int} Equal Dppormniw and A?irrnative Aetioo flffiee (EDAADJ Intrestigative Report Page 1 of 38 Complaint No: ?A?DdA?lv?tlvi Date lComplaint Complainant: Administrative Review August Edd-El Respondentr' Dr. Timothy Slater Report Date: Department: Department of Astronomy, Steward Observatorv Marsh 31, tons BACKGROUND: Prior to Jul}I ao?oa. several individuals approaohed the EDAAD to diseuss seirualljg.t eharged oonduet they were espedeneing in the College of Astronomy, and Steward Thev stated that the eonduot was oeotirring aeross ranlts; some indieated the eonduot was oreating a sexually? hostile ivorlt environment. Some indioated retaliation might he oeeurring. These individuals refused to ?le oomplaints against the depaitment heoause thev feared work-related repereussions: inolttding unlawful retaliation. Consequently the EDAAD met with administrators in the Department of Astronomy and Steward tillaservatorjI to diseuss initiating an investigation into sexual harassment? seitua?v hostile work environment. The department. in turn, formalised a request for investi gation; sneh that this Adminimative Review-hogan in August EDD-4. Responsive to evidenoe obtained in the earlyr stages of investigation? the EDAAD named Dr. Tim Slater as a respondent in this ease, on September .14, Etl?ai. The EDAAD noti?ed Dr. Slater of his respondent-status in aeeordanee with EDAAD proeedures, identifying sexual harassment and retaliation as the relevant issues. Dr. Slater was hired hv the Universitv of Arizona. on August 6. 21301, as an Assoeiate Professor of Astronomy He tenure standing in Map 21304. He has a varietv of duties at the miiversitp, inelnding his post as the Conceptual Astronde and thsies Edueation Research (CAPER) team leader. 3 CDPE DF In the oourse of the investigation, the investigator interviewed multiple individuals? some more than onee??who were assoeiated with the Department of Astronomy? Steward Dhservatoer andi?or the CAPER team. Witnesses were seleoted either randomly, or with an effort to oross~seetion levels of authuorittj,I and elosenessJ professional andfor personal? with the respondent. All efforts were made to get a. eomprehensive point of view. ISSUE: Did Dr. Slater violate the University?s Sexual Harassment Polio}; as well as the pohev?s Retaliation eomponenti' - the university at armonatsi Equal Opportunity and affirmative ?ction Di?iice Investigative Report Page 2 of 33 STATEMENT DP There is no Statement of Somplaint per se, since none of the forthcoming individuals chose not to ?le a complaint, such that the investigation was initiated by Administrative Review. Howeva alleged conduct included continual sesual joining, banter and unwelcome touching. STATEMENTS: 1'i'ir?itness A provided the following information: Witness A recalled that Dr. Slater ?'equently told sexual jokes, made invitations to bathe inhis hot tub (at house parties) andjolted that bathing suits were optional. Witness A recalled that Dr. Slater and his wife gave sea: toys to guests and chocolate handcu?s to a graduate student. On one occasion; the witness recalled that Dr- Slater mentioned that ?so and so? was sleeping with ?so and so??and ?isn?t it great?? He went on to say, ?Now everyone on the SAFER team has had sea: at my house. i cant wait to install die cameras? or words to that e??ect. Witness A did not respond, but felt that the question, ?So, why not you?? was implied by Dr. Slater. Dr. Slater inquired about Witness A?s sea life on more than one occasion, and aslted whom Witness A would be having in? when Witness .ti's requested a'private room during departmental travel. Witness 13 provided the following information: lrnm?iately upon her hire, Wimess noticed that Dr. Slater conducted himself in a sesualiaed manner that she found to be inappropriate and outside her comfort level. Wimess stated she is definitely not the only one toward whom Dr. Slater is sexual in his conduct. General behaviors include stopping in his traclts whenever he sees a woman wall: by in a short skirt even insisting that all conversation cease so he can raise in the scene- Witness stated Dr. Slater relates most things to sea, a. g, on one occasion, when Witness brought in a. large blue eitercisc ball to use for seating: he told her he had a prohibition against having ?blue balls? in the of?ce. Dn another occasion he told Witness that he had considered inviting her to swim over the weekend, but knew she would bring her bathing suit, so decided against it. 1 Equal Upp??'?rliljt and A?innative Aenon Df?ee (EUAAD) Investigative Report CUNFIBENTLE Page 3 of HS Witness stated that Dr. Slater and Witness make a lot of sexual jokes and ereate seamal hanter on a regular basis. She noted a lot of the women tend to ignore ?u's when it is oeeuning around them. Do a regular hasis, Dr. Slater has told Witness 13 she would teaeh better if she did not wear underwear. Dn at least one oeeasion he grahhed her underwear through her dress, stretehed it and snapped it, and said, ?You?d look a whole lot hetter adthout these on,? or words to that .effeet. That same daj,I he invited her to attend a luneh with a visiting female graduate student from Boston, and Wimess I. Dr. Slater indicated the}r wotdd he lunehing at a. loeal topless hat. At luneh hoth Dr. Slater and Witness I paid for and lap dsnees. Dr. Slater o?ered to purehase a lap danee for Witness she deelined and he did not push the issue further. 1'ilv?itness reported that during the semester the seatual eonduot oeeurs daily. Witness provided the following information: Witness IS stated that she has eontinual hut infrequent interaotion with Dr. Slater during the eoin'se of her work. She stated that her eoneern regarding Dr. Slater re?eets seantal eonduet oeeurring on one day: on Marsh Sill, Wimess traveled with Dr. Slater to Nogales ear, in the eornpan].I of a. female graduate student: During the ear trip, Witness (3 told Dr. Slater some work she had eornpleted for (SAFER. He responded hv saving, ?Awesome! I eenltl just kiss you full on the mouth," or words very elose to these. Wimess stated she found this response distasteful. Later he asked her, ?How had ean he with you?? When she asked him what he meant, he asked her if she would he reporting his eomments haek to her supervisor. Dr. Slater vvent on to relate that when he goes to aeademie eonferenees out of town he goes online to set up ?hook-ups? (sexual datest with women in the geographie area. He told Witness that his personal (sexual) record was four women in twenty-four (24) hours. Dr. Slater also stated that he and his wife oeeasionallv set up manageusalreis. Witness is a male assistant sts? seientist who assists Dr. Slater in running among other duties. He is similarly situated to Witness B. His interview is summarised on page 15 of this do eument- The University at Arisenatht Equal and A?nnative Aetien D?iee Investigative Rep ert CDNFIDWL Page 4 ef El Dr. Slater and the female graduate student disenssed the upeeming visit ef Dr. Slaterls eelleague. She asked Dr. Slater if she weu]d have te sleep with hirn, te whieh Dr. Slater replied, ?Tile, net this ene.? Witness leeked at them and er-telaimei ?What?? whereupen Dr. Slater teld her that he might have te ask her te take ene fer the team. Talking aheut Witness I, Dr. Slamr said, ?Yeah, he likes the yeung enes. Witness IS asked if that individual did net have a girlfriend. Dr. Slater replied that a girlfriend was ene thing, but a student was anether. Witness asked if the students were miners, te whieh Dr. Slater respended that they were all pre hahly ever I S. He added that he, Dr. Slater, preferred a mere mature weman whe knew ?her way amend the hedreem.? Seme minutes later he turned te Witness and asked her if she knew ?anything aheut er was any geed at giving hlevq'ehs, heeause [the female?name dees net like te give er them?maybe yen eeuld give her seme painters.? Witness then teld Slater he was heing eenipletely inapprepriate. She said, ?Yen barely knew me. I enly started a eenple ef weeks age, and yen're already talking te me like this. Deesn?t the ef rf'r give set-teal harassment training, er were yeur absent that day?? She went en te sayr that she has a partimlarly large hey?iend {whem she deserihed, in part, as Blank) She teld Dr. Slater that he weuld net appreciate the manner in which Dr. Slater was speaking te her. Dr. Slater then asked Witness if it were true that enee yeu went hlaek, yen?d never ge haek,? er werds te that etfeet. Later Dr. Slater jeked that he weuld pull eff at a rest step se they eeuld have a threeserne. Wimess respended by saying, ?Like thatls geing te happen,? er werds te that e?eet. A?er that she tried ehanging the snhjeet every time it turned sexual, and she related a ster ef persenal tragedy {nen-senual,j whieh she neted seemed te seher Dr. Slater and the ether female right away. Witness stated that she reperted Dr. Slater?s eenduet tn the Prineiple Investigater en her prejeet. The PI, in turn, teld her she sheuld repert it te her superviser, whieh she did. [Relevant tn Witness D?s tee?mu?j?l I a Lmrar and "Witness stated she was aware that Dr. Slamr appeared te he trying te take Planetary Seienees pregram, Great Errpleratiens in Math and Seienee, away frem the department, and hring it ever te Steward Dhservatery where he alse werks. She stated he has been pulling ?mding frem the pregrani. Additienally he hadsmenths the Pre'gram lISeerdijnater, Witness superviser. He has alse been giving respensihilities previeusly held by that superviser te his varieus graduate students. 'l'ha University of ariaona El Equal Dpporttmity and A?irniativa station Dfiiaa Investigative Report CGNFIDENTML Page 5 of 33 "Witness provided the following information: Witness that. at a Halloween party at Dr. Sister's house in EDGE: he told her that one of his saanal fantasies was to he with a Catholia sahoolgirl. She was in aostuma as a Catholia sahoolgirl. Witness stated that throughout her work with Dr. Slater he had a praatiae of requesting and taking hugs on a too-??aquant basis that made her unoomfortahla, and asking her about the maritah'dating status of woman in the department and surrounds; he did not ask similar questions about males, aha reaallad. Additionally, she noted that Dr. Slater had a soaial oliqna within the professional arena. She stated that they frequently spolte in a loose aoda, suah that it was difhanlt to know speaifiaally what they were disauasing} but clear that it was oftan with sexual overtones. For az-tanipla, one might hear ?eight (3) mahas? or other random phrases thrown in with other aonversation She inaraasingly ill?atraasa around Dr. Slater as time passed; she said. In September 2003, Witness had to attend a meeting in Phoenix with Dr. Slater. They drove alone in his viti?fa?s oar. When Witness got into the ear, Dr. Slater aommantad that he wished she had worn a shirt (she was wearing pants.) She did not aslt him why. Instead she told him that she had onaa suoaass?illy filed suit against a former employer. She told him the reason? the entity and the outaoma, with the intent to malta him raoonsidar how he was going to speak to her. Although her previous legal aation had nothing to do with harassment, Dr. Slater fall virmally silent for the drive to and from Pho aniir. Prior to this intetaation, Dr. Slater had always praised Wimess and her work very highly. Ha had eaten played the ?sympathetia aharaater? during a period when Winiass was having some personal problems. After the September 2W3 intaraation the ear, Witness noted the following ohangas in Dr. Slatat's aonduot toward her: He stopped with her; He stopped meeting with her on a waaldy basis {now they meet 1:6 months}; Ha postponed her annual evaluation, even under different diraotion ?out above; l-Ia ihaally gave her a verbal evaluation? whlah was profoundly and inappropriately negative, and falsely blamed it on a Deparhitent Head. Elf note? when she oomirontad him about his oonduot and the evaluation, Dr. Slater told Witness that things had ohangecL and the issues would never be resolved. He would not say what the issues were; He has ramovad duties to his graduate students and staff, who are not qualified for the assigimients? apt the budget in January Edda? and Witness D?s title as CorPl, raspaotivaly; I The University ef Adieu #3 Equal Dpperhniity and Ailirmative Actien foiee (EDAAD) Investigative Repert Page t} cf 3 . He enceu'rages his clique te be disrespectful te Witness and repriinands Witness abeut interactieris, pt?tdding her ne reasenable suppert in her pesitien. He blames Wimess fer decisiens made by her superiers, whe are alse Dr. Sister?s superiers. Witness previded the fellewing additienal infermatien'. 'Dn er abent August 9, 21104, while talking te Dr. Slater the lab, Wimess that the teem was celd. Dr. Slater leelted at her breasts and cemmented that he theught ?they? were suppesed te get hard and stand eut when they were celd, and that it must net be tee eeId. Witness walked away. Dn August it], 29134, Witness dreve te a prefessienal meeting with Dr. Slater. Dn the ride ever, Dr. Slater made mentien ef swimming naked hi his backyard peel. Wireless respended that he really needed te step the sesnal stuff. She recalled that Dr. Slater get very serieus and teld her, ?Listen, i like my life. llies, sermally harass pmple. I am net geing te change. If yen have a prehlem with it, yen sheuld start leeking fer empleyrnent elsewhere.? He -alse stated that he surreunds himself with peeple whe de net have a preblem with it. She stated that he was net mean abeut it, but came elf as very straightferwwd and matter-effect. llateness respended that she was enly telling him fer his ewn geed, and that he eeuld get in a let ef treuble fer his behavier. She recalled that he thanked her, saying, appreciate that," er werds te that e?'ect. Witness IE stated that altheugh Dr. Slater had teld her, nnselicited, that he was very happy with the werlt she had dene while he was gene during the summer menths, and. he was glad te have her en his team, she feared he wenld ?re her en the spet if she pursued the issue ef sea-real harassment any ?irther, er stated her pesitien en it any mere clearly. [She stated that she is paid hem his grant, and. believed he eeuld ?re her himself] Dining the step at Dr. Sister?s wife?s werlc, Witness teld his wife a silly jelte abeut penguins (ne centent.) Later, Dr. Slater jelted that sesual harassment was a small price te pay fer telling such bad jeltes. She stated that he made ether ?digs? threugheut the day abeut set-real harassment, as well as centinuing te make sci-teal ceninients. Fer example, he neted hew it might appear te passing meterists, at a rest step, when Witness was straightening up the car Witness indicated it was the ltid car with lets ef crumbs and mys, etc.) Dr. Slater added he heped they getthe ?wreng? idea, e't werds te that effect. In anether instance he reached ever te get his cell phene. Wimess asked him what he was deing, and he teld her, adding, ?Butl get te check yen ent, tee,? er werds te that effect. Tha Univaraitjr at Arias hath Equal Oppartunitar and ni?itnativa Aa?nn Df?aa CEGAAD) Invaatigativa Rapurt CGNFIDEMM Paga [if 33 During Saptamhar Mil-El, tha EDAAD hitatviawad (de individuala avhn wash naat at aInund ana at mum at tha in vvhiah DI. Slatar has invalvatnant. Santa vvai-a Inala, anrna fainala, saina in paaitinns af authantv: sania nut. Nana at thasa individuals tasti?ad tn having an}.r ?rst-hand at any saaual annduat hv anva-na in thait- raspaativa aIaa, including jalting, suggastiva summantaiv and tnuahing. Nana had haai'd raparta at aaniplaints nf vvith tha af ana individual aallaagus had ahaut anninianta tnada by Dr. Slatan vvhiah aha had daaniad [idantt?ad as Witnass Thata vvaa liniitad diaaussian ahaut this avar Innah an ana ?u Saptamhar 23, HIM, 1lih'itnasa pravidad tha fullnwing additiunal infamst'iua: Du Saptanahai 23, Etltl?l, Dr. Elatar hat sha avauld ha nan?tanawad in Juna Etltl?. Ha tald hat aha eraa nat a grand ?t with tha gnaup, tald hat that aha vvas daing gand wash: and that ha hnaw aha vvas nut slashing. Ha raitaratad that has altills did niatah tha graup'a naada at diraatinn?wnrda ta that affaat. Ha hat ha thaught aha Wauld ha happiar aatnavvhata alaa. npinad that Dr. Slatat?s daaisinn tn nanrranavt hat anntraat was tha taault at his haliaf that aha had anniplainad ahdut his sat-tual aanduat [ljjtI Saptatnhat 23: 2004, savaral individuals ham and athat partinant ataas: idanti?ad hv aarna vvitnaasaa as particular ?'iands at Dr. Slatar?s, had haan intarviavtad at tha [In 29, 20M, Wimasa pravidad tha fallawing tastimanv: atatad that aha ia suparvisad Slatat and Wimaas J: and has haan in has pnsitian ainaa .Tanuai-v Sha is a tnanihar at tha (SAFER taain and assaaiatas niaatlv with tha Inanihars afthia gtaup, Sha that fallnwing an an whiah Dr. Elatar and hat nthai suparvisar, .T, vvara disauasing thait viait ta a strip aluh, aha tald thatn aanvarsatii?inali?jrr that thair tnpia af dis ausaian niada har vary unaanifanahls and aha wishad thav wauld not talk ahnut that in frant at hat. Sha thav vvara annailiatar?j,r and har th?jr' vva-uld it}r ta ship, but that ifthav did it again; aha shauld tall than: again that aha ahjaatad tn it. Sha atatad that althaugh thaar hava ainaa rafiainad train ahnut strip aluhs, spaai?aailv, thatr still inalta sai-tual aatninants in has prasanaa andfar viainitv. Far aha thav hava a anrt of rating ayatatn hjr' whiah tha],r Ftaahnian wanian (paapla walking by, far instanaaj Sha atatad that appmainiatalv nnaa a ninnth? a saatual anniniant is naada that aha ?nds nffansiva. Sha atatad that sha aansidais harsalf tn ha fairly aansitiva ta saxuai aspaaialiv what'a thara ia patvat diffatantial. Sha atatad alaa that, vvhiia this is trua, sha daas nat ?jump at tha ahanaa? ta nialta a hig daal nut kinds nf issuaa. I The University at ArieenaE? I Equal and A?miative Aerien Dfliee (BOMB) Investigative Reper-t CDNFIDEMML Page 3 at 33 The witness reealled that ether female graduate snidents had eemmented that their advisers? Dr. Slater and Witness in were ten serrual in their demeaner, Infermatien from Respondent: [in September 3t}, 2004 Dr. Tim Slamr previded the fellewing infarmatien: He stated that he reealled twe an whieh individuals eemplained direetly te him ahnut his peraenal eenduet: I In 2901, talltiing a haehelur party at a strip eluh, sueh that a graduate student enmmentei ?That really ereeps me nut when yeu talk that way in hunt nf me,? er wards to that attest. He reealled apelegising. a graduate student and farmer SAFER team member telling him that it had made her uneemfertahle when he massaged her shaulders puhliely, while heating a teacher werltahep. Dr. Slater reealled that she was enneerned nthers might mismtel'pret the nature at their rel a?enship? were they te ehserve his gesture. Dr. Slater eharaeteriaed himself as a F?lieurtihy? persen whe efteu hugs peeple. He stated that he is a ??irtatieus? persen, and defined that as ?friendly?? and ?flattering.? He stated this is with the group, sinee CAPER eenatimtea his primary prefesainnal and sneial interaetien. Dr. Slater stated that he hugs males as well as females: and that he hrnught many penple en the team frem Mentana' and Kansas [universities there] Many had lived in his heuae with him and his wife frem time he time: and same ef the relatienships were ef ill-12 years? duratien. He addEd they had been in eaeh nther*s weddings. He stated that they all seeialiae tegether at semeenei's heuse {eften his) an 2?3 per menth. Dr. Slater stated that he and Witness I run the greup, and that within the group they have ajelre that he, Slater, is the ?mum,? and Wimess is die ?dad.? He stated that same ef the team memhers are mere lilre family than ethers; he hated the turn greups. Regarding reperts that he had given eut ?sex toys? at sneial events; he reealled that he had given ene female graduate student a pielde er eueumher?ahaped vihratnr at a ?pre? marriage? party. He' enuld nut reeall haying given nut ehnenlate handeuffs, as speei?eally alleged. Regarding the vihrater, he reealled that the reeipient was a eelleetnr ef the vegetable it represented, and that he was eertain she was net offended by it. He The University at rtrisanaw Equal Dpperhmity and Af?rmative Aetien D?i as I (EDAADJ Investigative Repert Page 9 et 33. reealled there were pielde er euenrnher jukes geing amend the affine fer several days, thereafter. lJr. Slater did net reeall making the eermnent that he weuld have te install eameras in his heme, as alleged, and referential tn the alleged eemment that everyene [in had engaged in sexual nativity in his hume. Dr. Slater reiterated that many at the (SAFER team members had, in fast, lived with him at his hense ever the years. Regarding allegatiens that he stepped te leek at wemen, and eemrnented en their appearanee, he stated this was eemmen practise fer him, and that he might have dene it anywhere ?em ?enerte?ten?te?a?hundred times." He denied that he had a rating system, but recalled saying things like, ?Yeu?re geing te have te say that again, heeanse that?s tee disuaetirig.? He eeniirmed he had made sueh eemments te wemen in the department and e?en lWitness l, whe jelred with him in a similar fashien. Regarding allegatiens that he teld a eelieague he had a prehihitien against ?blue balls? in the e?iee {refereneing an eaereise hall,) he stated he did net resell making the eemment, hut that it was ?sensi-stent'? with. the kinds ef eemments he weuld make. He helieved he had net teld a eelleague he wenld have invited her te swim ever the weekend but fer the likeliheed she weuld wear her swim suit. He stated he deuhted that heeanse he is net eaelusienary by nature- He did net reeall telling a [snherdinate ?amale] eelleagne that she wenld teaeh better were she te step wearing underwear, and did net reeall snapping her underwear [threngh her T- shirt dress, as alleged] Hewever, he stated, he did tend in say a let at seaual things. Hr. Slater eeniirmed that he teelr a visiting female graduate student, as well as a male and a female [suherdinate] eelleague te limeh at a [seal strip elnh. He did net reeall that speei?e event, hut stated that he [and the male] usually purehase lap danees when they ge. He usually effers te purehase lap danees fer ethers, as well. He stated they ge aheut enee per menth, and that it?s usually a mixed greup {male and female.) Dr. Slater reealled that a grenp ef department wemen had gene te a male club in hener ef a wedding er birthday, and reperted haying a terrible time. Semehew, as an effsheet te that situatien, ene ef the wemen [Witness theught she might like female eluhs better, and deeided te jein the men. He eeuld net reeall hew many times she attended, hut theught prehahly several. He stated that he has gene with his wife, and several ef the graduate students ande?er eelleagnes. He stated the tab is always eelleeted fer ?Dutetf? treat: departmental iimds are never used. . The University at Ariaenafis Equal Uppertunity and n?innanye Actinn Dttice Investigative Repert Page Ill cf 33 Dr. Slater cenfn-med he had trayeled with ce-werlters by car [betb female] in Hegales, rariaena, during He identi?ed ene graduate student and an administrative assistant [nften travels alene radth same graduate student; one trip enly with additienal indiyidual te that destinatien.] He stated that he eften uses the phrase, F?l ceuld kiss yeu fell en the lips,? when speaking te males and females. He stated it is a line ?ern a meyie. He did net reeall saying in an that particular trip: but did net deny it. He that he and the graduate student eften jeke abeut her sleeping 1with visiting prefessersy but stated it is enly a jelte. He ceniinned that the line, "Tal{[ing] ene fer the team? is eften used in the centeett ef the same jeke, but alse refers tn the eatectrtien ef any taslt. l-le alse recalled that at least are female graduate student shares that jelre with him en a fairly regular basis- Dr. Slater stated that he is ?sexually and snmetiines says things that are prebably ?inapprepriate? He stated else that he has limits, and that abeut "blew jebs, snapping underwear er talking abeut ceewerlcers? clething here a searual perspectiye [yeu?d teach better if yeu stepped wearing underwear] all ge beyc-nd his limits [all these items were alleged] Dr. Slater stated that prier te the inyestigatien he had always theught he knew whe weuld be e?ended by what? and had belieyed that he always stepped befere dressing an effending line. He recalled that a graduate student [whe had werlted en CHEER the year befereg and had left the pregramj teld him ence that he ceuld get inte treuble fer the kind at things he was saying. He cede net recall that anyene else had ever warned him abeut this pnssibility [as Witness alleged she had dene en a number ef eceasinns.] Later in the intendew, heweyer, Dr. Slater recalled that he had spelten tn Witness abeut her cenduct teward him: he asked her te refrain ?'em placing her head en his sheulder at prefessienal meetings, which she ?equently did. He teld her that he lilred it when she did this? but fer the fact that it might premete the wreng impressien, and might be seen as unprefessienal. . He then recalled that Witness agreed tn his request adding that be, ten, needed te be rnnre careful abeut the seetual jeleing that he did in public. Dr, Slater recalled telling Witness at that time that he lilted the way he had his life set up, that he was a sexually ?eyert? persen, and that he weuld prebably always be that way. Dr. Slate: denied telling Winiess that he was sexually harassing peeple and that he weuld centinue te. Dr. Slater denied that he teld Wimess at that time that if she did net lilte his cenduct she weuld the better in ?nd anether jeb. He did recall that they had talked abeut her pesitien at that time in reference te his engeing cencerns that her area ef research did net ?t in with research directien. The University eferisenaihi - Equal Dppertunity and Af?rmative Aetien Df?ce (EDAAD) Investigative Repert Page 11 ef SS Dr. Slater stated that her area, geelegy, was always an unusual He stated that Witness lacks teaching and research experience that ether team members have, and that when he hired her it was te fill a gap: he needed semeene te develep net?based ceurses. Witness ful?lled that need, and centinues te teach the ceurses, but that is all she is quali?ed te teach. Any ene ef his team members weuld be quali?ed te teach the ceurse, he said. Regarding his cenversatien en the trip in Negales, he recalled that he did ask Witness a questien abeut the general acceptability ef his seanal banter, and that she replied that if he had seen her website [er Yahee he weuld net have asked. Dr. Slater recalled that she said her ID was ?SenyWhiteWeman,? and that she had tallied abeut meeting her husband [bey?iend]- enline. He denied that she breached the tepic ef the passing ef her sun the year befere [as alleged] te quell the cenversatien. He stated he 1"eras aware ef her sun?s death because her previeus empleyer had mentiened it as a reasen fer her wanting a change ef venue, during a referral dialegue. He did net have speci?c memery ef the sexual cemments she alleged he made during that car ride, but believed seine ef them seunded like semething he might say, while ethers did net. Dr. Slater admitted he teld Witness abeut his ?persensl seitual recerd,? as alleged, adding that this went back te his high scheel marching band days. He admitted he did net share the latter, bisterie detail with Witness C. Dcteber ti, 1Witness previded additienal infermatien: The wimess called te netify the investigater that Dr. Slater had taken aetien te remeve her assistant, frem his grant She stated that Dr. Slater is the Primary Investigater (PI) en the ARU preject, frem which the assistant previeusly received 5 cf her salary. She stated there was ne discussien abent hew it weuld a?ect the assistant?s salary er pesitien. Witness went tn the Pl ?fem the GEMS preject, and asked if he ceuld fund that 5 with ?carryevef? funding, in which he agreed. The Winiess stated that Dr. Slater had always been capricieus with his ewn handing, but had net been that way with ethers* funding. She admitted she had us firsthand linewledge ef his use ef his ewn grant. She recalled that prier te the car ride te Pheenia, he had net tried te tell her hew te handle her funding, but that since then he had been, fer example, with the Pl'lsieS grant, which she had written herself. . She stated his enplanatien was that he is SdlvaK, and can de whatever he wants with the grant] The witness stated she believed that Dr. Slater theught withdrawing the funds weuld put her assistant eut ef a jeb, and that his main metivatien fer this was te put mere pressure en the Winiess, herself, by putting mere werlt baclt en her. She stated that her assistant had teld her that Dr. Slater came mm the effice that lvlenday (Dcteber l, te tell the The University of Manuals) Equal Dpportunity and Affirmative Action Df?ce Investigative Report CDNFIDEW Page 12, of SS assistant that he never intended that she lose her job. He also asked questions about the Wimess, and whether she were putting in enough time since she is taking classes (which Dr. Slater had approved.) The Witness stated that she perceived that Dr. Slater was espressing doubts about her to her own assistant. She further opined that he had turned against her several other individuals who had worked for her or with her previously, as well as the new co?director of SMK. Riddance for this was that the individuals had left the area, andr'or treated her differently than they had initially. She made no specific statements about how Dr. Slater would have gone about turning people against her, and provided no direct evidence for such action. She provided the names of several individuals about whom she had ?u lIStctober 11, 2004, Witness provided the following additional information: Witness stated that her supervisor received noti?cation by e-ntail from Dr. Slater on September 21, Edd-fl, stating that the udtuess? salary source should be changed to 90% AETEC budget [had been 53%, with 413% at ARU, ll] unknown) He told hm supervisor that the change was necessary because was running ?in the 5" Witness stated that her supervisor went to the Primary Investigator (PI) for GEMS to secure the additional hindng necessary for Witness C?s salary. She opined that Dr. Slater had no real idea whether this would work out when he requested the change. She recalled that Dr. Slater came by the of?ce to talk to her on lD'ctober l, He asked several questions about her supervisor, and whether she (the supervisor) were handling her work load in addition to the student teaching she is cin-rently doing. Wimess told him that her supervisor was handling both, and was always there when she was supposed to be. At that time, Wimess asked Dr. Slater why he had changed her salary source. He responded that he had run out of available funds in the ARU grant. Witness learned later that Dr. Slater had hired a graduate student to work off of that grant, right around the same time. She opined that it was difficult to detemiine whether the funding change were retaliatory. She stated this ?seat?of?the?pants" action seemed consistent with his past practices. She stated that in their interactions, he was always very charming, and never seemed angry- She said that he checks in to ask her about her supervisor?s conduct and availability fairly consistently. One time she confronted him about it, telling him she was not going to take sides, and asking what happened to make them dislike each other so much. He answered only that it was because of things in the past, about which they could not see ?eye?to?eye," and that it could not be remedied. . . The Unisersits ef antenatE Equal and af?rmatise r-?ietien D?i ee (seaae) Insesiigatise Repert Page 13 ef 38 Witness epined that it was dif?enlt te werk fer her supersiser and Dr. Slater?beth. She stated that her supersiser gets sets emetienal and is unpredietable, and that Dr. Slatw helds that hehasier against heat supersi ser. [In September 29, 211M, Witness presided the fellewing tes?rnenjr: Witness denied that Dr. Slater had dene anything te turn her against Witness D, as alleged by Witness D. She een?rrned hasing had een?iets With Witness Tashen the}? werlred. tegether, and that ts-te rnenths prier te her transfer te a reeruited pesitlen, she had appreaehed Dr. Slater aheut these een?iets. He was sets suppertise, and ehanged the ef?ee strueture se that she eeuld repert te hirn. She presided esantples ef the kinds ef eemiliets she had with Witness D, nene ef whieh Were related in an}r was te Dr. Slater. Additienall?s, ntanjt,t ef the sarne esaniples were eerreherated hs ether witnesses, in their deseriptiens efprefessienal intemetiens with Witness D. Witness alse ree'alled that Witness had stated en at least ene that she wenld use her disabilithr te preteet her jeb, if funding er ether eireurnstanees threatened her pesitien. Witness reealled that Witness had teld her abeut her inselsernent in a laber law suit in whieh she presaileel and influeneed laber laws in Arisena. She did net knew whether Witness had teld Dr. Slater the same sters. 'Witness presided eepies ef eentenlperaneeus eerrespendenee between her and Dr. Slater, deseribing her een?iets with Witness D. NDTE: Winiess presided the names ef twe ether indisideals [unidenti?ed herein] with when: she had werlted, and when: she heliesed Dr. Slater had endeasered in turn against her. The seaae intersiewed beth; beth presided teshniens re?tting that Dr. Slater had in?eeneed their respeetise relatienships with Witness D.- All three (3) witnesses testi?ed that the}r had ne trenble with Dr. Slater in terrns ef sesual harassment in an}t ferrn. ?u ?eteber 25', Witness presided the iellessing infernaatien: . Witness G, an adniinistrater whe werlts in the prefessienal Vicinity ef Dr. Slater, hirt whe isnet part ef the SAFER. teani, testified that he was net aware ef ans sesualeenduet, aside ftern an e??reeler jelre between rnen. The ene speeitie he eeuld reeall was. Dr. Slateris eernrnent, regarding Witness .T?s girlfriend, ?That?s what seu get when sen serew areund with a teaeher, ?er Werds te that e?eet. He had net heard Dr. Slater make any sueh in heat ef wernen, he stated, He alse stated that he neser seeializes with Dr. Slater, and dees net hase ans knewiedge ef his seeial eenduet. The University at drizenatsl Equal and difirmative Aetien Df?ee (Resale) Investigative Repert Page 14 at SS Regarding Dr. Slater*s interaetiens with Witness D, he stated that he had ne knewledge ef any watershed event that eansed a rupture between them. Hewever: he stated that Witness had been prier te Dr. Slater?s arrival, te far greater autenemy in her werlt. Since Dr. Slater had begun tn exert his ewn autherity ever jeint prejeets? there had been engeing een?iet, he epined. He further shared the epinien that they are beth ?eentrel ?ea?f? and reiterated that this aspeet ef their natures is lilter the reet ef any prehlems between them. He reealled eenmients made by Dr. Slater, similar tn the fellewing: are. in eharge, net [Witness ?I?d be happy te tahe GEMS nut ef SAthK?s eentrel?; just 'earmet get aleng with [Witness ?n Nevemher 9. Edd-=1. 1Witness previded the fellewing inferlnatien: Wimess stated that Dr. Slater and Witness .l appear tn melee mest deeisiens tegether. Witness epined that Dr. Slater leelts eut fer everyene, and is very eeneerned sheet the well?being ef ethers, tithile Witness is self?eeneerned. thness was aware ef ?eetlem sexual jeleing and eemirientary at the ef?ee, but stated that given everyene?s busy sehednles; the eenduet did net eneugh te ereate a sesually hest?e werlt envirenment [estimated Dr. Slater was in the vieinity aheut 5 heurs per week] Regarding ethers? parneipanen, Witness l?l stated that different peeple handled the situatien ditferently. Fer example, ene individual had aslted .Dr. Slater and Witness direetly net te diseuss their strip eluh lunehes at the ettiee. Witness l-l recalled that Dr. Slater was apelegetie, whereas Witness .T eentinued- Witness l?l expressed eeneems that Witness .l eften seemed tn have the attitude that ethers? enneerns were net geing te be his eeneerns: even in these kinds ef situatiens. Witness epined that Witness I seemed tn eneeurage Dr. Slater in his seaual behavier [Witness was alse aware at a graduate student (female) whe had asserted she felt pressured by Dr. Slater te attend a strip elth and had stated she went aleng with it as well as she eeuld, but was uneemtertable at the elnh.] Witness tvas net aware whether an additienal visiting graduate student, whnm, it has been alleged, thewDrs.F teelt te a leeal strip eluh? attended by desire er in resignatien. Anether handles herself by telling jelres, herself; whieh are ?clean,? but e?en pelte fun at gender-based eharaeteristies. This same persnn appears te have ne telling Dr. Slater and Witness I when eneugh?is?eneugh, if they are talking abnut things she prefers net te disenss. ?Dre.? retars te Dr. Slater and Wieless alse a prefesser. The University ef'Arirse naEE Equal Dppertunity and Af?rmative Aenen Df?ee m?aa?} Investigative Repert CGNFIDEMML Page 15 at SS Anather individual alse tells them tn step, when they are getting inappropriate. in the eaperienee ef Witness H, Dr. Slater and Witness de generally step their line ef eemmentaiy, when asked. Witness was aware that Dr. Slater had given a graduate student a set ef handeu?'s at a seeial ftmetien, and was aware that individual was embarrassed by the gift. Witness was net avvare ef a sign that suggested ?Tlalted Swimming? at Dr. Slater?s heuse, and stated ne ltnewledge ef any eternal nalted swimming er bathing. Witness l-I whe had gene swimming at Dr. Slater?s heuse wearing a bathing suit, stated there was an prefessienal er seeial pressUre te attend ?lnetiens at either Dr.?s hemes, altheugh beth heated parties?Dr. Slater, regularly. Wimess stated that Dr. Slater is a ?hugger,? whe hugs beth men and wenren, and that his hugs de net feel inapprepriate te Wimess H. Witness stated they de net diseuss their seanal eapleits. Witness eenfirmed allegatiens that Dr. Slater and Wimess .l assess the appearance ef passing wemen, usually students (and always female,J but de net snbjeet the wenren in the effiee er teain tn the same avert ebjeeti?eatien. Hewever, Witness epined that Witness 1 is generally demeaning te all wemen te the extent that he sets as if they are all the same, that they are universally hard te please, and that they are sernethidg te he leeIted upen and ebjeeti?ed. Wimess reealled that a visiter tn the department had enee stated that while Dr. Slater eenld he eempletely i-nappreprlate, she lilted hint anyWay, whereas Witness I seemed ?slimy? er werds te that e?eet. This visiter alse eernrnented that she felt nnsafe arennd Witness .1 but did net say why. Witness alse reealled that Witness frequently made eemments te males {e?en visiters) that werking at the University ef Ariadne was lilte being ?sandblasted with Barbies.? Witness l-l epian that there are he males in the department andt'er in whese eenduet is sexually inapprepriate, besides Dr. Slater?s and Witness Additie nal Inferm atien frem witnesses: a witness stated that, regarding Witness she eenld be dif?eult te werlt with, insefar as she was partieularly emetienal and su?ered beuts ef depressien. Seinetimes she did net eeme te werlt fer days at a time, and she eenld be eatremely sensitive abeut tandem eeneerns. The witness neted that print te the peint in time when peeple beeame generally aware that she had brenght eemplaints against Dr. Slater, she and Dr. Slater had appeared te get aleng very well. The witness was net aware whether Witness had maintained a praetiee ef tenehing Dr. Slater, er putting her head en his sheulder, as Dr. Slater bad . The University at arrieenaiE Equal Uppertunitjt and n?innative Aetien Df?ee (EDAAD) Investigative Repert CHNFIDEWL Page is ef 38 alleged, but the wimess was aware that Winiess was ?huggy? areund the wenlen in the greup. A witness stated that the phrase ?taking ene fer the team? was e?en used in the CAPER gIeup te mean taking an a distasteful pre'fessienal task. This witness had never heard its use in an}r sexual eenteat, as alleged. A witness testi?ed te having heard Dr. Slater make jeltes at heuse parties, in frent ef bis [Slater's] wife, aheut sexual threesemes, and recalled that Slaterts wife giggled, sueh that ?it made yen wender.? Hewetrer, the witness had me lmewledge ef its aetual The witness reeailed that Dr. Slater has ene friend he jeltes with abeut eensensual ?ebeating,? aieng the lines ef ?strife?swapping.? This type efjelting was alse reperted te epenljr, at parties. A wimess testi?ed te everhearing a eentrersatien between a department prefesser (male) and ether individuals, in whieh the prefesser stated he had ebserired an interaetien between Witnew .l and a female undergraduate student that made him uneernfertable. He stated that he went inte the ef?ee te run interferenee. The prefesser did net speeify en what he believed the diseemfert was based. The witness epined that, based en this, and ether ebservatiens [previeusly neted,]' the department weuld de well te pay attentien te Witness J?s interaetiens with students, te aireid future preblems. Cine witness believed that a male graduate student had been marked fer hire as a pest? dee, and the plan had been te ?replaee? Witness B. This witness believed that Dr. Slater's e?ginal plan had been in lteep Witness in her pesitien fer ene "year; later he deeided te keep her tbreugh a year. This witness epined that Witness she?dld net have felt serprise ester het nee?rehearsal, based en the seareitjr ef ?indingt?pesitiens in her ?eld The witness stated that Dr. Slater deea a let ef eut~leud thinking abeut funding and related matters. ?n Nevember 23, 2.11134, Witness presided the fellewing infermatien: Witness een?rmed he tells seitnai jekes, and maltes eemments sheet the appearanee ef passing wenien. He eeuld net reeall an}? speeifie examples ef either. He eenfirmed that he and Dr. Slater ge in strip eluhs fer limeh. He stated that ne ene else is eernpelled te ge with them. Wemen frem the department have attended, semetirnes in his surprise. Cine saeh snninse was the attendanee ef Witness B. He belietted that she ?w'as aware that the}F were geing te the strip elub, prier te her the intdtatien te luneb, and that she did ge with them. He reealled that she Tho Uniwa'sittr of ArizonaEE Equal Upportut?t}? and A?innatitro notion Df?oo [Elliot-til] Intros?gatitfo Report CDWIDEMIAL Pago l? of 38 onprossod curiosity. Ho statod that ho has novor intdtod anyono front tho dopartruont to attond strip bars? birosolf. Wituoss oonfirrnod that ho and Dr. Slator hatro opoon disoussod thoir porspootitra that tho}; do not always know whothor thoit spousos 1will porooivo good doodsi?gi?s as ?donuts or diamonds.? Ho stated it is a notation ho has Inado about tho naturo of pooplo in gonoral, as woll, and that it was not about woman? onslasinoly. Witnoss .l ooniirrnod ho has rnado tho ootnrnont that working at tho Uninorsitji is lilto boing sandblastod with Barbies. Ho statod that it soornod to hint that a lot of tho wornott on oatnpus woro going out of tltoir wajf,t to ontulato that physioal prosontation. and that ho has oorornontod on it. Witooss statod ho has novor boon introltrod in giving anyono handou?s, but was awaso thoro was a rumor going around about that issqu sinoo tho invostigation hogan. Ho statod that no ono had ovor approaohod hint about rofraioing front disoussion about snip olubs, and that no otto has ovor told hint ho is making too many soitual joltos and oonintonts. Ho rooallod boing approaohod about boing loss straightforward in. his profossional criticisms. Witnoss statod that ho Was itwolvod in tho decisionto nonsronow Witnoss B. Ho opinod that it was aotuall?y by his impotos that it stating that ho had spolton to Dr. Slator about hot laolt of productivith and io hor domain. I-lo rooallod that this startod around tho tinto sho startod working on an AEDR projoot, ?No Child Loft thini** around adntorispring REID-4: whoa ho notod that sho tans not pulling hor own woight. Ho did not toll Witnoss dirootljr that ho was oonoornod with hot produotion. Ho did aslt hot quostions about how sho was doing to prompt hor attontion. Ho rooallod that ho had boon talking to Dr. Slator about his oonooros all along, as ho doos rogarding all tho graduan stodonts and post doos. Witooss I statod that thoto is no usual appointinoot for post doos, but that two FEMS is I ?fairly? normal." rooallod having disoussions with Dr. Slator about Witnoss in August and Soptontbor l-lo rooallod orto doi'niititro oontrorsation, a?or wbioh ho boliovod Dr. Slator talked to Winioss about bar opinion of bar own- wori-z; Witnoss roitoratod that tho oontrorsation was supposod to hatro boon dosigood to olioit hor to tail hor sho was non?ronowod in absoluto tarsus- Howovor, Witnoss i nova: oon?nuod tho oontrorsation, oitbor its or its oontont. tadth Dr. Slator: and Slator novor roportod book to him about it. The University;r ef AritenaEE Equal Dppertunitjf and A?irmative Aerien D?fiee (EDAAD) Investigative Repert C?h?lr?l?m Page 13 ef SE Witness eeuld net pinpeint a date fer all ef this, hut stated he was sure it was hefere he learned that Witness E- was "behind" the EDAAD investigatien. Wimess .T neted that Dr. Slater werries mere aheut the well?being ef his ee~werl=ters mere than anvene he has ever knewn, in terms ef their needs, funding them, and trying te help them keep their war}: meaning?nl. Witness epined. he, himself, is viewed as the ene whe will eraelt dewn en everjrhedv. He stated that he de'es have persenal eenversatiens ef varieus natures with heth his male and female students. He added that he rides meterneress hiejveles, and runs inte heth males and females item his elasses (students) Due, in partieular, is the EMT at the traek, and her hevfriend rides there, se the}? all hang eut semetimes and tall: shep. Regarding having made a student uneemtertahle, as alleged, he had ne infermatien. ?tness estimated that appreirimatelv 30% ef all eenversatien in the greup is aheut Werlt, that health and pelities are the mestrdiseussed issues, that media and musie are big, and that sen talk is prehahl}r the neat measurable pereentage [did net e?'er an estimate] Witness 1 had previeusljv stated that ne ene ever appreaehed hint aheut limiting his eenvers atiens, hut then reealled that an undergraduate did enee request that he net dis euss eertain sexual things areund her. He stated that as a result ef that request, he ehanged his hehavier areund her dramatieall?v. He eited her as the ?1an ene in CHEER whe has net, at seine time, made a sexual el ene le'nd er anether. He stated that maybe ene ether persen alse de es net ever malre eerninents ef a sexual nature. Witness .l stated that ne ene has ever appreaehed him with eemplaints that Dr. Slater makes tee man}? [er any] se?aual eemments. He was net aware ef ineidents [as alleged] when Dr. Slater teld auvene they,F sheeld net wear underwear se they might teaeh better, when Dr. Slater strapped anvene?s underwear, er when Dr. Slater suggested that peeple might swim naked at his heme. Witness reealled that the phrase ?take ene fer the team" was used fer ?a theusand reasens" in the greup,_that it was applied te duties met by males and females, and that it had ne speei?e sexual eennetatien that he eeuld reeall. He stated it was his belief that ne ene was ever eirpeeted in sleep vidth anpene else, as a jeh duty. Witness 1 further stated that he had net-heard Dr. Slater discuss persenal sermal er sesual threesemes. Witness reealled that he and Dr. Slater had been diseussing the preduetien and value at Witness D?s werlt [Assistant te Dr. Slamr under SAlleK] sinee Edit] er 2.3132. Witness I stated he did net werlc: with her direetlp, but get feedhaelt aheut her perfermanee at werksheps and meetings, item teaehers in the eemmunitv. Often the feedhaelt was aheut a prehlem that had in her line ef respensihility. Additienallv, graduate students The Uniyer'sity efArisenaIE Equal Dpperturdty and af?rmatiye Aetien fotee (sense) Investigative Repert CDNFIDENM Page 19 ef 33 in CAPER eemplained that she was nen?prefessiensl in her interaetiensJ that she eemmunieated peerly? that she eften was geilty ef net eanying her ewn weight, and that she semetimes withheld needed infermatiem apparently fer spite, making mere werk fer eyeryene else. Witness I added that she simply ?drepped the ball? a lea. and that while eyeryene dees it semetirnes, she steed eat in that way. Witness .l was net aware ef any watemhed eyent betWeen her and. Dr. Slater that put there in eenftiet, but he stated that she might be sensitive heeause she may be aware she is net pereeiyed te he at the leyel ef espeetatiun. He stated that in general? they appear te have a werking relatienship; she eernes eyer te talk te him [Slater] Regarding Witness E, Witness .l epined that she treats eyeryene ?eddly.? He stated that she is net geed in greups, re the extent that she has treuhle representing her ewn peiut ef View. He neted that she tends te hide prehlems fer a leng time. Witness eenfmned that Witness has had a habit ef putting her head en Dr. Slater?s sheulder. He stated she did net seem te be afraid ef Dr. Slater. Te the eentrary, he reealled that during her frequent heuts ef depressien, she weuld semetinies need eeaseling fer days at a time: and weuld ge te Dr. Slater fer that selaee. Dn die ether hand; he neted that she appears te aveid him [Prather] in erder te ayeid een?iea he surmised, sinee she lniews he is likely te tell it ?as it is.? Witness I stated that it was diffieult te tell when Witness B?s peefermsnee was suffering beeanse ef her depressien; er by her eheiee. Net enly did she have ebyieus perieds ef depressieri, abent whieh she was esndid and epen? but alse leng perieds ef time in whieh she weuld repert that eyerything Was DEL but Wettld fail te perferm adequately. Wimess I believed that Witness had determined leng befere her hen?renewal that her werk was net a geed tit ?dth CHEER and that she had been seeking werk elsewhere sinee early in EDS-4. Dn Neyernber 23, sees, the resp endent presided additienal inferrn atlen: Dr. Slater testified that he eeuld net think ef anyene in the CAPER greup whe had never made a eemment with setne set-teal eyertene. He stated that while he believed he had set a tene in the gteup that sexual banter was he did net belieye he was ?daring? the eendnet. He reealled that Witness had eften made eemtnents that suggested semething sexual. He reealled she had eemmented te him that if she enly dressed mere like Tina Turner she wenld be able te get the males te de what she needed them te de mere quiekly {administrative tasks were implied.) Dr. Slater epined that dressing ?like This The University ef AriaenatSt Ennal lDppertunity and AErmatiye Aetien D?iee (tease) Investigative Repert CDNFIDEWHAL Page Ell at 33 Turner? implied baring the midriff and wearing shert skirts. He stated that his wife had reminded him [after his ?rst interview transpired] that Witness had attended his eestume Halleween party (in dressed, by self?identifieatien, as a ?naughty lCathelie seheelgirl.? Part ef her eestnme was a pair ef fishnet thigh?high steeltings, he reealled. He reiterated earlier testimeny that he did net speei?eally reeall er speeifieally deny telling her that he had always had a fantasy abent ?deing? a Cathelie sehe elgirt Dr. Slater reealled that he and Wimess had shared a ?ritual? in the past wherein when he arrived at werk and she weuld ask him, ?Are yen dressed else?? He was then snppesed te shew her his ?hehind" [elethed] se she eenld make an assessment ef his appearanee. She weuld say things h'ke, ml?es, yen leek er, net quite right.? He reealled this sert ef thing went en between them regularly until Wimess E- beeanie remanneally intetested in senteene. He surmised her attitude abent kidding areund with him, in general, changed areund that time, but eenld net be eertain that was the reasen. Regarding Wimess A, Dr. Slater recalled that when she resigned frem SAFER she teld him it was due te preblerns she had with Witness D, as far as iellew?threngh, seenn'ng reems, preparing materials, and ether similar issues. He reealled that Witness later teld him that Witness A did net usually eheese te stay in a pesitien fer mere than a year, and se he surmised that was part ef her rnetiyatlen fer leayin g. Pret'iding additienal infermatien ahent the Hen-renewal ef lillitness El, Dr. Slater stated that Witness I had pushed repeatedly te nen?renew her threugheut spring sees- Dr. Slater neted he had eeneeras abent her hear the start ef her empleyrnent, but felt that they eenld menter her threngh them. During the summer [Slater was gene all this started te seem less likely. He reealled having several disenssiens with Witness l3 ahent these eeneerns, the last ef whieh he believed areund twe weeks prier in Dr. Slatet's meeting with the EDAAD [this meeting en September Hillel] Dn Neyemher 24, a fermer SAFER team graduate student preyided the fellewing infermatien: Witness A led the SAFER team ef her ewe yelitien in spring EDDIE. She stated that her reasens fer leaving were that Dr. Slater was se difficult te reaeh, there was ne liaisen and an established plan, and the budget was preblematie. Additienally she felt that Dr. Slater mismanaged things administratiyely, sueh that she eften had te ?mep things up." In additien te all these reasens, she left CHER beeause ef the sesnal and ?lewd? hehayier eften etdtibited by Dr. Slater and Witness l. She reealled there was eften sexual jeking and hanter bettereen the twe males, fer example, a' diseussien ahent a gaseline?pewered yibrater, and eemrnents abeut what wernen want [sexueihr implied] She else reealled that en ene when. she ealled Dr. Slater in Hawaii with a I The University at Arie-senathi Equal Dpperttmity and A?irrnative Aetien D?iee {neaae} Investigative Repert Page 2.1 at SS ?laundry list? ef things that needed tending, he ended the eenversatien hy asking her hew her leve life was. She said she fennd this te he very inapprepiiate. She stated there was ?nnspehen? prefessiena] pressure te attend seeial ftmetlens and hense parties. ?When aslred te previde eaarnples, Witness a stated it was eerements like ?We really missed yen at that party.? Dr, ?We really hepe te see yen at the npeeming party.? Hewever, the witness stated she really did net have any prehlenrs when she failed te attend the Valentine?s Day party. at ene party she attended [Christmas] she recalled there was jehing [enly] a?er-the-faet ahent naked het?tnhhing. In earlier testimeny, thewitness had stated that Witness was ?hitting en? a teaeher a?er a eenferenee they had all attended tegether. Upen ?lrther qnestienmg she admitted that the twe were having a eenversatien in the ear, in whieh nething was ?ever the line-? Latm she ehserved the twe at a party, elearly behaving as a eenple [net inapprepdately.] That was the estent ef the related tedimeny. Regarding that eenple, Dr. Slater later teld her that Wintess was ?sleepmg with [arena deleted] a ef nifeimatien she felt was highly inapprepriate fer sharing- Witness A stated she was'aware ef the strip jeint lnnehes when she was in (SAFER, but did net attend any. . ?n Nevemher 19, l?lld, Witness previded additienal intermatien: Witness statEd'that Dr. Slatm head her as an Assistant Researeh Seientist [started August 21:303.] They met at a in Eenlder in May At her hire, the witness nndersteed that she was snpperted by a grant (ARUJ that had a three {El} year life span, ending in summer Witness reealled that in early EDS-4 she netieed that the new male pest dee [similarly situated te witness] was getting rnere respensihility en the team than she had. She neted that in er ahent early Nevernher, his name was added tn the CHEER ea mail header, eining the names ef Dr. Slater and Witness l. The winiess had been aware that Dr. Slater was leaking ferward te hiring this individual sinee spring sees, and. that Dr. Slawr was just. waiting fer his gradnatien [deeteral eempletien.] The witness stated that at ne time was it indieated he wenld replace her- - The witness een?rmed that her speeialty is unusual in the SAFER grenp: earth and envirenmental seienee rather than astrenemy, and that she had eeneerns that it might he seen as mis?t. - The witness admitted that as early as June she had already started te thinlr ahent werhing elsewhere heeanse she was afraid her eentraet wenld net he renewed. She stated The University ef-ikrirenathl Equal Dppertunity and Af?rmative Aetien D?iee Investigative Repert CDWEENTM Page 22 ef'iih that at that time her fear was based en her having had te miss seme werk. When asked if her fears were haSed as anything else, she stated she was ?payehetie,? adding that she werries aheut everything. She eited ne aetiens en the part ef her team members that weuld have suggested she weuld he nun?renewed at that he. The wimess denied leeking fer werk elsewhere respeusive te artieulated eeneerns aheut her preduetien, er her ewn desire te ehange jehs. She een?rmed that she did start is leele briefly, ent ef fear ef retaliatery terminatien, after she learned the EDMD was investigating in her area. She started leaking and then stepped Ieekjng, in August SUM, after deeid'ing fer persenal- reasens that she was unwilling te leave the lessee area. She recalled that in a eenversatien with Dr. Slater in August 2004 [ear trip te Pheerii?s] they diseussed funding meehanisms hy whieh she eeuld stay en a?er three (3) years. The witness stated that altheugh she wants te ?nish her third year with SAFER, she has misgivings aheut werlting with the greup heyend that. She admitted that she had a eenversatien with Dr. Slate; in which she implied she was seeking that eentinuatien, in an attempt te lmew where she steed with him at that time. The witness estimated that she had been spending E?r'i'll heurs a week with Dr. Slater [prier re the investigatien] bath in and eut ef the ef?ee, and that aheut 15% ef that time their interaetiens were laeed with sexual eemrnentary and eenduet. She stated that she never initiated any ef the sexual eenduet, hut semetimes went leng with it. She denied any lmewledge ef the eenversatien alleged by Slater that started with, ?De yen leek niee tedayi'" She een?rmed she had said things like, ?Yeah, I?m really eheeking eut yeur hutt,? when he weuld step in hunt ef her and aeeuse her ef staring at his rear end, while walking en eainpus, fer example. The witness stated that Dr. Slater hegan te pressure her aheut geing te snip eluhs with him very early in her empleyment. She reealled a eenversatien in September in whieh he eernplained te her that all his female empleyees were always erying and whining. She teld him she weuld net dry, and he said, well, well] just see hew di?hrent yen are frem everyene else. He further eemmented that the wemen he invited te strip eluhs always whined aheut that. Then, hetween Marsh and May sees, Dr. Slater gave her ?grief? aheut net gemg te the male strip eluh with ether females frern the greup in Mareh. She reealled that he teld her, ?Yen?ll have te ehme with me, then;? er werds te that effeet. She stated she felt prefessienal pressure te atmnd en the en whieh she did fmally ge [areund May 213134.] The wdmess stated that ether than Dr. Slater?s serrual eenduet, he did net have habits that were treuhling fer her. ?ne time he teek her laptep fer his ewn use, and she felt eemfertahle telling him that was Regarding the set-real eendnet, she stated .-. The Universityr ef AitrenaISJ Equal Upp?r?l?lfj.? and Af?rmative Actien Df?ce Investigative: Hepert Page 23 ef SS it made her feel diminished, and inferier in impertance te the males in the area. She ?ntber stated she had the impressien that Dr. Slater valued wernen as ebjects, mere than fer their brains. Additienal cemmeirts she recalled his making were werds similar tn the fellewing: want te get veu naked", ?Stand up, turn areundh?haif the bevs in veur class are ge'mg heme te masturbate after watching yen teach {retbm'ng te studenm in HATS 101.)? The witness denied that Dr. Slater asked her hew she felt abeut the eptien ef neu? renewal, and that she had agreed te it She stated that he teld her it weuld be se, and when she asked 1what she cenld de te prevent it, he teld her, ?Tlething. Yen wenlt be The witness stated she believed Dr. Slater made the decisien te nee?renew her, him?lf, and that he did it because ef the cemplaints she had made abeut his eenduct. Either than the timing ef her nen?renewal, relative te Dr. Slater?s luiewledge ef the EDAAD investigatien, the witness previded ne evidence that the twe were related. [in December T, 11104, Witness previded the fellewing infermatien: The witness is an Assistant Sta? Scientist, and has knewn Dr. Slater and Winiess fer several years, tn the extent that he neuverlted with them at prefessienal cenfcrences threugbeut that peried. Last year {appreaimatelv SUSS) cenversatiens abeut his jeming their team became mere serieus as his decteral werk neared cempletien. Three mentbs age, in er abeut late August Edd-4, he was hired. is aware that his cempensatien is funded tbreugb. SAMEK, a grant that has ene mere year ef ?mding. After that if mere mencj.r is allecated, he ma}.r centinue te werk. He stated that ne premises were made abeut the duratien ef his emplevment. The witness stated that he is paid te help run the ?Assist? Pregram. He prevides science- speci?c and classreem suppert fer ban (2) middle scheel science teachers, and their menthl?ztr cenferences. He has alse been asked te take en the suppert ef graduate students wheae werlt fecuses en teaching science tbreugb infermal media, such as libraries and museums. He stated that he believes part ef the reasen fer his hire was his experience in this area, gained at ltilehunbia Universityr tbreugh his graduate pregram. He stated that at the time ef his hire, Dr. Slater had 4?5 new graduate students in related prejects. Witness stated that he has little epperuuiitv te interact with Witness B. He attended ene cenfcrence with her abeut twe menths age, where he ebserved that she seemed less a ?team? player than the graduate students whe were else there. He recalled that she - The University of drinonaw Equal Dreams-in and amenities Action D?ice (EDAAD) Investigative Report CGNFIBEMML Page 24 of 38 did her assigned duties, but did not assist with the additional chores, re?lling water pitchers, for example. ht working closely with Dr. Slater and Witness l, the witness learned only that they did not consider Witness to be a major contributor to the program. He stated that he learned tliisdun'ng a conversation about the team, in general, in which they were discussing the progress of all the team members. The 1witness stated he also works with the Senior Education Specialist at Flandrau Planetarium. He stated that he is aware that she has 1knowledge of Witness B?s role in the investigation: but was not aware how she became aware of it. He stated that he has not ever been asked to make any sort of referral about Wintess E. He was aware that she had applied for a volunteer position at Flandrau, in a teaching capacity. He believed she had been accepted and was training with the program. He stated he believed Flandrau had no paying positions available. ?n December 9, 1004, Witness provided this additional information: Witness continued she had applied for a volunteer position at Flandrau, hoping that it might develop as a paying position. She stated she has bean accepted as a volunteer, is training for the position, and has had no trouble there. Du December 15, 1004, the Respondent provided the following additional information: Dr. Slater reiterated that his ?rst lmowledge of the investigation came from overbearing graduate students talking about it. He recalled thinking at some point ?rst they probably had not yet been interviewed because they were speculating against whom the complaint was made and talicing about unsupervised employees ?up the'mountain." He stated that at that time he did not speculate about who had made a complaint. However: he recalled thinking about it the night of September 29., Edd-El, prior to his ?rst EDAAD interview. He stated that Wintess was not a consideration, and that the only person he thought might have brought a complaint against him was Witness D, an employee he knew did not lilce bird, whom be perceived to he very unpredictable, and who was aware her performance had been unsatisfactory to him-since they started working together three years ago. Dr. Slater stated he has never given Witness a performance review because he is afraid she will act out against ?the center? in some way: messing up budgets; sabotaging teacher workshops; etc. Dr. Slater stated that the only person with whom he discussed EDAAD interviews was Wi?l?d? l. He stated that: to this day, he is not aware who else the unseat: has interviewed- The Universityr of Arizonatail Equal and Af?rmative station foioe Investigative Report CGWIDENTM Page 25 of 33 Dr. Slater denied that non?renewing Witness was in an}? wasF related to the sexual harassment oomplaints brought against him. He reiterated that she had been seeking work elsewhere earlier in the ?rvear? based on her own desire to be in a position that was pureljlr teaEhing, and earlier diseussions the}? had together about her goals and her ?t with goals. He stated that poor perfonnanee was an issue with Witness E. He admitted that when she asked him if he thought she had been worln'ng hard, he told her he knew she had been. He defended his position, stating that while he had always believed she was trying; she was not produoing adequately. Ha atatad that she was hired to develop a ?Tliatanoe Learning Program," and to oonduot researoh in Earth Soienae teaehing. She should have been publishing in both areas, and she should have been uniting grants, neither of whieh she did. He eon?rmed that aha not so n1uoh as submitted in either area He was aware that aha had one aha taught: the Learning Distanee whioh aha has taught only; one we to set students, heretofore. He stated that aha should also have been providing guidanoe to graduate students in her area of expertise. He stated graduate students are not assigned, and surmised that none has approached her beaause aha does not convey a lot of eapertiae. He admitted he was reasonablv aware of her soope when he hired her, in tar-ms of her areas-utilityr within the program [referenoes her use?ilness to graduate students] Dr. Slater noted that worst of all, Witness showed little or no initiative in learning new skills. Dr. Slater stated that both Witness and the new post~doo were hired as post dootoral fellows, but had different titles, with distineiions he had been unaware of until last week, when he attended a Leadership Institute workshop that highlighted hiring praetiaes. He stated that? while at the Workshop? he divulged that feet that when he hired each, reapeativeljv, he ohoaa their desired pay, and then aeleotad a title to justify the desired salarv. The trainers elearlv and fitle artioulated that this is not an appropriate hiring praotiee. He hired the new post?doe about three months ago with the following tasks: to teaahar eduoatlon programs for new faoultv; to coordinate all researeh projaeta at the museum of 'whieh there are various sorts. Sines his. start he has submitted two papers for publiea?on and one grant, the latter on Daeemher l, aooa- Dr. Slater opined that the new post?doe is sueh a hot shot he did not provide a fair eomparison for Witness [however~ the],r are similarly situated] Regarding Witness l? a peer to Witness with a little more senioritv, he has submitted 6-3 papers in three pears, and has reoeived three grants in that period. He also teaehes taro elasses per semester and supervises graduate students. The University at Arisenati). Equal Dppertunity and Af?nnatiye Actien l[:lfhce (EDAAD) Investigative Its-pert Page 25 cf SS Dr. Slater stated that the enly indicatien he eyer had that Witness did net lie his sexual banter was en August It]? ESSA: when she respended a seaual cerement he made by telling him he needed te step talking that way fer his ewn gecd- Altheugh he later censidered that her reasen fer the change in attitude was her new-feund lever he did net think much abeut it en August It]. He recalled that things went en between them that day, in the usual way. Du March 1, the respendent presided additienal testimeny: He neted that his August SUM censersatien with Witness E: in which. they discussed the ways and means ef her staying, referred te her staying in Tucsen?net in CAPER. He neted that when he iniermed Witness cf her nee?renewal, she asked fer advice abeut hew te ?nd apprepriate empleyment. They discussed yarieus eptic-ns related te teaching. She requested that Dr. Slater pay her threugh July SUSS, if her new jeb were scheduled te start in August. He stated he teld her this was ?reasenablej? and they ceuld discuss it again as it came timely. Dr. Slater preyided a w?tten timeline, ?[eerne deleted] Empleyment Tnneline? fer Witness B?s empleyinent. It eutlined her yarieus accernplishnrents, and made citatiens ef her prefessienal beth quantitatiye and qualitative? them his perspective? and included his e?erts te assist her in fmding yarieus teaching pests during with the University ef Arizena, and an e?mail shewing that Wimess E. was seeleing werlt eutside the university in the spring ef SIDS-4, theugh she had denied haying dene se pricr te the initiatien ef this intestigatien. Dr. Slater said that Winiess B?s statements that he had never indicated te her any ccncerns abeut her preduetien and her centinuing werlt in CAPEIL were simply net true. He stated that they had yarieus centersatiens abeut it}. based en her heightened interest in teaching, and her centinual dissatisfactien with the prejects she undertch threugheut the E??it?d academic year: is, the cenyersatiens eccutred as a result ef his and her diss atisfactien. Dr. Slater stated that when he returned tn the ef?ce in August it was Witness Bis Iew preductien ever the summer that made her centinuing empleyment seem untenable: he recalled that she preduced between sir-t and eight (S) pages ef a curriculum material fer an intreductery general edneatien ceurse?material that he deemed te be ef very peer quality._snd which he said ?eeuid have easily been preduced in a weekend.? He recalled that Witness alse teld him she werked en her ?jeb talk? eyer the summer?t. a, her eral presentatien fer petential upeeming jeb interviews at ether institntiens. March 1t], Witness presided additienal infermatien: Generally, she denied Dr. Slater?s assessments ef her prefessienal eutput, beth quantitative and qualitative. She The Uniyersity of Arizona-{S3 Equal Oppor'omity and Af?rmatiye Action Of?ce Investigative Report CHNFIHWML Page of SS con?rmed that she had sought a position the Uniyersity of Arizona, in lyiid March in the hopes of getting a job that offered more teaching opportunity [prior to concerns that her job would he in jeopardy of retaliatory action by Dr. Slater]. She stated that she had forgotten about this attempt to ?nd new employment when she was asked about same in a precious EISIAAIS1 interview. She denied Dr. Slater?s statements that she had missed a lot of class when teaching NATS It'll Regarding the assignment he stated she had made to students and then failed to collect, she stated that he was responsible for the same error by half, since they were co?teaching the class and he had aslted her to malte the assignment. She opined that he could have reminded her to collect the assignment, and forgot to do so, himself. Witness con?rmed Dr. Slater?s efform to assist her in ?nding teaching posts at the University of Arizona, and con?rmed her preference for teaching oyer research. reiterated that Dr: Slater had mid her speci?cally and repeatedly that it was alright with him that she was not producing research or grants, and that she had found her niche? teaching. Later she added that Dr. Slater had known for some time that she intended to pubhsh some teaching research she had started, but that the research ?ndings still needed to be tested before it could be put up for publication. She did not say when that was likely to occur. Witness con?rmed her receipt of a form entitled ?Self Assessment of Ertpectations as CAPER Team Members? which she believed had been handed out at a meeting early in her employment within CAPER. She stated that she belieyed that although she is a CAPER team membcr, it did not apply to her, since she is not a graduate student. She admitted that it was never stated that it?and its itemiaed assessments?did not apply to her. Regarding that summer?s product. Witness recalled that she gave Dr. Slater 6?3 pages in the beginning of the summer, asked for feedbaclt, but never receiyed it, and ?nished another 5-3 pages by the end of the summer. She stated they were complicated pages, which included diagrams, questions, and other teaching tools. She said that the pages represented ?a lot of wot FACTUAL ANALYSIS: Re: Sexual Harassment: Eyidence from multiple witnesses, and. hem the respondent, indicates that, particularly within the team, there has been a continual practice of sexual joking, direct set-coal discourse, and innuendo.. Dr. Slater con?rmed that he has openly conversed in ?ont of female graduate students about his eitperiences at strip clubs, that he is ?touchy,? often hugging people, as well as at least occasionally massaging co-worlters shoulders. - The Unieersity ef Arisienat?t - Equal Oppertunity and Af?rmative Actien D?ice {sense} - Investigative Repert Page 23 cf SS He characterised himself as ?flirtatieus,? and ??iendly? and ??attering.? Dr. Slater cen?rrned giving anenrpleyce a aegetahleshaped yibrater, and frequently [?enc?te-En? - tea?hundred tirnea?? cease-renting te rnales and females abcut the appearance cf passing werncn: insinuating sesual interest: ?Yeuire geiug te have te say that again, because that?s tee distracting.? Dr. Slater that he is ?sexually eyert? [his werdsJ] that he tends te sayr a let ef seirual' things, and that he is prebably inappropriate scrnetin-res. Altheugh there were many speci?c allegaticns that he was unable te ceeiinn, he repeatedly cernnrented that the alleged cernnrents seunded hire the hind ef thing he weuld say. In. speci?c instances, he demed the alleged cenduct, stating it creased a line that he success?illy maintains. Fer exampch he said that discussing blew er physically snapping a fehralc?s underwear threugh her dress,-weuld cress such a line. Dr. Slater cen?irned the use ef such phrases as ceuld hiss yeu full en the lips" [with males and females] and ?taldng ene fer the teant;h sernetirnes with serrual intent, and. as a jclte. He cen?rnred that he witness that his persenal se?a?ual reccrd was fear (4) wenren in Wentwaeur {24) heurs [he teld the inacstigater this particular 24 hcur pericd dated back te high schecL but admitted he did net reveal that te the witness when he the stery.] He denied talking aheut haying sexual threeserncs that included his 1wife, and denied telling witness he heelrzed up en line with weruen, meeting them fer sexual enceunters at prefessienai cenferences- Sernc witnesses reperted that they went aleng with. the seaual banter, and participated in it reactitfely, sernctinies casually. ether tirues because they felt their prefessicnal security wculd be diminished. if they did net. There is strung evidence that several witnesses were cenifertable appreaching Dr. Slater abeut his cenduct. at least eccasienally: ene asked - that he re?ain frern discussing strip clubs in her presence; anethcr requested that he cease massaging her sheulders publicly [Dn Slater ceniirtued these twe incidents, hirnse]f.] sir-tether witness reperted expressing ?cneugh?is?eneugh? when. the banter reached a certain peintJ and testi?ed that ethers had alse taken this appreach with Dr. Slater. There is etddence that senre members ef (SAFER ether than the likely initiated scnual cernnrents en senie beth in the presence cf Dr. Slater and in his absence. POLICY BNALYSIS . I The University at driest-lath Equal and af?rmative entice Ditice (cease) Investigative Rep Page 29 cf 3 8 Re.- Sexual Harassment: The University ?a Sexual Harassment Paletch University ?nes ether as students tn sexual harassment. sexual advances, requests fer sexual ?ivers, and ether unwelenaie verbal er physical canteens sexual senate cenn?tests sexual hearse-acct wh an; Suhmissien in such ccnduct is made either explicitlv er iniplicitlv a teen nr cenditinn at an individuals emplevinent, educatinn, nI participatien in a Universitj.r activity, er Suhmissinn tn er rejectinn cf such ccnduct by; an individual is used as the hasis fer eniplevinent decisiens, educatinii decisiens, er ether decisiens affecting an individual?s participatinn in a Universitv activitv, er Such ccnduct has the effect cf enreasnuahlv interfering with an individual's werh perferniance, educatinn er participaiien in a spensered activity, tn the extent that said ccnduct creates an intimidating, hestile, er e?ensive er educatienal envirenrnent The alleged ccnduct must he sexual meat-ere andler hased en sex. Based en the testixeen)I ef the and reanv cf the witnesses the evidence the that there was sexual ccnduct within the department, speci?cally, hut net exclusively, within the CEPER team, and advanced by the Respendent in Inanv instances The alle??hd ccnduct must he u?elceine. Sexual ccnduct censtitutes a ?nished at University,r pelicv enlv if it is unwelcenae. The investigater assesses the degree te which 'v'rritnesseslceniplahiants regard the ccnduct as undesirable er effensive te detennhie whether sexual ccnduct we'll he deemed welcnnie er unwelcenie, per universityt pelicv. Under speci?c circumstances, the investigatien inaj,I censidcr whether it appears witnesses suf?ciently inadc ltuewn a change in their attitude ahnut ccnduct te which thev had n_et previeuslv nhjected. Where such a change in attitude has been made Iceewn, and the ccnduct in questien dees net St??i?n?y? change, it may then he held that the enduring ccnduct is unwelceine. Giving the Dr. Slater, his due, the evidence suggests that seine ef his emplevees and students [and did net ?nd his sexual banter effensive. The}? attended strip clubs with hire, liker eperating within their ewn aesthetic, and net under prefessienal duress, and even jeined er initiated sexual innuendn, jnkiug and micrpersnnal dialegue. Cine witness, testi?ed clearly sheet the explicit and The University at AriecnaiE Equal Dppertunity and effinnative Acticn Df?ce (sense) Investigative Repurt Page cf 33 pervasive nature cf such ccnduct. and stated she virtually never participated in said ccnduct in any but the must passive manner, simply felt the ccnduct did net create a sesually hcstile envircnment?nand sc testi?ed. chever, this perspective was shared by everycne within Dr. Slatef's prcfessicnal purview. Many witnesses testi?ed that they fcund the ccnduct c?ennve. Witness stated she felt diminished by it and that she sensed Dr. Slamr perceived wcmen as chjects tc he apprehended thrcugh their physical attributes, rather than their mental attributes. Ancther witness, when had directly tc Dr. Slater aheut his strip club ccnversaticnsJ was thereafter subjected tc ccntinuing ccmments cf a sexual nature?just abeut strip clubs. In ccnsidering ?Welccmenessii the investigatcr alsc questiens is whether the ccnduct was unsclicited. ?Unsclicited? di?ers "unwelccme? in this way: the evidence that individuals later claim that identified sexual ccnduct was unwelccme, actually enccuraged it by initiating similar ccnduct. They may genuinely ?nd that when ?the shce is en the ether fact? they dc lilre the ccnduct: er it malice them and it therefcre beccmes ?unwelccme.? Wherein this and reascnable parity cf ccnduct is in evidence, the respendent may prevail with the defense that awn ccnduct was sclicited by the party. In this particular investigaticm there were a few such witnesses. That is tc say, cthers? ccnduct, under further scrutiny: might reascnably have given Dr. Slater the impressicn that his style cf interacticn, wherein it included serual centem; was acceptable tn the Then, ever time, as Dr. Slater?s ccnduct was cnntinual, the ccnduct became nnwelccme by its sheer vclume. Further investigaticn vvculd have been required tc determine whether their respective articulated chjecticns te it were clear encugh tc send a sure and certain message that his ccnduct had heccme unwelccme. again, this was true in all cases, and dces net prcvide a. generalized defense Dr. Slater's sertual ccnduct under circumstances in which many wimesses cculd he tc have sclicited Dr. Slater's ccnduct in any manner. I The alleged ccnduct must he severe pervasive: There is substantial evidence that Dr. Slater's sexual ccnduct was cngcing, and when present an campus [as tc while traveling] was prcbahly mere than nnce every day; semetimes with di?hrent pecpie? andth in the presence cf grcups, such that an individual might have been subjected tc sesual ccntent several times during the ccurse cf cne day. This rises tn the level cf ?pervasive? as determined by the pelicy. As fur severity, the evidence struggles against the he?said-shesaid Cettainly, snapping underwear thrcugh a dress, cr suggesting that a pushduc was inspiring her The'Universitjr of Arizonatdl Equal Dpportonitv and Af?rmative Action Df?ce Investigative Report CDNFIDENTM Page 31 of 33 students to masturbate after class, could be considered severe examples of actual conduct, Dr. Slater denied the former, and did not have an opportunityr to address the latter allegation No witnesses were protdded, and themfore, the measure of severity,r is inconclusive. However, given Dr. Slater?s admitted record of conduct, it is in no way outside the hounds of reasonable conjecture that these incidents could well have occurred. Sinoe the evidence supports the determination that Dr. Slater conduotcd himElf in a seaual manner, that the conduct was to some both unwelcome and unsolicited, and that the conduct was pervasive, a policv violation ?nding must he made in the matter of sexual harassment, hostile work environment FACTUEL ANALYSIS: Re: Retaliation Winiess raised allegations of retaliation against Dr. Slater. Wreacss alleged that she had voiced concerns to Dr. Slater directly, a couple of times, that his settual conduct could get him into trouble. She stated the last time they had that conversation was August Id, 21304, on a drive to Phoenia. She alleged that in this same oonversation, she also conveyed a personal attitude of ?enough-is-enough,? following a comment he made to her about the prospcot of her swimming nalted at his house. She recalled saving words sinn'lar to, ?Look, you?ve got to stop this sesual She recalled that she told him she "was concerned that he was going to get himself into trouble. She recalled that he responded by saving that he was a seaual harasser and probava alvvavs would he, and that if she did not lilte it, maybe she should seelt work elsewhere. She recalled that he told her he believed he had surrounded hintself with people who did not mind his conduct. Dr. Slater eon?tmcd his participation in that general oonversation, but denied conveying preeiseljr that message. He did admit he told her he lilccd the way he had his life [social? professional implied] set up, and that he was a overt" person, and did not thinlr he wool ?ever change.? . He also ruminated that Witness seemed not to be attended by his sexual demeanor, but that she became more reticent about it around the same time that she began to talk about a man with whom she Was hrteraeting romantioallv. Sometime after the fact, he recalled August 1i), E?tlrii, as the point in time when her responses to his conduct began to ohange, in his estimation, such that he noted he should stop ?irting with her so much. The University at Ar'iacnatliitI Equal and Af?rmative Acticn D?ice Investigative Repcrt CUNFIDEATML Page 32 at SS Either 1Witnesses have testi?ed in their cthers? prctestaticns against the senual banter. These individuals repcrted speci?cally:r that Dr. Slater was nen-retaiiaterv in these instances, althcugb ene ncted he did dis ccntinue the ccnduct. Dr. Slater alleged he was mctivated tn nun-renew Witness an the particular day?? September 23, Edits?while attending an Academic meeting [an September 22,) in which a prufesscr discussed cutting nun-pruductive graduate students lccse, as a cf prcfessicnal favor, and b}t mural ebligatien, rather than lteeping them tc a track an which may prcbablp did net beicng. He stated that this fccused his intent tc nun-renew Wimess B. He alsc stated in his ?rst intendew that he had made the decisicn by himself. In his seccnd interview, he stated that Wimess J, ancther Assistant Research Scientist, and a peer tc Wimess B, had been him tc get rid at her [matches the Witness I gave a few hcurs pricr te Dr. Slater?s He stated that his reascns were basei citing her failme tc publish, submit grants, supervise graduate students, cr take initiative in learning new skills. He stated that she had been an add prufessienalljr, even at her hire, because cf her preference fer teaching ever research. She was hired to satisfv a particular need CAPER had at the time, and that she had ?rl?lled the need, and exhausted her utility. Dr. Slater stated that cn his team cuuld fulfill the duties Witness was maintaining. He stated that she was simva nut dcing encugli, gucd quality writ}; tn maintain her pusiticn. Departmental evidence that the last Academic Cummittee meeting befcre the nun?renewal was held an September 22, 2W4, and that Dr. Slater was present. testiman abcut tcpics discussed at that meeting is net available. On September 24, E?tld, Wimess 13 called the EDAAD and reperted that the daftr befcre, September 23, Still-4, Dr. Slater had given her nctice cf a June 231215 nun?renewal. Dr. Slater testi?ed that he became aware cf the investigaticn abcut a week pricr tc his receiving nctice [receipt cf nctice wculd have arcund September 3t], that an Administrative Headewtmvestigaticn was underwav, and that he had been named as a He stated that he became aware cf it because the graduate students were in. an uprcar ever it [manv had been scheduled tc testify by then] He stated that when he heard abcut it, he thcught he might be a fecus cf the investigaticn, himseif, because he said a let cf sexual things. He stated that later, after he was identified as a he guessed that perhaps Witness had brcught the ccmpiaint, given their ccn?icts, and earlier ccncerns that she wculd lash cut at him cr his He did suspect Witness B, he said. Witness stated that at her nun?renewal Dr. Slater her she 1.vas nut a fit with the grctIp, and that she wculd net be happy ccntinuing with SAFER. She asked if there were anng she could dc tc maintain her pcsiticn, and he said there was mad. She recalled that he alsn teld her speci?callyF that he had net made his decisicn based cn her The University at hrisenathi Equal Dppertunitg and Af?rmative hetien foiee (sense) Investigative Repert CDNFIDENTML Page 33 et SS perfernianee er due te ahsenees related te a health eenditien whieh she smiggles periedieallv. hnether interviewee, reealling Witness B?s upset a?er the meeting, reealled that Witness admitted at the time that she was net a great ?t with prefessienalljt, and that inavhe she helenged at a smaller eellege where she eeuld teaeh niere. this individual reeailed that Witness relayed having, herself, admitted te Dr. Slater, her ewn teluetanee te publish er write grants. Dr. Slamr and Witness testi?ed that Witness I had been appreaehing Dr. Slater fer menths aheut Witness E?s peer preduetien as a member. That Witness was net invelved in the same werh as Witness E, althengh he was her peer, by title, are faets net eentested ameng the witnesses. Dr. Slater and Witness agreed that ttn'eughe?ut the}! had diseussiens aheut Witness B?s preference fer mashing, eeinpared te researeh and puhlishing. Dr. Slater and Witness disagreed aheut the qualityt ef her werlt, and. whether Dr. Slater ever teld her that he was net satis?ed with the nature and anteunt ef her werle up te and threugheut his artieulatien ef his intent te hen-renew her eentraet in .Tune 2t] 05. Dr. Slater and Witness heth testified that theft diseussed ways she might ge aheut seeking the hind ef Empi?jlm??t she wanted in the ensuing menths, and diseussed the epen pDE'Sih?itjr? that Dr. Slater weuld eentinue te fend her until a pesitien [presurnahi?jrr teaehing] might initiate in August 21305 . POLICY IS: Re: Retaliatien: i? he Sexual Harassment Peitey prehihtts retah'atien against indivianais whe engage in preteeteaT retated ta seraai harassment An indivtdnai is preteeteaT ?etn retattatten when hefshe engages in preteeted eendaet tn ene er snare ef the fatter-wing wast Files a sexuaiharassrnent eeniplaint er testi?es, assists, er pardeijeates in any rnanner in an investigatien er ether related te sueh a eemplaint, er Uppeses eenduet reasenahlv helieved te eenstitute senual harassment teward ene?s self er te ethers, even if the individual has net ?led a. sexual harassment eernplaint and is net invelved in the investigatien ef sueh a eernplaint. ?nirvana-J ugeaamu-anu Equal Iflppertunitj,r and af?rmative Acticn Office (cease) Investigative Repurt CDNFIBENTIAL Page 34 cf 3 3.. Essentieihi, any adverse setter; that is reassurith itireiy as deter a petal er cthers ?es! engaging in prerecred activity, at then punishes them fer having dune sc, is prehihtted II The cemplainant must have engaged in pretected ccnduct; I- The cemplainarit must be able te articulate an er academic adverse sedan that heishe has sustained; I Te suppert a primer fccie [en its face] case cf discriminatic-n, retaiiatien, the cemplainarit must be able tc shew a temperal er causal link between the pretected cenduct [cemplaiut cf harassment] and the alleged adverse actien; - Where there is evidence fer retaliatien, the respendent must he able tc articulate a credible, legitimate, nen?discriminaicrp reascn fer its acticns, in crder te defend itself against a retaliatierL cemplaints; - Where the respendent has articulated a credible, legitimate, ncn?discriuiinaterjir defense fer its actiens, the cemplainant must dcruenstrate that the articulated defense is merer a pretest fer discriminaterv intent. The cemplainant must have engaged in pretected cenduct: The evidence that Witness verbalieed at least cne cernplaint in Dr. Slater abcut his sexual banter, abcut sis weelrs pricr tc her nen?mnewal. There is reascnable evidence is suppert the cenclusicn that by? the time Dr. Slater nun?renewed Witness B, he was, mere lilter than net, aware cf the investigaticn threugh the grapevine, alreadf,r suspected his cum cenduct was being reviewed, and ceuld reascnablv have identified Witness as a pessible bringer cf the Df ncte, Dr. Sister?s testimcnv is te the en. the latter pcint: he stated he did eat believe Witness was the bringer, but suspected Witness [1 might be, based en their many? prefessicnal cen?icts. The must he able te articulate an emplevment er academic adverse actien that hetshe has sustained; Wimess received verbal advice cf nun-renewal cf tc be effective June l?fl?. Dr. Slater was the fermal deeisicn-rnalter in this nan?renewal. Because Witness reperted Dr. Slatefs intent te nun?renew tc the EDEAD inirnediatelv, and the EDAAD ferestalled the fcrmal adrninistraticn cf this acticn, Witness did net sustain an adverse acticu; she received the threat cfan adverse actien. A threat Inav net be sustainable in a eeurt cf law, hewever fer purpcses cf apprehending universityr pelicv, it may he held as an adverse aeticn and subjected tc, and scrutinised under, the mcdels ef discriminaticn as laid cut by university,r peliev, especiallv bv the entityr that determined the threat weuld net ge fcrward witheut due ccnsidcratien cf its discriminater appearance. Tc suppert a priest facts [en its face] case c-f discriminaticu, the cemplainant must be able tc shew a temperal er causal link between the pretected ccnduct [cumulaint cf harassment[ and the alleged adverse acticn: Equal lIfilpportunity and Af?rmative Action Ciftice Investigative: Report Page 35 of 33 The evidence supports a temporal connection between the protected conduct and the resulting adverse action. Dr. Slater testi?ed that approximately one week prior to his own interview at the EDAAD [September 3i}, he became aware of a seaual harassment investigation, and surmised that he could be a subject of that investigation [therefore on or about September 23, 2004, by Slater's own reckoning] Even giving Slater the benefit of his own potential inaccuracy, the timing of witness interviews would corroborate Slater?s general awareness of the investigation by the date of Witness B's non-renewal [September 23, There is a reasonable possibility that be suspected that Witness had brought the complaint and or related concerns to the attention of the EDAAD, given the concerns she articulated to him directly on at least one occasion: August lil, This personal complaint to Dr. Slater in August, linked to Dr. Slater?s knowledge of the investigation in September, preceding the non-renewal by only day or two, reasonably create an apparent temporal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action. ?are there is artists facie evidence for retaliation, the respondent must be able to articulate a credible. legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions, in order to successfully defend a retaliation complaint: Dr. Slater defended that he chose to non~renew Witness his contract due to performance concerns, specifically her failure to publish, gain grants, provide leadership and take initiative. These are reasonable standards by which to measure Witness Bis value to the department, and there is no conflict of opinion between the parties, regarding her failure to perform in at least the ?rst three of these areas. Thus, Dr. Slater has provided a credible, legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his actions. Where the Epondent has articulated a credible, legitimme, non?discriminatogy defense for its actions, the complainant must demonstrate that the articulated defense is merely a pretest for discriminatory intent: In simple terms, this is the point at which Witness B?s arguments favoring the likelihood of discrimination have to pass closer scrutiny, in order for her to be successful in her claims. This occurs only where her argument can show, "No really, it was not my performance, as he says, but his knowledge that I complained about his sexual conduct, that: made him non-renew my contract.? The only reasonable certainty is that he understood her August lilm comments as some kind of warning that he needed to he more in his commentary?indeed, they were both talking about their shared need to improve their professional images. Conversely, there is not reasonable certainty that Dr. Slater was aware that, or believed that, Witness was the hringer of complaints leading to an investigation into his conduct, when he sought to non?renew her contract on September 23, 24304. The non?renewal itself, as described by both parties, lacks the sting of retaliation: Dr. Slater counseled Witness E, as he had been for months, on how to improve her chances for landing a teaching job?her desired position?and agreed to consider paying her past her contract as a bridge to a teaching job they both hoped would materialize for her by August EDGE. The University et'nriaenatE Equal Dppertunity and Affirmative Actien Dmce Inyestigatiye Repert Page 36 cf 33 Else netable; is that Witness alleged she had espressed her direct cemplaint; as it were; te Dr. Slater en several prettieus eccasiens te ne ill effect Slater tesn'?ed that he did net recall ether eccasiens.] Additienally, anether 1wt'ttness alleged she teld Dr. Slater and Witness that she was effended by their epen cenyersatiens abeut strip clubs?an anneuncement she claimed she made witheut later renibntien. fah' scrutiny te Dr. Sister?s defense; whether reasenable standards fer perfermance were eyer articulated te Witness is unclear; the parties disagree en these issues. It appears Dr. Slater may hatre enceuraged her te believe she was deing In the absence ef fermaliaed er eyen articulated perfermanee measures; it weuld be dif?cult te determine perfectly whether she were actually failing them. Three things seem likely: that Witness was nuslead, heweyer unintentienally; inte thinlcing that little was expected-cf her; that there may net have been eneugh werlt te justify her salary; ever the three-year peried indicated at her hire; that mest cthers en the CAPER team were pcrferming at a higher leyel cf cumut, whateyer their respectiye pesitiensr'titles; than did 1Witness B. . ?atten Witness E?s centract renewal in lune 2004; and Dr. Sister?s absence frem the et?ce during the summer ef his defense that it had becerne eyideht ever the summer that she ceuld net be mentered threugh her prefessienal terper might seem ?imsy. Heweyer; it appears that Witness did net preduce a-large bedy ef werk eyer that sunmter. Ultimately; Dr. Slater'was able te preduce eyidence; largely undisputed by Witness that he had attempted repeatedly tc assist her in meeting her teaching geals; if anything attempting te mate it that she was net preducing in ether areas at this uniyersity; and alsc engaging h1 e?erts te assist her search fer werlt eutside this uniyersity; upen her clear articulatien that gant?seelting; research and publishing were net her geaIs?all pricr tc any articulatien tn the er within the department; that she believed she was being subjected te seaual harassment. Additicnally; the recerd clearly shews that Witness net supernisery tc Witness but in?uential te seme degree; in Dr. Slater?s decisiens abeut team members; had been recemmending her nen~renewal since at least the spring at 21304, well in advance ef any centplaints by Witness that cenduet was eccurring. The timing ef the nan?renewal; fellewing enly by days the inceptien ef Dr. Slaterts respendent status in this inyestigatien; gave rise te serieus cencems that there might be a cennectien between the twe; as alleged by Witness E. Heweyer; she had an evidence; besides the appearance ef the temperal cennectien; te sustain that allegatien Dr. Slater has categerically denied the cennectien; his cleae asscciate; Witness has denied any hnewledge ef such cennectien in Dr. Sister's mind; and maintains that it had leng been his ewn will that Witness B?s status weuld change; if her perfermanee wenld nct. Dr. Slater stands by his defense that the timing ef the hen?renewal reflected his attendance at a departmental meeting wherein there was cernpelling disenssien abeut hew te handle academics?in that particular case; graduate students?with traelt recerds perhaps similar te Witness E?s. the University: ot'nrironatn Equal Opportunity and smallness eases oases (ironed) Investigative Report Page 37" of SS All considerations together, the hivestigation shows that Dr. Slaterts defense of his notions?the artieulation of intent to non-renewal Witness EFs oontraet, to he effeetive lune Still 5??was not hut has the ring of truth to it Witness raised allegations of retaliation against Dr. Slater. Witness D's initial allegations were hased on ineidents she helieved stemmed ?om a eonversation she had in whieh she told Dr. Slater that she had onee filed suit against her emplover in a matter not relating to diserimination statutes. She pereeived that thereafter, Dr. Slater treated her differentl}F and worse than he had before [refer to allegations of page 5, herein] In order to make a retaliation oomplaint, the eomplainant must he ahle to show that her underlying oomplaint was hased on protested eonduet [see hullets, page 33 of this doeument for outline of retaliation per poliov] lvialdng an indireet threat of a potential eomplaint referenoing a past law suit, only indirectly relatahle to diserimination laws, does not meet the de?nition of engaging in proteoted oondnet in the relevant instanee. Even so, many of Wimess D?s speei?e reports of retaliatorv treatment were investigated and deemed unfounded. Witness D?s allegations were considered in the full oonteart of the investigation, hut do not stand on their own, and will not he snhjeeted to further analysis herein. Winiess more artieulated ooneerns ahout oonduot by Dr. Slater that she oonstroed as retaliatory. lviore adverse aotions, she alleged, hegan to oeenr after the date that Dr. Slater has identi?ed as the point at whieh he hegan to snspeet Wimess was heh'tnd the senual harassment complaints [roughle Septemher 29, EDIHJ The speei?o oomplaints are similar in nature to the lrinds of oomplaints she had previouslyF made about his treatment of her, over a long period of tima That is to say, they do not represent new had treatment that might reasonath he assooiated with his suspieion that she had made a sexual harassment eomplaint about him. Rather, they are allegations of the ?same-old- same?old? had treatment. Therefore, Wimess would not he able to show that upon his helief that she had oomplained ahout him, he eommeneed to treat her ivorse: the temporal eonneotion would not he sustained. Again, the allegations will not he further seruhniaed, as thev have failed a particular prong of the retaliation polio}r paradigm. In the matmr of retaliation, speei?e to Witness Bis non?renewal of eontraot, the investigation finds that, more likely than not, a poliov violation has not been eommitted. In the matters forwarded hv Witness D, the evidenee does not support aprtarafnete ease for retaliation, no poliev violation is Sound in these partieular matters. I 41113 nt? Af?nna?l Equal and A?'mna?vn Ac?nn Df?ca Invastign?ve Report CDNFIBENEEL Pag? 33 nf 33 FWDINGS: Sexual harasgment, annualle hmt?e env??nnmem, the ?nding is pnlicjr ?nlntinn. Rnta?n?nn, If}? Wimcss B, the; fmding is NU 1vinlntinn. Retaliatinn, In: Wimnss D, the ?nding in ND pnlicjr vinlatinn. March 31, EDGE M. Kleenpie Vic's Direct?r EDAAD Ansistant Diractnr, EDAAD an: Peta: Strittrnattnr; Jnaqujn El?n