---------

,.

DATE FILED: May 28, 2018 7:53 PM

FILING ID: D5EB4D49884BA
CASE NUMBER: 2017CV30516

. .. ~ ' . ~ .~

. . · cv!lhi~~-.Mid·. /Vl .. ~/--JJJ~ ;,b}£ ;£?;[jq_Q=-=.·_._

-D- ·-_)2~Q111._· .
-JL~~- ~45 !u_p_·~_·_·l-{~-.··~~~.55£_c;/"----

·. . ·. ( ..
~
b~_JJf~=;tC<~~]
- . . --·7-:-a!..
'aottt.. Ex.A~&-
.. ~-~~
•· .
L, p. 1 of 12
--
CSU_000374
1
uqo

From: Boucher,Christina
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 11:08 AM
To: Hallahan.Kirk
Subject: Revised grievance
Attachments: 001.pdf

Dear Dr. Hallahan:

Attached is my revised grievance. My apologies for it taking awhile. I was waiting to have a meeting with the OEO.

Best,
Christina

Ex. L, p. 2 of 12
CSU_001221
 Dear Dr. Hallahan:

I am notifying you with this letter that I am Filing a grievance over my annual
evaluation for the calendar year 2014, and the evaluation letter from the Chair (Dr.
Whitley) for the review of my performance at the three-year midpoint of my
probationary period. This letter will serve as my grievance complaint

I have discussed Dr. Whitley's evaluations with Ms. Diana Prieto, the Executive
Director for Human Resources and Equal Opportunity, who has informed me that if I feel that
my evaluations are retaliatory or harassing then I should raise that issue in the context of
this letter so that it can be investigated. I believe that Dr. Whitley's evaluations have been
retaliatory for the following reason: I reported harassment by another faculty member to Dr.
Whitley and Dr. Nerger in Fall 2014 and stated that I opposed this behavior; immediately
afterward, Dr. Whitley's actions became hostile and aggressive toward me. My evaluations
are evidence of this fact. For example, he brings up a minor issue with Dr. Shing Ho, which
happened several years ago, and one that he has never been brought up to me until after my
complaint of harassment, and never penalized me for or mentioned in an evaluation until
now. In addition, on March 2nd-2015 before my annual evaluation I received an email from
Dr. Nerger saying that she would like someone to witness my evaluation meeting. When I
asked why, she stated: "Because you have come to see me about the climate in the
department and I know things with [the other faculty member I complained about] have
been disruptive, these two things may well come up in your discussion with Darrell." It was
unclear to me why or how my complaint of harassment should come up in my annual
evaluation. For this reason, I am requesting that this grievance be considered first by the
Office of Equal Opportunity; Ms. Diana Prieto has informed me this is proper university
procedure.

Dr. Whitley does not have the authority to downgrade me on my performance

evaluations, based on his claims of interpersonal issues between me and other parties I
work with. Much of what he says is untrue, misleading, and incomplete, and there is no
mechanism in the annual evaluation procedure to have both sides of these issues heard
out by objective parties. Any of the people that he claims I have mistreated has the right
to file a complaint, which would trigger a fair hearing of all sides by objective parties. He
has attempted to harm my professional reputation by making these highly damaging
misstatements in writing to the entire promotion and tenure committee and the
university administrators who will be involved in my tenure case, without giving me any
opportunity to refute the allegations.

Dr. Whitley has claimed that I refused to meet with him to discuss my alleged
behavior. However, he has never requested a meeting with me about these issues via email or
in person. Dr. Nerger has suggested that I meet with him and her about them. However, 1
informed her that would make me feel uncomfortable and in lieu of that I would be willing to
meet but with the accompaniment by a mediator.

Dr. Whitley's evaluation is below expectations for teaching, meets expectations for
research and below expectations for service, with an overall evaluation of
meets/below expectations. These are sharply at odds with my Promotion and
Tenure Committee letter, which gives high praise to my performance in the three
areas and Finds no fault with any aspect of my performance.

Ex. L, p. 3 of 12
CSU_001222
1. In the area of teaching, Dr. Whitley has acknowledges that I am advising two
Ph.D. students and four M.S. students, and I got excellent evaluations on my
ASCSU student course surveys. The Promotion and Tenure Committee letter
cites these facts, and the fact that 1 am actively publishing my students. It
states, "you have set up and communicated clear goals and expectations for
your lab, which will help nurture a strong graduate program."
Dr. Whitley, on the other hand, has cited as his justification for the below-
expectations evaluation of my teaching are interactions with a Ph.D. student
and another faculty member. He was not privy to these conversations, his
account is factually inaccurate, and they have not been the subject of any formal
complaint by either the other faculty member or by the student. Dr. Whitley is
apparently the only person who has any concerns about them.

2. In the area of research, during the calendar year, I published three journal
articles in highly ranked journals, including an IEEE journal, and three
conference papers, two in top-ranked conferences in my Field. Together with
two co-PI's in Veterinary Medicine, I was awarded a USDA grant for $2.2
million during the calendar year. The Promotion and Tenure Committee has
cited these facts, the fact that I have been highly active in submitting grants,
and the fact that my publications have included student co-authors.
Dr. Whitley's criticism of my performance in the area of research, on the other
hand, is based only on his account of my handling of a letter of support he
needed to write, as department chair, for my application for an NSF Career
Award. These awards are highly competitive, and I need to have his support for
the application to succeed. When I received a copy of his letter shortly before he
left on a trip, it had shortcomings that other faculty felt had to be addressed. Dr.
Whitley therefore sent me an email instructing me to revise the letter and to
show it to him before submitting it.
Instead of rewriting it myself, which I did not think would be proper, I had a
more senior professor and mentor, Dr. Asa Ben-Hur, revise the letter. I
supplied the Dr. Ben-Hur's version to Dr. Whitley to inspect in plenty of time
to revise it before the application deadline.
Dr. Whitley has now accused me of attempting to submit his letter with his
signature and without his consent His claims amount to an accusation of
forgery, on a federal grant application. Records generated by the department in
the process of preparing the grant will allow me to prove that I am innocent of
this charge.

Ex. L, p. 4 of 12
CSU_001223
Dr. Whitley's claims about this incident are all the more astonishing in view of the
fact that he chose to sign and submit Dr. Ben-Hur's version that I supplied to him
without making any changes to it.

3. In justifying my evaluation of below expectations in the area of service, Dr.

Whitley has only cited communications I had with the Denver Zoo that,
according to him, were "less than professional." All of my communication with
the Zoo was by email, and I therefore have a complete record of them. There is
nothing unprofessional about them. They are provided as an attachment

4. My overall evaluation is Meets/Below. According to the guidelines of the

provost's office at static.colostate.edu/client-files/provost/evalinstructpdf,
for evaluative comparisons and reporting purposes, the five ratings noted on the
form [superior, exceeds expectations, meets expectations, below expectation,
unsatisfactory] are the only ratings that are to be used. My overall annual
evaluation rating is not an allowed performance rating.

In each of the areas of teaching, research, and service, the Promotion and Tenure
Committee cited the university's faculty evaluation criteria, which are given in in
detail in the Section E.12 of the Academic Faculty and Administrative Professional
Manual, Section E.12, as well as the department's evaluation criteria, which are
given in Section 4 of the Computer Science Department Code.

On the other hand, the reasons that Dr. Whitley has cited for contradicting the
Promotion and Tenure Committee's letter are not only factually unsupported; they
have no basis in those documents as criteria for evaluating faculty performance. The
Faculty Manual is an employment contract The Manual states only that the annual
evaluation can "document" problems with behavior, presumably toward some
eventual disciplinary action under Section E.15 of the Manual, where I would
be have a fair hearing, and it does not give a chair permission to use it as a
basis for a performance evaluation. His evaluation is arbitrary.

According to Section E.14, the purpose of annual reviews is to assist faculty in

improving their performance. Dr. Whitley had an opportunity to explain his
concerns at my annual evaluation meeting, but he failed even to mention his
primary concerns at that meeting, namely, those concerning my handling of the
letter of support for the career grant and his charges of unprofessionalism in my
dealings with the Denver Zoo.

It is unfair to give me permission to modify a letter of support he wrote, and

then accuse me of wrongdoing and penalize my annual review when 1 had
followed all of his instructions.

Lastly Dr. Whitley revised the evaluation after we had signed it and he had seen a draft
of this grievance complaint In the revised version, he removed the statements concerning
my handling of the letter of support to NSF. Instead of modifying any of my evaluation
scores, he expanded the discussion of (1) and made its tone more punitive. After I showed
the original and revised evaluations to several senior faculty members in our department,
they advised me to file a grievance.

Ex. L, p. 5 of 12
CSU_001224
 For these reasons, I believe Dr. Whidey is unable to give me a fair evaluation that
abides to university policy; therefore 1request thatthe letter for my third-year evaluation
be withdrawn and the faculty in my department informed of this; and that someone
impartial be appointed to complete my annual evaluation. Going forward, I would like
arrangements to be made to protect me from this discriminatory and retaliatory behavior.

Sincerely,

Christina Boucher
Assistant Professor,
Department of Computer Science
Colorado State University

Ex. L, p. 6 of 12
CSU_001225
Ex. L, p. 7 of 12
Ex. L, p. 8 of 12
Ex. L, p. 9 of 12
Ex. L, p. 10 of 12
Ex. L, p. 11 of 12
Ex. L, p. 12 of 12