Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 1 of 24 PAGEID #: 1

LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: 847-986-5889
Facsimile: 847-673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIOEASTERN DIVISIONTESS HERMAN,

Case No.
Plaintiffs,

COMPLAINTDEMAND FOR JURY TRIALv.
OHIO UNIVERSITY and YUSUFKALYANGO
Defendants.

COMPLAINTNow Comes Plaintiff, Tess Herman (“Plaintiff Herman”) by and through her Attorney, Michael
L. Fradin, Attorney at Law, and brings this action against Ohio University for violations of Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 ("Title IX"). Plaintiff also bring this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (“1983”) against Yusuf Kalyango (“Defendant Kalyango”) for violations of Plaintiff’s
right to equal protection, as applicable to Plaintiff, based on the grounds of sex, while acting in his
individual capacity under color of law.
The severe, pervasive and objectively offensive discrimination, sexual harassment, and physicalsexual violations to which the Plaintiff was subjected, coupled with the Defendants’ deliberate
indifference and clearly unreasonable response to sexual misconduct, caused Plaintiff to lose educational-1COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 2 of 24 PAGEID #: 2

benefits and opportunities and to suffer other damages. Defendants’ actions and deliberate indifference
have caused lifelong injuries and damages that Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer. Defendant Ohio
University was deliberately indifferent to Defendant Kalyango’s past misconduct, fostering a safe spacefor sexual misconduct and empowering Defendant Kalyango to confidently abuse his authority. If thisCourt does not grant appropriate relief, Defendants will not stop causing severe and permanent harm to its
female graduate students. Plaintiff brings this complaint in her true name and alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Herman is a female and a resident of the state of Ohio. At all times material

hereto, Plaintiff Herman was a graduate student at Ohio University and was enrolled in two graduate
programs at Ohio University, pursuing both a Master of Science of Journalism as well as a Master of
Science of Environmental Studies.
2.

Ohio University is a public educational institution located in Athens, Ohio.

3.

Ohio University receives federal funding and financial assistance within the meaning of

20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) and is otherwise subject to Title IX.
4.

Defendant Kalyango is a male and resident of Athens, Ohio. At all times material hereto,

Defendant Kalyango was a professor at Ohio University. At the time of the filing of this Complaint,
Defendant Kalyango remains a professor at Ohio University.
5.

At all relevant times, Defendant Kalyango was an employee of a publicly-fundededucational institution and was acting individually, exploiting his governmental authority and power,
violating and depriving Plaintiff of her constitutional rights.
6.

Defendant Kalyango was, at all material times, an employee of a publicly-fundededucational institution.
7.

Defendant Kalyango’s abuse of his power and his government-granted authority violated

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.

This case arises under the laws of the United States, specifically United States,

specifically Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et. seq. and 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1343.
9.

This Court is an appropriate venue for this cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

The defendants are residents of the State in which this district is located and a substantial part of theevents or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS-2COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 3 of 24 PAGEID #: 3

Defendant Kalyango’s unwanted personal and romantic advances towards Plaintiff Herman prior
to the Africa Trip
10.

Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango first met on or around February 5, 2017 at a

Super Bowl party for international students hosted by Defendant Kalyango at his home.
11.

On February 6, 2017, after Defendant Kalyango’s Super Bowl party, Defendant

Kalyango sent Plaintiff an email that stated: “Let me know when you’ll [sic] not busy this week or next
week and we will go celebrate post-Super Bowl (win) with a coffee treat or dinner in town.” This email
makes no mention of this potential coffee treat or dinner involving anyone other than Respondent andComplainant.” In the email, Defendant Kalyango also indicated that he had Plaintiff Herman’s phone
number, which presumably he obtained through Ohio University’s Catmail system.
12.

After learning about the educational and employment opportunities that were available

through the Institute for International Journalism, including the YALI and SUSI programs, Defendant
Kalyango invited Plaintiff Herman out to coffee to discuss details of the programs and possible
employment. This meeting lasted for about an hour.
13.

Throughout the course of a few weeks after the super-bowl, Defendant Kalyango

repeatedly invited Plaintiff Herman to movies, shopping, and dinner.
14.

Defendant Kalyango, who is African American, invited Plaintiff Herman, who is

Caucasian to the movie, “A United Kingdom,” a love story about the romance between a white British
woman and an African man.
15.

Defendant Kalyango took Plaintiff Herman for meals at the following restaurants:

Catalyst Café, Village Bakery, Opa, Salaam, and Star of India, all of which were attended only by
Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango.
16.

During this period, Defendant Kalyango often sent text messages to Plaintiff Herman late

at night asking to take her out and telling her that she looked beautiful.
17.

Eventually Plaintiff Herman sent a text back to Defendant Kalyango indicating that heshould not text her between 9 pm and 9 am unless it was work related.
18.

Defendant Kalyango offered Plaintiff a position without her having to go through thenormal steps and processes.
19.

In mid-March 2017, Plaintiff Herman received an email stating that she had been

officially hired to work under Defendant Kalyango’s supervision and would be performing regular workby late March, 2017.
20.

Throughout February, March, and April of 2017, Defendant Kalyango continuously andconsistently sent Plaintiff Herman text messages and other communications that were clearly personal,-3COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 4 of 24 PAGEID #: 4and often romantic, in nature, and were entirely unrelated to work. These communications were often late
at night (after 10 PM) and included constant compliments and comments about Plaintiff Herman’s
physical appearance (on at least one occasion Defendant Kalyango called Plaintiff Herman “beautiful”).
Other types of personal messages included frequent invitations to late-night dinners, ostensibly so
Plaintiff could get a “break” from work. Defendant Kalyango also often sent Plaintiff Herman text
messages that appeared to have been meant for his ex-wife.
21.

On May 3, 2017, Defendant Kalyango sent Plaintiff an email that included a winking

22.

On May 23, 2017, Defendant Kalyango sent Plaintiff an email that ended, “sweet

emoji.
dreams.”23.

These text messages and communications were clearly an attempt by Defendant

Kalyango to ramp up his relationship with Plaintiff Herman from that between a professor and a student
into a personal and romantic relationship.
24.

In or around early-mid March 2017, Plaintiff Herman attended a dinner alone withDefendant Kalyango. During this dinner, Defendant Kalyango invited Plaintiff Herman to work with him
as a Program Assistant and Administrative Coordinator for the YALI Connect Camps 13 and 14.
25.

Defendant Kalyango was intentionally unclear about the itinerary of the trip to Africa andwhat it would entail for Plaintiff Herman. Specifically, Defendant Kalyango arranged for Plaintiff
Herman to accompany him on a side-trip to Rwanda; yet for nearly two months after Defendant Kalyango
added the Rwanda trip to the itinerary, Plaintiff Herman had no idea as to the agenda for the trip. As late
as May 26, 2017, just days before Plaintiff Herman would leave for the trip with Defendant Kalyango,
Plaintiff Herman was still unclear as to what the purpose of the Rwanda trip was.
26.

On or around March 17-26, 2017 at 5:09 PM Plaintiff Herman sent a message stating,“Flight looks good to me! Extra work in SA woo!” Defendant Kalyango replied to this text message
stating, “But its not South Africa. It’s actually Rwanda. I want to show you something. I’m thinking ofsomething outside of the work. Work is only in South Africa. It’s for you… sort of… yes, something
you’re interested in.”
27.

On April 26, 2017, Defendant Kalyango sent Plaintiff an email that appears to be him

offering to drive Plaintiff Herman from Athens, Ohio to Connecticut where her parents lived—a ten hourtrip each way—and back from Connecticut to Athens, Ohio. Defendant Kalyango wrote, “driving ten
hours at night can be fun” and “I know a driver . . . for real . . . one who doesn’t mind driving ten hours
back and forth . . . seriously.”-4COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 5 of 24 PAGEID #: 528.

On Sunday, May 28, 2017, Defendant Kalyango told Plaintiff Herman that the resort inLake Kivu in Rwanda had only one room, that he and Plaintiff Herman would have to stay in the sameroom together, and that this was the only option.
Defendant Kalyango’s unwanted personal and romantic advances towards Plaintiff Herman
during the Africa Trip29.

During the Africa trip, particularly the Rwanda portion of the trip, Defendant Kalyango

paid for many of Plaintiff Herman’s expenses, including an expensive gorilla trekking trip for him andPlaintiff Herman.
30.

Defendant Kalyango has not paid for such expenses for others on past work trips.

31.

At least one other person has gone on an excursion with Defendant Kalyango after theend of a YALI program. Defendant Kalyango did not pay for this person’s expenses.
32.

Throughout the trip, Defendant Kalyango repeatedly bought plane tickets that placed

Defendant Kalyango and Plaintiff Herman next to one another, even though he could have purchased any
seat. This means he, for example, could have simply asked Plaintiff Herman where she wished to sit.
Defendant Kalyango instead chose to keep Plaintiff Herman in as close proximity as possible on theirflights.
33.

Once in Rwanda, Defendant Kalyango again attempted to pressure Plaintiff Herman into

sharing a hotel room with him.
34.

Defendant Kalyango continued to attempt to convince Plaintiff Herman to stay in thesame room with him by arguing that it was the “only option” and that he would try to stay out of
Complainant’s way. Plaintiff Herman responded that she did not believe staying in the same hotel roomwith him was appropriate. Defendant Kalyango then tried to argue for sharing a room because, heclaimed, it was not officially part of a university or work trip and that, therefore, it would be okay.
Defendant Kalyango relentlessly put pressure on Plaintiff Herman to share a room. He also stated that hewould have to miss certain activities if Plaintiff Herman did not share a room with him. Defendant
Kalyango also attempted to scare Plaintiff Herman into sharing the room, telling her that she did notunderstand the dangers of Africa, and that she would be vulnerable by herself. Plaintiff did not cave in to
the pressure to share a room with Defendant Kalyango. In anger, Defendant Kalyango then told Plaintiff
that she would have to be “all alone.”
35.

Because Plaintiff Herman refused the inappropriate request to stay in the same hotel

room as Defendant Kalyango, Defendant Kalyango made reservations at a different hotel for Plaintiff.
Despite inviting Plaintiff Herman on this additional trip to Rwanda, and attempting to have her stay in a

-5COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 6 of 24 PAGEID #: 6

hotel room with him that he had paid for, Defendant Kalyango would not pay for Plaintiff Herman to stayin her own hotel room in Rwanda, so Plaintiff Herman paid for the room herself.
36.

While Plaintiff Herman was at the hotel in Rwanda after not agreeing to share a roomwith him, Defendant Kalyango sent a text message to Plaintiff Herman stating, “Sad … I’m sad.”37.

On or around June 10, 2017 in Hatfield, Pretoria, South Africa. Defendant Kalyangobought Plaintiff Herman multiple drinks at the Cubana Havana Club. Defendant Kalyango also bought
multiple drinks for Plaintiff Herman later in the night at the Blue Room Club. Throughout the night,
Defendant relentlessly urged Plaintiff to become intoxicated. At the Blue Room, after Defendant
Kalyango had purchased several drinks for Plaintiff Herman, Defendant Kalyango forcefully grabbed
Plaintiff Herman’s hands and attempted to force her to dance with him.
38.

Soon thereafter, Plaintiff Herman approached Judy Millesen, a professor at Ohio

University, supervisor of the Africa trip, and mandatory reporter of sexual harassment. Plaintiff told Judy
Millesen about Defendant Kalyango’s inappropriate and forward conduct. Judy Millesen responded that
enduring Defendant Kalyango’s misconduct and bad behavior was an unfortunate part of the job, that sheherself had learned to go along with Defendant Kalyango’s requests, and that Plaintiff Herman should
also do whatever Defendant Kalyango says if she wanted to stay on the job.
39.

Judy Millesen did not report Defendant Kalyango’s harassment of Plaintiff Herman to

the ECRC, despite being a mandatory reporter.
40.

Judy Millesen encouraged Plaintiff to endure the harassment because Millesen was aclose friend of Defendant Kalyango’s and because Millesen did not want to take any steps that would
potentially interfere with her ability for international travel with Defendant Kalyango.
41.

At the time that Plaintiff Herman reported to Judy Millesen about Defendant Kalyango’s

misconduct, Millesen was an official with the authority to take corrective action pursuant to 20 USC§1682.
42.

Defendant Kalyango’s hostile and retaliatory behavior directed at Plaintiff Hermanbegan after she rebuffed Defendant Kalyango’s extremely unprofessional advances during the Africa trip,
notably the invitation to share a hotel room with him and the other advances he made, such as attempting
to force Plaintiff to dance with him at the club in South Africa.
Defendant Kalyango’s hostile and retaliatory treatment of Plaintiff Herman at the end of and after
the Africa Trip
43.

At the end of the Africa trip, after Plaintiff Herman would not sleep in the hotel roomwith Defendant Kalyango, Defendant Kalyango’s treatment towards Plaintiff Herman was aggressively
retaliatory. For example, when Plaintiff Herman would not go clubbing with him, Defendant Kalyango-6COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 7 of 24 PAGEID #: 7gave Plaintiff an angry look and acted with hostility towards her. During the approximate eight hour
layover in New York City, Defendant Kalyango expressed anger towards Plaintiff Herman for not staying
with him at the airport during the wait and accused her of putting her “personal time” ahead of him, eventhough he had previously granted Plaintiff Herman’s request to leave the airport during the layovcr.
44.

Once Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango arrived at Columbus airport, when

Plaintiff’s bag was missing, Defendant Kalyango aggressively yelled at Plaintiff Herman that it was her
fault; airline employees had to come to Plaintiff Herman’s defense to attempt to calm Defendant
Kalyango.
45.

Upon returning from the Africa trip to Athens, Ohio, Defendant Kalyango’s attitude

toward Plaintiff Herman grew increasingly aggressive and hostile. Defendant Kalyango missed a series ofmeetings with Plaintiff Herman that Plaintiff Herman needed in order to complete her tasks associatedwith the program.
46.

Upon returning from the Africa trip, Defendant Kalyango and Plaintiff Herman needed tomeet in order to discuss expense reports and other final matters from the trip. Plaintiff and Defendant
Kalyango agreed to meet at 6:30 PM on a Tuesday, but Defendant Kalyango canceled on the day of themeeting at 6:00 PM, just thirty minutes before the meeting began.
47.

The next day Defendant Kalyango said he could meet at 8:45 p.m., but then sarcasticallyremarked, “that is getting towards your free time.” This remark was referencing Plaintiff Herman’s earlier
attempts to set reasonable boundaries on the time and nature of communications between her andDefendant Kalyango. Plaintiff Herman went to Defendant Kalyango’s office to meet at 8:45 p.m. with thereceipts for the program trip expenses. Defendant Kalyango, without notice, failed to show up for thismeeting.
48.

Defendant Ohio University’s internal investigation by ECRC concluded that Defendant

Kalyango refused to attend at least three scheduled meetings with Plaintiff Herman to discuss the expense
reports. The purpose of these meetings was for Defendant Kalyango to discuss important information
related to the expense reports.
49.

In an email, Defendant Kalyango blamed Plaintiff Herman for the expense reportsituation, stating, “Since we never sat together on any flights, that also contributed to the lack of
discussion of the work you had accomplished.” Plaintiff Herman avoided sitting next to Defendant
Kalyango on planes because his inappropriate personal and romantic advances made Plaintiff Herman
extremely uncomfortable.
50.

Sensing the hostile and retaliatory animus directed towards her from Defendant

Kalyango, Plaintiff Herman went to Defendant Ohio University’s Human Resources who advised-7COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 8 of 24 PAGEID #: 8Plaintiff Herman to email a response to Defendant Kalyano, which Plaintiff Herman did on the evening ofJune 5, 2017.
51.

In his reply to the email, Defendant Kalyango continued his passive aggressive tone fromhis prior email to Plaintiff Herman. He stated, “It is entirely my fault that I placed so much confidence inyour independent ability to handle things without me micromanaging your work. I therefore squarely
blame myself for not being vigilant to micromanage and push you to show me what you were doing at all
times. So, next time perhaps I will be more vigilant with assistants and by demanding to review andmonitor their progress on such important tasks.” Notably, Defendant Kalyango did not deny missing theexpense report meetings, without notice or explanation.
52.

Defendant Kalyango then upped the ante on his hostile and retaliatory behavior toward

Plaintiff Herman by falsifying her performance evaluations, which are classified as public records withina federally funded program from the U.S. Department of State. There are numerous internal
discrepancies in the records of these evaluations. In numerous instances, Plaintiff Herman’s compilationof evaluations matches perfectly with the original evaluations filled out by students, while Defendant
Kalyango’s versions of the evaluations have been altered in order to make him and another professor who
attended the trip look better and Plaintiff Herman look worse.
53.

In one particularly egregious falsified evaluation, Defendant Kalyango changed anevaluation of Plaintiff Herman that stated “[Plaintiff Herman] is an amazing girl with a big heart. Always
willing to help or solve any issue.” to “[Plaintiff Herman] is an amazing girl. But we want her to talk touse [sic] like professionals. She doesn’t respond to all the needs of some of the fellows.” Plaintiff
Herman’s version of this evaluation matches that of the original evaluation.
54.

Continuing his retaliatory behavior, almost a year after returning from this particular

Africa trip, Defendant Kalyango accused Plaintiff Herman of falsifying evaluations and reported her toDefendant Ohio University’s internal disciplinary body, the office of University Equity and Civil Rights
Compliance (ECRC).
55.

All of Defendant Ohio University’s internal investigations into the matter have concluded

that Defendant Kalyango is the only person who has falsified evaluations, and that he did so on at leastnine occasions.
56.

While Defendant Kalyango had told Plaintiff Herman that she would be hired as an

assistant for future YALI programs, it appeared to Plaintiff Herman that he had changed his mind upon
returning from the Rwanda.
57.

On July 5, 2017, Defendant Kalyango sent an email to Plaintiff Herman terminating herfrom any future work with the YALI program.

-8COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 9 of 24 PAGEID #: 958.

After receiving the email on July 5, 2017, Plaintiff Herman contacted Ohio University’s

human resources department, who advised her to respond to the email and defend herself.
59.

Later the same day, Defendant replied to Plaintiff’s response as follows: “I get it, that it

was my fault… all of it. Many apologies…..I have learned from the experience…. Good night.”
60.

On or about July 10, 2017, Plaintiff Herman stepped down from her position as Program

Assistant for the SUSI program. Upon hearing the news, Mary Rogus, a professor of Journalism at Ohio
University and close friend and associate of Yusuf Kalyango, contacted Plaintiff Herman and attemptedto persuade Plaintiff Herman not to report Yusuf Kalyango to the ECRC.
Ohio University’s deliberate indifference to prior evidence of gender-based preferential treatment offemale graduate students by Defendant Kalyango61.

It is common knowledge among faculty and students within Ohio University’s

Journalism Department, particularly faculty and students in the Institute for International Journalism (IIJ),
of which Defendant Kalyango is the sole Director, that Defendant Kalyango shows preferential treatment
to certain individuals within the Institute—namely women to whom he is attracted. It is well-known
within the Department and Institute that Defendant Kalyango shows preferential treatment toward certain
female graduate students—but it is also well-known that if these women do not “play his games,” andrebuff his advances, these women are at risk of receiving disadvantageous, and possibly retaliatory,treatment from Defendant Kalyango.
62.

Defendant Kalyango heads two programs that exist under the Institute for International

Journalism (IJJ), these are the Young African Leaders (YALI) Connect Camp and the Study of the UnitedStates Institute (SUSI). Both of these programs are run out of the Institute for International Journalismwith little oversight from anyone besides Defendant Kalyango.
63.

Bailey Dick, a participant in the programs run by Defendant Kalyango who served as awitness in Defendant Ohio University’s internal investigation into Plaintiff’s initial report concerning
Defendant Kalyango, stated in the investigation as follows: “there was preferential treatment of somefemale participants during the recent SUSI program . . . Respondent would only eat with certain
people, namely the female scholars from Egypt and China. Respondent also took only those twoscholars on some sort of boat tour while the SUSI scholars were in Chicago . . . other scholars
would say that Respondent hid from them because he wanted to go out to dinner with these two
women . . . With one of these, it became clear she wasn’t willing to play his games, so he won’t workwith her.”64.

Dr. Jeremy Morris, an Ohio University philosophy professor who served as a witness in

Defendant Ohio University’s internal investigation into Plaintiff’s initial report concerning Defendant-9COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 10 of 24 PAGEID #: 10

Kalyango, stated in the investigation that he had a conversation with Plaintiff on or around May 28, 2017,
in which Plaintiff told him that Defendant Kalyango wanted to share a hotel room with her on the trip to
Africa. Professor Morris immediately expressed alarm when he learned this and told Plaintiff that this was
not okay.
65.

Professor Morris admitted in Ohio University’s internal investigation that he was at all

relevant times a mandatory reporter and that his failure to report the conversation with Plaintiff to ECRC
was a violation of his duties.
66.

At the time that Plaintiff reported Defendant Kalyango’s misconduct to Professor Morris,

Professor Morris was a mandatory reporter of sexual harassment pursuant to Ohio University’s internal
policy.
67.

At the time that Plaintiff reported Defendant Kalyango’s misconduct to Professor Morris,

Professor Morris was an official with the authority to take corrective action pursuant to 20 USC §1682.
68.

Defendant Ohio University has enabled the type of sexual harassment and misconductthat Defendant Kalyango engaged in by continuously failing to implement sufficient mechanisms toprevent professors from using their authority to seek sexual and romantic relationships with students, andby continuously failing to inform and train professors who witness this type of behavior how to correctly
respond to it. This is evidenced by the fact that Witness Professor Morris, despite being a professor at
Ohio University who recognized that the Defendant Kalyango’s attempt to force Plaintiff Herman to sharea hotel room with him was sexually inappropriate and would put Plaintiff Herman at risk, did not know
where to send Plaintiff to report the issue, or where to report it himself. (“Complainant told Witness H
that she was feeling some amount of pressure from the professor who was leading the trip, and inparticular the fact that the professor wanted to share a hotel room with Complainant. Witness H told
Complainant to let someone know about this, and he suggested that Complainant contact Jenny Klein, theAssistant Dean in University College. Witness H has since realized to whom to report”).
69.

Prior to Plaintiff reporting Defendant Kalyango’s misconduct to Professor JeremyMorris, Defendant Ohio University had not trained Professor Morris on reporting sexual misconduct.
Defendant University had not provided training, despite having had a lawsuit filed against it on March 8,2017 based on its faculty’s failure to report sexual misconduct and even though the lawsuit requested that
Defendant Ohio University provide mandatory training for all mandatory reporters using trauma informed
principles. See Adams v. Ohio University, Case: 2:17-cv-00200-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/08/17
Page: 45 of 46 PAGEID #: 45.
70.

Considering that significant deliberate indifference to sexual misconduct that occurred

after Adams v. Ohio University was filed and after the University had actual notice that it had to train its- 10 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 11 of 24 PAGEID #: 11

faculty on ECRC reporting, a punitive damages award is warranted and necessary here in order to prevent
further indifference.
71.

Defendant Ohio University has enabled the type of sexual harassment and misconductthat Defendant Kalyango engaged in not only by failing to provide training to mandatory reporters but
also by failing to supervise Defendant Kalyango in any meaningful way. The autonomy, independence,and lack of supervision Defendant Ohio University has given Defendant Kalyango is likely a result of
Defendant Kalyango’s myriad of professional accomplishments and also a result of the fact that
Defendant Kalyango has been pursued for employment by other major American universities.
72.

Defendant Kalyango has not only used the special treatment he receives (for instance,

Defendant Kalyango only teaches six weeks per school year) for work related to the Institute forInternational Journalism, he has also used it to seek out and pressure female students into accepting his
advances, sexual and otherwise.
73.

Defendant Kalyango often bragged about how he had access to an Ohio University“research account” in which he was able to spend unmonitored funds.
74.

Defendant Kalyango’s general strategy when he makes advances toward female graduate

students essentially involves him utilizing his position, authority, and lack of supervision from Defendant
Ohio University to dole out gifts to female graduate students he chooses for this special treatment.
75.

Bailey Dick spoke to Defendant Ohio University’s internal investigators regarding how

she was treated, as compared to an individual like Plaintiff Herman, who was targeted by Defendant
Kalyango: “Witness N has never worked for someone she has ever felt so personally uncomfortable with.
Respondent is demanding, and things are black and white with him. You are either in or out. Witness N
was out from the beginning, because she just needed a summer job. Respondent wouldn’t ask her todinner at his house or ask her to go with the scholars; he wouldn’t speak to her on the trips unless it wasnecessary. Respondent treated Witness N in a condescending and demeaning way, like she was ‘the help.’
Witness N stated that she, ‘Carried a lot of luggage.’ Witness N stated that, ‘If you’re in you in, but if you
don’t give Respondent anything you are nothing but the help.’ Witness N stated that Respondent alsobought Complainant a ‘super-expensive hike’ to see monkeys. Witness N stated that Respondent also
took Complainant clothes shopping, while he bought stuff for himself.”
76.

The autonomy, independence, and lack of supervision Defendant Ohio University has

given Defendant Kalyango allowed him to circumvent normal Ohio University hiring procedures.
Defendant Ohio University’s internal investigators concluded that the “preponderance of the evidence
establishes [Plaintiff Herman] did not go through the normal hiring process before [Defendant Kalyango]
offered [Plaintiff Herman] the position of program assistant for YALI. . . . [Plaintiff Herman] reported- 11 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 12 of 24 PAGEID #: 12that [Defendant Kalyango] offered [Plaintiff Herman] the position of program assistant without a formalinterview.” The fact that Defendant Kalyango had, and continues to have, the power to hire graduate
students based solely on his personal discretion gave him the ability to offer “special treatment” to thefemale graduate students he targeted, including Plaintiff Herman.
77.

As Bailey Dick stated in the University’s internal investigation, it was common

knowledge within the journalism department that Defendant Kalyango used his power, authority, and lackof supervision and oversight from Defendant Ohio University to run the Institute for International
Journalism, and the associated YALI and SUSI programs, to seek out inappropriate personal, romantic,
and possibly sexual relationships with female graduate students.
78.

Defendant Ohio University was deliberately indifferent to evidence of this dynamic priorto Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango leaving for the Africa trip, where Plaintiff Herman was
further subjected to inappropriate romantic and sexual advances.
79.

Attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of Ohio University’s Memorandum ofFindings in connection with a 2018 investigation of the allegations against Defendant Kalyango.
80.

Exhibit A is an admission by Ohio University pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence81.

It is well known within the Journalism Department that current graduate students warn801(d).
incoming graduate students about Defendant Kalyango’s proclivity to make sexual advances towards
students.
82.

Prior to Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango leaving for the trip to Africa anddespite Ohio University having been sued in March, 2017 for deliberate indifference by two graduate
students in the English Department, Ohio University had still not provided clear guidelines or any
prescriptive advice to professors and other employees on how to deal with reports or allegations of sexual
misconduct from professors towards students.
83.

If Defendant University had properly informed professors and other employees how to

respond to instances of sexual misconduct prior to Plaintiff and Defendant Kalyango’s trip, it is likely that
Defendant Kalyango’s advances and inappropriate behavior toward Plaintiff Herman (particularly
Defendant Kalyango’s attempt to share a hotel room with Plaintiff Herman) would not have occurred andhe would not have been in position to cause further mental, emotional, and/or physical harm to Plaintiff
Herman and would not have been in a position to retaliate against Plaintiff.
84.

The recent internal investigation into Defendant Kalyango’s misconduct substantiated allof Plaintiff Herman’s allegations against Defendant Kalyango. The investigation substantiated theallegation that Defendant Kalyango engaged in sexual harassment by quid pro against Plaintiff Herman; it- 12 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 13 of 24 PAGEID #: 13

substantiated the allegation that Defendant Kalyango engaged in sexual harassment by hostile work
environment against Plaintiff Herman; and it substantiated that Defendant Kalyango violated University
Policy 40.001, which precludes professors from engaging in sexual harassment and sexual discriminationin the fulfillment of their employment responsibilities.
85.

Ohio University knew, or should have known, that Professor Kalyango was unfit to teachat Ohio University because he consistently used his position to make inappropriate personal and romantic
advances toward female graduate students.
86.

Witnesses in Defendant Ohio University’s internal investigation stated that Defendant

Kalyango was known to make inappropriate advances toward female graduate students, and that if a
student refused to “play his game,” they would suffer consequences.
87.

In or around February 22, 2018, Professor Michael Sweeney, in support of Plaintiff and awitness/victim of Defendant Kalyango’s misconduct and in protest of Ohio University’s handling of theclaims, quit his position within the Journalism department
88.

There are pending at least two other ECRC investigations into Defendant Kalyango’s

misconduct, in addition to the one involving Plaintiff.
89.

Defendant University’s deliberate indifference towards Defendant Kalyango’s

misconduct is clearly unreasonable and resulted in Plaintiff suffering extensive damages.
90.

It is clearly unreasonable that, as of December 2018, Defendant Kalyango is still

employed by Ohio University.
LEGAL CLAIMS91.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST OHIO UNIVERSITY
Deliberate Indifference resulting in Sexual Harassment(Quid Pro Quo) in Violation of Title IX
Plaintiff Herman re-alleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

92.

At all relevant times, Defendant Ohio University received federal funding and assistance.

93.

Plaintiff Herman was subjected to sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances thatwere so severe, pervasive, and/or objectively offensive that it deprived her of access to educational andemployment opportunities and benefits.
94.

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights has established criteria todetermine if a school or university that receives public funds is liable for allowing quid pro quo sexual
harassment. Their guidelines state:a. “Schools are responsible for taking prompt and effective action to stop the harassment
and prevent its recurrence.”- 13 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 14 of 24 PAGEID #: 14

b. “If an employee who is acting (or who reasonably appears to be acting) in the context ofcarrying out these responsibilities over students engages in sexual harassment – generally
this means harassment that is carried out during an employee’s performance of his or her
responsibilities in relation to students, including teaching, counseling, supervising,advising, and transporting students – and the harassment denies or limits a student’s
ability to participate in or benefit from a school program on the basis of sex, the recipient
is responsible for the discriminatory conduct.”c. “If an employee conditions the provision of an aid, benefit, or service that the employee
is responsible for providing on a student’s submission to sexual conduct, i.e., conduct
traditionally referred to as quid pro quo harassment, the harassment is clearly taking placein the context of the employee’s responsibilities to provide aid, benefits, or services.
d. Sometimes harassment of a student by an employee in the school’s program does not takeplace in the context of the employee’s provision of aid, benefits, or services, butnevertheless is sufficiently serious to create a hostile educational environment. An
example of this conduct might occur if a faculty member in the history department at auniversity, over the course of several weeks, repeatedly touches and makes sexuallysuggestive remarks to a graduate engineering student while waiting at a stop for theuniversity shuttle bus, riding on the bus, and upon exiting the bus. As a result, the student
stops using the campus shuttle and walks the very long distances between her classes. In
this case, the school is not directly responsible for the harassing conduct because it did
not occur in the context of the employee’s responsibilities for the provision of aid,
benefits, or services to students. However, the conduct is sufficiently serious to deny orlimit the student in her ability to participate in or benefit from the recipient’s program.
Thus, the school has a duty, upon notice of the harassment, to take prompt and effective
action to stop the harassment and prevent its recurrence.
e. If the school takes these steps, it has avoided violating Title IX. If the school fails to takethe necessary steps, however, its failure to act has allowed the student to continue to be
subjected to a hostile environment that denies or limits the student’s ability to participate
in or benefit from the school’s program. The school, therefore, has engaged in its own
discrimination. It then becomes responsible, not just for stopping the conduct andpreventing it from happening again, but for remedying the effects of the harassment on
the student that could reasonably have been prevented if the school had responded
promptly and effectively.

- 14 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 15 of 24 PAGEID #: 15

95.

Before Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango left for the trip to Africa, Defendant

University had actual knowledge of sexual harassment and misconduct committed by Professor
Kalyango—namely that he attempted to share a hotel room with a graduate student.
96.

Before Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango left for the trip to Africa, Defendant

University had actual knowledge of the quid pro quo risks inherent in sexual relationships between
faculty and students.
97.

Before Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango left for the trip to Africa, Defendant

University knew or should have known that Defendant Kalyango used his position, power, and authority
to seek out inappropriate personal and/or romantic relationships with female students.
98.

The sexual harassment committed by Defendant Kalyango against Plaintiff Herman wascommitted while he was acting as an employee of Defendant University and after Defendant University
had, or should have had, knowledge of sexual harassment committed by Defendant Kalyango.
99.

Professor Kalyango’s harassment of Plaintiff Herman included physical or verbal conductof an inappropriate, romantic, and/or sexual nature that was unwelcome and sufficiently severe orpervasive from both a subjective and an objective viewpoint, it would appear that:a. Submission to the conduct was either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of her
employment or academic status;b. Submission to or rejection of such conduct could be used as the basis for employment or
academic decisions affecting her; orc. Such conduct had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the with herwork, performance, or education experience; or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment for work or learning.
100.

Defendant University’s response to Professor Kalyango’s inappropriate behavior was

deliberately indifferent, insofar as the response or lack thereof was clearly unreasonable in light of the
known circumstances.
101.

Professor Kalyango engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment of Plaintiff Herman.

102.

Defendant University has itself determined that the harassment that Kalyango engaged inagainst Plaintiff Herman was quid pro quo in nature.
103.

Defendant University’s deliberate indifference to Defendant Kalyango’s conduct as

described herein was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights such that punitive
damages are appropriate.
104.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Herman suffered extensive damages.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF- 15 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 16 of 24 PAGEID #: 16

105.

AGAINST OHIO UNIVERSITY
Deliberate Indifference resulting in Sexual Harassmentin Violation of Title IX
Plaintiff Herman re-alleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

106.

At all relevant times, Defendant Ohio University received federal funding and assistance.

107.

Plaintiff Herman was subjected to sexual harassment and unwanted sexual contact thatwas so severe, pervasive, and/or objectively offensive that it deprived her of access to educational andemployment opportunities and benefits.
108.

Before Defendant Kalyango’s misconduct against Plaintiff Herman, Defendant

University had actual knowledge of sexual harassment and misconduct committed by Professor
Kalyango.
109.

Before Defendant University’s misconduct against Plaintiff Herman, had actual

knowledge of the quid pro quo risks inherent in sexual relationships between faculty and students.
110.
University.
111.

There is an inherent power differential in any professor/student relationship at Ohio
Before Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango left for the trip to Africa, Defendant

University had actual knowledge of sexual harassment and misconduct committed by Professor
Kalyango—namely that he attempted to share a hotel room with a graduate student.
112.

Before Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango left for the trip to Africa, Defendant

University had actual knowledge of the quid pro quo risks inherent in sexual relationships between
faculty and students.
113.

Before Plaintiff Herman and Defendant Kalyango left for the trip to Africa, Defendant

University knew or should have known that Defendant Kalyango used his position, power, and authority
to seek out inappropriate personal and/or romantic relationships with female students.
114.

The sexual harassment committed by Defendant Kalyango against Plaintiff Herman wascommitted while he was acting as an employee of Defendant University and after Defendant University
had, or should have had, knowledge of sexual harassment committed by Defendant Kalyango.
115.

Defendant University’s response to Professor Kalyango’s inappropriate behavior was

deliberately indifferent, insofar as the response or lack thereof was clearly unreasonable in light of the
known circumstances.
116.

Professor Kalyango engaged in sexual harassment of Plaintiff Herman after Defendant

University had actual knowledge of Defendant Kalyango’s sexual misconduct.
117.

Defendant Kalyango’s conduct meets both the subjective and objective standards ofseverity required to establish sexual harassment.

- 16 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 17 of 24 PAGEID #: 17

118.

Defendant Kalyango’s conduct violated Ohio University’s own internal policy, Policy

03.004(E)(1).
119.

Defendant Kalyango has in the past knowingly exploited his power differential overfemale students order to make sexual advances towards them. Witnesses in Defendant Ohio University’s
internal investigation stated that Defendant Kalyango was known to make inappropriate advances toward
female graduate students, and that the ones who “played his game” would receive special treatment.
120.

Defendant University’s deliberate indifference to Defendant Kalyango’s conduct as

described herein was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights such that punitive
damages are appropriate.
121.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Herman suffered extensive damages.

122.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST OHIO UNIVERSITY
Deliberate Indifference resulting in
Hostile Environment in Violation of Title IX
Plaintiff Herman re-alleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

123.

The physical and verbal conduct exhibited by Defendant Kalyango was unwelcome andsufficiently severe or pervasive from both a subjective and objective viewpoint such that the conduct had
the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with Plaintiff Herman’s work or academic performanceor creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for working, learning, or living on campus.
124.

The environment created from the conduct of Defendant Kalyango was hostile based on

the circumstances, including but not limited to the frequency of the conduct, the nature and severity of the
conduct, the relationship between the parties, the location and context in which the conduct occurred, andthe physically threatening and humiliating nature of the conduct.
125.

The conduct by Defendant Kalyango violated Ohio University Policy 03.004(E)(2).

126.

Defendant Ohio University’s response to previous knowledge regarding Professor

Kalyango’s treatment of female graduate students was deliberately indifferent.
127.

Defendant Ohio University’s lack of oversight regarding how Defendant Kalyango wasconducting the Institute and associated programs was deliberately indifferent.
128.

Defendant University’s response to known risks prior to Plaintiff Herman and Defendant

Kalyango leaving for the Africa trip was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.
129.

Defendant University’s response (or lack thereof) to the events before, during, and after

the Africa trip also created a hostile environment:- 17 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 18 of 24 PAGEID #: 18

a. After the trip, Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment by Defendant Kalyango thatwas so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that she was denied access to
educational opportunities and benefits.
b. For Plaintiff Herman, Ohio University became a sexually hostile environment where her
harasser was still on campus and working in the Journalism Department.
c. Professor Kalyango’s conduct has interfered with Plaintiff Herman’s academic
performance.
d. Ohio University was deliberately indifferent to previous reports regarding Professor
Kalyango’s known behavior.
e. As a result of Ohio University’s deliberate indifference, Plaintiff Herman was forced tostep down from her position with the Institute and associated programs and has lost
educational opportunities and benefits at the university, lost past and future wages, classopportunities, study abroad opportunities, and faced retaliation and unfair treatment fromprofessors in the Journalism department.
f.

This conduct constitutes a hostile environment in violation of Title IX.

g. Plaintiff Herman had to endure Defendant Kalyango retaliatorily falsifying evaluations
about her performance on the Africa trip and Defendant Kalyango retaliatorily attempting
to accuse Plaintiff Herman of falsifying evaluations.
130.

Defendant University’s deliberate indifference to Defendant Kalyango’s conduct as

described herein was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights such that punitive
damages are appropriate.
131.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Herman suffered extensive damages.

132.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST OHIO UNIVERSITY
Retaliation in Violation of Title IX
Plaintiff Herman re-alleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

133.

The retaliation described herein were so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive thatit deprived Plaintiff of access to educational opportunities or benefits provided by Defendant University.
134.

Defendant University created and/or subjected Plaintiff Herman to a retaliatoryenvironment in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (“Title
IX”), because:a. Plaintiff Herman was a member of a protected class;b. Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of unwanted sexual contact by aProfessor;- 18 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 19 of 24 PAGEID #: 19c. Plaintiff Herman was subjected to harassment based on her sex; andd. Plaintiff Herman was subjected to a hostile educational environment created by
Defendant University’s lack of policies and procedures and failure to properly investigate
and/or address the unwanted sexual contact and subsequent harassment.
e. Defendant Kalyango retaliated against Plaintiff by altering evaluations and expense
reports.
f.

The retaliation occurred after Defendant University was made aware of Defendant
Kalyango’s misconduct.

135.

Defendant Kalyango used his position, power, and authority to retaliate against Plaintiff.

136.

Defendant University’s failure to promptly and appropriately respond to Defendant

Kalyango’s behavior denied her educational opportunities and benefits in violation of Title IX
137.

Defendant University engaged in a pattern and practice of behavior designed to avoid

taking responsibility for, and responding to Defendant Kalyango’s known misconduct.
138.

If Defendant University had properly trained their employees on how respond to potential

misconduct of the type Defendant Kalyango engaged in, or properly supervised Defendant Kalyango, it islikely that Plaintiff Herman would never have been put in such a vulnerable position by Defendant
Kalyango.
139.

Defendant University, by and through its officials, retaliated against Plaintiff in violationof Title IX.
140.

Defendant University enabled an environment in which Defendant Kalyango could

retaliate against young female graduate students.
141.

Defendant University, by and through its agents and employees, encouraged Defendant

Kalyango’s interactions with young female students.
142.

Defendant University, by and through its agents and employees, acted or failed to act

upon knowledge it had of Defendant Kalyango’s misconduct in such a way that the response was clearly
unreasonable.
143.

One or more of the above acts or omissions was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff

Herman’s harm.
144.

Defendant University’s conduct as described herein was wanton and willful and in

reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s well-being.
145.

Defendant University consciously disregarded and was indifferent to the known andobvious risks that Defendant Kalyango imposed.
146.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Herman suffered extensive damages.

- 19 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 20 of 24 PAGEID #: 20

147.

This retaliation constituted disparate treatment of females and had a disparate impact on

female students.
148.

Defendant University’s deliberate indifference to Defendant Kalyango’s retaliation as

described herein was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights such that punitive
damages are appropriate.
149.

Plaintiff Herman has suffered emotional distress and psychological damage and otherdamages, and her character and standing in her community and education have suffered from theretaliation, all resulting in a violation of her rights under Title IX.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST YUSUF KALYANGO IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
Sexual Harassment in Violation of Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United Statesof America(Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
150.
Plaintiff Herman re-alleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
151.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff had the right as a public university student topersonal security and bodily integrity and Equal Protection of Laws.
152.

Defendant Kalyango sexually harassed Plaintiff Herman while he was a state actor acting

in his individual capacity under the color of state law.
153.

Defendant Kalyango subjected Plaintiff Herman to violations of her right to personal

security and bodily integrity and Equal Protection of Laws by subjecting her to sexual harassment
throughout 2017.
154.

Defendant Kalyango subjected Plaintiff Herman to sexual harassment and unwantedromantic and/or sexual advances that were so severe and objectively offensive that it violated Plaintiff
Herman’s constitutional rights.
155.

Defendant Kalyango was in a direct supervisory and evaluative role over Plaintiff

Herman.
156.

Defendant Kalyango’s conduct constituted disparate treatment of females and had adisparate impact on female students and faculty members.
157.

Plaintiff Herman has had her academic life and standing disrupted, and has personally

suffered emotional and psychological distress, all as a direct and proximate result of Defendant
Kalyango’s inappropriate behavior.
158.

Defendant Kalyango’s conduct as described herein violated Plaintiff Herman’s clearly

established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
159.

Defendant Kalyango’s conduct as described herein was malicious, oppressive, or inreckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights such that punitive damages are appropriate.

- 20 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 21 of 24 PAGEID #: 21160.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Herman suffered extensive damages.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST YUSUF KALYANGO IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
Sexual Harassment (Quid Pro Quo) in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitutionof the United States of America(Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
161.
Plaintiff Herman re-alleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
162.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff had the right as a public university student topersonal security and bodily integrity and Equal Protection of Laws.
163.

Defendant Kalyango sexually harassed Plaintiff Herman while he was a state actor acting

in his individual capacity under the color of state law.
164.

Defendant Kalyango subjected Plaintiff Herman to sexual harassment and unwanted

sexual contact that was so severe and objectively offensive that it violated Plaintiff Herman’sconstitutional rights.
165.

Professor Kalyango engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment of Plaintiff Herman.

166.

Professor Kalyango’s harassment of Plaintiff Herman included physical or verbal conductof a sexual nature that was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive such that, from both asubjective and an objective viewpoint, it would appear that:a. Submission to the conduct was either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of her
employment or academic status;b. Submission to or rejection of such conduct could be used as the basis for employment or
academic decisions affecting her; orc. Such conduct had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the with herwork, performance, or education experience; or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment for work or learning.
167.

It was reasonable for Plaintiff Herman to believe that her academic status and otherbenefits were conditioned on submitting to Defendant Kalyango’s advances.
168.

A reasonable person under these same circumstances could similarly believe that theiracademic status and other benefits were conditioned on submitting to Respondent’s advances.
169.

Defendant Kalyango’s conduct meets both the subjective and objective standards ofseverity required to establish quid pro quo sexual harassment.
170.

Defendant Kalyango’s conduct as described herein violated Plaintiff Herman’s clearly

established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
171.

Defendant Kalyango’s conduct as described herein was malicious, oppressive, or inreckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights such that punitive damages are appropriate.

- 21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 22 of 24 PAGEID #: 22172.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Herman suffered extensive damages.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST YUSUF KALYANGO IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
Hostile Environment and Retaliation in Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitutionof the United States of America(Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
173.
Plaintiff Herman re-alleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
174.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff had the right as a public university student topersonal security and bodily integrity and Equal Protection of Laws.
175.

Defendant Kalyango sexually harassed Plaintiff Herman while he was a state actor acting

in his individual capacity under the color of state law.
176.

Defendant Kalyango subjected Plaintiff Herman to a hostile work environment andretaliation that was so severe and objectively offensive that it violated Plaintiff Herman’s constitutionalrights.
177.

The conduct by Defendant Kalyango was of a sexual nature and was unwelcome andsufficiently severe or pervasive from both a subjective and objective viewpoint such that the conduct had
the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with Plaintiff Herman’s work or academic performanceor creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for working, learning, or living on campus.
178.

The environment created from the conduct of Defendant Kalyango was hostile based on

the circumstances, including but not limited to the frequency of the conduct, the nature and severity of the
conduct, the relationship between the parties, the location and context in which the conduct occurred, andthe physically threatening and humiliating nature of the conduct.
179.

Defendant Kalyango’s actions before, during, and after the Africa trip also created ahostile environment:
a. After the trip, Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment by Defendant Kalyango thatwas so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that she was denied access to
educational opportunities and benefits.
b. Defendant Kalyango created and/or was deliberately indifferent to a hostile environment
where Plaintiff Herman was retaliated against and lost significant educational andemployment opportunities.
c. The investigation has weighed on Plaintiff Herman heavily. Professor Kalyango’sconduct has interfered with Plaintiff Herman’s academic performance.
d. Defendant Kalyango was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff and to the hostileenvironment that he created .

- 22 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 23 of 24 PAGEID #: 23

e. As a result of Defendant Kalyango’s conduct and/or deliberate indifference, Plaintiff
Herman was forced to step down from her position with the Institute and associatedprograms and has lost educational opportunities and benefits at the university.
f.

This conduct and/or deliberate indifference was in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

g. Defendant Kalyango’s retaliatorily falsifying evaluations about Plaintiff Herman’s
performance on the Africa trip and Defendant Kalyango retaliatorily attempts to accuse
Plaintiff Herman of falsifying evaluations contributed to the hostile environment.
180.

Defendant Kalyango’s conduct towards Plaintiff as described herein was malicious,

oppressive, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights such that punitive damages are appropriate.
181.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Herman suffered extensive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendants and asks the Court
to enter judgment against the Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff for the following relief:(a) Judgement against Defendants for a sum commensurate with the damages Plaintiff
sustained, plus the costs of this suit and any other relief that the court considers
proper;(b) Damages for past and future medical expenses and treatment;(c) Damages for past and future emotional and psychological distress, physical illness
and harm, loss of normal life, disability, and lost educational opportunities;(d) Damages for past and future lost wages;(e) Damages in amounts to be established at trial, including, without limitation,
reimbursement and prepayment for all of Plaintiff’s tuition and related expenses;
payment of Plaintiff’s expenses incurred as a consequence of the sexual harassment;
damages for deprivation of equal access to the educational benefits and opportunities
provided by Ohio University; and damages for past, present and future emotional
pain and suffering, ongoing and severe mental anguish, loss of past, present andfuture enjoyment of life, past, present, and future medical expenses, and lost earnings
and earning capacity;(f) Other Compensatory Damages;(g) Injunctive relief as this Court deems necessary and proper;(h) A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights;- 23 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:19-cv-00201-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/20/19 Page: 24 of 24 PAGEID #: 24(i) That this Court Order Defendant University to provide mandatory training for all
mandatory reporters using trauma informed principles;(j) That this Court Order Defendant University to dismiss Defendant Kalyango from his
employment with Ohio University and not permit him on or near Campus;(k) That Defendant University be ordered to provide a public statement that it has failed
to maintain a safe environment for victims of sexual misconduct;(l) That Defendant University be ordered to create a system of reporting sexual
misconduct that is less intimidating for the most vulnerable members of thecommunity: students, untenured faculty, and junior faculty.
(m) That Defendant University be ordered to provide a statement from the President of
the University and the deans of the University inviting students, faculty, and staff toreport incidents of sexual misconduct to their college’s dean if they fear retaliation
within their departments.
(n) That Defendant University be ordered to provide a public statement that it will not
tolerate any retaliation against victims and reporters of sexual misconduct;(o) Other injunctive relief to be determined at trial requiring Ohio University to comply
with federal law under Title IX;(p) Pre- and post-judgment interest;(q) Costs;(r) Punitive Damages;(s) Attorney’s fees pursuant to all relevant statutes and law including, but not limited to,
42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and(t) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: January 20, 2019

Respectfully submitted,s/ Michael L. Fradin
Attorney for Plaintiffs
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8 N, Court St. Suite 403
Athens, Ohio 45701
Telephone: 847-986-5889
Facsimile: 847-673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com- 24 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL