UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN Office of Diversity, Equity, and Access 100 Swanlund Administration Building 601 Fast John Street Champaign, IL 61820 February 5, 2015 AL INTRODUCTION on December 3, 2014, -Complainant), a student in the College of Veterinary Medicine (Vet Med), ?led a com laint with the Of lice of Diversity, Equity, and Access (ODEA). On December to, 201mb ??ied a complaint with the Of?ce oI?Diversity, Equity, and Access. Pursuant to the Policies and Procedures Addressing Discrimination and Hm?assmenl, both Complainants alleged sexual harassment. The Complainants named Dr. alarmathi 'l?hiruvanamalai, Assistant Professor in Vet Med, as the ReSpondent. a BACKGROUND INFORMATION Dr. Valarmathi Thiruvanamalai, M.D., is an Assistant Professor in the College of Vet Med, Department of Comparative Biosciences. His curriculum vitae indicates that he teaches stem cell courses and trainings, professional af?liations and medical memberships, along with a host of peer reviewed publications. His base salary line is jointly supported by the College of Vet Med and the College of Medicine; however, his departmental home is the Department of Comparative Bioscienccs in the College of Vet Med. He began with the department on January 16, 2013. His ?rst seven months were spent observing and building his laboratory in stem cell research. Res ondent recruited two graduate students to conduct research in his lab. -'from - and? who is a native of- Both of their a ointments in Respondent?s . Respondent also reeruite 0 work in his lab as a She, too, is a native She egan working in the er 12, 2014. 1 telephone 217?333-0885 vfm? 217 244-9136 0 try 217-244 9850 As a graduate student in Respondent?s lab?ins done signi?cant work and presented on the influence of embryonic cardiac myocytes on 1e cardiac otential of marrow stromal cells in a three-dimensional collagen cell carrier. A review oiranseri pt presents her an exemplar}r student. At her request, she was removed from the Respondent?s lab on December 8, 2014. She currently has block grant support with a full tuition waiver which is effective through August 15, 2015. At her request she was removed from the Respondent?s lab on December 8, 2014, and the Co ege has secured other employment opportunities for her. ier request, 3 to was remove vas assigned to a new lab in the summer of2014lil?Oifaln. SUMMARY OF PROCESS Department Head of Comparative Duncan Ferguson, contacted on November 19, 2014 stating that he wanted to discuss another development with the Respondent.2 ODEA met with Dr. Ferguson, and then met witl 11 December 3, 2014. Complainant- alleged inappropriate and concerning conduct by . esponr ent. Complainant sought to be removed from Respondent?s lab and assigned to another lab. She also provided ODEA with a 17 page letter detailing the incidents she had discussed in the meeting. ODEA met with 11 December 10: 2014. She alleged similar conduct by Respondent and provided ODEA with a 12 page document detailing incidents she had discussed. ODEA met with the named Respondent who denied most of the allegations outlined by the Complainants. Due to the nature of the allegations, and pursuant to provisions in the campus Policies and Procedm'es?? Adm-essmg Discrimination and Harassment, )lilA elevated this matter to a formal investigation. 1 Note that there are two complainants in this matter. However, this report includes hricl? pro?les on three individuals (not including the Respondent), as ODEA has received similar complaints from all three which have led to this investigation and report. 2 Dr. Ferguson was previously involved in facilitatin_emoval from Respondent?s lab following her June 2014 complaint with ODEA. The investi ation included a review of the Informal Resolution investigation and report ?led by ?vith ODEA on or around June 4, 2014. This investigation also included meetings and interviews with Dr. Ferguson, the two Complainants, and three departmental faculty members, as well as a review of information provided by the department, the Complainants, and another graduate student. All but one of the interviews were conducted separately. For the sake of anonymity, the names of the witnesses will not be included in this report or discussed with Dr. Thiruvanamalai, the Complainants, or any other parties, except as required by law. ALLEGATIONS: Complainant'tated that from the time she began in Respondent?s lab she has been on the receiving end of his sexually harassing behavior. Following is a non-exhaustive list of the comments and behaviors that Complainant-alleges that Respondent has imparted to her: Respondent called her at home; Respondent told her he loves her; Respondent called her ?sweetie? and ?sweetheart?; Respondent sent her inappropriate e-mails and text messages; Respondent put his hand on her Shoulder and leg; Respondent came to her apartment unannounced and without invitation, asked the apartment management for Complainant?s boyfriend?s number, and called him to inquire about her whereabouts Respondent toldlhat she is going to have?hildren Complainant nd Respondent is Indian); Respondent informed Complainant ha knows when she is having her menstrual cycle; Respondent invited Complainant 0 share a hotel room when they attended an international stem cell conference in Canada; Respondent stated that he is not happy about the time she spends with her boyfriend and asked her if she is going to marry her boyfriend. Additionally, Complainant alleged that Respondent yelled at her and threatened not to give her guidance on her research when she tried to conduct experiments without his permission or approval. Complainant urther stated that: Respondent tried to isolate her by telling her to eat her lunch in his of?ce; espondent complained to her about other faculty and staff in the department; Respondent exhibited temper control problems; Respondent stated that everyone was out to destroy his lab; and Respondent discouraged her from talking to others in the department demanding that any c-mail from anyone in the department he shared with him so that he could discern any effort to sabotage his lab. alleged that she felt Respondent invaded her privacy as he would text her if he believed her restroom break was too long. Moreover, she stated that on numerous occasions he sent text messages and e-mails that she found to be inappropriate, confusing, and scary. She also stated that he regularly asked her how she spent her weekends. Moreo 'er nplainant stated that Respondent told her he hired a married woman referring so that they couldn?t accuse him of sexual harassment. Complainant llcged that has asked Respondent to discontinue the questions, the ina ro riate comments, the touching, and the Hught to move to another lab. yelling, but Respondent continued. Complainan Complainan-tlleged that during her interview for the position 01 Respondent described the work atmos Jhere as being relaxed and safe, and told her that she would be appreciated. Complainantinrther alleged, however, that on the second day of work it became clear that Respondent would not live up to his promise. Complainant tated that Respondent made harassing, filthy, and sexual comments about what she does on the weekends, and whether or not she was having orgies or knittin . Following is a non- exhaustive list of the comments and behavior. mplainant lleged that Respondent imparted to her: Respondent told Complainar ot to trust a particular faculty member. He speci?cally asked if they were related and demanded that Complainand?et a DNA test to rove that they were not related, which she refused; Respondent talke open about Respondent cycle and asked her if she was pregnant; Respondent once made a comment about not feeling cold because he was with ?hot beauties? who could warm him up; Respondent came to her home unannounced and without invitation; Respondent tried to force her to drink alcohol; Respondent called and texted both complainants to inquire about the other; Res ondent ?ensive, gender specific, remarks about previous graduate assistant, 0 Complainants; Respondent blamed Complainan 1d Complainant en a ou comes were not favorable and elled at both com lainants; and Respondent threatened to throw items at Complainanin Complainathnesence. Complainant ?ummarized her concerns and stated that as a result of sheer paranoia, RCSpondent has mac 1 mi lives hell. Complainan tated that she asked that the conmients and behavior stop, but they continued. She, too, song it to work in another lab. RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS: On December 18, 2014, ODEA met with Respondent to discuss the complaints brought to our of?ce and to provide an opportunity for him to respond. In response to the complaint that he made sexually inappropriate comments to and toward Complainant-1nd Complainant! Respondent denied the allegations. Respondent asserted that the term sweetie? or ?sweet can is a term that he uses often as a term of endearment. lie states that he treated both comjlainants as if they were his daughters. In response to the allegation that he went to Complainan apartment and asked for her boyfriend?s number, Respondent asserted that he was worrte 1011 she did not show up to the lab, and that the apartment manager offered her boyfriend?s number. Respondent further asserted that he called the boyfriend?s number only to make sure that Complainant spouse to the allegation that he told Complainant-hat she was going to have hildren, Respondent stated that it was ajoke. in response to the allegation that he tried to keep the Complainants isolated from faculty, staff, and others in the department, Respondent stated that such was not the ease as he asserted that he encouraged Complainant!) participate in the Research Trainee Group meetings.3 In response to 1e allegation that Respondent demanded that Complainants eat in the lab, Respondent asserted that the lab has a biosafety level 2 criteria because of the work performed. Special practices and protocol dictate that worker safety and environmental 3 The purpose of the RTG meetings is to form and maintain a link between graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and the faculty members within the College of Veterinary Medicine. 4 protection standards address and minimize the risks associated with handling agents requiring increased levels of Therefore, and given the potential for lentivirus contamination, Respondent stated that food is not allowed in the lab. - In response to the allegation that he demanded Complainant ake a DNA test, Respondent stated that was not true, but that the faculty member did make a comp out Complainant singing loud in the lab. Respondent asserted that he told ComplainantMo use earplugs and to be respectful of faculty and staff who might be engaged in grant writing. Respondent also reported that Complainant ad no respect for the lab. He cited that her disposal techniques for cell cultures and bio-hazard waste uatc. He further noted her disrespect for the lab as he stated that she, just like ould put her feet up near stem cell tissue cultures in the sterile environment of the lab. As for the lab outcomes, Respondent stated that he would become stressed if lab outcomes were not favorable because of the thousands of research dollars that could/would be jeopardized. In response to the allegations that he made comments about knowing when complainants were on their cycle, and that he asked Complainant she was pregnant, Respondent stated that he is a physician and accordingly he is aware 1ese things. Further, Respondent stated that after Comp]ainan-eported that she could not lift more than ten pounds of liquid nitrogen needed to further a lab protocol due to the freezer being unplugged, Respondent asked Complainan she was pregnant as he thought that might be the reason for her lifting limitations. Respondent denied yelling as well as every other complaint leveled against him by the reminded Respondent that complaints, previously brought by- nirrorcd the current complaints. He again denied all of the remaining allegations. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: In addition to meeting with Complainants ODEA also referenced the Informal Resolution disposition report completed pursuant to omplaint ?led with this of?ce in June 2014. ODEA also met with Duncan Ferguson, Department Head of Comparative Bioseiences, and interviewed three faculty members in the Department of Comparative Bioscicnces. In accordance with the campus Policies and Procedures for Addressing 1)iscriminalion and Harassment at the Univez'sio? of Illinois of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, ODEA used the preponderance of the evidence standard in arriving at the conclusions below. A preponderance of the evidence requires that the evidence supporting the ?ndings is more convincing than the evidence to the contrary. University policy classifies sexual harassment as unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature when: submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment or education status in an academic course or program, or participation in an activity; or (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or a decision affecting an individual?s education status in an academic course or program, or participation in an activity; or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or educational environment. In order to establish a violation of this policy, the evidence would need to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and that the complainants? submission or opposition to the conduct explicitly or implicitly affected Respondents? academic and/01' employment opportunities (also known as quid pro quo); or that Respondent?s behavior was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to create what a reasonable person would deem as a hostile, intimidating, or repugnant environment (also known as hostile environment). Quid Pro gm Quid pro quo harassment occurs when submission to or rejection of unwelcome sexual conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting the complaining party(ies). Both complainants allege that Respondent engaged them in conversations about their romantic relationships, made comments about their menstrual cycle, inquired about their sexual activities, invaded their personal space with unsolicited visits to their homes, routinely referred to them as ?sweetie? and ?sweetheart?, and made comments and inquires that they generally found to be intrusive and discern forting. Further, the complainants alleged that Respondent occasionally had difficulty controllin anger and yelled at them when lab experiments did not yield expected results. Complainan?lso alleged that Respondent threatened not to give guidance when she attempted to conduct experiments without Respondent?s oversight. Both complainants reported that they asked Respondent to stop engaging in the conduct that led to this complaint being filed. However, at no time did either complainant express that refusing to engage Res ondent jeopardized or threatened their academic or employment status. Complainan entioned that Respondent threatened to stop providing her research guidance. However, treat was 'n connection with the conduct that led to this complaint, nor was it made after Complainant?l responded negatively to Respondent?s comments, gestures, or inquires. As such, the evidence does not support a ?nding of quid pro quo sexual harassment. Hostile Enviromnent In determining whether unwelcome sexual conduct rises to the level of a ?hostile environment? in violation of University policy, the central inquiry is whether the conduct is suf?ciently severe or pervasive as to unreasonably interfere with complainants? work and/or academic performance, or to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. A ?reasonable person? standard is used in assessing whether the conduct is suf?ciently severe or pervasive. Complainant!nd rior Com )lainan egan working in Respondent?s lab in August 2013. 0th ?eported that during their ?rst semester in the lab, Respondent touched them in wa that made them uncomfortable, including rubbing their backs and shoulders. Complainan lso alleged that Respondent has slid his hands from her. shoulders down her arms and back to her upper thighs. Respondent allegedly caressed both pen 11 other. This brazen display of inappropriate physical interaction prompted yhethcr Respondent?s conduct was typical of hidian men. Both complainants report that toy lI'CCth Respondent. to stop touching them, but to no avail. Also during the lirst semester of working in Respondent?s lab,? assert that they were routinely subjected to Respondent?s daily use of profanity and offensive and demeanin i 11 and about faculty within the College. In independent statements ~e orted that Res ondent referred to women colleagues as bitches ant ma 0 co eagues as was ar s. naintained that Respondent repeatedly commented on female faculty?s buttoe s, me 111g rem a particular professor in the department that ?shaking her ass won?t work here?. reported that Respondent randomly and frequently used the word ?ass? for no apparent reason other than to say it. q?trther maintained that Respondent forced them to accept ?owers, chocolates, alcoho 1c everages at dinner, and car rides reported that on one occasion, Respondent searched through her bag for her identi?cation when she refused his of er to buy her a drink during a birthday dinner celebration. naintained that Respondent also forced them to take photos of the birthday presents at 1e purc iascd for them and would require that they continue takin hotos ifthe didn?t appear ha 3 I in the photos. Respondent allegedly told both that he looks at )lClUl?C every night before oin to bed an trat gomg to rave an nixed baby?. According to espondent expressed to her his disc am oyfriend, particularly after he learned of her and her boyfriend?s decision to move her, maintaining that he could destroy the relationship if he hose. Reportedly, when nd Respondent attended a conference, Respondent invited?o share a room with um anc during the conference invited her to his room so that they cou talk. 'eported that Respondent frequently talked about sex in the lab, inquiring abou sex ife with her boyfriend and is the only man to mm 1e will always be ?married?. Botl recounted multiple conversations with Respondent about their menstrua es. stated that Respondent random] sent them photos of ex~girl friends and women with whom he reportedly had sex. ?elated that Respondent would frequently call her late at night, even as late as 111! it, an on weekends. His calls would last from one to three hours and according never about research. On occasions when she did not answer, Respon ent a eget accused her of disrespecting him as her boss. ?described Respondent as paranoid about others (including them) attempting to sabotage an or steal his work. This paranoia allegedly manifested in Respondent yelling at them, isolating them from their peers, forbidding them to talk to other faculty, and later, to each other, forbidding them from conducting experiments without him being present, restricting their access to lab equipment, and blamin 1 them for oor experimental outcomes. Alter less than one year in Respondent?s lab ontacted ODEA on or around June 4, 2014 to report Respondent?s conduct and rec uest that she be moved from his lab. The department successfully facilitatec?nove to another lab. liollowinmeparture from the lab, Respondent hired Complainant started in eptem er . hin days of her employment in Respondent?s lab, reported experiencing the same type of conduct by Respondent that endured over the course of the revious year- - inqu' ut her hus references to looking at iphoto every highb?raving an ?baby, regular usage of vulgar and offensive language, referring illea ues using emcanrng terms, and also reported that although she isolation from nd others in the department had not me Respondent regularly re crre to his ?former student? derogatorily ined that she slept with using names such as, ?s ut?, ?prostitute?, and ?blacky?, and he mainta dogs ?because she is a bitch too?. Respondent also reportedly informethat the reason _lelt his lab was because she was penalized by epartment, and now had to pursue her master" s. -'eportcd that due to his very intrusive questions, she shared with Respondent that she had some pregnancy issues and as a result had lin ering health issues for which she would need to take periodic, brief leaves for treatment?'eported feeling very uncomfortable with the conversation and the personal and sensitive nature of Respondent?s probing questions. naintained that Respondent continued to ask questions about her health over the course of the semester ?orroborated this assertin that Respondent also asked her whether 'as expecting, and he insisted to hat the rcasor was unable to have a a was because she and her husband were unclean. FIISO reported that on one occasion Respondent asked her if she could ?wann? him up ecause it was chilly in the lab. On another occasion, Respondent allegedly told hat he intentionally hired a married woman so that he could not be accused of sexual harassment. On ther occasion while at-Jirthday dinner, Respondent purportedly warne hat if her husband did not come to pick her up soon, he was going to take her bi lab and have the kind of party that would cause her husband to be very upset. Similar to ?'eported being subjected to Respondent?s paranoia, accusations of intentional sabotage of his research, and his volatile tem After ti ?cen months and only three months in Respondents lab, respectively, both sought assistance from the department to be removed from Respondent a . Upon trerr removal from the lab Res )ondent contacted both of thorn repeatedly, went to their personal residence, and sentinultiple text messages asserting that her abrupt departure from the lab and non-response to his cf forts to reach her was destroying him and would ultimately lead to his hospitalization. Analysis of ?suf?ciently severe or pcwausi? Each of the three persons hired by Respondent reported being subjected to the conduct outlined above multiple times over the course ofa few months to over a year _'eported that Respondent?s touching, phone calls, inquiries about their sex lives and romantic interests, menstrual cycles, use of vulgar and demeaning language were constant and ongoing. All three reported near daily comments, questions, and/or Respondent?s use of offensive language. Each of them reported objecting to Respondent?s actions. Despite such objections, however, Respondent continued to repeatedly engage both students and employee in the same manner. In one instance, Respondent even referenced his intentionality in hiring so as not to be accused of sexual harassment. The frequency and nature of Respondent?s conduct and comments are well within the pervasive standard as commonly determined by applicable case law. Analysis of unreasonably interfering with complainants? work and/or academic performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work cnviromnent Complainants repeatedly mentioned in their complaints, as well as to Respondent directly, that they were uncomfortable with his profane language, intrusive questions, yelling, and touching. Witnesses interviewed also corroborated overhearing Respondent yelling for extended periods of time. Witnesses also stated hearing what sounded like the Respondent banging his list or something hard on the desk. Concerned about their personal safety and no longer able to tolerate Respondent?s conduct, ultimately each person that Res hired left his lab. Despite coming to the US. and the University to pursue her Phi), elected to resign her program in favor of moving .. q" Ianheir decision to leave Respondent?s lab further illustrates the gravity of their concerns. These decisions individually and collectively clearly demonstrate the impact that Respondent?s alleged conduct had on each of the complainants. Use of ?a reasonable person? standard, ?reasonable person? standard is based on a person of the same general characteristics (gender, age, etc.) of the complainant. in this case, we have a unique situation in that we have three individuals who are all alleging the exact same conduct despite varying periods of employment with the Respondent. Even if there were not essentially three complainants, no reasonable person expects to engage in conversations about her menstrual cycle, romantic interests, sexual activities; have to respond to personal questions about her health; nor be subjected to multiple inquiries about her pregnancy status within her place of employment and particularly by her supervisor. These topics and conversations are not appropriate in the workplace and have no relevance to the work that complainants have been hired to perform. Respondent denied many of the allegations and proffered alternative reasons for engaging in the conduct that he acknowledges as being true. Respondent maintained that his position as a physician gave him the authority to inquire about Complainants? menstrual cycles, and his inquiries about otentiai pregnancy were to ensure her health and safety in the lab. Respondent argued that Complainants are like daughters to him and his use of ?sweetie? and ?sweetheart? were merely terms of cndcannent. Similarly, his visits to Complainants? home were again to make sure that they were safe after they did not show up to the lab and since he had received no response to calls and text messages. Respondent is not new to the workplace. If, in fact, Respondent was concerned about Complainant ealth and lifting restrictions, he should have sought guidance from the College?s HR department or other appropriate campus resources as to his and/or the College?s options. Questions, particularly continual questions abdut an employee?s pregnancy status, cross the lines of appropriate and acceptable professional conversation between a supervisor and employee. Similarly, despite Respondent?s perceived relationship with Complainants, use of pet names, terms of endearment or names other than the person?s given name (unless otherwise allowed or requested by the employee/student) are not appropriate within the workplace. Further, despite Respondent?s medical credentials, Respondent is not serving in a physician capacity. Thus, his argument that his interest in these topics was the impetus for the related conversations goes beyond the reach of his capacity as an assistant professor of comparative biosciences. When three different complainants, who have no prior relationship and no signi?cant commonalities other than the lab in which they work, all assert the same type of interaction, one must question Respondent?s credibility and honesty in responding to the allegations. This coupled with having multiple complainants and Respondent?s colleagues also corroborate the yelling that the Complainants allege diminishes Respondent?s credibility. Additionally, in his annual review letter, Respondent was specifically requested to have his students actively participate in departmental seminars and activities, as it had been noticed by other faculty that Respondent?s students were not attending the activities. This factor supports Complainant?s allegations that Respondent tried to isolate them from other faculty and staff in the department. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent violated the University?s sexual harassment policy by engaging in conduct that is sufficiently pervasive as to have created a hostile enviromnent. Speci?cally, I find that Complainants? workplace was pervaded with sexual slurs, insults, and innuendos and that they were subjected to physical and verbal sexual harassment consisting of extremely vulgar and offensive sexually related epithets. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: Based upon the evidence obtained during the investigation, which included statements from three females assigned to Respondent?s lab that Respondent regularly subjected them to unwelcomed comments that were offensive, demeaning and sexually related, I ?nd that Respondent engaged in sexual harassment in violation of University policy. Given the seriousness and pervasiveness of the conduct, and Respondent?s continuation of that conduct despite prior counseling, Respondent?s conduct warrants discipline, up to and including the cessation of his employment. The department, in consultation with the Of?ce of the Provost and Academic Human Resources, should determine what discipline is appropriate under the applicable University policies. If Respondent?s employment is continued, the department should require Respondent to undergo and successfully complete sexual harassment training. This Of?ce can assist the department in providing that training to Respondent. Furthermore, if Respondent?s employment is continued, the department should impose measures to carefully monitor Respondent?s interactions with female personnel and students, and must take prompt, remedial action if Respondent engages in any further conduct that violates the University?s sexual harassment policy. 10 This report is private and confidential. It should not be shared or circulated to others except as necessary for implementing these recommendations. Most Michal Hudson Senior Title IX-ADA Specialist 11 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA - CHAMPAIGN College of Veterinary Medicine 200] 8. Lincoln Avenue 002 Urbana. Illinois 6l802 March 3, 2015 HAND DELIVERED Dr. Valarmathi Thiruvanamalai Re: Determination Dear Professor Thiruvanamalai: As you are aware, the University?s Office of Diversity, Equity and Access (ODEA) conducted an investigation into sexual harassment allegations brought against you by three females who were assigned to your lab. That investigation was conducted in accordance with the Policy and Procedures Addressing Discrimination and Harassment at the University at Urbana hampaign (?Policy?) that were in place at the time that the allegations were raised and culminated in a report, a copy of which was provided to you, that concluded that you in fact had engaged in sexual harassment that was so pervasive as 'to create a hostile work environment in violation of University policy. Speci?cally, the investigator?s report found that you permeated the workplace with ?sexual slurs, insults and innuendos? and subjected female colleagues to ?physical and sexual harassment consisting of extremely vulgar and offensive sexually related epithets.? It is now my duty under the Policy as the executive o?icer for the unit to which you are assigned to render a ?nal disposition. Based upon the conduct referenced within the investigator?s report and a?er conferring with representatives of the O?icc of the Provost, the Office of University Counsel, and Academic Human Resources, I conclude that you no longer are fit to continue the duties expected of you in your position as an assistant professor and that you breached the terms of your appointment. Accordingly, you shall remain on paid administrative leave through the remainder of your current service contract, at which time your employment with the University will end on August 15, 20l5 without an offer of a terminal contract. Because of your inability to provide services throughout your administrative leave period, you will not be paid the summer salary referenced in your 20l2 offer letter, nor will you be granted any start-up funds. This period of administrative leave will allow you an opportunity, should you choose to take it, to exercise the appeal rights afforded to you under the Policy. If you wish to exercise these rights, you may do so by submitting a written appeal to the Dean for the College of Veterinary Medicine, Dr. Peter Dr. Valarrnathi Thiruvanamalai March 3, 2015 Page 2 Constable, within fourteen (14) calendar days following your receipt of this determination. The address for Dr. Constable is College of Veterinary Medicine, 2001 S. Lincoln Avenue, Urbana, 61802. I have attached for your convenience a copy of the applicable Policy that describes your appeal rights. While on administrative leave, you are not to perform any work on behalf of the University, nor are you to enter any buildings or surrounding grounds associated with the University?s College of Veterinary Medicine, College of Medicine, or the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, or contact or communicate with any University employees, students or other stakeholders regarding this or any other matters relating to your employment or to the entities referenced above, without my prior, express written permission. 1 will arrange a time with you to return to collect any personal belongings that you may have le? at the University and to allow you time to close out your lab. If you should have any questions relating to the termination of your appointment, you may contact Sharon Reynolds, the Associate Director for Labor and Employee Relations within Academic Human Resources, by telephone at (217) 333-6747 or by e-mail at Sincerel Duncan C. Ferg lSOll Department Head, Comparative Sciences Enclosure cc: Peter D. Constable, College of Veterinary Medicine Elyne Cole, Of?ce of the Provost Craig Hoefer, Of?ce of University Counsel Sharon Reynolds, Academic Human Resources