g. Collaborating with colleagues about how to ensure that Jaeger’s misconduct was properly investigated, help those harmed by his actions, and prevent additional harm from occurring. h. Writing to Clark on December 6, 2016, to express her frustration with the case, highlight the
harmful impact the University’s handling of it had on the women who had come forward to share their experiences, and promote dialogue about how to do better so that current and future students can be protected.
i. Writing to the University President, along with fellow Complainants, to encourage the President to listen to Aslin’s concerns about how the complaints against Jaeger had been handled and the deleterious effect thereof on BCS.
j. Expressing concerns to DeAngelis about Jaeger being permitted to participate in the evaluations of Piantadosi and Kidd in February and March 2017 when both had opposed Jaeger’s conduct and Kidd had been sexually harassed by him as a student.
k. Expressing concerns to DeAngelis that the decisions not to hire Heilbronner and to not take reasonable and customary steps to retain Hayden would hurt the reputation and vitality of BCS and were retaliatory toward them both and, by extension (via truncated research collaborations), toward Cantlon, Kidd, Piantadosi, and Mahon.
310. As a direct result of her protected activities and in retaliation for them, the University took materially adverse actions against Cantlon. The core of the University’s retaliatory actions focused on harming Cantlon’s reputation and status in BCS and the greater academic community by falsely characterizing her as a troublemaker who spread lies about Jaeger. The retaliatory efforts were continuous and included, without limitation:
a. Violating Cantlon’s confidentiality by giving at least Kidd a copy of the original Nearpass Report.
b. Deans Culver and Lennie writing a memo on July 26, 2016 wrongly portraying the complaints against Jaeger as rumors and gossip.
c. The November 29, 2016, letter from Provost Rob Clark to department faculty that praised Jaeger and characterized the complaints against him as “rumors” and “misinformation.” At the time of the letter, department faculty knew that Cantlon was one of the people who had complained against Jaeger.
d. The January 2017 faculty meeting where DeAngelis wrongly announced that some faculty had been bullying Jaeger and that he had a stack of emails proving that they had spread
EEOC
rumors, deceived and manipulated people. At the time of the meeting, department faculty knew that Cantlon was one of the individuals to whom DeAngelis was referring.
e. Creating and maintaining the narrative that Cantlon and other Complainants have violated confidentiality by engaging in legally protected behavior.
f. Statements made by the President of the University in Spring 2017 to at least one senior faculty member in other departments that described the complaints against Jaeger as a smear campaign run by faculty, and accused the faculty Complainants (which included Cantlon) of wrongdoing in their emails.
g. DeAngelis telling Cantlon, in front of other BCS faculty, that she should “take responsibility for her actions” – meaning her complaint against Jaeger -‐ and aggressively demanding that she apologize to BCS for the trouble she has caused.
h. Excluding Cantlon from BCS meetings to discuss whether or not to hire Heilbronner.
i. Refusing to retain Hayden despite his clear talent and suitability, knowing that this would hurt the research of Cantlon and others, and damage the vitality and reputation of BCS and the University.
j. Sabotaging Cantlon and the other Complainants’ opportunity to move to RIT in order to continue their collaborative research.
k. One BCS faculty member telling Cantlon that he did not care if Cantlon and the other Complainants left BCS in the wake of their complaints about Jaeger and UR’s response to them, and that BCS would be fine without her.
l. Attempting to require Cantlon to assume a teaching load (with two large undergraduate lecture courses in a single academic year) that is not required of other BCS faculty.
311. The efforts to undermine Cantlon’s reputation were particularly harmful because she is a junior faculty member whose career prospects and professional relationships are more susceptible to undermining than senior faculty.
Unlawful retaliation against Celeste Kidd in violation of Title VII and New York Human Rights Law
312. Kidd has been a female employee of UR since September 2007.
313. Since at least March 2016, Kidd has continuously engaged in an interconnected set of protected activities, including without limitation:
EEOC
a. Participating in the investigation of Jaeger by sharing her very personal experience of being sexually harassed by Jaeger as a graduate student;
b. Openly expressing disapproval and concern about Jaeger’s illegal conduct and its detrimental impact on the University’s educational environment;
c. Collaborating with colleagues about how to ensure that Jaeger’s misconduct was properly investigated, help those harmed by his actions, and prevent additional harm from occurring; d. Filing a retaliation complaint with Dean Culver on July 21, 2016 and a follow-‐up letter on
August 19, 2016;
e. Participating in the investigation into her retaliation complaint;
f. Appealing the outcome of her retaliation complaint on October 4, 2016;
g. Sending an e-‐mail, with Piantadosi, to DeAngelis in August 2016 directly encouraging him to investigate Jaeger’s abuse of all relevant UR policies including human resources policies, and to publicly support those who had the courage to complain about Jaeger and encourage UR to behave lawfully;
h. Along with Piantadosi, meeting with DeAngelis in Fall 2016 to discuss (1) the prospect of leaving UR because the Nearpass Report identified and attacked Kidd by name, (2) the possibility of continuing retaliation, (3) Curtin’s finding that the University did not do enough to guard against it, and (4) concern that Jaeger would be involved in future evaluations; i. Writing, with Piantadosi, an e-‐mail to Deans Lennie and Culver on January 3, 2017 with
suggestions for improvements to the investigation process for complaints like those against Jaeger, plus evidence that they were needed; and
j. Expressing concerns to DeAngelis that the decisions to not hire Heilbronner and to not take reasonable and customary steps to retain Hayden were retaliatory toward them both and, by extension (via truncated research collaborations), toward Cantlon, Kidd, Piantadosi, and Mahon.
314. As a direct result of her protected activities and in retaliation for them, the University took materially adverse actions against Kidd. The core of the University’s retaliatory actions focused on harming Kidd’s reputation and status in BCS and the greater academic community by falsely characterizing her as a liar who spread misinformation about Jaeger to get back at him. The retaliatory efforts were continuous and included, without limitation:
a. Violating Kidd’s confidentiality by not protecting disclosure of her name as one of the witnesses to Jaeger’s misconduct in the Nearpass Report.