SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION

Your complaint
Office for Civil R
has been autom
forwarded to th
following office
review:

1

2

3

4

Office for Civil Rights/ED
Seattle Office
915 Second Avenue Room 3310
Seattle, WA, 98174-1099
Phone: 206-607-1600
TDD: 800-877-8339
Fax: 206-607-1601
Email: OCR.Seattle@ed.g
So that we can best assist you, we call your attention to
the following:
If you need to communicate with OCR regarding your complaint
before you are contacted directly, please do not reply to this
message, which would result in your reply going to a send-only
server address. Instead, please direct your correspondence to the
above office at OCR.Seattle@ed.gov
If you need to modify or supplement your complaint, please do
not use the complaint form to submit another complaint with the
new information. Instead, you may simply send an email to the
office that has your complaint. Filing duplicative complaints may
impede our ability to review your concerns in a timely manner. (If
you have a separate complaint involving other matters, you may
of course use this form to submit it.)
Remember that before OCR can process your complaint, we must
receive a signed and dated consent form. If we have not received
your signed consent form within 20 calendar days of the date of
this email, we will close your complaint. A copy of the Office for
Civil Rights Consent Form is available for your convenience at
OCR Complaint Consent Form. Please sign and date the
appropriate response on the consent form and mail it to the OCR
Enforcement Office at the address above. If you do not have
access to a printer, please email or call the OCR Enforcement
Office identified above to request a blank consent form.
It is recommended that you print a copy of this message and

 retain it for your records.

If you have not already read the following documents,
they can be downloadahle from the links below:
Information About OCR's Com Iaint Processm Procedures

Office for Civil Riqhts Notice About investiqator Uses of Personal
Information

 

The following information has been sent to the specified
office:

1. Enter information about ourself.
First Name:
Last Name:

Address:

City:

State: WA
Zip Code: 98408
Best Time to Call You: DAY

Primary Phone Number:
Alternative Phone Number:
Your Email Address:

2. Who else can we call if we cannot reach you?
Contact's Name:

Daytime Phone Number:

Relationship to you:

3. Who was discriminated against?
Myself

If someone other than yourself please include:
Injured Person's Name:

Daytime Phone Number:

Evening Phone Number:

Relationship to You
(eg. son or daughter):

Injured Person's Address:
City:

State:
Zip Code:
4. What institution discriminated?
Institution Name:
Washington State University
Address:
City:
Pullman
State:
WA
Zip Code:
99163
School or department
OEO/OSSA
involved:

5. Have you tried to resolve the complaint through the institution's grie
process, due process hearing, or with another agency?
No
Agency Name:
Date Filed:
Current status of the
complaint:

6. Describe the discrimination
On what basis were you discriminated against?
sex;
January 29, 2014: I was told I needed to leave my residence hall to protect the sa
others and myself. I was not told why this was happening or whom it was a result
not told until January 31, 2014 of the reason I was quickly moved across campus
understand the reason of my move, I believe I should’ve been told in a timely ma
I was being moved across campus without any help. Matthew Jefferies (the reside
director) informed me of my move and could not provide a reason why. I was not
any help for the move across campus. March 6, 2014: Dr. Jacqueline van Wormer
me I could no longer participate in the study abroad trip to London the following
van Wormer was the faculty member in charge of the trip and was made aware o
allegations against me almost two months prior. They gave me their decision a w
before the trip was scheduled and said they did not want to take me on the trip w
pending investigation. At this point, only the complainant, one witness and myse
been interviewed. The only thing the faculty member was told is that there was a
investigation and there had not been a decision had not been made yet. I believe

 investigation was put as a last priority to the school because of my gender and th
evidence. By the schools standards, the investigation should have been close to
finished by this point. July 23, 2014: Kim Anderson with the Office of Equal Oppor
finally sent out the investigative findings, six months after the initial investigation
started. I was told multiple times between April and May that the memo would be
shortly. After trying to get updates from Ms. Anderson, or anybody in her office, m
were not returned until a lawyer emailed Ms. Anderson requesting an update on
Before this, I had contacted the Office of Equal Opportunity multiple times by pho
email requesting an update. The memo released did mention that I had filed my
complaint but only said they found my testimony to false because it did not go h
hand with what the witnesses said. During my multiple interviews with Ms. Ander
Adam Jussel (director of Student Conduct), I shared that I was only on the dorm fl
weeks by the time the incident in question happened. I also shared the names of
the floor who made fun of the encounter I had with the complainant, one of whic
witness interviewed. One of the witnesses was not even in the dorm until after th
came back after the complainant and I parted for the night and all of his informa
comes from the other witnesses. His encounter of the night should not have been
he was not there and only received information from other witnesses. I believe m
testimony was disregarded because the school wanted to prove they take female
sexual assault seriously. The investigation against me started around the same ti
Department of Education began their investigation against Washington State Uni
August 29, 2014: The board hearing was held within weeks of the memo and pus
at my request. The members of the board decided I was a threat to those in the
community and expelled me. They said I had a disregard for the complainant’s fe
my actions the night in question and after the fact in text messages I presented c
the actions of the night. The board did not care what I had to say and assumed m
before I had even spoken to them. I assume this because of the questions they a
how they asked them, rather than asking for my side of the story. In an effort to p
took a males complaint seriously, they did not take any of the evidence I provide
seriously, only the word of others. The witnesses of this event were Adam Jussel,
Anderson, Melissa Morgan and members of the board. September 29, 2014: The
board reaffirmed what the appeals board decided and added a no contact order b
the complainant and myself. They said I no regard for the complainant or his wel
my appeal, I pointed out multiple mistakes in both the complainant and witnesse
interviews regarding the timeline of the night. I provided more text messages an
of my cougar card records (school ID records that confirmed the times I entered a
restroom, reactivated the card and entered my dorm room). This information was
disregarded and the mistakes in the timeline were never addressed in the appea
16, 2014: President Floyd (President of Washington State University) reviewed th
of both the board and appeals board and agreed with their findings, regardless o
provided more evidence showing a clear timeline of the night in question. Neithe
board, appeals board or President Floyd took into account the multiple text conve

 provided proving confirming the timeline of the night or validating that my statem
were factual. All three again agreed on my expulsion even though they were lack
evidence of my guilt. In an effort to prove his point that he was taking sexual ass
campus seriously, President Floyd reaffirmed their decisions to prove he was wor
the students. November 12, 2014: Karen Fisher, working in the dean of students,
that if I had committed another conduct violation during the time of the investiga
would have sped up and been completed sooner. I filed my own complaint agains
complainant and he had two conduct violations during the investigation (found b
posts on social media). While I committed no more violations, he committed two
investigation/process took approximately ten months. This has led me to believe
complaint was never taken seriously or investigated. I truly believe that the inves
and its findings were an attempt to prove that the University took female on mal
assault seriously as they were being investigated for mishandling of investigation
time. I believe that because I am a female, the investigation was mishandled and
decisions of everyone who investigated/submitted findings dismissed anything I
backed up with evidence.
Do you have written information that you think will help us understand your com
No

7. When did the last act of discrimination occur?
Enter the date:
11/12/2014
Are you requesting a waiver of the 180-day filing time limit for discrimination tha
more than 180 days before the filing of this complaint?
No
Reason for not filing complaint before 180 days:

8. What would you like the institution to do as a result of your complain
I would like the University to be held accountable for either my expulsion with lac
evidence and to prevent this happening to others on campus. I am glad sexual as
are handled seriously by the University but believe there needs to be enough evi
an expulsion. My expulsion has put my education on hold and I have not been ab
receive an admission offer from other schools because of it. The word of others h
possibly ruined my education; I don't want to see this happen to others if they ar
responsible for what they are accused of.
04/08/15 12:58:15 PM 68.234.245.230