In secret, behind locked gates, our Nation's Oldest City dumped a landfill in a lake (Old City Reservoir), while emitting sewage in our rivers and salt marsh. Organized citizens exposed and defeated pollution, racism and cronyism. We elected a new Mayor. We're transforming our City -- advanced citizenship. Ask questions. Make disclosures. Demand answers. Be involved. Expect democracy. Report and expose corruption. Smile! Help enact a St. Augustine National Park and Seashore. We shall overcome!
They fought for the United States of America as "U.S. Colored Troops." They helped liberate Fort Sumter, S.C., helped free slaves and helped occupy Jacksonville, Florida. Some 155 years after the Civil War ended, St. Augustine's black Civil War veterans will finally get a monument.
On August 25, 1879, City burghers tabled/rejected Thomas House's request for a monument to Union veterans, while allowing one for Confederate veterans, relocated from Roman Catholic church property where it resided since 1873.
During 2017-2018, St. Augustine residents debated Confederate veteran monuments. Our City decided to leave the Confederate monument alone, but to contextualize it.
Meanwhile, University of Florida Historic St. Augustine, Inc. made a recommendation to preserve the 1920 cenotaph to General William Wing Loring, located west of Government House.
Then, when UF approved a nearby U.S.C.T. monument design, it never asked U.S.C.T. veterans' descendants. Why?
UF never hired an architect. Why?
UF had a cemetery monument company design a big 'ole tombstone. Why?
UF's unforced errors on U.S.C.T. veterans must be remedied. Now.
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." (Attributed to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)
Thanks to historian David Nolan for his February 15 letter, "Monumentally bad design." Thanks to our St. Augustine Historic Architectural Review Board, UF will now do its homework, hire an architect and seek public involvement in the design process. How about an heroic sculpture, not just an eight foot wall with words? How about a colorful statue of a U.S.C.T. soldier reading a book?
Our Vietnam Veterans memorial in Washington, D.C. is instructive. Some thought the design was too stark. America added a sculpture of soldiers. That compromise works.
Likewise, HARB believes we need human scale to draw people to learn about U.S.C.T. history. I agree. Come speak out at HARB on April 16, 2020 at 1 pm.
A stark wall, unadorned by art or anything on its backside, does not fit in our Plaza. It is, however, perhaps symbolic of UF's strange relationship with St. Augustine residents and our City's cherished history. Impressions of UF's "historic" operations here include:
o sports bars;
o no-bid leases;
o never asking locals before "rebranding" Government House as "Governor's House";
o evisceration of historic interpretation;
o historical inaccuracies, air-brushing history;
o omitting names of historic re-enactors from credits for PBS documentary on St. Augustine;
o secrecy.
Enough flummery. An educational institution "must not be run as a dictatorship," as my mother once wrote a New Jersey college president.
Rose Kennedy's favorite Bible verse was "To whom much is given, much is expected." UF has a $1.825 billion endowment. The State of Florida asked UF to preserve and protect our historic properties. Is UF an unjust steward? Is UF a good neighbor? You tell me.
Mayor Nancy Shaver said, "government is a customer service enterprise." We need higher standards in the place that Dr. King called "the most lawless" in America. UF works for us, not the other way around.
What's next? How will UF respond to HARB?
Let's welcome everyone to speak out on UF in St. Augustine, starting with UF's U.S.C.T. monumental debacle.
UF must learn humility and stewardship. UF must expand and enlarge its St. Augustine board.
UF must hold nighttime meetings and encourage dialogue, debate and diverse views.
UF's future role here will eventually be determined by the legislature.
Preserving St. Augustine's incomparable 12,000 years of history and breathtaking nature requires a St. Augustine National Historical Park and National Seashore, with first-rate National Park Service staff work.
Our City's future is up to you.
Ask questions, demand answers, expect democracy.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin
904-377-4998
www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com
www.edslavin.com
Thanks to the combined power of 21 GANNETT newspapers in Florida, expect the St. Augustine Record to devote more coverage to police misconduct issues around the State of Florida. This increased coverage of police abuses will not sit well with corrupt St. Johns County Sheriff DAVID SHOAR, who legally changed his name from "HOAR" in 1994, and once hoped for a statue or naming rights for the dodgy training and communications center. SHOAR is diabolically opposed to police body cameras, saying they promote a "false narrative" that "police need to be watched." In the words of the Roman satirist Juvenal, "Who guards the guardians? (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
We need a charter government with an ombudsman, inspector general and tight internal controls over the likes of SHOAR/HOAR.
From the Daytona Beach News-Journal sister GANNETT newspaper to our St. Augustine Record:
Daytona police officer suspended for sex with domestic violence victim
Frank Fernandez @frankfff
Feb 28, 2020 at 12:18 PM
Feb 28, 2020 at 2:39 PM
Daytona Beach Police Officer Johnathon Jackson had sex with the woman four days after he arrested her boyfriend, who at the time was a Florida Highway Patrol trooper, officials said.
A Daytona Beach Police Officer was suspended without pay for five days for having sex with a domestic violence victim after he arrested her boyfriend, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper at the time, according to documents.
Officer Johnathon Jackson’s off-duty sexual encounter with the woman four days after the arrest prompted prosecutors not to file a charge of aggravated battery, a felony, against her now ex-boyfriend, Patrick Hildebrandt, according to an internal affairs investigation.
Hildebrandt, 33, left the FHP after his arrest.
Jackson will serve the suspension over several months. He served the first day already on Feb. 17. He will serve the next four days on March 13, March 16, March 17 and May 25.
"Jackson developed an unprofessional relationship with a victim of a crime and became romantically involved," according to an internal affairs investigation from the Police Department.
The woman said that she "believed Jackson lied to her, victimized her, took advantage of her while in a vulnerable state, manipulated, and used his official position as an officer to befriend her for intercourse, but it was consensual," according to the internal affairs report about the encounter.
The Police Department’s investigation noted that the two had sex once, no other women had made similar allegations against Jackson and he said this was the first time he had ever done this.
"This investigation revealed nothing to fully support all of (the woman’s) claims of Jackson utilizing his official position to manipulate or take advantage of her as she was a willing participant and had several opportunities to end the matter, but didn’t," the report states.
Jackson was found in violation of policies which prohibit engaging in conduct that would tend to destroy public respect or confidence for the employee or department and that could compromise a criminal investigation, according to the investigation.
Jackson was also found in violation of a policy barring communicating with a victim, suspect or witness for any personal gain, which is punishable by up to termination.
Jackson earns $45,395 per year and is currently a school resource officer. He has been with the department since May 1, 2016, and has one other disciplinary action against him, a written reprimand on October 16, 2018 for using a data device while driving.
[READ MORE: Edgewater Police officer reprimanded after allegations he had intimate contact with woman in his police car.]
Daytona Beach Police Capt. Byron Williams wrote that "ackson’s behavior had grave consequences to include the refusal to prosecute a domestic violence suspect on behalf of the State Attorney’s Office and the possibility of degrading the public trust and confidence in this organization to effectively carry out the functions of law enforcement."
The 41-year-old woman said that she called police on July 3, 2019, to her residence, a beachside condo, according to the report.
Jackson responded, investigated and departed. Hildebrandt had left before Jackson arrived. Jackson later arrested Hildebrandt at his work and charged him with aggravated battery, the report states.
Hildebrandt resigned from the Florida Highway Patrol on July 19 for personal reasons, according to an email from Lt. Derrick A. Rahming.
The woman said that Jackson texted her a couple of days after Hildebrandt’s arrest asking how she was doing and then asked her out on a date "to make up for what had happened on her birthday with Hildebrandt."
She agreed to have Jackson come over and watch television at her condo on July 7, 2019. Jackson did so and while there walked across the street to get some beer, the report said.
The woman said that Jackson told her that they couldn’t be seen together because of the ongoing investigation, the report states. She said that Jackson also told her not tell tell anyone, also because of the ongoing investigation.
The woman said she became concerned at that time about allowing Jackson into her home. She said Jackson returned and they both drank beer and had sex.
"She said she didn’t know if she was going to get arrested, didn’t know what Jackson’s motive was, as he lied, and she was afraid, so she gave him whatever him (sic) wanted," the report said.
She said she last communicated with Jackson on Sept. 8 and initially revealed her interactions with him to Hildebrandt’s attorney on July 15.
She told the attorney, Jeff Higgins, that the night of July 3 had been a "blood bath" and that Hildebrandt had broken her nose, the report states. But she also described herself as the aggressor and that they frequently fought physically.
Jackson met with investigators on Nov. 20. The report states he told them that on the night of the incident "he wanted to develop a personal relationship with (the woman) because he felt they had built a rapport with each other and due to issues he was having in his personal life."
He said he was unsure who initiated contact on July 6, but they agreed to meet the next day. Jackson was off-duty late Sunday evening, July 7 when he visited the woman at her home, the report said.
Jackson said that after he returned from buying some alcoholic beverages at a 7-Eleven across the street, the woman pulled out a "let-out" couch/bed and they both watched television. He said shortly after that the woman initiated contact with him and they had sex.
Jackson said he had not intended to have sex with her that night and had only planned to watch television. He said the woman "forced the issue and he went along with it," the report said.
Jackson denied manipulating or befriending the woman for sex.
"He advised that he knew what he was doing was wrong but didn’t know why he didn’t stop their actions prior to intercourse," the report said.
As my mother once wrote a New Jersey college president, "an educational institution must not be run as a dictatorship." Dr. Tina Jaeckle has filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Jacksonville, with a jury trial expected next year. Flagler College's retaliation and continuing maladroit nonresponse to sexual harassment allegations against former UnderSheriff JOEL BOLANTE is a stench in the nostrils of the City of St. Augustine.
Taxpayers pay for Flagler College programs administered by BOLANTE, with lawmen and other government employees obtaining Public Administration degrees. The litigation requires thorough coverage by local and national news media:
TINA JAECKLE Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION Case No.: 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR
v. FLAGLER COLLEGE, INC., Defendant. ___________________________________/
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW, Plaintiff, TINA JAECKLE (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and files this Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant, FLAGLER COLLEGE, INC. (“Defendant”), and in support thereof states the following: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for breach of contract and retaliation under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., (“Title IX”) arising out of the unlawful termination of Plaintiff. 2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over the 20 U.S.C. § 1681 claims and has supplemental jurisdiction over the Florida state law claims.
This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00.
Defendant receives federal financial assistance within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. §
1681(a) and is otherwise subject to Title IX.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a resident of St. Johns County,
Florida.
Page 1 of 13
EXHIBT A
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 133 PageID 640
7. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant was a Florida not for profit corporation headquartered and operating in St. Johns County, Florida.
The actions alleged in this Complaint took place within St. Johns County, Florida.
Venue is therefore proper in this Court.
Plaintiff has retained the undersigned law firm and has agreed to pay same its
reasonable attorneys’ fees to represent her in this action. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant in 2003 as an adjunct instructor.
In 2006, Plaintiff became a full-time assistant professor with Defendant teaching
sociology and criminology courses. 13. During her tenure, Plaintiff also served as both the Chair of the College Disciplinary Committee and the Title IX Sexual Misconduct Hearing Panel at the specific request of Defendant’s Chancellor, William Proctor. 14. William Proctor requested Plaintiff to serve in her positions as Chairwoman due in part to her unique abilities to manage difficult cases within ethical guidelines. 15. Plaintiff established Defendant’s current criminology program and served as the Director of the Criminology Program until her termination. 16. Plaintiff consistently and successfully taught a more strenuous caseload than most other professors. 17. In fact, Plaintiff was notified in the Spring of 2018 by Dr. William Proctor that she was in the top ten of faculty in terms of productivity and student contact hours. 18. Defendant’s average full-time professor taught four classes a semester consisting of two sections of two courses while Plaintiff regularly taught six courses.
Page 2 of 13
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 133 PageID 641
19. In addition to teaching more material, more frequently than the average professor, Plaintiff managed student internships for the Criminology Program. 20. On February 15, 2016, Defendant, through department chair Emily Splane (“Splane”), conducted a performance review (the “Review”) of Plaintiff, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 21. The Review gave Plaintiff an overall score of “5” which indicates Plaintiff is “Extremely Effective” at her job. 22. The Review noted Plaintiff is “Extremely Effective” in (i) effectiveness as an instructor, (ii) providing high quality teaching instruction, and (iii) fostering student engagement with learning. 23. On April 20, 2017, Defendant provided Plaintiff with a contract (the “Agreement”) detailing the terms of her reappointment as a full-time associate professor for Defendant. The Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 24. Less than a year later, on or about February 2018, Plaintiff made an oral Title IX complaint (“Title IX Complaint”) regarding allegations of sexual misconduct of a certain faculty member, Joel Bolante (“Bolante”), to Defendant’s Title IX coordinator, Jessica Kobryn (“Kobryn”). 25. At the time of Plaintiff’s complaint, Bolante served as the Director of Title IX Investigations and was being considered for a position as the Director of the Public Administration Program. 26. Bolante was ultimately promoted to Director of the Public Administration Program for Defendant. 27. The Title IX Complaint notified Defendant that Bolante was alleged to maintain inappropriate sexual relationships with subordinates and potentially students which created a
Page 3 of 13
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 133 PageID 642
power imbalance between professor and student thereby creating a discriminatory and hostile education environment on the basis of sex. 28. The Title IX Complaint notified Defendant that Bolante was known to have, at a minimum, sexually harassed female subordinates at his prior employment and this behavior was likely occurring during Bolante’s employment with Defendant. 29. Plaintiff notified Defendant that Bolante should be suspended from his duties as Director of Title IX Investigations while the investigation took place to prevent even the appearance of a conflict. 30. Defendant was warned by multiple third parties regarding sexual misconduct allegations against Bolante.
Defendant did not properly investigate Plaintiff’s Title IX Complaint.
Defendant did not properly investigate the third-party complaints regarding
Bolante. 33. Defendant’s Faculty Handbook (the “Handbook”), attached hereto as Exhibit C, prohibits sexual contact between faculty members and students that may have an effect on the learning environment under its “Sexual Harassment and Hazing” section and reads in relevant part: The college is committed to maintaining a learning and working environment free from harassment. Administrative Policy Statement 122 clearly states that sexual harassment and hazing, in any form, will not be condoned or tolerated. This prohibition applies equally to male and female staff, faculty, and students, and to all other persons on campus subject to College control . . . Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome and unsolicited advances toward members of the same or opposite sex, requests for sexual favors, sexually-motivated physical conduct, or other verbal or physical communication of a sexual nature. It occurs when a college employee causes a student or other member of the college community to believe that he or she must submit to unwelcome sexual conduct in order to be awarded a specific grade, participate in a school program or activity, receive a positive performance evaluation or promotion. In addition, it occurs when an employee or third party agent of the College causes a student or other member of the college community to believe that the employee will make an educational or job-related decision based on whether or not the student or member of the college community submits to unwelcome sexual conduct . . .
Page 4 of 13
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 5 of 133 PageID 643
Flagler Faculty Handbook Ch. 8 Section E (emphasis added).
34. The Handbook further outlines the responsibilities of faculty regarding reporting known instances of sexual harassment: In the event that any member of the College community has knowledge of unreported cases of sexual harassment, it is the responsibility of that individual to bring the matter to the attention of an appropriate administrative or academic officer in a timely manner . . . Any reported allegations of harassment or hazing will be investigated promptly. The investigation may include interviews with the individual making the complaint, with the alleged offender, and if necessary, with individuals who may have observed the alleged conduct or have relevant knowledge . . . Flagler Faculty Handbook Ch. 8 Section E.
35. The Handbook explicitly states that the “committee will report its findings and recommendation(s) to the Dean of Academic Affairs. . . The Dean shall notify the party who originated the complaint of the outcome.” Flagler Faculty Handbook Ch. 8 Section E. 36. Moreover, Title IX protects students from discriminatory and hostile education environment on the basis of sex such as that caused by a faculty member sexually harassing students and subordinates.
Defendant had an obligation to investigate these allegations.
Defendant’s duty to respond to and investigate the reported Title IX violations were
triggered on or about February 2018 when Plaintiff made the Title IX Complaint. 39. Failing to investigate the Title IX Complaint is in direct contravention to Defendant’s duties pursuant to Title IX and Defendant’s own policies as stated in the Handbook. 40. Instead of investigating the Title IX complaint made by Plaintiff, Defendant chose to open an investigation (the “Investigation”) into Plaintiff in March 2018, less than one month after Plaintiff made her Title IX Complaint.
Page 5 of 13
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 6 of 133 PageID 644
41. The Investigation was conducted by Chief Human Resources Officer Jim Springfield (“Springfield”) and alleged the following areas of concern:
Poor attendance;
Teaching at other institutions without prior approval;
Speaking poorly of a fellow professor; and
Classroom rigor below Defendant’s expectations.
42. Springfield then conducted a haphazard investigation that did not include interviewing Plaintiff and other relevant witnesses, some of whom volunteered to be interviewed on Plaintiff’s behalf. 43. On May 16, 2018, Springfield notified Plaintiff via email that he had not received any details regarding Plaintiff’s Title IX Complaint. 44. On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff wrote an email to Springfield outlining the same Title IX Complaint made to Kobryn. 45. Kobryn and Springfield are both, for Title IX purposes, appropriate persons of authority to take corrective action, given Flagler’s duty to investigate Title IX complaints. 46. To date, upon information and belief, Defendant has failed to open a Title IX investigation related to Plaintiff’s Title IX Complaint or to properly investigate the same.
Defendant has not notified Plaintiff of the outcome of any Title IX investigation.
Defendant has not interviewed Plaintiff regarding her Title IX complaint.
On June 8, 2018, Plaintiff was terminated, and her compensation and benefits were
discontinued.
50. On June 9, 2018, less than 3 weeks after Plaintiff reiterated her Title IX Complaint to Springfield, Defendant sent Plaintiff a termination letter. The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Page 6 of 13
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 7 of 133 PageID 645
Defendant proffered a false basis for terminating Plaintiff.
Plaintiff was, in fact, terminated in retaliation for her Title IX complaint in an
attempt by Defendant to cover up the same. 53. The only material change in the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant prior to Defendant investigating Plaintiff was her Title IX Complaint. 54. Defendant has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate complete and deliberate indifference to potential violations under Title IX by ignoring multiple complaints from multiple sources concerning the same employee, Bolante. 55. Defendant has a history of similar Title IX violations and other inappropriate or scandalous matters and employed a willful and wanton scheme to hide Plaintiff’s Title IX complaint to prevent harm to its reputation in a malicious, oppressive, or reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. 56. Defendant made an official decision not to remedy potential Title IX violations by deciding that witnesses are not credible without conducting thorough and proper investigations. 57. Upon information or belief, Defendant is ignoring or minimizing the legitimacy of Title IX complaints in an effort to minimize their mandatory reporting numbers relating to Title IX incidents and 20 U.S.C. § 1092, the Clery Act, which mandates reporting of certain incidents including, but not limited to, criminal activity on campus, sex offenses, emergencies, and the policies surrounding the institution’s response to such reports. 58. Defendant has not only demonstrated complete and deliberate indifference to potential violations under Title IX in relation to Bolante, Defendant has ignored multiple complaints from multiple sources concerning other members of Defendant’s faculty.
Page 7 of 13
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 8 of 133 PageID 646
59. Today, nearly two years after Plaintiff’s Title IX Complaint, Defendant is continuing its deliberate indifference to potential ongoing Title IX violations on its campus and by its faculty members. 60. In a continuing display of indifference towards allowing a power imbalance between professor and student, Defendant presently employs a faculty member who previously engaged in inappropriate conduct with a student which resulted in said faculty member’s termination from another institution of higher learning. 61. A restraining order was subsequently issued against said faculty member relating to the student victim. 62. Moreover, on or around November 2019, another employee of Defendant was subject to a traffic stop by a St. Johns County Sheriff’s Deputy while said employee was with a naked student. 63. In addition, a former faculty member of Defendant (“Employee Doe”) filed a complaint with Jim Springfield regarding the faculty member’s supervisor (“Doe’s Supervisor”) in 2019. 64. Employee Doe complained that his supervisor incessantly discussed penises, gay sex, asked Employee Doe to move in with him, and discussed potential students Doe’s Supervisor desired to pursue for a sexual relationship. 65. Springfield told Employee Doe he was lying about his encounters with Doe’s Supervisor and ultimately terminated Employee Doe without proper investigation into the matter. 66. Not more than a few days after Employee Doe’s complaint, a student complained to Defendant about Doe’s Supervisor.
Page 8 of 13
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 9 of 133 PageID 647
67. This student advised Defendant that Doe’s Supervisor was engaged in the same type of behavior with the student that was originally reported by Employee Doe, including, but not limited to, Doe’s Supervisor asking the student to move in with him. 68. A second student that was harassed by Doe’s Supervisor unenrolled and withdrew from Defendant’s campus to enroll in another institution in an effort to avoid harassment from Doe’s Supervisor. 69. Both students feared retaliation from Defendant in the form of lost scholarships or student work positions if they pursued their claims against Doe’s Supervisor. 70. Defendant’s former Director of Safety and Security (“Former DSS”) was allowed to engage in sexual relationships with at least one student. 71. Defendant knew about the Former DSS’ behavior but did not take any corrective action against the same until the individual came to Defendant’s campus intoxicated and attempted to gain access to a female student’s dorm room. 72. Defendant’s former Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness (“Former DIR”) was also allowed to engage in a sexual relationship with at least one student.
Upon information or belief, the Former DIR was ultimately allowed to resign.
Defendant did not take any action to protect future students from sexual advances
from the Former DIR, as he is presently employed in the same capacity for another institution of higher learning. 75. Not only did Defendant fail to appropriately investigate its faculty and protect students from the inappropriate conduct of its faculty, Defendant willfully fails to investigate Title IX complaints relating to students harassing other students. 76. One student was subject to sexual battery at the hands of a student athlete.
Page 9 of 13
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 10 of 133 PageID 648
77. This student reported the incident to Defendant and local law enforcement, where evidence was obtained that is consistent with sexual battery.
Defendant did not afford the student victim a hearing on the matter.
Defendant’s attempt to resolve the issue resulted in Defendant merely attempting
to prevent the student victim and the student athlete from encountering each other on campus; notwithstanding Defendant’s alleged attempt to address the issue, the student victim encountered the student athlete at least eight more times prior to the student victim unenrolling from Defendant’s classes as a direct result of Defendant’s failure to properly address the matter. 80. In addition, Defendant has received multiple Title IX complaints regarding the same student (“Student Doe”) on campus. 81. The Title IX complaints against Student Doe resulted in at least one complainant unenrolling from Defendant’s education programs and forfeiting her scholarship due to Defendant’s failure to appropriately protect students from Title IX violations. 82. The student who unenrolled did make a Title IX complaint to Defendant but felt threatened by Defendant’s faculty when she was interviewed for the same. 83. In fact, Defendant’s faculty felt it appropriate to “advise” this student that her Title IX complaint and actions surrounding the same (i.e., attending a women’s march on campus) could subject her to liability. 84. Defendant’s faculty members have discouraged students from pursuing Title IX complaints due to their participation in organizations whose aim is preventing sexual harassment on college campuses and promoting awareness of the same. 85. Defendant is committing egregious violations of Title IX because they are failing to ascertain the scope and validity of multiple potential violations, including Plaintiff’s Title IX Complaint.
Page 10 of 13
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 11 of 133 PageID 649
These willful, wanton, and egregious violations of Title IX are ongoing. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT
Plaintiff reincorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-86.
Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a binding contract for Plaintiff to remain
employed for a three-year term, which could only be terminated for specified conduct by Plaintiff. 89. Defendant breached that contract when it terminated Plaintiff’s employment on June 8, 2018, in absence of the conduct specified under the parties’ agreement.
90. As a result of Defendant’s breach of the contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor, awarding her damages and attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Sta. § 448.08, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper. COUNT II RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
Plaintiff reincorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-86.
Plaintiff was a successful professor for Defendant for fifteen years.
Fourteen months after renewal of her Agreement, Plaintiff was abruptly terminated.
The only material alteration in the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant that
occurred between April 2017 and June 2018 was Plaintiff’s Title IX Complaint.
95. Defendant chose to investigate and terminate Plaintiff in retaliation for her Title IX complaint instead of fulfilling its duties to investigate the Title IX Complaint made by Plaintiff. 96. Notwithstanding Defendant’s choice to terminate Plaintiff, Defendant maintains an obligation to investigate Title IX complaints under Title IX. Page 11 of 13
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR Document 25-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 12 of 133 PageID 650
97. Defendant failed to investigate legitimate Title IX complaints relating to multiple faculty members in Defendant’s employ in a show of complete and deliberate indifference to the requirements of Title IX. 98. Defendant continues to ignore Title IX complaints and calls for investigations into multiple faculty members to this day, to the detriment of its students and faculty, in an effort to, in part, shield itself from negative public opinion. 99. Defendant uses retaliation and intimidation in furtherance of its schemes to ignore and bury legitimate Title IX complaints. 100. Defendant’s behavior has created an institutional culture of bad faith as it relates to compliance with the requirements of Title IX.
Plaintiff would still be employed by Defendant but for her Title IX Complaint.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful retaliation, Plaintiff has
suffered and continues to suffer damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor awarding her compensatory damages including but not limited to back and front pay or alternatively reinstatement with backpay, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a jury to hear and decide all issues of fact so triable. COASTAL LAW GROUP /s/ Ryan Williams Ryan Williams, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 87453
105 Solana Road, Suite C
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 Primary: service@lawpvb.com Ph: (904) 930-4100Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
Page 12 of 13
My
Case 3:19-cv-01323-TJC-MCR
Document 25-1
Filed 02/28/20 Page 13 of 133 PageID 651
SHANE M. SMITH, P.A. /s/Shane M. Smith Shane M. Smith, Esq.,
Florida Bar No. 107872
3845 W. Eau Gallie Blvd., Suite 104 Melbourne, FL 32934
Primary: service@shanesmithlegal.com Ph: 321-724-1919Co-Counsel for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed in the US District Court, Middle District of Florida, via CM/ECF, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record on February 28, 2020: /s/ Ryan Williams Ryan Williams, Esq.
I was honored to represent whistleblowers as Legal Counsel for Constitutional Rights of the Government Accountability Project in Washington, D.C>
Thanks to whistleblower protections in federal law, we now know that federal employees without protective gear assistted coronavirus evacuees and needlessly risked spreading infections. Whistleblower laws are alive and well and working to protect us from DONALD JOHN TRUMP.
U.S. workers without protective gear assisted coronavirus evacuees, HHS whistleblower says
Passengers board buses past personnel in protective clothing after arriving on an aircraft chartered by the U.S. State Department to evacuate Americans from Wuhan, China. (Mike Blake/Reuters )
The workers did not show symptoms of infection and were not tested for the virus,according to lawyers for the whistleblower, a senior HHS official based in Washington who oversees workers at the Administration for Children and Families, a unit within HHS.
The whistleblower is seeking federal protection, alleging she was unfairly and improperly reassigned after raising concerns about the safety of these workers to HHS officials, including those within the office of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. She was told Feb. 19 that if she does not accept the new position in 15 days, which is March 5, she would be terminated.
AD
The whistleblower has decades of experience in the field, received two HHS department awards from Azar last year and has received the highest performance evaluations, her lawyers said.
The complaint was filed Wednesday with the Office of the Special Counsel, an independent federal watchdog agency. The whistleblower’s lawyers provided a copy of a redacted 24-page complaint to The Washington Post. A spokesman for the Office of the Special Counsel confirmed that it has received the complaint and assigned the case.
Medical face masks are often used during flu season or a virus outbreak. Demand for masks has skyrocketed amid the coronavirus outbreak. (Elyse Samuels/The Washington Post)
The complaint alleges HHS staffers were “improperly deployed” and were “not properly trained or equipped to operate in a public health emergency situation.” The complaint also alleges the workers were potentially exposed to coronavirus because appropriate steps were not taken to protect them and staffers were not trained in wearing personal protective equipment, even though they had face-to-face contact with returning passengers. The workers were in contact with passengers in an airplane hangar where evacuees were received and on two other occasions: when they helped distribute keys for room assignments and hand out colored ribbons for identification purposes.
AD
In some instances, the teams were working alongside personnel from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in “full gown, gloves and hazmat attire,” the complaint said.
“We take all whistleblower complaints very seriously and are providing the complainant all appropriate protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act. We are evaluating the complaint and have nothing further to add at this time,” HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said.
The whistleblower, in her complaint, states that “appropriate steps were not taken to quarantine, monitor, or test [the workers] during their deployment and upon their return home.” The repatriated Americans were among those evacuated from Wuhan and quarantined on military bases in California and Texas because they were considered at high risk for contracting the flu-like illness.
AD
About 14 personnel from the Administration for Children and Families, or ACF, were sent to March Air Force base in Riverside County, Calif., and another team of about 13 ACF personnel were sent to Travis Air Force in Solano County, Calif., according to the complaint and the whistleblower’s lawyer, Ari Wilkenfeld. In Solano County this week, the first U.S. patient was confirmed to be infected with coronavirus who did not travel to a region where it is spreading or have known contact with someone diagnosed with the disease.
Several people within HHS voiced objections to sending the ACF personnel to receive passengers, according to a person familiar with the conversations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
A second person familiar with the situation said the workers were not tested for coronavirus because none of them met the criteria, which was restricted at that time to people with symptoms and either a recent trip to China or close contact with a person confirmed to be infected with covid19. If the workers had exhibited symptoms, appropriate protocol would have been followed.
AD
The deployments took place Jan. 28 to 31, around the time when the first planeload of evacuees arrived at March, and Feb. 2 to Feb. 7, during the time when additional flights were arriving at Travis. The planes each carried about 200 Americans who were repatriated from Wuhan.
After their deployments, the workers returned to their normal duties, some taking commercial airline flights to return to their offices around the country, the lawyers said.
“Our client was concerned that ACF staff — who were potentially exposed to the coronavirus — were allowed to leave quarantined areas and return to their communities, where they may have spread the coronavirus to others,” said Lauren Naylor, one of the whistleblower’s lawyers.
The whistleblower is also seeking assistance from the office of Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), a member of the House Ways and Means committee and vice chair of the House Oversight Committee, according to a Gomez spokesman.
AD
During a hearing Thursday, Gomez asked Azar whether any employees from ACF could have been sent to help with the repatriation of Americans from Wuhan without any training in emergency response. Azar replied that some ACF employees were involved.
Asked what sort of health and safety training the personnel received and whether any of them were exposed to high-risk evacuees from China, Azar said: “They never should have been without P.P.E,” referring to personal protective equipment.
Asked whether any protocols may have been broken, given the urgency on the ground, Azar replied urgency was never a reason for breaking safety protocols.
“I don’t believe that has taken place,” Azar said said, adding that health and safety protocols “should always be followed.” He said he did not personally know the names of the team, but other department officials did. Pressed by Gomez what the department would do if untrained employees were exposed to the virus, Azar said: “I’d want to know the full facts, and we’d take appropriate remedial efforts.”
AD
Despite reassuring messaging, U.S. not fully prepared for coronavirus outbreak
The whistleblower said she received an email Jan. 25 about a potential deployment within ACF to support repatriation of the evacuated Americans, according to her lawyer. She initially supported the efforts because they had the “appearance that this was within ACF’s scope,” Naylor said. But later, she discovered the teams were dispatched without her knowledge by other senior officials at HHS. It was part of the agency’s “all-hands-on-deck” mission, Naylor said, but it broke agency protocol about what kinds of employees should respond to health emergencies. The whistleblower said she later found out about the deployment when she heard directly from some employees and other senior officials at HHS.
Some workers expressed concern about the lack of protective gear to the ACF team leader on the ground. That person joined ACF in September and had “no training or experience in any federal emergency management, public health emergency response, or safety or operational protocols to run the mission,” the complaint states.
ACF personnel typically deal with supporting people recovering from natural disasters, such as floods and fires, and helping victims apply for temporary assistance, all of which are under the category of human services, the whistleblower’s lawyers said. HHS officials broke established protocols for emergency support by sending ACF workers to a health emergency for which they have no training, Naylor said. ACF, which has about 1,300 employees, has been criticized in recent years because of its role in sheltering and taking custody of migrant children who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and were separated from family members by the Department of Homeland Security.
AD
The workers’ concerns about potential exposure to coronavirus were not addressed, the whistleblower’s lawyers said.
“She was involuntarily assigned to a position in a subject matter where she has no expertise,” Wilkenfeld, her lawyer, said in an interview Thursday. The agency said the reason for the reassignment was “necessary to meet the needs of the department,” according to a memo she received. “If I did not accept involuntary reassignment, I would be terminated from federal service through adverse personnel action,” according to her complaint.
The latest: California is monitoring 8,400 people who may have been exposed to the coronavirus after traveling to Asia. U.S. workers without protective gear assisted the first Americans coronavirus evacuees, according to a HHS whistleblower.