Opinion ID: 1525627
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Seminary's Response

Text: The remainder of plaintiffs' proofs concerned their interactions with Seminary officials seeking to have the Seminary take satisfactory steps to prevent further contact from Miller. Although these proofs do not go to the harassment by Miller that plaintiffs claim gave rise to sexual harassment amounting to a hostile work environment, we recite them to present the entire picture painstakingly developed by plaintiffs. Godfrey met with O'Grady in August 2001, at which time she informed him about her prior interactions with Miller and expressed concern about Miller's presence in the Campus Center, where many of her interactions with Miller had occurred. O'Grady indicated that, in the past, he had had to take action about Miller's behavior toward female students. A few days later, O'Grady produced for Godfrey a copy of a letter dated September 4, 2001, which was addressed to Miller. The letter noted Miller's unwelcome contact with a number of ... female students and prohibited Miller from entering the Campus Center for any reason other than to attend events open to the public. Godfrey approved of the letter. Later, during the fall of 2002, both Godfrey and Kile sought a response from O'Grady after they informed him that, on at least two occasions, Miller had violated the Seminary's restrictions. [5] Seeking another avenue of relief from Miller's advances, Godfrey and Kile met with Dr. Thema Bryant Davis, a psychology counselor specializing in harassment issues employed by the Seminary and designated in the Seminary's sexual harassment policy as an individual to whom students may bring sexual harassment complaints. Thereafter, on November 6, 2002, Godfrey and Kile again met with O'Grady. At that meeting, O'Grady produced a copy of the Seminary's sexual harassment policy as well as the Seminary's student handbook. O'Grady then informed Godfrey and Kile that their prior complaints were considered informal, to which Godfrey and Kile responded that they wished to engage in a formal process so that a procedure could be developed that would have actual repercussions should Miller violate the restrictions. After Godfrey and Kile suggested that the Seminary could declare Miller a persona non grata, and ban him from the campus, O'Grady explained that a male student had become irate when he discovered that he could not invite Miller to eat with him in the Campus Center. O'Grady suggested that Godfrey and Kile consider permitting the Seminary to lift the ban. The meeting then concluded unsatisfactorily for Godfrey and Kile. The following day, Godfrey and Kile received a letter from O'Grady stating that he was unable to draw any conclusion because [Godfrey and Kile were] unwilling to provide ... information. O'Grady chastised Godfrey and Kile for not identifying the designated individual identified in the Sexual Harassment Policy, as well as the others with whom they had spoken, to form their conclusion that Miller's conduct amounted to sexual harassment. The additional information [that Godfrey and Kile] obtained, and which they did not disclose, prevented the Seminary administration from taking appropriate action because it was left uninformed. The letter further explained that the Seminary's sexual harassment policy had no bearing on Miller's conduct because Miller was a public tenant, and not a member of the Seminary community. O'Grady noted that he was only aware of Mr. Miller's attendance at the Halloween Dinner and two student group meetings, and that he had sent a second letter to Miller regarding his violation of the limited access to the [Campus Center] cafeteria. However, because Godfrey and Kile were convinced that [Miller's conduct was] indeed sexual harassment, and since Mr. Miller is not a member of the Seminary community, the issue should properly be handled by the local police. After O'Grady's response, Godfrey and Kile approached Katherine Dobbs Sakenfeld, a Seminary professor and another individual designated in the Seminary's sexual harassment policy, to discuss actions that the Seminary might take to curb Miller's conduct. Sakenfeld eventually informed Godfrey and Kile that the Seminary's lawyer had advised her that the sexual harassment policy could not provide an effective means to shield Godfrey and Kile from Miller because Miller was a tenant [of the CRW apartments,] essentially a third party vendor. She then suggested that Godfrey and Kile write to the President's Executive Council (the Council) to complain about their experiences with Miller and the administration's response. Godfrey and Kile proceeded to send individual letters to all Council members requesting another communal forum to... pursue [the matter] in a safe and confidential way, and indicating that they hoped to have Miller banned from the Seminary's campus. In response, the head of the Council, President Thomas Gillespie, sent a letter to Godfrey and Kile, stating that the Council could not grant their request for a formal audience because the Council was an administrative body ... neither constituted nor authorized to handle Godfrey and Kile's complaints. Gillespie informed Godfrey and Kile that any further complaint would have to be made to O'Grady, and that they might wish to seek legal counsel because they had become potentially ... vulnerable to a lawsuit for libel by making a complaint about Miller with the Council. Although O'Grady followed up with an e-mail to Godfrey and Kile to set a meeting with them, the Seminary's lawyers, and other administrators, Godfrey and Kile instead consulted with legal counsel.