MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
From: G. Antonio Anaya, Civil Rights Investigator
Re: Complaint of LB re: YK
Date: May 30, 2019I.

Introduction & Case Summary

This investigation was initiated by G. Antonio Anaya, Civil Rights Investigator,(hereinafter, the “Investigator”) following the receipt from Complainant of an allegation ofsexual misconduct by the Respondent on or about March 1, 2018, and after consultation with
Sara Trower, then Executive Director and Title IX Coordinator, University Equity and Civil
Rights Compliance (“ECRC”).
Complainant alleged the following:(1) while she and Respondent were in Lusaka, Zambia, in December 2011,
Respondent invited the student to his hotel room and slow-danced with her;(2) later, on the same trip to Zambia, Respondent hugged and kissed Complainant
without her permission or consent;(3) Respondent invited her to accompany Respondent on a trip to Santiago, Chili, for a
conference during October 2012, and that Respondent advised her that the only way to get
Ohio University to pay for the hotel was if Respondent and Complainant shared a single hotel
room; and,(4) in April 2012, Respondent asked Complainant to drive him to Washington, D.C.
Upon arriving in Washington, Complainant discovered that Respondent had booked a suite inwhich both Complainant and Respondent would spend the night. After Complainant got into
bed, Respondent came into her room, sat on her bed, and placed his arm acrossComplainant’s body and leaned into her, making her uncomfortable.
The Investigator initially contacted Complainant after Witness A advised the Investigatorthat Complainant may have been subjected to some type of inappropriate behavior in the past.
Complainant advised the Investigator that the incidents that are alleged to have occurred while
the parties were in Zambia were initially reported to the university in either December 2011 orJanuary 2012 by another student who was on the trip to Zambia. During January 2012,
Complainant was contacted by both Institutional Equity and the Center for International Studies
regarding these issues; however, at that time, Complainant denied that these incidents
occurred. When contacted by the Investigator, Complainant stated that these allegations had,in fact, occurred. Further, Compainant made the initial report to the Investigator of the newallegations that Respondent invited Complainant to share a hotel room with him in Santiago,
Chile and that Respondent did share a hotel suite with Complainant in Washington, D.C.
Therefore, the investigation was conducted into all of Complainant’s allegations.
The investigation included interviews with Complainant, interviews with Respondent andinterviews with witnesses; review of documents submitted by the parties; and review of ECRC
files to determine whether any prior allegations of policy violations had been made against
Respondent.
Before concluding the investigation process, the parties were provided a Summation of
Evidence packet for their review. Following the responses of both parties to the initial evidence
packet, the Investigator collected additional evidence and the parties were provided with asecond evidence packet. Complainant and Respondent each provided responses to thesecond evidence packet that were also considered by the Investigator in reaching theconclusions in this Memorandum of Findings.
Respondent, as the Director of the International Institute of Journalism at the EW
Scripps School of Journalism, runs both the YALI and SUSI programs at Ohio University.
Respondent also arranges other overseas travels to various academic programs in journalism.
During Winter Intersession of the 2011-2012 academic year, Respondent taught “Media,
Society & Governance” in conjunction with a senior lecturer from the University of Zambia. This
course was taught in Zambia.
SUSI, the Study of the U.S. Institutes, is a program sponsored by the U.S. State
Department. Through the SUSI program, the International Institute of Journalism hosts
journalist scholars from around the world, visiting various locations in the United States.
Complainant attended Ohio University as an undergraduate student between Fall of2009 and Spring of 2013. Complainant graduated with a degree in journalism with acumulative grade point average of 3.968.
Following the filing of the complaint, the Investigator conducted an investigation. As
detailed below, the Investigator concludes that the preponderance of the evidence establishes
that Respondent created a hostile educational/working environment for Complainant.

II.

Applicable University Policies

Given the information provided by the parties to the investigation, the Office ofUniversity Equity and Civil Rights Compliance (ECRC) identified a potential violation of Ohio
University Policy 03.004 (Harassment), and a potential violation of Ohio University Policy
40.001 (Equal Employment and Education Opportunity). Specifically, the potential violations
include sexual harassment by hostile environment. The alleged incidents occurred when thefollowing versions of Policies 03.004 and 40.001 were in effect, and therefore, the allegations
will be analyzed under those versions of the policies.
Page 2 of 19

A. 03.004(IV) – Sexual Harassment by Hostile Environment
Ohio University Policy 03.004(IV)(approved and effective March 27, 2006) states:
Because sexual harassment has been more thoroughly defined in the law thanharassment based on a protected trait, the following definition of sexual harassment isincluded in this policy. The following two terms are defined first because they are usedin the definition of sexual harassment:●

Quid Pro Quo is the Latin term for "this for that" and occurs when there isa demand for a sexual favor in exchange for employment or academic
benefit●

Hostile Environment exists when harassing behavior unreasonablyinterferes with a student's academic or employee's work performance andcreates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive academic or work environment.

Sexual Harassment at Ohio University is defined as any unwelcome sexual advance orrequest for sexual favor, including an explicit or implicit quid pro quo, made by an
employee, student, or agent of the University to a student or employee of the University,and is conduct of a sexual nature exhibited by such a person (or people) toward anotherwhen such conduct substantially interferes with the person's educational or work
performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational or work
environment.
Ohio University Policy 03.004(V)(approved and effective March 27, 2006) provides thefollowing as examples of sexual harassment in any setting:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●

Unwelcome or uninvited sexual comments or innuendo
Oral, written, or electronic communications that are sexually explicit in nature
Sexually explicit questions, jokes, or anecdotes about gender specific traits
Sexually suggestive sounds, gestures, gifts, or visual materials such asmagazines, pictures, posters, photos, cartoons, or drawings
Direct or indirect threats concerning sexual favors or the refusal to consent tosexual favors
Sexual leering, uninvited touching, stroking, or gestures
Communication of unsought sexual propositions, requests for dates, sexual
favors, or lewd remarks or sounds

Ohio University Policy 03.004(V) (approved and effective March 27, 2006) further
provides:Ohio University forbids amorous relationships between a student and anyone having
grading, advisory, or supervisory authority over that student (including faculty, other
instructors, teaching assistants, and supervisors). Amorous relationships that occur inthe context of educational or employment supervision and evaluation present serious
concerns about the validity of consent. The disparity of power between persons involved
Page 3 of 19

in amorous relationships of a teacher and student, supervisor and subordinate, or senior
and junior colleagues in the same department or unit makes them susceptible toexploitation. Furthermore, the possibility of a future amorous relationship may distort thepresent instructional or advisory relationship. Those who abuse their power in such acontext violate their duty to the University community.
40.001 Harassment on the basis of gender
Ohio University Policy 40.001(A) states the following in regard to discrimination on thebasis of protected status:
It is the policy of Ohio University that there shall be no discrimination against any
individual in educational or employment opportunities because of race, color, religion,
national origin, sex, veteran status, sexual orientation or handicap.
See, Ohio University Policy 40.001 (approved and effective December 2, 2002).
Note that a finding of a violation of Policy 03.004 constitutes a finding of discriminationon the basis of sex, and, therefore, also constitutes a violation of Policy 40.001.

III.

Evidentiary Standard

In evaluating alleged violations of Ohio University Policies 03.004 and 40.001, Ohio
University Equity and Civil Rights Compliance uses a preponderance of the evidence standard.
The preponderance of the evidence standard means that the evidence is sufficient to make afinding that it is “more likely than not” that a particular fact is true. With respect to alleged
violations of policy, the preponderance of the evidence standard means the evidence issufficient to make a finding that it is “more likely than not” the alleged policy violation occurred.

IV.

Factual Assertions & Findings of Fact

1.

At all times pertinent herein, Complainant was an undergraduate student pursuing abachelor’s degree in journalism in the EW Scripps School of Journalism. Evidence
Packet (“EP”), pg. 2.

2.

At all times pertinent herein, Respondent was a professor of journalism and the
Director of the International Institute of Journalism at the EW Scripps School of
Journalism.

WINTER INTERSESSION DECEMBER 20113.

During either the spring semester of 2011 or the fall semester of 2011, Complainantregistered for “Media, Society & Governance,” a study-abroad course in Zambia,
Africa (the “Zambia Program”).
Page 4 of 19

4.

The Zambia Program was co-taught by Respondent and Witness B. EP, pgs. 8-17.

5.

For two weeks prior to leaving for Africa, students enrolled in the Zambia Program
began their academic work. EP, pg. 11.

6.

Between Saturday, November 26, 2011 and December 20, 2011, the Zambia Program
was conducted in Zambia, Africa. EP, pgs. 12-18.

7.

Between November 26, 2011 and December 7, 2011, the Zambia Program wasconducted in and around Lusaka, Zambia. EP, pgs. 12-14.

8.

On December 8, 2011, the Zambia Program traveled to the Copperbelt area ofZambia, approximately 380 kilometers from Lusaka. On December 11, 2011, theZambia Program returned to Lusaka. EP, pgs. 14-15.

9.

On December 16, 2011, the Zambia Program traveled to Livingston, Zambia. On
December 19, 2011, the Zambia Program returned to Lusaka. EP, pg. 16-17.

10. During the times that they were in Lusaka, the OU contingent, including Complainant
and Respondent, stayed at the Cresta Golfview Hotel (the “Cresta”). EP, pgs. 2, 12,17.
11. The Cresta is next door to another hotel, the Chainama Hotel (the “Chainama”). EP,
pgs. 2, 31.
12. Complainant reported that one evening while staying at the Cresta, Respondent
invited her to his room and invited her to dance with him. There was no one else in theroom, and Complainant did not feel this was appropriate and found the incident“somewhat bizarre.” EP, pg. 2.
13. Respondent denied inviting Complainant to his room or dancing with her in his room.
Evidence Packet 2 (“EP2”), pg. 15.
14. Complainant also reported that several weeks into the trip, and while they werestaying in the Cresta, Respondent invited Complainant to go the Chainama next door
to have a drink. Respondent purchased an alcoholic beverage for Complainant at theindoor bar, and they then went to the outdoor patio to sit and talk. EP, pg. 2.
15. Complainant reported that when Complainant and Respondent were leaving the patioarea of the Chainama, Respondent stopped Complainant, positioned himself in frontof her while she had her back to the wall, embraced Complainant and attempted tokiss her and “make out” with her. EP, pg. 2.
16. Respondent denied that he and Complainant ever went next door to have a drink, andthat he ever tried to embrace her, kiss her or make out with her. EP, pgs. 3-4; EP2,
pg. 16.
Page 5 of 19

17. Respondent asserted that these events could not have occurred because of the rulesthat he and Witness B put in place for the program. Namely, Respondent stated that
Witness B was with Respondent “every single evening during the entire program,” that
Witness B and Witness F did not leave the hotel until between 11:30 p.m. andmidnight every night, and that the OU students were in bed by that point. EP2, pg. 16.
18. Respondent also asserted that he would not have embraced, kissed or attempted tomake out with Complainant because he knew at the time of the trip to Zambia thatComplainant was gay, because she had “alluded to being gay” approximately threemonths after she accepted the position as Respondent’s assistant. EP, pg. 4.
19. Respondent also asserted that these events could not have occurred because these
allegations had already been brought to the attention of the University andComplainant had denied that Respondent had engaged in inappropriate behavior atthat time. EP2, pgs. 15, 18-19.
20. The Investigator makes the following findings of fact: it is more likely than not true that
Respondent did invite Complainant to his room to dance, that Respondent did go to
the Chainama with Complainant, that Respondent did buy Complainant an alcoholic
beverage, that Respondent embraced Complainant, and that Respondent attempted
to kiss and “make out” with Complainant. These findings are based on the following.
Respondent’s Treatment of Complainant
a. With one exception, each of the student witnesses remembered that Respondent
showed more interest in and favored Complainant.
i. Witness D reported that in the weeks leading up to the trip to Zambia,
there were weekly meetings of the students with Respondent. During
these meetings, Respondent appeared to be “very into” Complainant,often asking her opinion. Witness D stated that Complainant was “veryclearly” Respondent’s favorite, including during the time they were inclasses in Zambia. EP2, pg. 4.
ii. Witness H reported that Respondent liked Complainant “very much,”thought Complainant was very charming and smart, and gave
Complainant “a lot of attention.” EP2, pg. 8.
iii. Witness I reported that Respondent would treat Complainant
preferentially, including calling on her first for answers and asking her tosit next to him on the bus. It was noticeable enough that the other students
were calling Complainant “teacher’s pet.” EP2, pg. 9.
iv. Witness I also reported that it became clear to Witness I that Respondent
was “romantically interested” in Complainant, particularly after
Complainant became intoxicated one night and had to be taken back to
the hotel. Instead of taking Complainant to her own room, Respondent
Page 6 of 19

took Complainant to his room. EP2, pg. 9. Witness I reported thatComplainant woke up in Respondent’s room and did not know where she
was. EP2, pg. 9. Complainant herself, however, did not raise thisallegation in her complaint.
v. Witness G was the only student that did not report that Respondentfavored Complainant. Witness G reported that he remembers Complainant
being liked by Respondent, but not necessarily more than other students
he liked. EP2, pg. 7.
Corroboration of Complainant’s Allegations
a. Witness D reported that while in the Copperbelt region of Zambia, Complainantcame to Witness D’s room and said, “[Respondent] has been pursuing me pretty
hard.” Complainant told Witness D that while they had still been in Lusaka,
Respondent had called Complainant in her hotel room and said, “You have to go
out to dinner with me when we get to the Copperbelt.” Complainant said, “No,”and Respondent then said that he would not hang up until she did say yes.
Therefore, Complainant said that she would go to dinner with Respondent.
Witness D did not believe that Respondent and Complainant ever went to dinner.
EP2, pg. 5.
b. Sometime later, Complainant told Witness D that there was an incident whenComplainant was on an outdoor patio and Respondent tried to kiss Complainant.
Complainant also told Witness D that Respondent had tried to slow-dance with
Complainant, but Complainant pulled away. Witness D does not know if thisoccurred at the same time as when Respondent tried to kiss Complainant, or if it
was another, distinct incident. EP2, pg. 5.
c. Complainant also told Witness D that she and Respondent had gone to the hotel
next door. EP2, pg. 5.
d. Witness I also reported that Complainant told her that Respondent had taken
Complainant next door to have a drink, because he wanted to talk about future
job opportunities for Complainant, including working for the SUSI program.
Complainant said that they “got pretty drunk,” and that Respondent tried to kissComplainant. EP2, pg. 9.
e. Witness J reported that Witness D told Witness J that Respondent had gone nextdoor with Complainant, had cornered her and tried to kiss Complainant.
Supplemental Witness J Statement (“SWJ”), pg. 2.
Complainant’s Sexual Orientationa. Complainant stated that during the time in which the incidents underlying her
complaint occurred, she was still discovering her sexuality and did not yet selfidentify as a lesbian. EP, pg. 3. The preponderance of the evidence supports a
Page 7 of 19

finding that Complainant did not identify as a lesbian and had not come out as
gay at the time of the incidents underlying her complaint.
vi. Witness D reported that she had “no idea” that Complainant was gay at
the time of the Zambia Program, as Complainant had never said so andhad not come out during that time. Witness D reported finding out throughsocial media later. EP2, pg. 4.
vii. Witness G reported that, at the time of the trip to Zambia, Witness G was
not aware that Complainant is gay, and he only learned this when helearned that Complainant was dating her now-wife. This was after bothWitness G and Complainant had graduated. EP2, pg. 8.
viii. Witness H reported that she was not aware that Complainant was gay at
the time of the trip to Zambia, and had “no idea” until she later learned
that Complainant had married Complainant’s wife. To Witness H’sknowledge, Complainant was not “out” at the time of the trip to Zambia.
EP2, pg. 8.
ix. Witness I reported that she does not believe that Complainant was “out”
as a gay woman at the time of the trip to Zambia. Witness I found this out
through social media and by staying in touch with Complainant after
Witness I graduated from OU in 2014. EP2, pg. 10.
Complainant’s Prior Denial
a. After returning from Zambia, Witness D submitted an evaluation form to Witness
E in the Office of Global Opportunities. This evaluation form raised concerns
about the behavior of Witness B. Witness E subsequently spoke with Witness D
regarding these allegations. EP2, pg. 6.
b. Witness D reported to Witness E that Witness B had asked Witness D to comeback to Witness B’s room with him. Witness D also reported that Respondent
had attempted to kiss Complainant. EP2, pg. 6.
c. As a result of the report of Witness D, an investigation was conducted by the
Office of Institutional Equity (now known as Equity & Civil Rights Compliance).
This investigation primarily focused on the allegations raised by Witness D
involving Witness B. During this investigation, Witness D mentioned a potential,
improper relationship between Respondent and Complainant. EP2, pgs. 63-65.
d. The Office of Institutional Equity conducted an inquiry into “the allegations of an
improper relationship against [Respondent].” As part of this inquiry, Institutional
Equity questioned Complainant about the allegations against Respondent. The
Memorandum of Findings from that case, dated February 14, 2012, states, “Thestudent alleged to have been involved denies the allegations.” EP2, pgs. 63-65.
Page 8 of 19

e. On January 25, 2012, the Director of the Office of Education Abroad asked tomeet with Complainant regarding the allegations that had been raised by Witness
D regarding Respondent.
f. In response, Complainant sent the Director of the Office of Education Abroad anemail, in which she stated, “The issue, which I never considered an issue in thefirst place, is truly non-existent. Rest assured that I am not the type of personality[sic] who would not speak out about something due to fear or something along
those lines. I have been through a lot in my life and I don't allow others to takeadvantage of me. Once again, I appreciate your concern. However, when I
declined to speak to the Office of Equity, I did so for a reason. It's been morethan a month since the Zambia trip and I think it may be a bit silly to keep
discussing something that was largely a misconception and is now quite
irrelevant.” EP2, pg. 51.
g. Complainant confirmed to the Investigator that she had denied that Respondent
had engaged in any inappropriate behavior at that time. EP, pg. 3.
h. Complainant stated that she denied that Respondent had engaged in any
inappropriate behavior at that time because of opportunities that Respondent had
already made available to Complainant and opportunities that Respondent could
make available to her in the future. EP, p. 3.
i.

Complainant stated that there were a number of factors that caused Complainant
to choose not to report Respondent’s behavior:i. Respondent had already suggested to Complainant that she would beworking with the SUSI program during the summer of 2014. EP, pg. 3.
1. SUSI, the Study of the U.S. Institutes, is a program sponsored by the
U.S. State Department. Through the SUSI program, the International
Institute of Journalism hosts journalist scholars from around the world,
visiting various locations in the United States.
2. Working for the SUSI program would allow Complainant to make“significantly more” money than the other opportunities available toComplainant at that time. EP, pg. 3.
3. Witness I stated that Complainant was going to be working with
Respondent after the Zambia trip in a “good job” for the SUSI program.
EP2, pg. 9.
ii.

At the time, Complainant was in her third year of undergraduate studies
and had two more years to earn a degree in her major, journalism.
Respondent was a ranking member of the faculty of Complainant’s
major. EP, pg. 3.
Page 9 of 19

iii.

Complainant had a good working relationship with Respondent andComplainant did not want to compromise that relationship. EP, pg. 3.

iv.

Complainant knew that because of his position and connections,
Respondent could be instrumental in helping Complainant obtain aposition in the field of journalism, and Complainant was afraid that she
would jeopardize this and the other opportunities if she reported
Respondent. EP, pg. 3.

j. Witness D corroborated that while still in Zambia, Complainant had already
decided to not report Respondent’s behavior.
i.

Witness D told Complainant that she was going to file a report regarding
Witness B driving OU students after he had been drinking. EP2, pg. 5.

ii.

Witness D reported that Complainant told Witness D that if the University
asked Complainant if Respondent had engaged in any inappropriate
behavior with Complainant while in Zambia, Complainant would deny
anything happened. EP2, pg. 5.

Respondent’s Assertions and Supporting Witnesses
k. Respondent asserted that there is no way that Respondent could have invitedComplainant to his room or have attempted to slow-dance with her, because
Witness B was with Respondent “every night” until around 11:30 p.m., and all of
the OU students were in their rooms before Witness B left the hotel. EP2, pg. 16.
l.

Respondent also asserted that he could not have taken Complainant next door to
the Chainama for a drink because the Chainama was a “no go” for their group,“none of the students stepped into that area,” and it was “not the type of social
place/hotel where we would allow our students to go.” Respondent also
reiterated that he was with Witness B each evening until 11:30 p.m. EP2, pg. 17.

m. When the Investigator spoke with Witness B, he confirmed Respondent’s
assertion that Witness B had been at the Cresta “every night” until 11:00 p.m. or
midnight, and that Witness B was “always with” Respondent at night. EP2, pgs.
3, 4.
n. When asked if he was aware of any of the OU contingent going next door to the
Chainama, Witness B stated that he was not aware of anyone ever going to the
Chainama, and that the Chainama was not a place he would take Respondent orother foreign visitors. EP2, pg. 3.
o. Witness B then volunteered, without being asked, that the Chainama was “not akind of place where you could take someone to have a drink.” The Investigator
had made no mention to Witness B that Complainant had alleged that
Respondent had taken her to the Chainama to have a drink. As such, thePage 10 of 19

Investigator asked Witness B if he had spoken with the Respondent about thismatter recently. Witness B confirmed that he had “gotten a communication from
Respondent” but said that Respondent had “just” told him to expect an email orphone call from someone at OU. EP2, pg. 3.
p. Respondent’s and Witness B’s assertions were contradicted by other witnesses.
i.

Witness C stated, “The OU students did have some free time in theevenings.” EP2, p. 4.

ii.

Witness D stated that there was “an hour or so” each night before
leaving for dinner that the students had free time to “do their own thing,”that Witness D recalled being at the bar in the Cresta alone one evening,
and that “there was definitely opportunities for students to be alone with
[Respondent].” EP2, pg. 5.

iii.

Witness D also reported that, while she is pretty sure that Witness B did
come back to the Cresta each evening, there were not only times when
students could be alone with Respondent, but also times when either
Witness B or Respondent would take other people home and the otherwould stay with the OU students. EP, pg. 5

iv.

Witness F was the bus driver for the OU contingent while in Zambia.
EP., pg. 6. Contrary to Respondent’s statement, “I would see off thedriver [Witness F] and professor [Witness B] every night between 11:30
and midnight” (EP2, pg. 16), Witness F stated that each evening hewould drive the students back to the Cresta, but would then ask
permission to go home as soon as he dropped off the students.
Therefore, Witness F does not know how long Witness B stayed at the
Cresta with Respondent. EP, pgs. 6-7.

v.

Witness G reported that he is “sure” there was enough time in theevenings for the Respondent and Complainant to have gone next door tohave a drink. EP, pg. 7.

vi.

Witness H reported that she is “100% sure” that there were times in theevenings when Respondent and a student could be alone; “There wereplenty of times for that.” EP2, p. 8.

vii.

Witness H also reported that she believes that “lots of students” went to
the hotel next door to the Cresta. EP2, p. 8.

viii.

Witness I reported that there were opportunities for Respondent to have“alone time” with a student in the evenings. EP3, p. 9.

Page 11 of 19

ix.

Witness I also reported that she did not recall Witness B “hanging out”
with Respondent in the evenings, although Witness I did go to bed
earlier than most of the others. EP2, pg. 10.

x.

Witness I further reported that she herself had gone to the Chainama
with a group of OU students, and that Respondent came with them. The
Chainama was not as nice as the Cresta, but had more of a “bar aspect”
to it. Witness I described a dance floor with tables at the back, and theoutdoor space with tables with umbrellas. EP2, pg. 9-10.

xi.

Witness J reported that there was time for Respondent to have beenalone with Complainant in the evening. SWJ, pg. 2.

xii.

Witness J reported that Witness B was at the Cresta in the evening“frequently” but does not remember if he was at the Cresta every night.

21. Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that it is more likely than nottrue that Respondent did invite Complainant to his room to dance, that Respondent
did go to the Chainama with Complainant, that Respondent did buy Complainant an
alcoholic beverage, that Respondent embraced Complainant, and that Respondent
attempted to kiss and “make out” with Complainant.
The Trip to Santiago, Chile
22. Complainant reported that in late 2011 or early 2012, Respondent invited her toaccompany him to a professional journalism conference in Santiago, Chile from June23, 2012 to July 1, 2012. EP, pg. 3. Complainant stated that Respondent told her thatthe only way the University would pay for the cost of Complainant’s hotel room was if
she shared a room with Respondent. EP2, pg. 13. This allegation was reported to theInvestigator during the initial interviews with Complainant herein, as it was notincluded in the report filed by Witness D shortly after returning from the trip to Zambia.
23. Respondent denied even inviting Complainant to this conference, and also denied
asking Complainant to stay in the same hotel room in Santiago, Chile. EP, pg. 4; EP2,
pgs. 15, 19. Respondent also asserts that he traveled to Santiago, Chile for aninternational conference on journalism studies that took place between June 27 andJune 29, 2012. EP2, pg. 20.
24. The Investigator finds that it is more likely than not that Respondent did invite
Complainant to accompany him to Chile, and that Respondent invited Complainant tostay in the same room with Respondent. This finding is based on the following.
a. Complainant produced a number of emails in support of this allegation.
i.

On February 7, 2012, Complainant’s mother advised her in an email that theflight would be “12 hours or more, depending on where you go in Chile.”
Complainant responded, “He purchased the tickets yesterday.” EP, pg. 19.
Page 12 of 19

ii.

On April 3, 2012, Complainant received an email, inviting her to attend a
mission trip. On May 15, 2012, Complainant responded that she would bevisiting Chile from June 25 – July 1 for a journalism conference. EP, pgs. 2122.

iii.

On June 21 and June 22, 2012, Complainant engaged in an email
conversation with a missionary in Chile that she had already been introduced
to. Complainant advised the missionary at that time that her trip to Chile had
been cancelled due to her colleague having to take an emergency trip to
Europe. EP, pgs. 24-25.

b. Respondent asserted that because Complainant has not produced flightreservations, vaccination records, hotel reservations or emails between the twoof them discussing this trip, the trip could not have happened. EP2, pg. 20.
c. Respondent also alleges that Complainant fabricated this allegation on the basisthat she “knew all about my travel plans” and that “Complainant was myinstitute’s IIJ Ambassador (a paid student-worker position), her duties included
coordinating many of the international engagements for the IIJ. She knew that I
traveled to Santiago, Chile in late June 2012.” EP2, pg. 20.
d. Respondent, in his denial, stated that documentary evidence corroborated his
position, however, Respondent did not produce any such documentary evidence.
e. Complainant has produced corroborating evidence to support her allegations, but
Respondent has not produced any corroborating evidence of his assertions.
The Trip to Washington, D.C.
25. Complainant reported that in April of 2012, Respondent requested that Complainant
drive Respondent to Washington, D.C. so that he could attend a SUSI administrative
meeting. Respondent told Complainant that her hotel room would be paid for and that
she would have several days to explore Washington. EP, pg. 3. This allegation was
also reported to the Investigator during the initial interviews with Complainant herein,
as it was not included in the report filed by Witness D shortly after returning from thetrip to Zambia.
26. Complainant further reported that when she arrived in Washington, D.C., she
discovered that Respondent had made reservations for both of them to stay in a suitein the Renaissance Washington D.C. Hotel. EP, pgs. 3, 33.
27. Complainant also reported that after Complainant was in bed, Respondent came into
her bedroom and sat on her bed. Respondent then leaned over and put his arm overher. Complainant then said she needed to sleep and Respondent left her room. EP,
pg. 3.
Page 13 of 19

28. Respondent admitted that he was in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2012, but statedthat he always goes to D.C. alone and denied that Complainant was with him on that
trip. EP, pg. 4.
29. The Investigator finds that it is more likely than not that Respondent did invite
Complainant to accompany him to Washington, D.C. during April of 2012, that
Respondent reserved a suite at the Renaissance Washington, D.C. Hotel (the“Renaissance”) for both himself and Complainant, and that Respondent came into
Complainant’s bedroom, sat on her bed and put his arm across her. This finding isbased on the following:a. Complainant produced a record represented to be from the Renaissanceshowing that Respondent incurred $558.35 in charges on April 19 and April 20,
2012. EP, pg. 30.
b. Complainant produced a Tweet from Respondent dated April 20, 2012 at 11:20
p.m. stating, “Attending @StudyoftheUS Admin Briefing @ U.S. State Dep’t is
one of IIJ’s most important annual training meetings. Great sessions!” EP, pg. 32.
Respondent confirmed that this Tweet is accurate. EP, pg. 4.
c. Complainant produced a screenshot showing that she was at the International
Spy Museum at 800 E. St. NW in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2012 at 11:33
a.m. EP, pg. 33.
d. Complainant produced a screenshot showing that she was at the Renaissanceon April 21, 2012 at 10:22 a.m. EP, pg. 33.
e. Respondent asserted that had Complainant traveled with him to Washington,
D.C., there should have been financial records indicating that she was paid forthis trip, and that “OU financial records show I traveled alone.” EP.2, pg. 20-21.
Respondent did not produce any such financial records.
f. Respondent also asserted that a Federal Grant would not pay for the rate of asuite in Washington, D.C., and certainly not for two people. EP2, pg. 21.
However, Complainant never alleged that this hotel was paid for with federal
grant money. Further, Respondent never produced any records indicating how
this room was either reserved or paid for.
g. Respondent also asserts that this claim must be false because “a suite with two
bedrooms does not exist at the Renaissance . . .” EP2, p. 21.
h. The Renaissance website advertises a “Executive Suite” with a living room and abedroom. EP2, pg. 56-61.
i.

The photographs of the Renaissance Executive Suite clearly show a door to the
bedroom and a full-size couch large enough to sleep on. EP2, pg. 57-61.
Page 14 of 19

j. Complainant has produced corroborating evidence to support her allegations
regarding the trip to Washington, D.C., but Respondent has not produced any
corroborating evidence of his assertions regarding this trip. To the contrary,
Respondent has asserted that Complainant used her knowledge of his trip to
Washington, D.C. “to try to frame me with an almost familiar storyline as theallegations filed by [another student complainant].” EP2, pg. 21. The allegationthat Complainant herein is trying to “frame” Respondent is not supported by theevidence.
k. Respondent specifically points to the accounting statement for his travel
expenses attached to the Evidence Packet as proof that Respondent had one
room in his name only for two nights, and that Complainant’s name is notincluded in that statement. EP2, pg. 21. What Respondent failed to appreciate isthat the travel expense statement to which Respondent refers was produced byComplainant herself. EP, pg. 30.

V.

Analysis and Conclusions

The Investigator makes the following conclusions based on a determination that the
preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion, meaning that the evidence sufficient tofind the conclusion is more likely than not true.
A.

University Equity and Civil Rights Compliance’s Authority to Address thisComplaint.

The version of Ohio University Policy 03.004 (“Harassment” – effective 3/27/2006 through8/3/2012) applicable to the events alleged by Complainant contained a 180-day time limit. The
policy version states: “A complaint of harassment, including sexual harassment, must be filed
no later than 180 days, from the date of the last occurrence of the alleged harassing behavior.”
While policy 03.004 had a 180 day limit to report, the similarity of allegations between thosemade in this case and those made against Respondent in another case raised a concern that
there has been a pattern of behavior. Therefore, under Title IX, ECRC felt an obligation toinvestigate.
Title IX itself does not contain a time limitation. Rather, under Title IX, the University’s
obligation to respond to reports of sexual misconduct is triggered when the University receives
notice of the alleged sexual misconduct. In this case, Complainant did not confirm the validity ofher complaint regarding the incidents in Zambia until March 2018, and did not raise theallegations of the invitation to share a room in Santiago, Chile or the trip to Washington, D.C.
until that time. There were a number of reasons why Complainant delayed acknowledging that
Respondent engaged in inappropriate behaviors.
At the time of the incidents giving rise to the complaint in this case, Complainant was anundergraduate student seeking a degree in the program of which Respondent was a ranking
faculty member. Complainant intended to stay in that program for another two and half years
and did stay in that program. Respondent had also extended a job offer to Complainant for a
Page 15 of 19

very valuable position in the SUSI program for the following summer. Therefore, Complainant
had actual vulnerabilities in both academic standing and imminent employment. Complainant
was also aware that Respondent had numerous connections in Complainant’s desired
profession and could be an invaluable resource for Complainant come graduation.

B.

Analysis Supporting the Finding that Respondent Violated University Policy 03.004
by Engaging in Sexual Harassment by Hostile Environment.
1.

Ohio University Policy 03.004 prohibits conduct that constitutes sexual harassment.

2.

In this case, Complainant has asserted that Respondent engaged in sexual harassmentof her. To establish a violation, the preponderance of the evidence must show that:a. Respondent subjected Complainant to unwelcome sexual advances or requests
for sexual favor; and,b. Respondent engaged in conduct of a sexual nature when the conduct was
severe enough:i. to substantially interfer with the Complainant’s educational or work
performance; orii. to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational or work
environment.

3.

With regard to the first element, the evidence establishes that Respondent did subject
Complainant to unwelcome sexual advances.
a. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that while Respondent andComplainant were in Zambia, Respondent put Complainant in a position where
she was up against a wall and Respondent then attempted to kiss her and makeout with her. Attempting to kiss someone and make out with them is by definitiona sexual advance.
b. The preponderance of the evidence also establishes that Respondent invitedComplainant to stay in a single hotel room with him in Santiago, Chile. While thistrip never materialized for Complainant, this is evidence of a pattern of behavior
on the part of Respondent, namely, arranging to spend the night in a single hotel
room with one of his female students a significant distance from campus.
c.

The preponderance of the evidence also establishes that Respondent created asituation by which Complainant had to share a hotel suite with him in
Washington, D.C. Again, the question is whether or not this constituted a sexual
advance or request for sexual favors. The preponderance of the evidence
establishes that Respondent having made a reservation for a single suite to be
Page 16 of 19

shared with Complainant in Washington, D.C. was sexual in nature, as
evidenced by the following:i.

While Complainant was lying in bed, Respondent entered her room and saton the edge of the bed. Respondent then placed his arm acrossComplainant’s body, putting his hand on the bed on her other side.

ii.
Respondent did not advise Complainant that they would be sharing a room in
Washington, D.C., and Complainant only became aware of this when
Respondent and Complainant checked into the hotel.

4.

iii.

Respondent denied that this ever occurred. However, Respondent did notprovide any documentation to corroborate that he traveled to and stayed in
Washington, D.C. alone.

iv.

Complainant produced evidence corroborating that she was in Washington,
D.C. at the same time as Respondent, in the nature of two screenshots
containing physical locations and dates. EP, pgs. 33-34. Respondent has
provided no explanation for these two screenshots.

With regard to the second element, there is a preponderance of evidence establishingthat Respondent’s behavior was severe enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive educational or work environment.
a.

Policy 03.004 provides express examples of sexual harassment. These include(but are not limited to):i.

Unwelcome or uninvited sexual comments or innuendo.

ii.

Sexual leering, uninvited touching, stroking, or gestures.

iii.

Communication of unsought sexual propositions, requests for dates, sexual
favors, or lewd remarks or sounds.

b.

Respondent’s attempt to dance with, and then kiss and make out with,
Complainant meet all three of these examples. Both incidents constituted
unwelcome and uninvited touching and sexual gestures. Both incidents also
constituted sexual innuendo and communication of unsought sexual propositions
or sexual favors, as these physical gestures and acts constituted forms ofcommunication. Therefore, Policy 03.004 presumes that these acts created ahostile environment.

c.

Respondent has provided no reasonable, non-sexual rationale for requesting thatComplainant share a hotel room with him. The preponderance of the evidence
indicates that Respondent did so twice. One of these was several hundred miles
from campus and the other was thousands of miles from campus in a foreigncountry. Both of these were in situations where Respondent was familiar andPage 17 of 19

comfortable but where Complainant would be significantly dependent upon
Respondent. This would also have been true had the trip to Chile occurred. No
reasonable person could find such conduct anything less than severe enough tocreate a hostile, intimidating or offensive environment.
d.

Respondent’s conduct was also severe enough to create an intimidating, hostile,
or offensive environment when considered in light of the factors delineated under
Policy 03.004. These factors include (i) the degree to which a person is affected;(ii) the type, frequency and duration of the alleged conduct; (iii) the relationshipbetween the alleged harasser and the subject of the harassment; (iv) the locationand context in which the alleged conduct occurs; and, (v) other or corroborating
incidents.
i.

The effect that the behavior had on Complainant leans slightly in favor of afinding of harassment. Complainant was affected by Respondent’s behavior
in Zambia enough to have brought it to the attention of other students while
there. Complainant also indicated that she was not comfortable staying in thesuite with Respondent even before he came into her room after she was inbed. Complainant also felt enough concern about the possible effect ofreporting Respondent’s behavior on the future of her educational and work
opportunities to prevent her from reporting him at the time.

ii.

The type, frequency and duration of the conduct supports a finding of
harassment. Respondent tried to dance with Complainant and then make out
with Complainant while they were in Zambia. This conduct, particularly theattempt to kiss and make out with Complainant, is extremely inappropriate,
and only one incident is sufficient to constitute harassment. However,Respondent continued attempting to put Complainant in compromising
positions in the nature of sharing a hotel room with her. While Respondent
was unable to do so in Santiago, Chile, he created a situation where he andComplainant shared a suite in Washington, D.C.

iii.

The relationship between the parties strongly supports a finding of
harassment. Respondent was a ranking professor in Complainant’s major.
Complainant was an undergraduate student, with two and half more years ofstudy before she was scheduled to graduate. Adding to this disparity of power
was the fact that Respondent was the ranking Ohio University authority while
the parties were in Zambia.

iv.

The location and context of the conduct also strongly supports a finding of
harassment. This is particularly true with regard to the incidents in Zambia
and Washington, D.C. In both instances, Complainant was a substantial
distance from either school or her home. In both instances, Respondent had asignificant degree of responsibility for Complainant. And in both instances,
Respondent took advantage of the situation to isolate Complainant before
attempting sexually inappropriate behavior.
Page 18 of 19

v.

e.

5.

Other corroborating incidents also strongly support a finding of harassment.
Complainant’s allegations in this case are significantly similar to theallegations made by another student complainant following a fall, 2017 trip to
Rwanda that the other complainant took with Respondent. The central
allegation in that case was that Respondent had invited the student to spend
the night alone with him in a hotel room overseas – a strikingly similar
allegation to those made by the Complainant in this case. The allegation ofsexual harassment by hostile environment was found to have been
substantiated in that case. While certainly not dispositive, this supports afinding of sexual harassment by hostile environment in this case.
Finally, assuming that Complainant might have had a romantic or other interest in
Respondent (of which there is no evidence), Respondent was in a position where
he held a direct supervisory and evaluative role over Complainant. According to
Ohio University Policy 03.004, “Ohio University forbids amorous relationships
between a student and anyone having grading, advisory, or supervisory authority
over that student (including faculty, other instructors, teaching assistants, andsupervisors).” Therefore, even a consensual relationship between Respondentand Complainant would have been an express violation of University policy.

In conclusion, given the information disclosed to ECRC, the Investigator concludes
that there is sufficient evidence on which to base a finding that Respondent’s alleged
behavior constituted sexual harassment by hostile environment. Accordingly, by the
preponderance of the evidence standard, the Investigator finds that the allegation ofsexual harassment on the basis of hostile environment is SUBSTAINTIATED

Page 19 of 19