HARRISBURG – Shippensburg University is seeking summary judgment in litigation that alleges one of its administrators made numerous unwanted sexual advances toward a director of testing and that it both failed to accept that same director’s story, while also refusing to reinstate her employment.
Jane Doe first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 11, 2020 versus Shippensburg University. Both parties are based in Shippensburg.
“Plaintiff is an adult female and was accepted as a student in defendant’s Clinical Mental Health Master’s Program and she commenced her studies in the fall semester of 2018,” the suit stated.
“As part of her admission package with defendant, plaintiff was offered a position as a graduate assistant to commence in August 2018, and plaintiff would receive compensation from defendant including an hourly wage and tuition reimbursement to be used towards credits for completion of her Master’s Degree with defendant.”
Doe was later promoted to the role of Director of Testing, where her direct supervisor was Dr. Jane Roe (a pseudonym), who was an Assistant Dean of Defendant’s Office of Professional, Continuing, and Distance Education (OPCDE).
“In about January 2019, Dr. Roe started to make overt sexual advances towards plaintiff in that Dr. Roe propositioned plaintiff to participate in a ménage à trois with her and a man. Plaintiff rejected this sexual advance. Shortly after the January 2019 proposition, plaintiff approached the Dean of OPCDE to complain of Dr. Roe’s sexual advance, but before she could cite any details, the Dean told plaintiff that she did not want to hear about it,” the suit said.
“Thereafter, between January 2019 and the end of the school year in April 2019, Dr. Roe made advances towards plaintiff between 2-4 times weekly, including repeating her proposition to engage in a ménage à trois, showing plaintiff photographs and text messages of a sexual nature and flaunting details about her sex-life.”
During this time period, the suit said Roe continued to make inappropriate comments of a sexual nature at the workplace knowing that her comments would be heard by plaintiff, sent inappropriate text messages to the plaintiff and disregarded the fact that the plaintiff rejected each and every one of these advances.
“In March/April 2019, plaintiff accompanied Dr. Roe on a business trip to Philadelphia. During the Philadelphia trip, Dr. Roe asked plaintiff to look at photographs on Dr. Roe’s phone which showed Dr. Roe nude and engaging in activities as a dominatrix with various men,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff told Dr. Roe that she ‘did not need to see these photos’, at which point Dr. Roe responded with extreme disappointment to plaintiff’s rejection of the photographs.”
After plaintiff and Dr. Roe returned from the Philadelphia trip, Dr. Roe “threatened plaintiff’s job, and warned her that she could suffer the same fate as the previous Director of Testing (who was terminated by Dr. Roe) if she did not respect and obey Dr. Roe because she was her boss.”
The plaintiff said she understood this threat to mean that Dr. Roe was trying to intimidate her to not reject her sexual advances. The plaintiff again approached the Dean to complain of the incidents of sexual harassment during and after the Philadelphia trip, but the Dean again told plaintiff “she did not want to hear it because Dr. Roe was her friend.”
“In early to mid-August 2019, plaintiff accompanied Dr. Roe to a work-related conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Dr. Roe asked for room key to plaintiff’s room ‘in case I want to visit in the middle of the night.’ Plaintiff refused Dr. Roe’s request,” the suit said.
“About two days later and during the New Orleans trip, Dr. Roe told plaintiff that she was going to go on a dating website to find a date and that she wanted plaintiff to come on the date with her. Plaintiff refused this sexual advance and firmly advised Dr. Roe that she had a boyfriend and did not do that kind of thing. Dr. Roe was noticeably upset at plaintiff’s rejection of this proposition.”
The following day, Dr. Roe allegedly confronted plaintiff in front of other attendees of the New Orleans conference, by yelling and cursing to plaintiff that she would not have a job when she returned to Shippensburg. Dr. Roe then feigned illness and left the plaintiff in New Orleans.
When the plaintiff returned to Shippensburg, she said she attempted to talk to the Dean about what happened in New Orleans – but not only did the Dean allegedly refuse for a third time to hear her story, she learned Dr. Roe had told the entire department that the plaintiff was no longer employed by the university.
“On Aug. 20, 2019, plaintiff was called into a meeting with the defendant’s Vice President of Human Resources and the Dean to discuss accusations that she had engaged in ‘unprofessional behavior’ during the New Orleans trip. Plaintiff immediately explained that it was Dr. Roe who was unprofessional, that Dr. Roe was lying to protect herself and plaintiff gave some of the details of the sexual harassment to which she was subjected by Dr. Roe,” the suit said.
“The VPHR asked why she did not complain about Dr. Roe’s behavior in the past, and plaintiff looked at the Dean and said that she had tried. The Dean did not deny that plaintiff’s had approached her to try to complain about Dr. Roe. Plaintiff was told by the VPHR that the defendant was going to end her employment. Plaintiff never returned to the workplace and she received her last paycheck from defendant on or about Oct. 18, 2019, and her tuition benefits were discontinued at the end of December 2019.”
At the time of the Aug. 20, 2019 meeting, the VPHR also directed plaintiff to put in a formal complaint of sexual harassment with the defendant’s Title IX Coordinator. The plaintiff did so two days later, sending in proof of harassment by attaching text messages sent to her by Dr. Roe, and describing some of the harassment to which she was subjected.
“Dr. Roe was placed on leave by the defendant and resigned her position in lieu of termination, within several weeks after plaintiff presented her evidence to the Title IX Coordinator. In November/December 2019, the VPHR, after learning of the evidence supporting plaintiff’s claims, said that he would reconsider reinstating plaintiff’s employment with defendant in some capacity and that he would contact her to make arrangements to do so, but he never did so to date,” the suit said.
Shippensburg University filed an answer to the complaint on Sept. 8, 2020, denying its allegations and that it committed any unprofessional actions against the plaintiff. The school also asserted 10 affirmative defenses against the suit.
“Plaintiff fails to state any claim upon which relief may be granted, either in whole or part. If the defendant violated any rights of the plaintiff, which is specifically denied, such violations were not arbitrary, willful, intentional, malicious, wanton or reckless. Defendant acted at all times with the good-faith belief that its conduct was lawful, thus it is immune from liability by virtue of absolute, qualified, official, governmental, state, sovereign or any other immunity,” the answer stated.
“Prior to filing the current action, plaintiff failed to properly exhaust the appropriate administrative remedies made available to her, either in whole or part, and therefore plaintiff is not entitled to any relief requested in the current complaint. Parts or all of plaintiff’s action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. At no time has defendant, either individually or in concert with others, deprived or sought to deprive plaintiff of any rights, privileges or immunities secured to her by the Constitution or laws of the United States or this Commonwealth.”
UPDATE
Shippensburg University filed a motion for summary judgment on Aug. 9, arguing that the plaintiff only notified the school that she was being sexually harassed after it was revealed that her employment would be ending.
“Shippensburg did everything that it could to prevent harassment and had various anti-harassment policies in place, which plaintiff admitted she was well aware of, and she could have made a formal complaint at any time. Plaintiff, however, failed to put Shippensburg on notice that she felt she was being sexually harassed by her supervisor until after she was informed her employment was being ended,” the summary judgment motion stated.
“The representatives she reported her concerns to immediately referred the matter for investigation and her supervisor was placed on leave, but nothing would have changed the decision to end plaintiff’s employment. For these reasons, plaintiff’s claims fail and judgment should be entered in favor of Shippensburg.”
The school maintained that its actions in this matter showed that it was not deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment and as a state entity, Shippensburg University further argued that it was immune from the plaintiff’s state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision, through the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Three days later, Shippensburg University motioned to file a series of exhibits under seal, in order to further maintain the confidentiality of all parties concerned.
For counts of violating Title IX through quid pro quo sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision, the plaintiff is seeking:
• The defendant to be prohibited from continuing to maintain its illegal policy, practice, or custom of harassing, discriminating, and retaliating against employees and students;
• The defendant to compensate plaintiff, reimburse plaintiff, and make plaintiff whole for any and all pay and benefits plaintiff would have received had it not been for defendant’s illegal actions;
• Punitive damages, as permitted by applicable law, to punish defendant for its willful, deliberate, malicious and outrageous conduct and to deter defendant or other educational institutions/employers from engaging in such misconduct in the future;
• Damages for emotional distress and/or pain and suffering and any and all other equitable and legal relief as the Court deems just, proper, and appropriate;
• Costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal fees as provided by applicable law and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Samuel Dion of Dion & Goldberger, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Lindsey A. Bedell of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:20-cv-01416
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com