself, constituted a violation of UWM' s
Discriminatory Conduct Policy, I agree that these texts were wholly inappropriate. As such, I
recommend the following: the Respondent be required to attend sexual harassment and Title IX
training, (2) the Respondent be required to attend training on professionalism and respectful
communications, (3) that his supervisor should review UWM's Code of Conduct and UWM's
Discriminatory Conduct Policy with him and counsel him on appropriate workplace
relationships, and (4) that his supervisor place a letter ofreprimand in his file for violation of
UWM' s Code of Conduct and his poor judgment in repeatedly texting a UWM colleague while
he was allegedly drinking.
Following these texts, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent's inappropriate behavior
continued, including that he scheduled unnecessary one-on-one meetings with her both in and
outside of the office. The Complainant indicates the meetings were generally too frequent and
unnecessarily long, but she expressed concern about two meetings in particular - one that was
held outside, near Mitchell Hall, on Tuesday, May 8, 2015, and one that the Respondent
attempted to schedule via a June 10, 2015 text saying, "we'll get ice cream tomorrow, it's on
me." For the May 8th meeting, the Complainant states in her appeal that "[h]e started off the
meeting by apologizing for the text messages," although she did not believe that he was being
sincere and that she never actually accepted his apology. However, she admits that the remainder
the meeting was work related, albeit "awkward and long." With respect to the ice cream meeting,
the Complainant made an excuse why she could not go, so it never occurred. Based on this
information, I cannot find that either of these two meetings constituted harassment, nor is there
any direct evidence of harassment relating to other meetings, other than the Complainant's
allegations that such meetings were too frequent and unnecessarily long.
The Complainant also writes in her appeal, "Throughout the next several weeks, the Respondent
threatened that ifl did not have a social relationship with him that he might not put my
promotion through." This is an incredibly serious allegation. However, after carefully reviewing
the EDS file, as well as her appeal, it is unclear whether or how the Respondent made an alleged
threat. The Complainant provides no evidence to support this allegation, such as emails or text
messages. The only specific statement attributed to the Respondent in the Complainant's appeal
is the following: "the Respondent made comments about how I was hurting his feelings by not
being more social with him." That is not a threat, nor does it implicate her promotion. Based on
my review of the EDS file, she also told EDS that the Respondent "began to question her ability
to be a Student because she would not talk to him" and "he said if she is so quiet
with him, he wondered how she interacted with other However, again those are not
threats. Instead, they seem to be comments on her workplace communication style. As such, I do
not find sufficient evidence to support her allegation that the Respondent threatened her
promotion.
In her appeal, the Complainant suggests that the Respondent did, in fact, sabotage her promotion
because there were some delays with the paperwork. She wrote that "This seems more than
coincidental that the Respondent threatened my promotion ifl did not have the social
relationship with him that he was looking for and then he did everything in his power to follow
through on his threat. .. it seems that there was more than 'an issue as to the correct process' as he
never submitted the paperwork in the first place." However, the Respondent did submit the
paperwork; it's unclear why the Complainant believes he did not. The paperwork was held at the
request of another employee in the unit on May 28, 2015, not at the Respondent's request.
The Complainant responded nine times to the Respondent' s 35 text messages. In none of her
nine responses did she indicate that his texts were unwelcome or ask him to stop. In fact, some of
her responses may have suggested that his texts were acceptable. For example, at 8:31 p.m., the
Respondent texted "Lol. .. I'mjust going to keep bugging you till you get me fired," and she
responded one minute later, stating "Ok haha," which might have suggested that she was
laughing, not upset with him. The following morning, the Respondent sent six separate text
messages, apologizing for his behavior. The Complainant responded three times, including
telling him "It' s fine really I know you were not in your normal mindset and I think we should
just forget about it."
Under UWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy, in order to rise to the level of harassment, the
conduct must "unreasonably interfere[] with the individual's work .. . at UWM or create[] a
working ... environment that a reasonable person would find threatening or intimidating."
Similarly, under applicable legal standards, an employee alleging sexual harassment based on a
hostile environment must show: (1) she was subjected to unwelcome conduct; (2) the harassment
was based on sex; (3) the harassment was severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her
work environment by creating a hostile or abusive situation; and (4) there is a basis for employer
liability.1 EDS found that "a reasonable person would find [the text messages] intimidating and
sexual in nature." Reviewing these text messages in their totality, I disagree. First, while these
messages, in both content and number, were inappropriate, I would not characterize them as
"intimidating," nor were they in any way "sexual in nature." Given that the parties had worked
together for nearly two years prior to this incident with no apparent problems, and given the
Respondent's immediate apology, I also cannot find that this incident would unreasonably
interfere with the work environment or was so severe or pervasive so as to create a hostile or
abusive situation. 2 Her own text responses did not indicate that his texts were unwelcome or that
she viewed them as harassing.
1 There are two distinct types of sexual harassment claims: "quid pro quo" and "hostile environment." The
Complainant suggests in her appeal that the Respondent' s actions should be treated as the actions ofUWM itself
under a theory of respondeat superior, which is a quid pro quo claim. However, with respect to claims of quid pro
quo sexual harassment, caselaw makes clear that the Respondent was not her supervisor within the meaning of the
law. In Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013), the Supreme Court held that an employee is a
"supervisor" ifthe employer has empowered that employee "to take tangible employment actions against the victim,
i.e., to effect a ' significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with
significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits."' The Court clarified
that "[t]he ability to direct another employee's tasks is simply not sufficient [to constitute being a supervisor for
purposes ofliability]." While the Respondent was considered a lead worker, and thus oversaw the
Complainant' s day-to-day activities, could direct assignments, and recommend personnel action like promotions,
the Respondent does not have the ultimate authority to hire, fire, demote, promote or transfer her. As such, the type
of sexual harassment claim applicable to this scenario is a hostile environment claim.
2 The allegations against the Respondent do not come close to the level of severity or pervasiveness displayed in
numerous other cases in which a court has held that the offending conduct did not rise to the level of actionable
sexual harassment. See, e.g. McPherson v. City of Waukegan, 379 F.3d 430, 439 (7th Cir. 2004) (finding that the
conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute sexual harassment where alleged harasser touched the
plaintiffs breasts on multiple occasions, asked her what color bra she was wearing, and asked ifhe could "make a
house call" when she called in sick). In order to be actionable, a hostile work environment must be both objectively
and subjectively offensive, "such that a reasonable person would find the environment hostile or abusive, and that
the victim in fact did perceive [it] to be so." Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 776, 787 (1998). In Faragher,
the Supreme Court explained that the "severe or pervasive" requirement was meant to "filter out complaints
attacking the ' ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related
jokes, and occasional teasing."' 524 U.S. at 788.
Moreover, the Complainant ultimately received the promotion along with a retroactive pay
increase, so this paperwork delay had no tangible impact on the Complainant.
In short, after reviewing the file, I am again unable to find that the Respondent's behavior prior
to the Complainant's EDS complaint constituted harassment within the meaning ofUWM's
policy or the law. Instead, it appears that the Respondent's inappropriate text messages caused
the Complainant to view all of their subsequent interactions with suspicion.
The Complainant filed a sexual harassment complaint with EDS on July 7, 2015, requesting that
the "inappropriate behavior stops" and "I report to a different supervisor." In response to this
complaint, the unit imposed interim protective measures - specifically, moved her work station
and assigned her to a different supervisor. In her appeal, the Complainant suggests that she was
not told what these measures were and states, "No written communication was ever shared with
me." That statement is not supported by the evidence. On July 13, 2015, the Complainant wrote
to EDS stating, "I talked with both Brandon and Andy this morning and we have worked out
some things that I am very happy with. I will be moved into a different part of the office as well
as having a different direct supervisor."
The Complainant raises concerns that the Respondent subsequently retaliated against her. For
example, she complains that the Respondent offered another student employee more work hours;
in other words, she is suggesting that he did not offer additional hours to her in retaliation for her
EDS complaint. However, at the time of this concern, the Respondent was no longer overseeing
her, so it is unclear how he could have offered her more hours. Moreover, in an email to EDS on
August 19, 2015, the Complainant wrote, "I had asked [who was then overseeing the
Complainant] about this and he gave me more hours." In reviewing the file, I found no evidence
that the Respondent took any retaliatory action against the Complainant for filing this complaint.
The Complainant also complained that the Respondent was violating the interim protective
measures by indirectly assigning her work (for example, by assigning a rush order to her) and
entering her workspace. In its findings, EDS wrote the interim protective measures "included
changing the Complainant's supervisor from the Respondent to another supervisor, changing her
workstation, and encouraging no contact or communication between the Complainant and the
Respondent." The Complainant further asserts in her appeal that, "We were to have no contact
including not being in the same room together" and "the Respondent would have no input or
influence regarding the jobs assigned to me." However, neither of these restrictions, as described
by the Complainant, were placed on the Respondent. 3 Nonetheless, the Complainant believed
that the Respondent violated these purported measures because she overheard the Respondent
tell the front desk staff member to assign a project to her. The Respondent admitted
that "he might have told the front desk to assign it to whoever was available and that he might
have suggested assigning it to the Complainant if she was available." As a result, EDS found that
he "did violate the Intermediate Measures to ensure no contact and communication." However,
even ifthere were a no contact/communication protective measure, and even assuming he
assigned a to her via the front desk, in doing so, the Respondent did not haye actual
contact or communication with the Complainant, so such action would not be a violation of the
purported protective measure. EDS also found that the Respondent unintentionally violated the
3 The Complainant seemed to recognize that a protective measure about not being in the same area was not
implemented, writing on September 18, 2015, to the Dean of Students Office, "There must have been a
misunderstanding in the beginning because I was under the impression that he was not supposed to be in the same
space as me but Brandon had a different impression of what was initially established."
interim protective measures when he "entered into the office for a meeting where the
Complainant was present" and "joined in on group discussions in the office while the
Complainant was present," but again, an absolute bar on being in the same area was not in place.
In light of this, I disagree with EDS's determination that the Respondent violated any interim
protective measure.
Finally, in her appeal, the Complainant repeatedly reiterates the continued apprehension she
experiences. For example, she writes that "Along with feeling uncomfortable with the nature of
these text messages, I was extremely intimidated and felt threatened," and "I live in constant fear
for my safety." While I can understand the Complainant's discomfort over the text messages due
to their inappropriateness, it is unclear why she felt "extremely intimidated and felt
threatened." The Complainant starts her appeal by stating that she would provide "details and
examples regarding the fear and intimidation that I feel each day." However, she has provided no
evidence that the Respondent has ever touched her, physically threatened her, tried to
communicate directly with her since she filed this complaint, or any other evidence suggesting
that the Respondent poses an actual threat to her safety. While I am truly sorry that the
Complainant feels such apprehension, I do not see any evidence to suggest that the Respondent
poses any threat or that there is a factual basis for such fear. I understand that the Complainant
was referred to the UWM Police Department to discuss her concerns, and I would encourage her
to follow up with it if she continues to feel unsafe. In light of the Complainant's continued
concern, I also ask the unit to consider continuing, on a voluntary basis, measures to maintain
some level of separation between the two parties. Such measures, if implemented, should be
communicated clearly to both parties so as to avoid future disagreements over the level of
contact that is permitted.
I have carefully reviewed EDS's decision and the Complainant's appeal, and my findings and
conclusion are as described above. In accordance with the UWM Discriminatory Conduct Policy,
my determination is final. Although I did not find a violation ofUWM's Discriminatory Conduct
Policy, I commend the Complainant for bringing this matter to the University's attention. As
described above, I find the Respondent's text messages to be entirely inappropriate, and I thank
her for giving UWM the chance to address it.
c: , Complainant
, Respondent
Michael Laliberte, Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs
Rob Smith, Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement
Dev Venugopalan, Vice Provost, Academic Affairs
r
OfOce of)lqulty/Dlverslty Services• Unlve,sflyofWlsconsln•MUwaukee • Mltcl1ell Hall noou1359

P.O. Dox413, Mllwaukeo, WI 53201
Telephone: (414) 229-5923 • BmaU: dlver$e@11w111.edu • Pax: (414) 229-5592

General Information
Staff @uwm.edu
Complaining Party University Status Email Address
University Services Research Building 414-229-
Home Malling Address Phone N11n11Jer
Student Employee Employee
Responding Party University Status Relationship to Complainant
Campus Malllng Address Cari1pus Phone Number

Hace or Color Sexual Orientation
Veteran Status Ago (4Dor Over)
Ancestry Marital Status
Religion Arrest or Conviction Record
Other, I!xplaln: _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
pate(s) of Alleged Discrimination/Harassment: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Campus Housing
Student Programs
Complaint
Have you Olcq a dlsc_slmlnatlon complaint or appeal with anothe1· university department, union or state or federal
agency? \'cs_ No__ If yes, please state tho name of the agency and date nted _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
. '
Resolution Soughh
A record to be made of this incident and to ensure that does not have any future contact with this student.
The discrimination complaint process lias been explained to me and I have received a copy of the policy. I certify that the
Information given above Is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge or belief. The OfOcc of tlquity/Dlverslty
Serv t pertinent Inquires Jn regard to my complaint and to use my name In such Inquires.
07/20/2015
Signature of Complaining Party Date
Referred lly:
Advlsor/Co11nselo1• Co-Worker Supervisor Union Steward
Campus Brochure Faculty Training Seminar Other, Explain: _ _ _ __
l.MMILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

~~ Office of Equity/Diversity Services
Mitchell Hall, Room 359

P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, WI
53201-0413
To: Johannes Britz 414 229-5923 phone
Provost and Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs 414 229-5592 fax
www.diversity.uwm.edu
From: Nelida Cor~ tJ diverse@uwm.edu
Date: November 10, 2015
·RE: Discrimination & Sexual Harassment Complaint,# 420 (3 rd Party Complainant)

complaint. (Third Party Complainant), , who
received information from a female student employee, alleged that
(Respondent), a UWM Student, had sexually harassed and discriminated against her
based on sex and/or gender. Specifically, . allegedly harassed this student
employee by repeatedly asking her unwanted questions and adjusting his groin in front of
her, which made her feel uncomf01iable.
Conduct Policy (Including Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence) . The Policy
provides in paii:
protected under federal or state ("protected statuses") law ... .
UWM defines harassment as conduct that (1) is of any type (oral, written
including electronic, graphic, or physical); (2) is directed towards or against a
person because of the person's protected status ... ; and (3) unreasonably interferes
with the individual's work, education or participation in activities or programs at
UWM. or creates a working or learning environment that a reasonable person
1
would find threatening or intimidating. Sexual Harassment is one type of
prohibited harassment and includes unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.

filed within 300 calendar days of the most recent alleged prohibited act. EDS at its own
discretion may accept complaints that are not in writing or that are filed outside of the
300-day limitation for good cause.
1. At the conclusion of its investigation, EDS will prepare written findings

and remedial recommendations to the Provost, with copies to the
complainant, re3pondent, the complainant'3 3upervi3or or Dean, the
respondent's supervisor or Dean, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Global
Inclusion and Engagement and the Vice Chancellor for Global Inclusion
and Engagement ...
2. Within ten working days of receipt of the Director of EDS's factual
finding and remedial recommendations, the complainant or the respondent
may respond to the factual findings and remedial recommendations . The
response must be in writing and sent to the Provost. The Provost will
provide copies of any such responses to the other party, to the Director of
EDS, the Dean or Division Head of both the complainant and the
respondent, and the University Committee (for faculty) or the Academic
Staff Committee (for academic staff). Responses may be based on (1)
whether the evidence supports the findings; and/or (2) whether the
recommended remedial actions are appropriate .
DISCUSSION
The third party Complainant, , claims the Respondent subjected a female

student employee to discrimination based on sex and/or gender and sexual harassment,
when the Respondent repeatedly asked this student worker unwanted personal questions
and adjusted his groin in front of her, all of which made her feel uncomfortable in the
work place. As a remedy, the Complainant would like "a record to be made of this
incident and for the Respondent to not have any contact with her."
During the course of its investigation, EDS interviewed the third party Complainant, the
Respondent and four employee witnesses. Normally, EDS would have partnered with the .
Dean of Students in a complaint like this, given the involvement of students. As usual,
EDS discussed with the anonymous female student employee if she was willing to
cooperate with the Dean of Students, however, and she decided to just work with EDS.
EDS determined that the third party Complainant was the anonymous female student
employee's supervisor, in UWM Facility Services . The Respondent is a UWM student
2
and was a student employee at the , from
to .
The third party Complainant, reported t]lat a female student employee had alleged that the
Respondent asked her multiple unwanted questions and had adjusted his groin area in
front of her, all of which was unwanted and made her feel threatened and intimidated in
the workplace. The third party Complainant explained that during the Respondent's first
week of employment she was out on vacation. Upon her return to the office, she learned
that the Respondent focused on a particular female employee and had been asking her
questions relating to helping her move, where was she moving to, where and what she
was eating and what she was doing after work. The third party Complainant described
this female employee as being "incredibly nervous" when she came to speak with her
about this situation.
The third party Complainant stated that once she learned of this, she started making
individual inquiries with the other student employees about the Respondent. The third
party Complainant reported that other employees noticed that the Respondent was
"hitting on" this female employee. In interviews with EDS, three Witnesses shared that
the Respondent would sit at his computer terminal and stare off. One Witness stated that
this behavior was very disturbing and at one point, other employees timed the
Respondent, blankly staring into space for twenty minutes . All the Witnesses described
the Respondent as often laughing to himself and when employees would question him
about what was so funny, he would just say nothing and act like nothing happened.
Witnesses reported that the Respondent did not talk very much to other employees, but he
would try to talk to this female student worker and that he was "over the top" and
obvious in wanting to get this female employee's attention.
It was reported to the third paity Complainant that during the first week of the
Respondent's employment, there was an incident where this particular female employee
was seated at a filing cabinet, filing papers in the bottom drawers . This filing cabinet was
directly behind the Respondent's computer terminal. The Respondent was facing
oppo_site from the filing cabinet, towards his computer terminal. It was described that
while the female employee was seated filing, the Respondent got up from his computer
terminal and turned around and adjusted his groin area, which was level with her face.
Respondent then walked out and the female employee exclaimed, "gross" and told the
other employees what had just happened. Although, this incident occurred very quickly,
it greatly disturbed this particular female employee. EDS learned that no else witnessed
this incident, but many were aware of it from being told by the female employee.
EDS learned from the third party Complainant that there were some work performance
issues regarding the Respondent's time and accuracy in performing data entry and filing
in his employment. The third party Complainant stated that three other employees tried to
teach and assist the Respondent in some of these duties and they reported that he had
difficulty with follow through and accomplishing simple tasks as compared to the other
employees . Ultimately, the third party Complainant stated that the Respondent was
terminated due to poor work performance.
3
EDS interviewed the Respondent and he stated that he was only employed for a very
short time at the doing . He stated he was hired to teach the
other employees and another . He estimated that he
only worked there for about to He described the room, where all the
employees worked, as very small, with computer terminals along the walls, and
everybody with their backs to each other facing their monitors.
When asked if there was a particular employee that he chatted with, he stated that he
spoke with everyone, but mostly kept to himself. He recalled that everyone was relatively
nice, and he did not feel shunned or bothered by anyone. The Respondent did not recall
having regular or long conversations with any one employee. He recalled asking
everyone in the room where to eat in the area, because he wanted to save on money and
Lime J.uriug his lunch breaks. The Respondent recalled that during a ride home, provided
by a female employee, she had begun talking about moving and he stated he offered to
help her move and asked where she was moving, because she did not ask for gas money
for the ride, he offered this as a favor in return. The Respondent explained that other
employees were in the van ride as well, and they were all discussing it. Finally, the
Respondent did not recall any incident at the filing cabinet, near where he sat, involving
him adjusting his groin in front of a female employee. He stated that he did not do that.
The Respondent stated that after about two weeks of employment he was talked to by the
third party Complainant and another administrator, regarding termination of his
employment. He stated that he could not recall why he was terminated and that he did not
receive anything in writing. The Respondent mentioned that during this meeting the topic
of sexual harassment was discussed and he was told that someone felt uncomfortable
with him, however, he was never given any specific examples of the alleged misconduct.
The Respondent also stated that he has not had any contact or communication with any
other employee from this past position.
CONCLUSION
EDS determines that there lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding of sex/ gender
discrimination or of sexual harassment against the Respondent. The Respondent provided
credible, non-discriminatory reasons for talking to everyone in the room, even rel~ting to
his female colleagues. The Respondent denied an incident involving him adjusting his
groin area at the filing cabinet, in front of a female colleague, had occurred. Similarly,
4
this reported incident was not witnessed by anyone else. Furthermore, it is unclear
whether the Respondent's alleged concerning behaviors were deliberate, or if they were
somehow caused by a issue.
Complainant and Respondents with specific appeal rights regarding the report's factual
working days of receiving this report. The deadline for submitting an appeal is November
24,2015 .
cc: Third-Party Complainant -

Respondent .-
Robert Smith, Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement -
Joan Prince, Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement -
Robin Van Harpen, Vice Chancellor, Finance and Administrative Affairs
5
UNIVERSITYofWISCONSIN Academic Affairs
Provost and Vice Chancellor
U\\MILWAUKEE
Chapman215
PO Box413
Milwaukee, WI
53201-0413
TO: Nelida Cortes 414 229-450 l phone
Interim Director, Equity/Diversity Services 414 229-2481Jax
~
http://uwmedu/academicaffairs/
FROM: Johannes Britz

Provost and Vice C ~ for Academic Affairs
DATE: December 23, 2015
On November 10, 2015, you submitted to me EDS's findings and recommendations on the
above-referenced complaint, wherein (Third-Party Complainant),
, alleged that (Respondent), a UWM student, subjected a
female student employee to sexual harassment and discrimination based on sex and/or gender.
Specifically, the Third-Party Complainant alleged that the Respondent harassed the female
student employee by repeatedly asking her unwanted questions and adjusting his groin in front of
her, which made her feel uncomfortable.
EDS found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Respondent acted in
a harassing or discriminatory manner in violation ofUWM;s Discriminatory Conduct Policy. As
of November 24, 2015, I have received no appeals from either party in this matter. After
reviewing EDS' s file in this case, I agree that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding
that the Respondent subjected the female student employee to sexual harassment or sex/gender
discrimination.
EDS interviewed multiple individuals who worked with the Respondent during the period when
the alleged discriminatory and harassing conduct occurred. The notes from those interviews
reflect different accounts of the Respondent's behavior (some witnesses believe the Respondent
only spoke to women, but others believe the Respondent interacted with men and women
equally). Additionally, the content of the Respondent's interactions does not appear to be sexual
in nature or directed at individuals on the basis of sex. As such, I cannot conclude that the
Respondent's questioning constituted a violation ofUWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy.
With respect to the allegation that the Respondent adjusted his groin area in front of a female
employee, the Respondent denied that this incident occurred, and no other individuals present at
the time witnessed this occurrence. Nonetheless, I have carefully considered the female
employee's report of this incident and concluded that, even if her account is accepted, there is
insufficient evidence to find a violation ofUWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy. The female
student employee's statements to EDS and to her coworkers all related to the Respondent
"adjusting himself." This was not characterized as a sexual act, which suggests that it was an
incidental action not intentionally directed at the female student employee. Additionally, though
only one woman observed this behavior, it does not appear, from her account, that the behavior
was directed in such a way that it was meant only to be seen by her; rather, any individual who
looked at the Respondent during this time would have observed the same behavior.
Consequently, there is insufficient evidence for me to find that the Respondent engaged in
discriminatory or harassing behavior directed at women on the basis of their sex.
EDS speculates that the Respondent's behavior may be the result of an ;

however, UWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy does not excuse discriminatory and harassing
behavior for any reason and applies equally to all individuals. AB such, I have not considered
EDS's comments regarding the Respondent's possible in reaching my decision.
In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Respondent violated
UWM's Discriminatory Conduct Policy. In accordance with that Policy, this determination is
fmal.
c: , Third-Party Complainant
, Respondent
Robert Smith, Associate Vice Chancellor, Global Inclusion and Engagement
Robin Van Harpen, Vice Chancellor, Finance and Administrative Affairs
Dev Venugopalan, Vice Provost, Academic Affairs

LRD A: Discrimination Complaint Form

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

LRD A: Discrimination Complaint Form

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

/

Office of Equity/Diversity Services• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Room 359

Discrimination Complaint Form

Responding Party University Status Relationship to Complainant

Campus Mailing Address Campus Phone Number

Allegation based on:

,4-JvnrnrsfVc{hon Scck_r re..1,:,/_ovol o.P a_.r {{h evn ;r

Date: March 13, 2015

RE: Discrimination Complaint #405 (EDS 3rd Party)

The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of the Office of Equity/Diversity

Any individual who believes that he or she is being subjected to discrimination,

EDS received a report from a employee alleging that the Respondent

EDS determined the Respondent is a UWM student majoring in He works as

A employee stated on November 24, 2014; two female student employees

EDS interviewed a witness, who works as a student employee in the This

The Respondent's suspension was lifted on . However, he stated that he

lMMILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

Chapman Hall 215

DATE: April 7, 2015

RE: EDS Complaint #405

A!legat:lon based on:

From: Jazmin Taylor s·1 diverse@uwm.edu

Interim Director, Office of Equity/Diversity Services

Date: June 24, 2015

RE: Discrimination Complaint #407 (

The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of the Office of Equity/Diversity

UWM defines retaliation as an adverse action as a result of an individual's

Any individual who believes that he or she is being subjected to discrimination,

l. At the conclusion of its investigation, EDS will prepare written findings

The Complainant alleges, during the conference in the Respondent

The Respondent denies that he subjected the Complainant to sexual harassment by

The Respondent described his relationship with the Co'mplainant as professional. He

U\i\MILWAUKEE Acadeinic Affairs

Chapman Hall 215

FROM: Johannes. Britz ~ 53201-0413

RE: Complaint #407

On June24,2015, EDS submitted to me its findings and recommendations on the above-referenced

Office ofEquity/Diversity Services• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee• Mitchell Hall Room 3 9

, la zw rh ·Uwl or University Status

Mitchell m?rl 35°l

Campus Mailing Address Campus Phone Number

Allegation based on:

From: Jazmin Taylor ~

Date: August 28, 2015

RE: Discrimination Complaint #415 (EDS Third-Party)

The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of the Office of Equity/Diversity

UWM is committed to building and maintaining a campus environment that

EDS determined that the UWM student is an employee in and provides

. The Respondent is a Professor Emeritus in the

Through an affidavit submitted by attorney, the Respondent denies that subjected

bee: Student Employee

lMMILWAUKEE Academic Affairs

Chapman Hall 215

RE: EDS Complaint #415

Campus Mailing Address Campus Phone Number

Allegation based on:

Please describe your complaint:

1:"0<)Cb9c-O.ik m.\ ~il~~ ~ ),,.\•\°\~\or

Date: October14, 2015

RE: Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Compliant, # 419

The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you of the Office of Equity/Diversity

UWM defines retaliation as an adverse action as a result of an individual's

Any individual who believes that he or she is being subjected to discrimination,