CONFIDENTIAL
OFFICE FOR THE PREVENTION OF HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS
Complainant:
Respondent:
Investigator:
Date of Report:
Conclusion:

Dean Sujit Choudhry
Andrea LaCampagne, Complaint Resolution Officer, OPHD
July 7, 2015
Finding of Policy Violation - Sexual Harassment

______________________________________________________________________________
I.

Background and Reported Conduct

The Complainant is the
The Dean of
Berkeley Law is the Respondent. The Complainant wrote a six page email on March 19, 2015 to
the Respondent detailing her objections to the Respondent’s conduct in two main areas: 1) the
Respondent’s “rude and demeaning” conduct, and 2) sexual harassment by the Respondent
towards the Complainant, including unwelcome touching and kissing.
On March 19, 2015, the Complainant forwarded the email to
reported the matter to the Office for the Prevention of Harassment
and Discrimination’s (OPHD) Title IX Officer on March 24, 2015. The Complainant contacted
OPHD on April 6, 2015.

1

 III.

Jurisdiction

The Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD) has campuswide responsibility for implementing, and investigating potential violations of the UC Policy on
Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence. The OPHD responds to allegations of sexual
harassment, sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault
brought forward by students, staff, and faculty.
IV.

Applicable Policies
A.

Sexual Harassment

The Respondent’s conduct occurred from July 1, 2014 to the present. The sexual
harassment provision of the University of California Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexual
Violence (“the Policy”), effective February 25, 2014, applies to this complaint. The relevant
portions of the Policy for this complaint, defines sexual harassment as:
“[U]nwelcome sexual …verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature. Sexual harassment is conduct that explicitly or
implicitly affects a person’s employment….or interferes with a
person’s work… or creates an environment that a reasonable
person would find the conduct intimidating, hostile or offensive.”
V.

Summary of Findings

Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Respondent violated the sexual
harassment provisions of the UC Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence. Detailed
discussions of the findings are included in Section VII.
VI.

The Investigation
A.

Statements of Parties and Witnesses
1.

Complainant’s Statement

I met with the Complainant for an interview on April 6, 2015. I also spoke over the
phone with the Complainant on several occasions.
The first part of the Complainant’s complaint is that the Respondent is “rude and
demeaning” to her and that collectively his behaviors are gender discrimination. The
Complainant stated that the Respondent uses demeaning, loud language and instructs the
Complainant to engage in personal errands for him, which she believes are more “personal
assistant” jobs than “executive assistant” jobs. For example, he once yelled at her, “ water!”
when he wanted her to get him some water. He yelled from his office, “
my tea is cold” in
December of 2014, when he expected the Complainant to get him a new cup of tea. In this
instance the Complainant recalled responding: “You know I’m not your maid.”

2

 The Respondent asked the Complainant to get him snacks, go to the lunch truck to pick
up his lunch, drop off and pick up his dry cleaning, find a wash and fold laundromat for him, fax
personal mortgage documents for him, pick him up the special tea he likes, and calls her into
meetings to get water or coffee for him, and asks her to go get him special espressos. (They later
purchased an espresso machine for the office.) The Complainant acknowledged that some of the
duties are part of her job, but she takes issue with the Respondent’s demeaning tone, and that his
demands are so time consuming on a daily basis that they interfered with her substantive work.
The Respondent also gossips and vents about staff and faculty and has referred to them as:
“assholes,” “son of a bitch” and “mother fuckers.”
The second part of the Complainant’s complaint is that the Respondent has touched
hugged and kissed her since September of 2014, and that this behavior constitutes sexual
harassment. The Complainant stated that this behavior started out as “bear hugs” where he
opened his arms wide and gave her a hug every few days. However, the hugging and kissing on
her cheek quickly escalated into a daily event, occurring five to six times a day. For example,
initially the Respondent blocked the entrance of her cubicle with his arms spread to give her a
“bear hug,” but over time the hugs became “tighter and he [continued to] kissed me on the
cheek.” Eventually, the Complainant began to feel “smothered” and “encroached upon” when
the hugging and kissing started to occur daily. The hugs from the Respondent became “more
lingering.” Then a kiss on the cheek would be added to the lingering hugs.
The Respondent would also come up behind the Complainant while she was at her desk
typing and rubbed her shoulders from behind, rubbed the side of her arms from her shoulders to
her elbows and kissed her on the cheek from behind. The Respondent has also squeezed the
Complainant’s arm when he passes by her desk.
The Complainant reported that the Respondent’s pattern of hugging and kissing the
Complainant on the cheek, escalated in February of March 2015 to multiple times, daily. The
Complainant reported that the Respondent would hug and kiss her when he was “happy.” For
example, he’d hug and kiss her good morning, after he had a good meeting, and to say good-bye.
He kissed her mostly on the cheek, but also kissed her on the top of the head if she was sitting
down at her desk.
In January of 2015, the Respondent took the Complainant’s hands and put them on his
waist, rubbed her hands and wrists that were on his waist, and kissed her on the cheek. After this
incident the Complainant went to the bathroom and cried. The Complainant believed that others
observed the Respondent’s behavior, and she felt that her professional reputation in the office
was compromised.
On March 1, 2015, the Complainant received an annual salary increase from $66,000. to
$75,000. The Complainant wondered if this was “pacification” and related to the Respondent’s
behavior. She stated that they’ve know that she’s “worked hard, worked overtime and was
underpaid” for a long time. The salary increase was not explained to her and although she was
grateful for the salary increase, she was fearful there was a quid pro quo that she would have to
continue to tolerate the Respondent’s unwelcome physical contact.

3

 The Complainant stated that she was so upset about the Respondent’s cumulative
behavior towards her that she visited
on or around March 13, 2015. The Complainant told
about the Respondent’s behavior of demeaning conduct and unwelcome touching and
kissing. The Complainant told
not to report to anyone about it.
told the Complainant to take some time-off of work to decide how she wanted to handle the
situation.
The Complainant noted that an interaction with the Respondent on March 16, 2015 was
“the straw that broke the camel’s back,” that resulted in the Complainant writing the six page
email to the Respondent. The Complainant is in charge of the Respondent’s calendar. From
March 8-13, 2015, the Complainant, the Respondent and a third party sent short, professional
emails to each other in order to arrange a meeting with the third party and the Respondent. (All
of the emails were cc’d to
) On March 16th, the Complainant wrote a short
email to the Respondent at 8:04 p.m. asking for advice about communicating with others about
the meeting between the third party and the Respondent. At 8:08 p.m.,
wrote
to the Complainant, “Are you still in the office?” The Complainant wrote back to
at 8:08 p.m. “For very good reason!!” At 8:35 p.m.
responded, “I’m not
talking to you about this tonight. We can talk in the morning. Go home please.” The
Complainant explained that she and
have a good relationship, and she
understood that
wanted her to leave the office. That same night at 10:59 p.m.
the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant (cc’d to
) stating: “Stand
down please!
will task this to
and he will handle all email traffic.”
The Complainant stated that she was shocked at the Respondent’s exclamation to “stand down
please!” which she found rude. The Complainant’s initial internal reaction was: “I’m not your
dog!”
The Complainant spoke to the Respondent about his comment in the email at her desk
when she returned to work. She told him “I don’t appreciate the comment ‘stand down!’ In her
email of March 19, 2015, the Complainant apologized that she should have requested to speak to
the Respondent privately in his office to discuss this matter.
The Complainant’s six page email to the Respondent noted that she was “upset” with
him, and that his conduct caused her a “significant amount of stress and anxiety…for a very long
time,” and her health was suffering. She stated that she never observed the Respondent hugging
or kissing anyone else in the office. After her OPHD interview the Complainant sent an email,
excerpted below, describing the Respondent’s conduct and the impact it had on her:

4

 2.

Witnesses
a.

Witness 1

Witness 1 is
Witness 1 was interviewed over the phone on April 8, 2015 by OPHD Assistant Director, Mr.
Will Mallari.
Witness 1 noted that she became aware of the situation between the Complainant and the
Respondent
several days before the
Complainant sent the email to the Respondent on March 19, 2015. She noted that the
Complainant “wanted advice, just between them” about the Respondent being “very affectionate
[with the Complainant.]” Witness 1 stated that the Complainant described the Respondent’s
behavior towards her and that it was “consistent with what she described in the [March 19]
email- but with more detail.”
At that time, Witness 1 told the Complainant that she needed to look into the matter.
Witness 1 recalled that she spoke to
(“Witness 2”)
Witness 1 recalled that she and Witness 2 agreed that Witness 2 would talk with the Respondent
about his behavior with the Complainant to stop the unwelcome touching. However, the
Complainant wrote the March 19, 2015 email to the Respondent before Witness 2 spoke with the
Respondent. The Complainant forwarded the email to Witness 1 the same day it was sent to the
Respondent.
Witness 1 noted she discussed the Complainant’s email with
on
either March 19th or the 20th over the phone. Witness 1 also spoke to the Respondent over the
phone. Witness 1 informed the Respondent that the issue must be referred to the OPHD office
for an investigation. Witness 1 stated that the Respondent expressed feelings of “embarrassment,
maybe shame, because his behavior was unconscious, he wasn’t trying to make anyone
uncomfortable on purpose... He felt bad.”
Witness 1
has had no other conversations with the Complainant or
the Respondent.
5

 Mr. Mallari asked Witness 1 if she ever witnessed the Respondent kiss, hug or touch the
Complainant as the Complainant described in her email. Witness 1 noted that she observed the
Respondent kiss the Complainant on the cheek once as he was leaving the office for the day as a
“good-bye” or “thanks.” Witness 1 observed the Complainant sitting at her desk while the
Respondent stood behind her, but did not observe any other touching.
Witness 1 noted as her role as a confidante to the Respondent, he’s kissed her on the
cheek and hugged her on occasion. She recalled the Respondent kissed her on the cheek once
when she returned to the office after a month. Witness 1 experienced the Respondent’s
occasional affectionate behavior as “familial-like.”

b.

Witness 2

Witness 2 is
Witness 2 was interviewed on April 8, 2015 over the phone by OPHD
Assistant Director, Mr. Will Mallari.
Witness 2 confirmed that she had spoken to Witness 1 and it was her intention to talk to
the Respondent to inform him that the Complainant “was not a fan of hugging.” However, the
Complainant’s email of March 19, 2015 was distributed before she had the opportunity to talk to
the Respondent. Witness 2’s understanding was that the Respondent “has expressed affection
that makes some uncomfortable.” Witness 2 noted that the Respondent reached out to her the
same day he received the Complainant’s email, and it had become clear to him that “hugging
was uncomfortable to [the Complainant.]”
Witness 2 noted that the Complainant never shared this information directly with her.
Witness 2 did not recall witnessing any behavior as described in the Complainant’s email, or it
“didn’t phase her if [she had] witness[ed it].” Witness 2 recalled that the Respondent hugged her
once in her second month of employment, but she was not uncomfortable about it. Witness 2
observed the Respondent hug Witness 1 once, but she did not perceive it as an uncomfortable
situation for Witness 1.
3.

Respondent’s Statement

I met with the Respondent and his attorney on May 12, 2015. The Respondent became
the Dean of Berkeley Law on July 1, 2014.
We reviewed each of the Complainant’s examples of “rude and demeaning” conduct.
The Respondent did not recall the majority of the examples. He stated that he was “sorry if she
felt that his [communications] were demeaning…”

6

 The Respondent noted that when he first arrived at UCB he lived in a hotel, and had
never lived in the east bay before, so he asked the Complainant to find him a laundromat and a
local dry cleaner. He believed that he did ask the Complainant to pick up his dry cleaning. He
acknowledged that he requested the Complainant to fax mortgage papers, but a UC mortgage
was part of his benefits package for his position, and therefore he considered faxing the papers to
be work related. The Respondent noted that he “used very unfortunate language” and “put [the
Complainant] in an uncomfortable position” when he talked about others as “assholes or “sons of
bitches.” He did not recall calling people “mother fuckers.” He added that the context was that
as his Executive Assistant, the Complainant was responsible for his calendar, and he would
openly discuss with her why he would refuse various meetings with people.
He recalled that at the end of December of 2014,
brought to his
attention that the Complainant asked that he not make requests for her to bring him snacks,
lunch, coffee and tea. The Respondent recalled that he complied with this request. He did not
have a conversation with the Complainant about the request the Complainant made via
.
The Respondent admitted that he hugged and kissed the Complainant on multiple
occasions, but “there was never any sexual intent.” He stated he did this at the end of a long day,
as a way to “say thanks for managing the office.” The Respondent noted that he would hug and
kiss the Complainant more often than others, but he also hugged his [female]
. He
did not believe that the hugs and kisses occurred daily with the Complainant.
The Respondent admitted that he “definitely touched the Complainant’s shoulders and
arms to provide support because her days were packed.” It was his way of “saying thanks.” He
recalled he passed the Complainant’s desk to get to the Chief of Staff’s office and that he would
squeeze her arm as he passed by her desk, as a way to show gratitude. The Respondent did not
recall kissing the Complainant on the cheek while she sat at her desk. The Respondent denied
kissing the top of the Complainant’s head.
I asked the Respondent if he hugged or kissed males in the office to provide gratitude,
and he replied, “No.” The Respondent noted that he saw and interacted with the Complainant
and the Chief of Staff in the office almost every day. I asked the Respondent how he shows
appreciation to others, and he replied, “a [verbal] thank you, a hello to student workers, a pat on
the back or shoulder to the [male] greeter… a slap on the back with associate deans.”
The Respondent admitted that he did take the Complainant’s hands and placed them on
his waist. He denied that he rubbed her hands with his hands. He recalled he did this once with
the intent to “maybe calm her down” although he could not recall the circumstances. He
acknowledged that this was “very inappropriate and poorly judged.” He added there was “no
sexual intent” to his behavior.
I asked the Respondent about his personal management style. The Respondent explained
that he is used to working in a “flat hierarchy” at other Universities, and he was new at being a
Dean and “being someone’s boss.” He feels he is in a learning mode as he works with others.

7

 He added that as a Professor in New York or in Toronto that he would hug and pat coworkers.
He added that he received no sexual harassment prevention training in New York or Canada. 1
The Respondent noted that the Complainant’s email came “out of the blue.” He was out
of the office when he received it, and the Complainant was away when he returned, so he didn’t
have the opportunity to talk to the Complainant in person. The Respondent noted that he “was
very sad that [the Complainant] was unhappy in her work environment, but [also] sad that other
moments of levity such as, meeting her children, the birthday party, and the ‘Black Lives Matter’
t-shirt were lost.” (The Complainant
, was proud that the Respondent wore
a “Black Lives Matter” t-shirt to work.) He regrets that he missed the signs of the Complainant’s
unhappiness, and stated he was “regretful and sorry.” He noted he “wants to be a good leader
and effective, and he would appreciate the opportunity to be better.” He added that “every
interaction matters, in particular, respect[ing] professional boundaries.” The Respondent
complimented the work performance of the Complainant. His final thought at the end of the
interview was: “I’m sorry.”
After the interview, I sent the Respondent an email summarizing his response to my
question. I wrote: “During [your] interview you denied that you hugged and kissed [the
Complainant] on a daily basis. Can you please estimate how often you did hug and kiss [the
Complainant] on the cheek?” The Respondent wrote back, “…My best recollection is that I did
so no more than once or twice a week.”
B.

Documentary Evidence

Below is a list of the documentary evidence reviewed for this report:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
VII.

Email string between Complainant,
Third Party and the
Respondent regarding calendar scheduling, dated March 8-16, 2015;
Email from Complainant to Respondent, dated 3/19/15, 6 pages;
Forwarded email from Complainant to
, dated
3/19/15;
Email from Complainant to OPHD re “Other Thoughts and
Consideration;”
Complainant’s Job Description; and
Email from HR explaining salary increase for the Complainant, date
5/11/15.

Factual Findings and Analysis
A.

Standard of Evidence: Preponderance of the Evidence

Findings in this investigation report are based on a "preponderance of the evidence"
standard. In other words, after reviewing all the evidence, including the relative credibility of the
parties and their statements during interviews, whether it is more likely than not that the conduct
1

The Respondent began his job on July 1, 2014. The UCOP AB 1825 mandatory sexual harassment prevention
training ecourse was assigned to him on September 22, 2014. The Respondent did not complete the course. After
the Complainant filed a complaint with OPHD, on April 2, 2015, I sent an email to
reminding
her that the Respondent had not completed the mandatory AB 1825 training. The Respondent then completed the
ecourse on April 13, 2015.

8

 occurred as alleged. If the conduct did occur as alleged, then an analysis is completed to
determine whether the conduct violated University policy. (Please note: the report's findings do
not reach conclusions whether the alleged conduct violated state or federal laws, but instead
address whether the University’s policies were violated.)
B.

Fact Finding
1.

The Respondent’s conduct of kissing, hugging and touching the
Complainant was unwelcome and of a sexual nature.

Under the UC Policy, the first two elements of the definition of sexual harassment are: 1)
the Respondent’s conduct must be unwelcome and 2) the conduct must be sexual in nature.
Here, the Complainant reported that she was uncomfortable with the Respondent’s initiating
hugging, kissing and touching. The Respondent admitted to the following conduct towards the
Complainant:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Hugged her;
Kissed her on the cheek;
Touched her shoulders and arms from behind while she sat at her desk;
Squeezed her arm when he passed by her desk; and
Held her hands to his waist.

The Respondent did not defend that the Complainant initiated physical contact towards him. The
Respondent always initiated the physical contact with the Complainant. The Complainant wrote
in an email, “Hugs (from friends and family) never made me feel uncomfortable, humiliated,
exposed and dirty. I have never been hugged so hard by a co-worker or supervisor that I could
feel my breast harshly compress into their chest.” The evidence reflects that the Respondent’s
conduct was unwelcome to the Complainant.
The Respondent defends that there was no “sexual intent” to his conduct towards the
Complainant, but instead it was a way to express gratitude to the Complainant. First, sexual
intent is not a requirement for sexual harassment. Under the UC Policy, an analysis of sexual
harassment focuses on the nature of the conduct and the impact on the Respondent. Second, the
Respondent did not engage in similar conduct with male colleagues to greet them or show
gratitude. The Respondent would appropriately give “a [verbal] thank you, a hello to student
workers, a pat on the back or shoulder to the [male] greeter… a slap on the back with associate
deans.” The Respondent had many other ways to show the Complainant “gratitude,” and
“thanks” for her hard work, such as, writing her a thank you card, sending her a positive memo,
telling her “thank you” verbally, acknowledging her work publicly at a staff meeting, nominating
her for a performance award, etc. Instead, the Respondent engaged in intentional physical
touching of the Complainant: hugging, kissing her cheek, squeezing her arm, rubbing her arms
and shoulders, and holding her hands to his waist at the workplace. These actions consistently
occurred over seven months. Therefore, the evidence reflects the Respondent’s conduct was
unwelcome and objectively sexual in nature.

9

 2.

The Respondent’s conduct explicitly affected the Complainant’s
employment.

The third and final element of the definition of sexual harassment under the UC Policy is:
Sexual harassment is conduct that explicitly or implicitly affects a person’s employment… or
interferes with a person’s work …performance; or creates an environment such that a reasonable
person would find the conduct intimidating, hostile or offensive.
The Respondent does not dispute that the conduct occurred since he started his job on
July 1, 2014. The only disagreement is how often the conduct occurred. The Complainant
states that the Respondent’s conduct occurred multiple times on a daily basis. The Respondent
reports that his actions occurred “once or twice” per week. I find that the Complainant is
credible. The Complainant has no motive to exaggerate. Further, Witness 1 confirmed that
when the Complainant talked to her about the Respondent’s conduct, the Complainant’s
reporting to her matched the accounts in her March 19, 2015 email. The Respondent was
unconscious of his actions, and likely did not notice them as much as the Complainant did.
Further, evidence that the Respondent may not have noticed his own conduct was that the
Respondent was surprised and felt that the Complainant’s email “came out of the blue.”
Therefore, the evidence supports that Respondent’s unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature
occurred at least on a daily basis when he was in the office with the Complainant. Note: Even if
we take the Respondent’s accounting of how often the conduct occurred (i.e., “once or twice a
week”) this amount would be sufficient to impact the Complainant’s employment.
Moreover, in her email the Complainant documented how the Respondent’s conduct
affected her personally and in her employment.

10

 The Respondent’s unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature occurred on a daily basis when
he was in the office with the Complainant. The Respondent’s conduct affected the Complainant
personally and in her employment. The Complainant was worried about her reputation and what
others thought of her. The ultimate “affect” on the Complainant’s employment was that she left
her job solely due to the Respondent’s conduct towards her, even if initially it meant that she
would have to utilize her own accrued sick and/or vacation time. Collectively, this evidence
reflects that the Respondent’s conduct explicitly affected the Complainant’s employment.
3.

Complainant’s examples of the Respondent’s “rude and demeaning” conduct
did not violate the gender discrimination policy.

The Complainant reported that the Respondent is “rude and demeaning” to her.
Examples of rude, demeaning and unprofessional conduct include:
•
Using demeaning, loud language to the Complainant (“
tea is cold;” calling colleagues “assholes” and “sons of bitches;”) and

water!;” “My

•
Instructing the Complainant to engage in “personal assistant” jobs, such as
picking up snacks for him, and his lunch, finding a laundromat and dry cleaner, dropping off and
picking up his laundry, purchasing the tea he likes for the office, getting his water and tea for his
desk and during meetings, etc.
The Respondent confirmed the above examples. (The Respondent denied calling
colleagues “mother fuckers.”) The Respondent used poor judgment in referring to colleagues as
“assholes” and “sons of bitches,” and in requesting the Complainant to engage in his personal
errands. In December of 2014, the Complainant told
that she no longer
wanted to do the Respondent’s “personal assistant” jobs.
then spoke to the
11

 Respondent. The Respondent ceased making “personal errand” requests to the Complainant after
this discussion with
.
OPHD will not examine these allegations under the Policy. There is no evidence to
suggest that the Respondent’s conduct was sexualized or gendered in nature or targeted at the
Complainant because of her gender or sex. These allegations are more appropriately evaluated
under personnel policies and will therefore be forwarded to HR for review under relevant
personnel policies.
4.

The Complainant’s salary increase on March 1, 2015, was unrelated to any
issues with the Respondent.

The Complainant was concerned because she received a salary increase on March 1,
2015, and wondered whether the increase was a type of “pacification” or quid pro quo related to
the Respondent’s behavior.
confirmed that in
December of 2014 a second Executive Assistant position was posted for the Dean’s Office “to
help address the increased workload and the expanded needs of the Dean.” “As part of the
recruitment effort the salary range for the position was posted from $47,600 to $75,000. “In
consideration of the hiring range and [the Complainant’s] past performance
decided to align [the Complainant’s] rate to the top of the hiring range.” The
Respondent was not involved in the decision. “Consequently, we approved an equity adjustment
increasing [the Complainant’s] annual rate from $66,850 to $75,000 effective March 1, 2015.”
shared the information about the salary increase with the Complainant on or
around February 19, 2015. Therefore, a reasonable business rationale existed for the
Complainant’s salary increase on March 1, 2015.
VIII. Conclusion
By a preponderance of the evidence, the Respondent violated the sexual harassment
provisions of the UC Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence. This report will be
forwarded to the Provost’s Office for further review under the Faculty Code of Conduct.

12