However, the university withheld some complaints because it is sending the respondents named in them legal notices that give them a chance to seek a court order to stop release to the public.

In the aforementioned sexual assault case, an UWM official whose name is redacted asked for UW-Milwaukee’s Office of Equity and Diversity Services’ assistance in investigating a sexual assault allegation which was made against a professor by a student at a different university. The student alleged the misconduct occurred during a research project, documents show. The other university is not named.

The request for an investigation was made in 2013, but the files released by UWM contain a 2018 letter from Jamie Cimpl-Wiemer, interim director for EDS, that indicates that a review showed “the file… does not contain a report or memorandum indicating the disposition of this matter, which you requested that EDS investigate via a letter to former EDS Director Francene Botts-Butler dated May 16, 2013.”

The letter then states that a review of the file was conducted in 2018 and Cimpl-Wiemer “concluded that there is insufficient evidence of a connection between the alleged incident which prompted your investigation request and (redacted) work (i.e., his teaching and research) at UWM to permit further investigation as EDS does not investigate conduct which is unrelated to a faculty member’s work at UWM. Thus, EDS is closing its investigation of this matter.”

Asked whether that case was ever investigated in 2013, UWM’s spokeswoman Michelle Johnson told Media Milwaukee: “I do not have any information other than what was in the file given to you. However, I would note that the letter from the interim director of EDS says that ‘I have conducted a review of all the materials contained within the physical file which EDS maintained regarding this matter. From that review, I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence of a connection between the alleged incident which prompted your investigation request and work (i.e., his teaching and research) at UWM to permit further investigation as EDS does not investigate conduct which is unrelated to a faculty member’s work at UWM. Thus, EDS is closing its investigation of this matter.’ That indicates that some investigation was done to determine jurisdiction.”

You can see those documents in this batch of 2013 files released by UWM (the other years’ documents can be reviewed later in this story):

Read the most recent documents here:

In one instance, a professor was accused of having sexual intercourse after a night of drinking with a student from another university who was considering applying to UWM. “A UWM professor using a professional conference to engage in a sexual relationship with an undergraduate student is troubling behavior,” the provost determined, but the university found there was insufficient evidence that the conduct was non-consensual or that sexual harassment or assault occurred. “The Student readily acknowledged that she could not recall whether she ultimately consented to sexual intercourse with the Respondent and admitted that she may have said yes,” EDS documents allege.

In another complaint, allegations were made against a direct supervisor alleging that the person told rude jokes, showed the complainant pictures of women he found attractive and responded to her rejection by removing her work duties and reassigning them. However, the respondent alleged that the complainant was using the complaint to have her duties reinstated. EDS found there was insufficient evidence to support her complaint, and the provost upheld this decision.

In some cases, EDS found some wrongdoing but no sexual harassment finding, such as when the office noted in a 2016 decision: “EDS next considers whether the one-time act of touching a female employee on the leg, while making a sexually suggestive comment, rises to the level of sexual harassment contemplated by law. EDS finds that while such behavior is inappropriate in the workplace, it does not rise to the level of sexual harassment as contemplated by the law. Nonetheless, the conduct is unacceptable in the workplace….Although the singular incident does not rise to the level of sexual harassment, it is unacceptable and should be subject to disciplinary action.”

That decision came despite, as EDS noted in the decision, “the Respondent was previously the subject of disciplinary action as a result of inappropriately touching employees, and was put on notice that such behavior would not be tolerated.”

In another case where EDS found insufficient evidence of sexual harassment, the provost noted in his decision: “However, I am still concerned that the Respondent’s behavior may be inconsistent with our legitimate workplace expectations. In particular, EDS found that the Respondent subjected a UWM undergraduate student to inappropriate physical contact, including purposefully touching her arm and thigh during, and giving her an unsolicited hug following, a meeting at to discuss her mid-term performance.”

The provost, Johannes Britz, continued: “While the Respondent denied touching or hugging her, he explained to EDS ‘I do not know how much you get out into the world … but a parting hug today after a meeting is a lot more common than in [sic] used to be. No longer is it strictly a handshake.’ This has not been my experience with the world, nor is unsolicited and unwanted touching or hugging consistent with my expectation for our academic environment.”

Here are the complaints and decisions for the year 2014:

The number of sexual harassment and sexual assault complaints against faculty and staff was a story that first broke in a Media Milwaukee investigation in late December which discovered at least 37 complaints had been made against UWM faculty and staff since 2013. Media Milwaukee journalists began pursuing the individual complaints and decisions.

According to Public Records Custodian Julie Kipp, the request for these detailed complaints, which has been pending, in one form, since Nov. 17, was fulfilled after consideration of the larger public context, such as media interest swirling around #MeToo and other movements.

Read 2016 documents here:

“In light of various media requests concerning this topic, there is a broad public interest in these records,” Kipp wrote in the letter. However, the university also indicated that, in some cases, it was giving employees notice that they could object to the release in court, a process commonly referred to as Woznicki.

UW-Milwaukee’s release comes on the heels of UW-Madison, which previously released its documents after receiving a request in February. Both UW-Milwaukee and UW-Madison’s documents contained redactions of identifying respondent and complainant information, as well as work locations.

In her letter, Kipp noted that records were only being released for sexual harassment and assault cases “handled centrally by UWM’s Office of Equity and Diversity.”

Read the 2015 complaints and decisions here:

A Media Milwaukee student journalist also has two pending actions for separate documents relating to a UWM professor. In one instance, the student journalist, acting in her individual capacity, filed an action against UWM asking a judge to review a document that the university has refused to release due to attorney-client privilege. In the second instance, the student journalist filed a complaint with the state Attorney General’s office seeking a ruling on the Milwaukee Police Department’s refusal to release a report into the same professor that was described by police as involving alleged sexual assault records. Those actions are pending.

The university provided Media Milwaukee with a link to the complaints, EDS decisions, and provost decisions since 2013 in the late evening of April 24, 2018. In another complaint released by the university, a complainant reportedly refused to cooperate with the EDS investigation after a third-party complaint was filed after the complainant said she received explicit text messages and messages with the respondent’s genitals, was lured her to his house for a sexual overture and fired for rejecting his advances. The respondent denied the accusations and although he admitted such messages might exist, he claimed they were likely given to the complainant by his former girlfriend, documents alleged.

Other complaints alleged things like unwanted touching or texts that allegedly stated “I want you so bad.” Respondents denied the conduct in some of the cases.

The post UW-Milwaukee Releases Sexual Assault & Harassment Cases appeared first on UW-Milwaukee Investigation.

UW-Madison paid out more than $500,000 to settle sexual harassment and other alleged misconduct claims against employees in the past 10 years, the records, obtained by Media Milwaukee through an open records request, show.  In 2017, an academic staff member was accused of sexually assaulting a student and was terminated. In another case involving a teaching assistant, a student alleged to campus authorities, “I am angry, concerned and appalled that he is still TAing. He is preying on young women and is a predator.”

Six-figure settlements were reached with an employee who alleged that lewd pictures were left on a cart and another who accused the university of transferring the complainant after she alleged she was retaliated against for rejecting a co-worker’s sexual advances. One accusation involved sexual pictures of a cow. Several Latina employees filed actions alleging mistreatment.

The document release by Madison comes as UW-Milwaukee still has not released its sexual harassment and/or sexual assault complaints, despite a Media Milwaukee request that was first filed last November for two years of the complaints. In December, the student news site expanded its request to include 2015 and all sexual assault complaints since 2013. In contrast, the open records request to Madison was made in February.

Enlarge

The details at the state’s flagship university in Madison were revealed for the first time in two sets of documents: One batch of records contains complaints handled centrally by UW-Madison’s Office of Compliance. The other set of documents involves accusations that led to lawsuits and state Department of Workforce Development claims. You can read the documents later in this story.

In one case released by UW-Madison, a respondent was accused of giving unsolicited back rubs and claiming former President George W. Bush had done the same thing to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. That same respondent was accused of commenting that a student would look good as an alien character from the movie “Avatar.” In another complaint, a different respondent was accused of forcing a student to have sex with him in his office on her first official day, then asking her to communicate with him via a social app.

A professor allegedly commented on women wearing skirts while playing the game Twister, and he was accused of saying,  “Oh, I wouldn’t mind that.” Yet another staff member was accused of asking an underage student to go to a social event called Afrovibe Soiree. In case after case, though, the respondents pushed back, in some cases denying the allegations outright.

Survivor Services is here to support you: https://t.co/SQHzSOiM4U

Victim Advocacy Open Access (drop-in)
Mon-Wed 1-4pm, Thur-Fri 9am-noon pic.twitter.com/8iQGbhR53V

— UHS UW-Madison (@UHS_Madison) April 9, 2018

In multiple cases, investigators at UW-Madison determined that the sexual harassment and/or sexual assault allegations were not supported with sufficient evidence, sometimes ruling the behavior inappropriate all the same. That’s despite cases that had corroboration from respondent statements and witnesses, in some instances.

Altogether, UW-Madison’s Chancellor Rebecca Blank said in a written statement that the university recorded 20 cases over the past the 10 years, adding that “some were resolved at the departmental level while others resulted in formal complaints and investigations or lawsuits. Outcomes varied – some individuals were found responsible and faced action up to and including termination.”

Never-before-seen redacted complaints filed against UW-Madison faculty and staff were made public in response to the open records request filed by Media Milwaukee on Feb. 6, 2018. At least 13 complaints related to sexual misconduct were handled since 2009 centrally by UW-Madison’s Office of Compliance, formerly the Office for Equity and Diversity.

In contrast, about 40 employees were accused of sexual misconduct between 2013-2017 at UW-Milwaukee, the student news site previously uncovered. Most did not result in violations found. UWM’s chancellor, Mark Mone, noted in a previous campus-wide email that the law “sometimes requires notice to the subject of the requested information.”

However, UW-Madison has now provided some full, albeit redacted complaints, which provide more details into how the university handles sexual harassment and sexual assault accusations against staff.

Enlarge

According to Lisa Hull, public records custodian for UW-Madison, redactions were made due to student privacy laws. Other redactions involved complainant and witness names and identifying information, respondent names where a violation was not found and of highly-personal information. The details of the Madison complaints were provided so “the totality of the situation can be generally understood.” UW-Madison released the names of three of those accused.

Media Milwaukee had asked UW-Madison for all sexual harassment and/or assault complaints against employees in a teaching or supervisory role since 2014. The university additionally provided the student news site with “complaints received by the Office of Compliance prior to 2014, lawsuits and settlements from 2008-2017 and complaints within the Department of Sociology from 2008 to present.”

Blank, in a written statement, also summarized past cases and current steps being taken to improve responses.

According to Blank, historically much of the reporting and response occurred at the departmental level, but now all complaints must be reported to the campus Title IX Coordinator so that all complaints are centrally known.

“It’s likely that the number of sexual harassment complaints and investigations will increase as a result of these efforts. If so, that’s not cause for discouragement,” said Blank. “We know that most incidents of sexual harassment, like sexual assault, go unreported but that as awareness increases, more people feel able to come forward.”

Blank wrote a blog post in January about UW-Madison’s efforts to improve the response to these issues.

“Here at UW, our efforts to combat sexual harassment began before the issue made headlines and I assure you they will continue,” said Blank.

Here are summaries of the documents released, along with embeds leading to the full reports.

Allegation: ‘He’s Mine’

An employee alleged inappropriate and offensive comments and false accusations by a coworker. The complaint also alleged that a hostile work environment and pattern of harassment existed in a lab allegedly known as a difficult unit because of a history of staff conflicts.

The respondent was accused of saying “he’s mine” to a male complainant. The complainant alleged he was falsely accused of calling the respondent “f*cking condescending.” The respondent was found to have engaged in one incident of inappropriate and offensive behavior, but there was no gender discrimination found.  

Allegation: Avatar & Shoulder Massages

This complaint named the respondent as Jeff Vogtschaller, senior instrumentation specialist and botany facilities manager. He was accused of sexual discrimination and of displaying an alleged pattern of offensive and sexually harassing behavior. The investigation found evidence that supports the conclusion that respondent engaged in sexual harassment from 2005 to 2011, but not in recent years. He was given a written warning.

Among other accusations, he was accused of hugging the complainant from behind and saying that was his birthday present to her. In his appeal, the respondent stated that one allegation “reads like a bad scene from a cheap romance novel.” He was accused of gesturing for the complainant to sit on his lap, allegedly saying, “I’m kidding…”

When the complainant was running up and down stairs, Vogtschaller allegedly said “quit teasing me like that.” He was accused of touching the complainant’s shoulder in an elevator despite being told to stop. She could not provide specific dates in some cases, though. Vogtschaller clarified or denied accusations raised in the complaint, saying of one of them: “This is the action of an annoying 7-year-old. I didn’t even do things like this when I was seven and I’m not stupid.” He also said he doubted he would recognize the complainant on the street.

Investigators recommended that the respondent meet with the Title IX coordinator and suggested that the department review its protocols for documenting potential sexual harassment to avoid problems by administrative turnover. They also stated that future violations will result in disciplinary action.

The respondent appealed, and he was also notified there was an open records request pending for the complaint. He fought back against accusations, writing the university at one point, “I am extremely disappointed that I wasn’t given at least ten minutes to explain some of the very slanted conclusions in the OC report. I have gone through more than a year of hell caused by these allegations. I deserve better treatment than this.”

He was accused at one point of making a comment about the movie “Avatar,” However, the respondent clarified that that he had said the other person would look good as an Avatar alien, and that it was another person who said “You mean blue and naked.” He added: “BTW, the aliens in Avatar were blue but, while their clothing was scant, they weren’t naked.”

The respondent allegedly admitted giving shoulder massages to rock climbing friends. He defended the behavior by allegedly saying, “President Bush had just done the same thing to the German Chancellor…This type of physical contact is inappropriate by me or a President and I am sorry.”

Allegation: Uncomfortable Comments

This complaint named the respondent as Dr. Steven Oakes. He was accused of discriminating against two unidentified individuals based on sex and allegedly subjecting them to sexual harassment by asking person questions and making inappropriate comments. The university said his conduct did not rise to the level of a sex discrimination or sexual harassment policy violation. However, he was removed from his teaching position and directorship, according to UW-Madison, and notified that his conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional. His appointment was not renewed.

Oakes was a clinical assistant professor, program director, adviser and lecturer. Complaints were filed by the two individuals separately. The individuals were allegedly asked if they were involved in a dating/intimate relationship and whether they were interested in dating someone he knew. He also was accused of having solicited hugs, described a female classmate as a “sexual animal” and wanting to know whether the two complainants planned on having children.

One complainant said Oakes discriminated against her and sexually harassed her. At a one-on-one advisory meeting, he allegedly asked if she had a boyfriend. He also allegedly asked her if she wanted children, allegedly quipping, “You’re so smart, don’t you think it’s your duty to society to reproduce.” He also referred to her as an, “intelligent, beautiful young lady” and gave her a hug which made her feel uncomfortable, the documents allege.

Oakes was also accused of asking a complainant, “are you going to text your boyfriend?” In the same interaction, he allegedly responded to the complainant’s comment that inviting women wearing skirts to play the game Twister, by remarking, “Oh, I wouldn’t mind that.”

Complainants said that although Oakes’ behavior made them feel uncomfortable, they were afraid that he could damage their professional and/or academic careers and therefore, chose to stay silent.

For his part, Oakes denied discrimination or crossing professional boundaries and claimed to treat all students with respect. At one point, he said that he treated students “the same way I deal with my own children.” Although he admitted to giving hugs, he said he did so to gain trust. He also acknowledged asking students about whether they were in relationships or wanted children, yet justified these questions as routine, conversational inquiries and a way to gain insight into students’ level of commitment to their careers.

Oakes stated that one of the complainants “felt that her accomplishments and identity were being taken away from her” and felt threatened by her male lab partner due to her “abnormal competitive nature.”

He went on to describe how one of the complainants’ allegations were “simply ridiculous,” “disturbing,” and merely a way for the complainant to support her “distorted view.”

Allegation: Boundary-crossing Behavior

This complaint involved a respondent who was accused of sex-based discrimination. At one point, he fought to have the term sexual harassment removed from the decision because neither a notification document nor a request for a meeting referred to sexual harassment.

The respondent was accused of inviting the complainant to an underage child’s birthday party. The respondent disputed various details, such as whether or not an establishment he allegedly invited the underage complainant to was considered solely a bar (where an Afrovibe Soiree event was being held). The respondent states, “I understood that [REDACTED] would no longer be sitting right outside my office…That has not been the case, and I have tried to not say anything about it. However, today, she has been camped out there pretty much all afternoon…I have kept my door closed out of an abundance of caution.”

Some witnesses gave negative comments about the respondent to investigators. The witness information also suggested that some of the casual, sometimes allegedly boundary-crossing behavior could be attributed to social awkwardness. One witness also suggested that the respondent does not understand “how overtures from your boss or an older man [may] seem” and that such behavior does not “feel friendly” but instead feels like “boundary-crossing.”

While the university found “insufficient evidence to substantiate” the claims and found no policy violation, the university made the respondent aware that his actions were allegedly “inappropriate and unprofessional.”

Allegation: Objectifying the Female Body

This complaint involved a respondent who was an instructor in a summer training program, and who was a current lecturer at UC-Berkeley. The respondent resigned from summer program at UW-Madison following the allegations. The complaint alleged that he committed sex-based discrimination and created a hostile, intimidating or offensive educational environment

The respondent was also accused of making a series of social media posts incorrectly assuming the identity of complainant. He allegedly described the complainant as “ungrateful” and “twisted.”

Although he assumed it was one of two female students, the complainant was neither. Because of the social media posts, the accuser’s name was not released. The respondent allegedly presented pictures of ex-girlfriends who were “younger” and of “lower socioeconomic status” and “in a way that objectifies and eroticizes the female body just to teach the [redacted] term for ‘girlfriend/boyfriend,’” documents accused.

He was accused of “socializing us [the Respondent’s students] to think of  [redacted] females as objects.” He was also accused of showing favoritism towards specific female students. He strenuously denied the accusations. Investigators determined there was insufficient evidence of sex-based discrimination but found some of the behavior concerning, especially the social media posts.

Allegation: Touching & Comments

This complaint names Emeritus Sociology Professor John DeLamater, who was accused of discriminating against a female complainant and 18-year employee at UW-Madison by creating a “hostile, intimidating and offensive work environment,” making strange sexual statements, invading personal space and engaging in “offensive ‘lower-back touching.'” The OC determined that DeLamater “subjected a number of graduate students to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that created an uncomfortable and offensive learning environment [which] constitutes sexual harassment.”  DeLamater passed away while the case was pending.

DeLamater was accused of saying, “Someone can sit on my lap” before turning to the complainant and asking, “How about you?” He recalled making those comments, yet stated it was a commentary on the complainant’s complaints about the limited seating space available for those attending a meeting. DeLamater was also accused of intentionally leaning against the complainant’s breasts during a meeting to speak to a colleague seated next to her. Although the complainant eventually left the meeting, DeLamater stated that any such contact would have been incidental and completely unintentional.

At a party for prospective graduate students at DeLamater’s home, the complainant stated that he offered her and another employee wine and at one point, attempted to pull her close to him and ask if she was still a single mother. The complainant said she left “shaken” and “afraid.” However, DeLamater used a contemporaneous email in which she thanked him for hosting the party and mentioned nothing of the incident as evidence that no such contact occurred.

The complainant also said she was slated to attend a presentation DeLamater was giving on “Sexuality as We Age,” and when the presentation was cancelled, DeLamater offered to give his talk if she “bought him a drink.” DeLamater denied intentionally upsetting the complainant with his request.

In his defense, DeLamater said the complainant made herself a “‘go-to-person'” for graduate students struggling with unwanted sexual tension and implied that she was motivated by multiple complaints those graduate students made against him.

Allegation: Sexual Assault

This complaint alleges that the respondent pursued a sexual relationship with the complainant over text messages and social media, and made sexually explicit remarks and requests while at work and work-related events. He was terminated from the university, which did not release his name to protect the identity of the complainant.

The respondent was accused of calling the complainant into the office and touching her thighs and buttocks; after she said she needed to leave and wasn’t interested, the complainant allegedly told her he would not let her leave until she complied. The complainant reported the unwanted activity and was removed from the work environment and a No Contact Directive was issued to respondent.

The respondent allegedly came into complainant’s office area on her first official day of work, flirted, told her she was “so sexy,” and told her to come into his office, closed the door behind her, and wheeled his office chair over to block the door. He was accused of commenting how he wanted to sleep with her. The complainant protested, saying, “you’re married,” and the respondent started allegedly touching her over her clothes despite her trying to stop him, and allegedly held her between his legs when she tried to leave. He was accused of pressing her to lay down, removed her pants, and, the documents allege, the “Complainant said she eventually stopped moving or engaging at all, and he eventually finished.”

He’s accused of having continued to harass her after incident despite complainant’s attempts to avoid him. She was an undergraduate student. The respondent was allegedly secretive about messages, vague, and had her download private messaging app “SOMA.”

The respondent alleged of the accusations that “zero is true” and claimed Facebook messages were fake. University investigators felt that messages were real. They found that the respondent engaged in unwanted verbal  conduct and sexual comments and was exploiting uneven power dynamics of their relationship. The OC found the “respondent’s conduct severe enough to have created an intimidating, offensive, and hostile environment.”

Allegation: Pole Dancing References

This complaint alleged that an instructor got a student’s phone number, texts felt inappropriately personal, and that the instructor made comments in class, references to pole dancing and “someone complimenting him on his sexy body.” The student withdrew from the university and, the documents allege, the instructor had previously had training after a female student raised issues in 2011. The evidence was found to support the complainant’s allegation of sexual harassment. The instructor allegedly understood some of his behavior was questionable and overly social and signed a resolution.

Allegation: Verbal Comments on Pregnancy

The complaint involved a female who alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by a supervisor. However, retaliation was not found. Nor was sexual harassment. The allegations revolved around claims about verbal comments on pregnancy and muscles. Witnesses denied making comments alleged, however.

Allegation: Sexual Slurs

This complaint alleged that the respondent called the complainant a whore, b*tch, and slut. He was accused of calling her a pirate hooker and dirty whore in texts. Some witness comments were possibly based on the politics of the environment, according to documents. Investigators found insufficient evidence for sexual harassment. The documents found a climate of name-calling that allegedly occurred after a friendship ruptured.

Allegation: Sexual Harassment & Retaliation

This complaint alleged sexual harassment by managers and staff, sexually hostile work environment, and retaliation against two employees in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UW School of Medicine and Public Health. It was determined that there was insufficient evidence for the allegations.

The accusations were that the complainant was subjected to graphic references of sexual activities, and pervasive use of crude, disrespectful, and offensive language. These were found to be normal, sometimes unpleasant workplace interactions, and the complainant was fired because of alleged non discriminatory reasons.

Settlement: Alleged Disparate Treatment

A Latina Woman from University Housing filed a complaint against her superior in February of 2016.

She reported similar treatment to that mentioned in other complaints. This case was also dual-filed through the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The total settlement amount was $5,500.

Settlement: Alleged Racial Comments

About three years prior, in July 2013, a similar report was filed with the EEOC Equal Rights Division (ERD). The woman filed a complaint stating that she was discriminated against because she was a Latina woman. She worked in University Housing and reported having been harassed from April 2011 until the time that she filed.

“My supervisor has been harass(ing) me. I believe because of my race, sex, national origin and language (spanish),” wrote the complainant. “When I bring my food in to work I put my food in the closet and every time my supervisor sees the food he pushes it away. He says it smells bad (I bring Mexican food to work).”

The complainant also highlighted times in which she was denied the same things as American, English-speaking female and male counterparts, like overtime and occasional weekends off.

“He has called me a ‘f*cking Mexican’ and is mad that I have permanent work and benefits when he does not,” she alleged. “For me it is exhausting to work in a place of discrimination and racism. It has been a terrible experience. I feel emotionally and physically affected. I feel unprotected and humiliated by the treatment that my supervisors have given me.”

She noted that the supervisor had allegedly walked in on her using the bathroom and then given her separate rules about bathroom usage. It was stated in the report that after allegedly receiving provocative and inappropriate texts from a coworker and reporting the message reading “I want to grab your ass,” to the supervisors she was forced to sign a sheet saying she would not use her phone at work.

In terms of settlement, the complainant received $4,333 dollars after withholdings and disciplinary actions against her in the human resources systems were removed. The settlement was reached in nearly two years later, in April 2015. The total settlement was $6,500.

Settlement: Alleged Male Cow Photo

In 2009, a female employee filed a complaint after alleging that she had endured months of vile comments, threats from HR and an unfair termination. Apart from being subjected to a “hostile, abusive, intimidating, offensive, demeaning” workplace, the complainant said sexual comments were frequently made both in and out of her presence. At one point, she allegedly heard references to a “f***er” and “d***e-bag” and comments about a female physician’s midriff.

The complainant said she was also asked to rate the looks of a physician’s photo on her computer screen and sent sexually suggestive cartoons of a male cow “humping a female cow while she was pinned with her head to the ground.” The complainant further alleged that such images were sent regularly to several women of the office.

The complainant “was in tears over his behavior and met with [name redacted] about it in his office.” However, she said was only told that she probably didn’t belong in the job despite good work and 20 emails with positive feedback. When she contacted HR to file a complaint in May, the complainant stated that the HR representative pulled out a poor performance review and declared she would soon be fired.

The complainant was reassigned and eventually submitted documents supporting her claim that she had been unfairly terminated. An investigation found that although many of the alleged offender’s actions had been memorialized in writing, she was still terminated. She was awarded a $50,000 judgment.

Settlement: Alleged Shared Bathrooms & Retaliation

This action was against employees of the UW Department of Facilities Planning and Management. The only female worker alleged she had to share a locker room and bathrooms with male co-workers for almost two years. One of the supervisors allegedly made unwanted sexual advances, and when he was rejected he allegedly disciplined her and gave her unfair work compared to her male co-workers, documents contend.

The UW was accused of transferring the plaintiff rather than addressing the problem and then placing her on unpaid administrative leave for rejecting the transfer. A settlement was reached in the amount of $250,000.

The post UW-Madison Releases Sexual Harassment, Assault Complaints appeared first on UW-Milwaukee Investigation.

Internal documents obtained by Media Milwaukee show Britz encouraged the student, who worked on campus, to contact UWM police about her safety concerns, and EDS reached out to police supervisor Brian Switala about a possible intermediate safety measure in the student’s case, even though Switala was accused of sexual harassment in an unrelated matter not long before. Switala’s complaint was pending at the time; Britz eventually found no violation against Switala – again disagreeing with the equity investigator – on the same day the provost ruled in the student’s case. Both cases were in 2015.

In the texting case, the former student said the alleged behavior started in May of 2015, when her supervisor was accused of sending her at least 34 drunken texts in just over three hours, such as, “You are a beautiful woman,” “Gorgeous is how I would describe you. Butifule (sic) women. I can’t describe how Butifule (sic) you are,” “[s]o if you ever feel down you can always call me up and I’ll make you smile cuz you make me smile,” and “Lol . . . I’m just going to keep bugging you until you get me fired.” At one point, according to the documents, he texted the word “drunk.”

The next day, he apologized, writing “ugh…sorry about the texts,” documents show. The female student further alleged that the supervisor, who still works at UWM, then retaliated against her through a series of actions, allegedly requiring her to attend one-on-one, non-work-related meetings and showing a “weird obsession” with her whereabouts, along with other things that troubled her. “I live in constant fear of my safety,” the student told officials, the documents showed. Neither Britz nor EDS sided with the student on the retaliation angle.

However, the provost’s decision on the sexual harassment question marks the third confirmed time that Britz has ruled differently from EDS since 2015. In the student’s case and in another from 2015, he included commentary in his decision which implied that a complainant’s failure to confront a respondent immediately makes complaints less viable. The texting case documents can be read later in this story.

Enlarge

In the female student’s case, although Britz called the supervisor’s texts “entirely inappropriate,” Britz wrote that the case did not violate the university’s Discriminatory Conduct policy governing sexual harassment, in part because “the Complainant responded nine times to the Respondent’s 35 text messages. In none of her nine responses did she indicate that his texts were unwelcome or ask him to stop.”

Britz noted that the then-student wrote back “OK haha” to one text and wrote, “It’s fine really I know you were not in your normal mindset and I think we should just forget about it.” In contrast, EDS wrote, “EDS determines that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of Discrimination and Sexual Harassment against the Respondent regarding the text messages sent to the Complainant commenting on her physical appearance and gender.”

Britz’s written comments and subsequent “no violation” for sexual harassment shocked the now former student. The provost has the final say.

“I’m speechless, still, that they said that,” she said.

Astar Herndon, Wisconsin state director of 9to5, an organization that works on women’s issues, said the burden on complainants to demonstrate that such advances and behaviors are unwelcome is culturally tilted against them.

“[There’s] this unspoken thought that the woman has done something to encourage or prompt these unwanted experiences,” she said.

As Media Milwaukee uncovered in December of 2017, UWM has had 37 complaints of alleged sexual assault and harassment against professors and staff since 2013. The young woman’s case is one of those complaints.

UWM has not yet released the complaints and decisions, despite Media Milwaukee’s open records request. The student news site first requested two years of the complaints and decisions on Nov. 17, 2017 and asked for the 2015 sexual harassment complaints and decisions and all sexual assault complaints and decisions since 2013 on Dec. 28, 2017.

That request is still pending. The university says it may be legally obligated to provide notices to the accused. Media Milwaukee obtained the alleged drunken texting decisions from a source, not the university.

Britz found a “violation” in only 11 sexual harassment and sexual assault cases filed against staff since 2013 (he found “no violation” in all cases in 2015). Those details derive from a chart that the university sent Media Milwaukee.

It listed Britz’s finding for each case. Asked to provide EDS outcomes to compare how often Britz reached a different decision than the equity office’s recommendations, UWM told Media Milwaukee there was no responsive document.

UWM police contacted

Media Milwaukee previously discovered, through sources, two other instances of the provost finding no violation when EDS ruled otherwise – both also in 2015 and involving then-supervisors in the UW-Milwaukee Police Department, including former Sgt. Switala, who has since been promoted to lieutenant. It now turns out that the equity office contacted Switala in connection with the student complaint in the unrelated texting matter.

The EDS complaint in the texting case indicates that “immediately upon receiving the Complaint and meeting with the Complainant and her mother,” EDS contacted various UWM supervisors, including “UWM Police Sergeant, Brian Switala to implement Intermediate Measures to ensure a safe work environment and to limit any contact between and (sic) Complainant and the Respondent.” The complaint alleging sexual harassment against Switala was one of several involving UWM police that were made in May 2015 by anonymous people, the university has said; the unrelated texting case complaint was filed in July 2015 (the office where the student worked was not the Police Department).

“I understand that the Complainant was referred to the UWM Police Department to discuss her concerns, and I would encourage her to follow up with it if she continues to feel unsafe,” Britz wrote in the texting decision, finding of the supervisor in the texting case, “I do not see any evidence to suggest that the Respondent poses any threat or that there is a factual basis for such fear.”

Asked about the appropriateness of Switala being contacted about the student’s case when there was a complaint against him, Michelle Johnson, who is UWM’s sr. director of Integrated Marketing & Communications, told Media Milwaukee that “an EDS staff member contacted Sgt. Switala about the SAFEWALK program — which is managed by the police department — in order to refer (the student accuser) to the program. My understanding is that the referral did not result in a request for SAFEWALK services, and that was the end of Sgt. Switala’s involvement.”

She added: “According to the police chief, it is common for staff members from various campus units to contact police for information about the SAFEWALK program, and it is within the scope of police supervisors’ duties to provide background on how the program works. Sgt. Switala was a supervisor at that time. Therefore, it was appropriate for EDS to contact Sgt. Switala in this instance for this specific form of assistance.”

Enlarge

In the texting case, the young woman, who wishes to remain unnamed, provided documentation to Media Milwaukee of her complaint against the university manager who supervised her.

“I thought it was completely inappropriate,” the student said in an interview with the student news site, adding, “I graduated a year and a half ago and he was still there and there was no real push to get him out.”

Media Milwaukee is not naming the supervisor to protect the identity of the accuser. The supervisor in the case was a non-instructional supervisor of the student on campus.

In a statement to Media Milwaukee, the supervisor wrote, “As described in the aforementioned EDS complaint, I conducted myself irresponsibly. I complied and cooperated throughout the university’s investigation. UWM’s ruling outlined disciplinary requirements, which I have since completed. I have no further comment on this issue.” The EDS complaint says the man was “extremely remorseful and ashamed” and told investigators he’d been out drinking when friends when the texting occurred. However, after apologizing to the student for the texts, the supervisor allegedly wrote her again, writing, “we’ll get ice cream tomorrow, it’s on me,” documents show.

In his response letter, Britz wrote, “After reviewing the file, I am again unable to find that the Respondent’s behavior prior to the Complainant’s EDS complaint constituted harassment within the meaning of UWM’s policy or the law.”

Although he found that there was no violation, he wrote, “I agree that these texts were wholly inappropriate,” and advised that the Respondent be required to attend Title IX and professionalism training as well as have a letter placed in his file; in his conclusion, Britz added, “I commend the Complainant for bringing this matter to the University’s attention.”

EDS found that a “reasonable person would find (the text messages) intimidating and sexual in nature.” The provost wrote that he disagreed. He thought they were not intimidating or sexual in nature but were inappropriate.

“Her own text responses did not indicate that his texts were unwelcome or that she viewed them as harassing,” wrote Britz.

UWM’s Discriminatory Conduct policy says, that in order to rise to the level of harassment, the conduct must “unreasonably interfere with the individual’s work…at UWM or create a working…environment that a reasonable person would find threatening or intimidating.” According to Britz’ decision, “under applicable legal standards, an employee alleging sexual harassment based on a hostile environment must show: (1) she or he was subjected to unwelcome conduct; (2) the harassment was based on sex, and (3) the harassment was severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of his or her work environment by creating a hostile or abusive situation; and (4) there is a basis for employer liability.

The Allegations

Enlarge

The complainant said she initially wanted to forget the incident and move forward professionally after receiving the texts. Speaking to Media Milwaukee, she said she was 20-years-old at the time and, “need[ed] the job to live.”

However, after the text messages, she alleged that her supervisor began mandating hour-long meetings with her twice a week.

It was a pace so frequent, even his manager noticed; as the EDS report alleged: “a supervisor addressed the long meetings that he was having with the Complainant. The Respondent stated . . . that his intentions were to be a mentor to the Complainant.”

The complainant said the meetings lacked professional content and made her even more uncomfortable. In addition to this, she also alleged that he started requiring her to turn in personal projects to discuss during their meetings, although the additional work was unpaid and took time away from her job duties.

In the EDS report, her supervisor said he “encouraged” her to do personal projects to “ease the struggle with the technical aspect of her job because she had an “artistic perspective.”

However, the complainant saw them as excuses for requiring more one-on-one time with her.

“[He said], ‘If you don’t do personal work, that might affect your personal career here,’” the complainant said. “I told him that was not possible — my schedule was too rigorous.”

In the EDS report, her supervisor said he “told her to stop” the activity he had merely “encouraged” once she told him she didn’t have time for any more personal projects. However, he denied saying she might not be assigned preferred projects.

Nonetheless, at the complainant’s request, he was removed as her supervisor, and she was put under a different manager, whom she acknowledged did his best to “ease the transition.”

“Everybody knew there was something going on,” she said, “but nobody knew what.”

The Aftermath

Enlarge

The complainant alleged that the harassment continued in the form of retaliation after she filed her complaint, although neither EDS nor the provost agreed with that in their decisions.

For example, she said her supervisor allegedly violated the Intermediate Measures preventing him from assigning her any projects when he indirectly assigned her a rush order. It was noted in the EDS report that the rush order was assigned although she was not scheduled to be “on call” and additionally included how she said, “she was not provided with the ‘assets’ to complete the project within its deadline.”

The respondent also acknowledged requesting that she close out her hours on a project in the proofing stage through email correspondence with her new supervisor, which she once again interpreted as a violation of the Intermediate Measures, according to the EDS complaint.

In an amendment to her original complaint, she stated that she wanted him fired because his behavior had evolved into an alleged pattern.

“I wanted him to be fired,” she acknowledged.

In his ruling disagreeing with the student’s claims of alleged retaliation, Britz stated that her promotion was held at the request of a different employee than the respondent and that he could only recommend – not control – promotions.

Ultimately, EDS found that her supervisor had, “violated the UWM’S Discriminatory Conduct Policy (Including Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence) relating to the text messages.”

The complainant said that despite this finding, EDS’s recommendation was lukewarm.

“It is the recommendation that the Respondent attend and complete sensitivity training,” the EDS complaint read.

“I had timelines with me,” the former student told Media Milwaukee. “I had examples. [The result] was a professional growth opportunity for him,” she said.

Eleven days following her initial complaint, she appealed for more stringent action.

Provost Britz disagreed with this appeal and the EDS conclusion, writing that the allegations did not constitute sexual harassment and adding, “While these messages, in both content and number, were inappropriate, I would not characterize them as ‘intimidating,’ nor were they in any way ‘sexual in nature.’ . . . It appears that the Respondent’s inappropriate text messages caused the Complainant to view all of their subsequent interactions with suspicion.”

During a previous interview with Media Milwaukee, Britz said decisions he makes siding differently than EDS were “very rare.” In that earlier interview, which occurred before the student journalists obtained the texting case documents, Britz said, “My philosophy in responding to allegations of sexual harassment is first to ensure a fair and impartial process that respects the dignity and privacy of all parties. I also review investigatory findings against applicable legal standards and UWM policies and procedures.” You can read more from his interview here.

The student’s case is not the first time that Britz implied that complainants should be responsible for confronting respondents about their behavior before filing a complaint if they want those complaints to have credibility.

For example, in Switala’s case, Britz wrote, “At no point did the female officer indicate to the Respondent that she found his comments inappropriate or that he was making her uncomfortable” and “I also note that not a single witness reported telling the Respondent that they found his behavior offensive or inappropriate or that he made them uncomfortable.”

Herndon of 9to5, the national organization with state chapters dedicated to addressing workplace harassment for women, said it isn’t reasonable to expect employees to confront their supervisors, let alone make complaints, without fear of reprisal.

“I think we have enough history to show that whenever the more powerful entity feels threatened, they will use any measures to remind the less powerful entity where they are supposed to be,” she said.

Herndon also explained that the lack of distinction in regulatory efforts has made ambiguous cases more difficult to adjudicate.

“There needs to be statewide federal policies to regulate how individual businesses interpret how to deal with these situations,” she said. “Because we have not had a standardization, there is no dialogue between a micro aggression and a macro aggression.”

However, Herndon said institutions that don’t acknowledge how a power dynamic affects communication make it more difficult to resolve harassment allegations.

“We have a culture of not believing women,” she said.

In both the police officers’ cases and this one, Britz emphasized the lack of supporting evidence from third parties regarding allegations.

“Several witnesses did comment generally that the Respondent did not treat women equally. One witness indicated that s/he believed that the Respondent felt that women should not be in law enforcement, however, no information was provided to support this belief,” Britz wrote in his letter regarding a second police officer, who has now retired.

Regarding questions about the provost’s decisions, Johnson, sr. director of Integrated Marketing & Communications at UWM, said, “The provost explains his reasoning in his written decisions, and my understanding is that you have requested those decisions. That written record is the best account of his rationale for any decision.”

The student who filed the complaint has since graduated and left the university, yet she said the experience stayed with her.

“I still think about it every time a male coworker gets a little too close,” she added. “It’s been a little bit of an adjustment to kind of relearn what boundaries are acceptable in an office situation and I don’t think that’s ever going to go away.”

As to when Media Milwaukee – and the public – will be able to see the details of the other complaints? UWM’s Public Records Custodian, Julie Kipp, wrote the student journalist in November: “you should know that your request will likely trigger a statutory notice to the subjects of the request, which means even after I’ve completed the location and review, we have to give them a chance to file an injunction under Wis. Stat. 19.356(2)(a).”

However, asked for an update in February, Kipp responded that she was still “working on that request,” adding, “Further, I did not agree to inform you when I sent out the notices as I am not required to do so by law and that is not the practice of this office. I am continuing to balance this request with the hundreds of other requests this office receives and I will give you the documents in accordance with Wisconsin Open Records Law.”

If anyone has any information that would be useful to this ongoing student investigation, you can contact the student reporter Talis Shelbourne at media-milwaukee@uwm.edu.

The post Drunk Texting Sexual Harassment Claim Prompts Conflicting UWM Rulings appeared first on UW-Milwaukee Investigation.

One of those two complaints also involved racial discrimination accusations. Media Milwaukee obtained the decisions in both cases from a source; they are among the many decisions that UWM still has not released despite a pending open records request. You can read the documents in full later in this story. In both 2015 cases, the university’s EDS office found that the police officers engaged in misbehavior (Timothy Hansen of racial discrimination, but not the sexual harassment charge, and Brian Switala for sexual harassment), yet Provost and Vice Chancellor Johannes Britz overturned both decisions, clearing the officers. Britz found “no violation” in every 2015 case and in nearly 70 percent of all cases in the past five years, a Media Milwaukee investigation found. The provost’s decisions are final.

The accusations painted a picture of a police force rife with sexual overtones less than a year after the former police chief was fired after concerns arose about his alleged communications “of a sexual nature” with a student. Then-Sgt. Switala, now a lieutenant, was accused in one of the complaints of allegedly making a sexual joke about a CPR mannequin’s “head busting,” of gawking at female students, making “sexual innuendos” about female officers eating bananas and a custard donut, and commenting about his penis size, according to documents in the case obtained exclusively by Media Milwaukee, and which you can read later in this story.

Switala was engaged to a student, married an officer and dated other co-workers, according to the decisions from the 2015 sexual harassment investigation. He was also previously involved in the high-profile, on-duty fatal shooting of a motorist, Joseph Bauschek, 34,  who was shot in a police pursuit in 2003. Switala testified he feared for his life because the jeep drove toward him; the fatal shot pierced the back of the driver’s seat. An inquest jury found that Switala did not act in self defense but didn’t recommend charges, and none came.

The provost, despite the exoneration findings in the 2015 complaints, nonetheless suggested that the new police chief, Joseph LeMire, who was hired in July 2015 in the midst of the investigations, consider taking steps to improve the climate on the police force, which the UWM PR office acknowledged to Media Milwaukee had an environment where “mutual sexual banter” was common. One step LeMire took to do so, according to an university statement provided to Media Milwaukee: He promoted Switala.

Enlarge

The second accused, Timothy Hansen, a now-retired sergeant who worked at the Milwaukee Police Department before coming to UWM, was accused of racial discrimination in addition to sexual harassment for allegedly saying officers left chicken bones in their squad cars, asking black officers if he’d arrested them before, and allegedly asking women if they were going to “bake for us” and saying they belong “in the kitchen.”

One witness alleged that Hansen referred to black and white police officers in the same car as the “salt and pepper squad,” an apparent reference to the movie Lethal Weapon. He was also accused of commenting that black people don’t play or like hockey and saying of a man on surveillance footage that “he does not look like a bike thief; he’s white.”

Enlarge

“I was exonerated of any wrongdoing,” Hansen told Media Milwaukee in a written statement. Britz told the news site that he strives to accomplish a “a fair and impartial process.”

Britz has acted as Dean of the School of Information Studies as well as the Dean of the College of Health Sciences before he was made a permanent provost in 2012. A double-doctorate and South African native, Britz has degrees in Christian philosophy and Ethics as well as Information Science Ethics. He has also been the permanent provost for six years as the final arbiter of EDS complaints.

In the past five years, there were 37 cases of professors and other staff members accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment at UW-Milwaukee, a Media Milwaukee investigation uncovered. Little is known as most details are still hidden. Despite those numbers, the UW System was only aware of one sexual harassment complaint against UW-Milwaukee faculty or staff in the last 20 years. Media Milwaukee journalists are still seeking more information as the university has yet to comply with a number of open records requests made, including for complaints and decisions. The student news site obtained the decisions involving Switala and Hansen from a source, not the university.

In media statements after the student journalism investigation was published, the university repeatedly stressed that violations were found in only 11 of the cases. However, that doesn’t tell the full story; namely, that Britz has overturned EDS in some cases. Media Milwaukee has a pending open records request to find out all of the EDS outcomes to determine how often Britz overturns the office.

(Update: In a statement emailed to faculty, staff and students shortly after this story was published, UWM’s Chancellor Mark Mone wrote, “Recent nationwide news coverage regarding sexual harassment, and as of last week, local coverage about UWM, demonstrates the need for vigilance and continued attention to this important topic. UWM maintains its stance of taking sexual harassment and misconduct seriously and its commitment to ongoing actions to provide an environment free of such behaviors. As no organization is immune from sexual harassment and misconduct, UWM has policies, procedures and services to address these issues.” Mone also reiterated that the university may provide legal notice to those accused, giving them a chance to block release of the complaints in court. He continued, “Our Office of Equity and Diversity Services (EDS) is available for faculty, staff and students to discuss concerns and file complaints. While even one allegation of sexual harassment or misconduct is too many, EDS data show that formal complaints of sexual harassment and assault have decreased at UWM every year since 2014. In the last five years, there were 40 complaints involving 37 instructors and supervisors. In most cases, the investigation found no violation. In 11 cases in which a violation did occur, appropriate discipline was taken. Most of the violating faculty and staff were terminated or have left the university.”)

In several points in his decisions, Britz cleared the officers because witnesses didn’t complain about their discomfort at the time to the accused or provide specific dates to EDS. Britz noted that one witness said “a good 95 percent” of the police department participates in sexual talk of some nature and another said “sexual joking is very common.”

However, the provost also raised serious questions about the quality of EDS investigations at UWM in the Hansen case; EDS investigates and then refers its findings to Britz, who has the final say.  Hansen complained that witnesses were not recorded and that the EDS findings were rife with factual errors, and Britz acknowledged that there were serious errors in the EDS report, documents show.

For example, Britz found that the EDS investigator didn’t even get the number of years that Hansen had worked at UWM right and accused Hansen of an accusation that a witness had actually alleged to EDS against another officer. Britz also found that “EDS’ notes support the Respondent’s assertion in his appeal that EDS attributes statements to him that he never made.”

Furthermore, although EDS alleged that Hansen made the chicken bones comment about black officers, Britz found that there was no evidence in EDS’ own file that Hansen referred to race when making the remark. Britz said that every comment about race is not discriminatory, depending on the context.

However, Britz admitted to student journalists that he sometimes doesn’t get the full EDS file and generally doesn’t interview the respondent or complainant before making his decisions. In the case of the two officers, though, the original complaints were made anonymously, although 30 witnesses were interviewed in each case, documents show.

“I was not at the department to be their friend, but to be a supervisor,” said Hansen in an email to a student journalist. He then ended the email wishing the student journalist good luck while urging her to be careful on how the students report information and urging her not to “twist” it.

“There were some officers in the UWM Police Department that made it known to me that they resented former Milwaukee Police Department employees being hired by the UWM Police Department when I first got there,” said Hansen, who has since retired. “I believe that the anonymous complaints made against me were part of this resentment.”

Switala, who is now fourth in command on the force, did not comment despite two attempts both in person and writing.

Enlarge

The university promoted Switala to lieutenant the year after the investigation concluded, even though the Equity and Diversity Office ruled that “there was sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of sexual harassment against the Respondent as the Respondent frequently made sexual jokes and innuendos and discussed his penis.”

EDS’ overturned decision had determined the behavior “created a hostile work environment for UWMPD employees” and ultimately recommended discipline and sexual harassment awareness training. According to documents, EDS “indicated in its findings and recommendations that ‘multiple witnesses also stated that the Respondent would openly flirt and request female employees to ‘hang out’ with him. Other witnesses offered that the Respondent has had or attempted to have ‘relations’ with female employees, including students.’” Jazmin Taylor, who authored the EDS findings, has left the university. She did not respond to a message sent to her through LinkedIn seeking comment.

Taylor left UWM the same year Britz overturned her decision, and now she currently works for Columbia University in the City of New York as a director of investigations, according to her LinkedIn. She’s also one of multiple directors of EDS in the last few years in an office that’s been plagued by high turnover.

A university statement provided to Media Milwaukee in response to questions about the complaints included Switala’s promotion on the list of changes made by LeMire as part of his “holistic effort to improve professionalism and climate” after the allegations were made. LeMire, who came on board as chief after the accusations were first lodged, promoted Switala in October 2016 as part of his efforts at “developing internal talent for promotion to supervisor positions,” the university wrote, speaking on his behalf.

In his Switala decision, Britz remarked, “…assuming the alleged statements by the Respondent were in fact made, the mere fact that the Respondent made comments about his penis or other sexual innuendos in the workplace does not mean that those comments rise to the level of a hostile working environment.” However, he stressed, “sexual innuendos and comments about one’s penis are not appropriate for the workplace.”

After Media Milwaukee obtained the decisions from a source and reached out for comment from UWM about them, the university also revealed that there were more complaints against UWM police supervisors around the same time frame. Asked how many complaints were made in addition to those against Hansen and Switala, a university spokeswoman, Michelle Johnson, wouldn’t say, but added, referring to the additional cases: “The only thing I can say right now is that in both cases, EDS and the Provost found there was not a violation of the discrimination/harassment policy.”

UWM also noted that the “complaints against Sgts. Hansen and Switala were two of several made simultaneously and anonymously against Police Department supervisors in May 2015, while a recruitment for a new police chief was pending.”

As for the accusations against Switala, Johnson wrote Media Milwaukee: “Specifically as to then-Sgt. Switala, the provost found that several of the allegations made against him were meritless and others occurred years ago when he was not a supervisory officer. As a result, the provost concluded that Sgt. Switala’s conduct was not sexual harassment. However, during the course of the investigation, it was determined that there was an environment where mutual sexual banter appeared to be common. As a result, the provost concluded the climate within the department  and professionalism should be addressed.”

UWM’s former police chief, Michael Marzion, had been fired in September of 2014 for allegedly “exchanging messages of a sexual nature with a female student,” according to a Fox News report.

Britz concluded both the Switala and Hansen decisions with a stern admonishment that he was concerned by the “general propensity of individuals within the Police Department to interpret comments and statements made by their colleagues in the worst possible light.”

Switala allegations

Enlarge

Switala has served on UWM’s bicycle task force, and he can be seen standing with bicycles side-by-side with Chancellor Mark Mone and Officer Lamar Griffin in a photo on the UWM website. A 2016 Britz email to campus says, “The Chancellor and I have our quarterly meeting with the senior leadership of the Medical College of Wisconsin. In the afternoon, I have the Chancellor’s Student Success Work Group and will accompany Sergeant Brian Switala on his bicycle beat.”  In 2013, Switala served on a committee that selected outstanding service award winners for UWM.

Switala appeared in a Nov. 9, 2015 PantherVision television story by UWM student journalists; the provost’s decision was handed down on Nov. 23 of that year. He spoke about robberies on campus and campus safety. You can watch that interview here.

In his 2015 decision into the sexual harassment accusations against Switala, Britz found that two witnesses indicated that Switala made a comment to the effect of a mannequin’s “head busting” in 2011 or 2012 and one witness “indicated this was a slang reference to ejaculation.”

Switala admitted joking when the CPR mannequin’s head popped off because the mannequins were old but denied the comments were of a sexual nature.

Britz wrote that he searched the internet and did not find a single instance of “head busting” being used as a reference to ejaculation. (Media Milwaukee found with a quick internet search that the Urban Dictionary does say the term “bust” can mean “to orgasm,” although the term head busting doesn’t come up.)

Among the many accusations against him, Switala was accused by anonymous parties of deleting squad footage that allegedly recorded him saying “look at those daytime beauties” while patrolling Bradford beach.

In one of his findings, Britz deemed the daytime beauties allegation “meritless” because no witness backed up this allegation. “A number of witnesses confirmed that the respondent never asked to have squad video erased, nor did he have the access/authority to do it himself,” Britz wrote, adding that Switala indicated he hasn’t patrolled Bradford Beach for 10 years. “While one witness did indicate that the respondent makes comments here and there about female students and another said he ‘gawks’ at them while in his squad car, neither witness provided any examples, dates, or other context in support of their statements,” Britz found.

Britz found that several witnesses labeled Switala flirty or a flirt but didn’t say it made them uncomfortable. One witness said he asked her to hang out and that made her uncomfortable. But it occurred five years before, and Britz said the witness didn’t tell Switala that it made her uncomfortable. Another witness said that Switala has tried to “hook up” for sex with a few officers, but didn’t offer dates, specifics or other context, the documents contended.

Britz noted that asking colleagues on dates, to hang out or even for sex is not prohibited under UWM’s Discriminatory Conduct policy.  Consensual relationships without abuse of power or conflict of interest is permitted. “The Respondent confirmed that he has been engaged to one student while a UWM police officer and married a UWM police officer and dated others; all of which is permissible since he was either not a supervisor when these relationships occurred or disclosed them pursuant to UWM’s discriminatory conduct policy,” determined Britz. (Note: The UW System has asked UWM to change this policy, but a key faculty committee sent it back late last year for more debate.)

One female officer did indicate that Switala “pulled her hair in 2011 and that it was sexual in nature,” Britz wrote, but he said that she didn’t report the incident or tell Switala it made her uncomfortable. Switala, in his appeal, recalled “swatting this same female officer’s ponytail in a playful manner in 2009/10 because she would draw attention to how thick her ponytail was.” Britz found no evidence that this was sexual.

Two witnesses indicated that Switala “gawks” or comments when women eat bananas. And one said he made a “joke of a sexual nature about the custard dripping” out of a donut she was eating. However, Britz found the witnesses didn’t indicate to Switala that they found his statements offensive or were uncomfortable. Switala did not deny making comments to one of the witnesses about her eating a banana, but he said it was sarcastic in nature because “he thought it was inappropriate that she was eating at roll call.”

As for the custard donut, he said the comment happened five years before and was said in response to the witness commenting she wanted to eat the custard out of it. He explained that he said something to the effect of “too bad you can’t make your tongue into an auger and get the custard out easily.”

One male witness alleged that Switala “put his flashlight or hand on a female officer’s shoulder while standing behind her” and said, “This is how big it is,” referring to his penis size. The female officer this allegedly happened to confirmed “the flashlight incident.” Dates and specifics were not provided. A male officer said he has seen Switala “swing his leg out” as a “gesture of how long his penis is” without providing dates and context. A female witness alleged Switala made comments in the past year about his penis being long and/or heavy. Switala, in turn, claimed that a female officer asked the size of his penis, which was confirmed by several witnesses. Britz said it was difficult for him to determine what was said and when.

EDS wrote that “employees were hesitant to report the Respondent’s conduct because he holds authority, causing them to fear potential retaliation” and found that “witnesses overwhelmingly corroborated the allegations related to the Respondent in that the Respondent frequently made sexual jokes and innuendos and discussed his penis. Witnesses stated that the Respondent’s behavior was unsolicited and offensive.”

According to Britz’ decision, Switala, in his appeal, took issue “with the lack of specifics provided by EDS, including a general lack of dates and context.” Switala is now one of two lieutenants in the command structure of the UWM police force and its fourth in the line of command.

“EDS recommends that the Respondent be subjected to discipline as deemed appropriate by his supervisor and Vice Chancellor Van Harpen. EDS also recommends that the Respondent undergo sexual harassment awareness training,” wrote past EDS Interim Director Jazmin Taylor about Lt. Switala.

Britz disagreed with her decision.

The complaint against now Lt. Switala came 12 years after he was involved in the high-profile police shooting as a UWM officer.  He shot and killed the motorist from Greenfield, Joseph Bauschek, who had cocaine in his system, making Bauschek high and too intoxicated to drive, according to a brief in support of summary judgment in a civil suit that Bauschek’s mother filed in the case. It was granted, dismissing the case. Bauschek led Switala and two other police cars on a high-speed chase that ended once he lost control of his jeep. In less than four seconds, Switala fired seven shots with only one bullet killing Bauschek, the court documents say. He said the jeep accelerated toward him after a chaotic chase, according to the court documents. Three bullets struck the jeep head-on, three (including the fatal bullet) struck it at an angle, and “one bullet struck the back of the jeep,” court documents say.

Switala said he shot at Bauschek because he felt his life was in danger, but UWM police officer Lamar Griffin, who was on the scene, initially said Switala was running after the jeep when he fired the last shot, court documents allege. Griffin later changed his statement and said he didn’t recall saying that, the brief, filed in court, says. The case garnered heavy news coverage in part because of the oddity in the inquest jury’s finding: The jury determined that Switala did not act in self defense, but it also found there was not enough evidence to support murder charges.

Switala “testified that he had no recollection of firing at the rear of the Jeep and that he could provide no explanation for why a bullet he fired had struck the rear of the Jeep,” court documents say.

Tracking Down Lieutenant Switala

Enlarge

A student journalist went to UWM’s Police Department to meet with Switala about the sexual harassment allegations, but he wasn’t available at the time. However, another UWM police officer told the journalist that Switala usually comes in around noon and to call back during that time to check if he’s in. The student journalist called the department at 12:02 p.m., asked for Switala, and after a few seconds on hold, Switala answered. The student journalist made it clear that their discussion needed to be in person, and Switala agreed to meet that day.

After arriving back at the department, the student journalist was then confronted by UWM Chief of Police LeMire, who came to speak on behalf of Switala. The journalist insisted on being brought into a private room with Switala before revealing the matter. Eventually LeMire led the journalist up two flights of stairs into a private room, where he, Switala and the journalist spoke.

The journalist immediately pulled out the EDS decision and Provost decision and explained that Media Milwaukee would be running the story early next week, and that before the story ran, the journalist wanted Switala’s side of the story. Not once did Switala speak during this encounter; instead Chief LeMire spoke for him, stating they needed more time to look over the documents, which the journalist then told the men they had the weekend plus the beginning of the following week to do.

Again,  Switala sat quietly while Chief LeMire asked the journalist questions such as “how long have you had these documents” and “who gave you these?” The journalist didn’t disclose this information with him and within a few minutes the meeting was over.

The student journalist followed up with Switala and LeMire through email that same day, Friday, January 5, and asked the men to follow up with an interview before the upcoming Wednesday. Johnson replied for LeMire. Switala never responded.

In contrast, Hansen responded through email within a day or two after the student journalist contacted him. He didn’t agree to an interview, but provided a lengthy paragraph through email briefly explaining his side of the allegations.

Hansen allegations

Enlarge

Hansen wrote that he appreciated the student journalist’s efforts to receive his opinion because he believed he was mistreated, and he couldn’t stress that enough. He may have been disappointed with how his colleagues treated and thought of him, but he only had kinds words to say about Britz.

“I think that Provost Britz is one of the wisest and most common sense people on the UWM campus,” said Hansen. He then gave a quick brief background of himself where he stated he worked with MPD and worked most of his career Milwaukee’s north side. Hansen made it clear that he took his supervisory position at UWMPD seriously, and that he wasn’t there to make friends.

In Hansen’s case, EDS wrote that, although the sexual harassment complaints lacked sufficient evidence, there was adequate evidence substantiating the racial discrimination complaints.

The EDS determination went on to note that, even though the Respondent had not considered his remarks harmful, “Witnesses expressed being offended by the comments and not wanting to work with the Respondent because he made such comments. The cumulative effect of these statement can be very harmful, especially coming from a supervisor, which leads EDS to determine that the Respondent created a hostile working environment for employees by repeatedly making offensive comments about race in the workplace.” EDS further concluded that Hansen should be disciplined and required to attend training for workplace etiquette.

Hansen stayed with the department until 2016, one year after EDS stated, “there exists sufficient evidence to substantiate a finding of discrimination based on race and/or color against the Respondent [who] acknowledged that he made comments relating to race.”

However, Britz found the allegations unfounded and overturned EDS’ decision.

Regarding the chicken bone incident, Britz stated, “The Respondent asserts that he indicated that one of [the] nastiest things he found in a patrol car were chicken bones and that he never made reference to the race of the person/s who left the mess. No witnesses alleged that the Respondent mentioned race or even referred to a particular officer’s car . . .”

Based on this evidence, Britz said, “there does not appear to be evidence of a connection between the Respondent’s comment about ‘chicken bones’ and race.”

Of the witness who heard Hansen comment that women “belong in the kitchen,” Britz wrote, “No date or context was provided, and no other witnesses confirmed this. The Respondent denies making this statement.”

Britz also noted that the baking comment was directed at an officer who “regularly baked for her shift” and therefore, had not been particularly directed at the individual due to her gender.

The “salt and pepper squad” mentioned in Hansen’s complaint was also found not to be discriminatory.

“No context is is provided and no racial motivation suggested,” Britz wrote, adding that he didn’t believe those comments were discriminatory based on the context of the witnesses and the Respondent.

Moreover, in regards to the hockey comment that EDS found as evidence of Hansen’s discrimination, Britz disagreed,  saying that “the coworker was clear that he did not take offense and himself agreed that hockey was not popular among Black people . . . I find the Respondent’s assertions that he intended this as an observation, coupled with the fact that this is how it was received by the person it was directed to, to be credible.”

Britz made a semantics argument for the bicycle thief comment.

“The Respondent does not dispute that in viewing a videotape of a bicycle theft that he made reference to the bike thief being white. He asserts that it was a simple observation and was not racist,” explained the provost. And Britz appeared to take this to heart, additionally noting, “I cannot definitively determine what was actually said, nor conclude that the Respondent acted inappropriately.”

What Britz & UWM Say

Enlarge

Media Milwaukee asked both the university and Britz for comment.

Johnson, the university spokeswoman, did confirm with the student journalist that Hansen retired in 2016. The university provided Hansen’s retirement letters to Media Milwaukee for no cost to respond to a student open records request. You can read them here:

The letter to Hansen from LeMire stated that Hansen had announced he was retiring on Sept. 14, 2016. He had agreed to take leave time from Oct. 27, 2016 through Dec. 10, 2016. He would come to the police department for one day to return his equipment.

The chief wrote that he thanked Hansen “for your contributions and service to the UW-Milwaukee Police Department and UWM.”

Johnson confirmed that Switala’s EDS decision was overturned by Britz but added that “it was determined that there was an environment where mutual sexual banter appeared to be common. As a result, the provost concluded the climate within the department and professionalism should be addressed.”

LeMire, as a new hire, found that there were multiple issues to address, including those noted by the provost in his decisions, said Johnson in her statement to the student journalist. According to his UWM biography, LeMire “started his law enforcement career with the UW Madison Police Department in 1993. Since that time he has worked for the Hannahville Indian Community in Wilson, MI, The Escanaba Public Safety Department in Michigan and the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh where he served as Police Chief prior to being appointed Chief of Police by UW Milwaukee in July 2015. ”

According to Johnson, LeMire promoted Switala to lieutenant after having numerous conversations with other staff about Switala. He then concluded that Switala “ is a talented, dedicated, and respected police supervisor and that he merited promotion to the rank of lieutenant,” Johnson’s statement said.

To improve the department’s environment, LeMire started different initiatives such as a department motto: “Building Relationships–Protecting Community.” He established an open-door policy for all staff with respect to the chief and instituted training for all supervisors and staff on professionalism and inclusion, which was completed in 2016, according to Johnson’s statement.

Britz met with Media Milwaukee student journalists and provided a written statement. In the written statement provided to Media Milwaukee, Britz explained his philosophy for addressing sexual assault and harassment allegations on campus:

“My philosophy in responding to allegations of sexual harassment is first to ensure a fair and impartial process that respects the dignity and privacy of all parties. I also review investigatory findings against applicable legal standards and UWM policies and procedures.

After EDS completes its investigation, its report is sent to me with copies to all parties. Upon receipt of the EDS report, I wait for the expiration of the appeal deadline. Then, after a careful review of the file, including any appeals, I render a decision. It is common for me to uphold EDS’s findings and recommendations. However, there may be cases in which I have additional questions or concerns and remand the matter to EDS for further investigation or clarification. There have also been instances where, in consultation with EDS and Legal Affairs, I have disagreed with the findings and/or recommendations made by EDS. These situations arise when I reach a different conclusion regarding the evidence in the case files and/or based on one or both parties’ appeals. While rare, these instances demonstrate that the appeal to me is an important step in the process to investigate these matters and reach an appropriate and fair conclusion. [Per the Discriminatory Conduct Policy, the same process applies to all discrimination complaints, not just those based on alleged sexual misconduct.]”

Editor’s note: If anyone has any information that would be useful to this ongoing student investigation, you can contact the student reporters Talis Shelbourne, Nyesha Stone or Miela Fetaw at media-milwaukee@uwm.edu. This story was updated to include part of Mone’s statement, which was released shortly after the story was published, and to state that the university provided information for five years of complaints.

The post UWM Police Sexual Harassment Claims Spark Dueling Decisions appeared first on UW-Milwaukee Investigation.