Hugs from behind. A female student being called a “sexual animal.” Breast-groping. References to pole dancing and “sugar daddies.” An alleged sexual assault. Those are just a few of the accusations uncovered in a revealing set of documents released by the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
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.