June 4, 2013 (Day 46): The Chancellor sent a letter to the grievance committee, and mailed a copy to me, asking the committee to re-do their findings of April 19, 2013 within a month. (exhibit ZA-2). Draft of the letter is [UW-P 005736] also [UW-P 005741]. In the opening paragraph of his letter Shields stated that I had “filed a sex discrimination grievance with the Committee against the chair” of my department. To be accurate, the grievance I filed against Dr. Caywood stated that he “practices retaliation, sexual discrimination and favoritism.” Whether the board finds that sexual discrimination is apparent does not diminish the other charges against Dr. Caywood and those charges must not be ignored but they were ignored. The Chancellor and Lattis ensured that my other charges were swept under the rug.
June 24 2013 – Drefcinski sent my grievance and Caywood’s response to Lattis [UW-P 005465 to 5491] with a few hand written notes on it. Lattis gave the committee three issues to “narrow” the grievance and in so doing guaranteed that my core issues were ignored.
June 27, 2013 – Lattis sends a letter to Drefcinski [UW-P 005749-52] In this letter she derails the real issues of my grievance and directs Drefcinski away from a fair finding calling her corrupt actions “framing the issue.” This is not part of the grievance process. She did not talk to me. She did not make me aware that she was writing this document. I only found out about it after the grievance committee had issued their findings. The three issues that she wrote to narrow my grievance seriously misrepresented my claims.
July 10, 2013 – (exhibit ZA-5) (UW-P 000046) (Dkt. No. 101-22) The grievance committee issued a 2nd findings. This 2nd findings of the grievance committee was far different from their 1st findings. It is far removed from the actual grievance hearing, which was audio recorded. It was influenced greatly by Lattis’ letter to Drefcinski which misrepresented my grievance claims. In the findings the committee states that Lattis advised (emphasis added) the committee to narrow my grievance to three issues. She never asked me about this. She gave this advice purposefully to mislead the committee so that they would not give due consideration to my core grievances and it worked. Lattis did this maliciously and I believe she violated ethics codes in doing so.
July 26, 2013: Chancellor Shields published his response to the grievance commissions second findings. (exhibit ZA-6) His response does not address any of my demands (Grievance claim of 7-8-13 section 6d). The Chancellor’s response was greatly influenced by Lattis’ advice to the grievance committee which narrowed my grievance to three issues that misrepresented my claim.
Since my situation was not improving and I had been given no assurance that I was even being taken seriously I filed my claim with the ERD several days later. But for Lattis’ “advice” to Drefcinski I would not have had to file my claim with the ERD.
2014 GRIEVANCE INCIDENT
Oct 2, 2014 8:46 PM – Throop sent an email to Jennifer S Lattis which included an email I had sent on Oct 2, 2014. In my email I requested an investigation into Interim Chair Dr. Dalecki’s actions and pointing out again that my grievance hearing against Dalecki was long overdue. [UW-P 005459-5461]. After she sent my email to Lattis Dean Throop disciplined me for sending the email to the chancellor.
On about October 7, 2014 Provost Den Herder sent an email to Lattis.
Lattis replied on Oct 7, 2014, 5:30 pm – Content was redacted. [UW-P 005831] the next morning Den Herder sent an email to Chancellor Shields asking if he was O.K. with her email to Sabina Burton and he replied that it was fine.
The next day Provost Den Herder sent an email to me which denied her requested investigation and did nothing to correct the delays in my already long past due grievance hearing. This email was clearly reviewed by Lattis and I believe she advised Den Herder to send this email to me.
The denial of my requested investigation caused me continuing retaliation and my requested grievance hearing was derailed due to continuing and unexplained delays. Another grievance I filed against Dean Throop, for her letter of direction, was delayed for 11 months and finally derailed. My 2014 grievances were heard. The Provost and Chancellor would not have taken this action without Lattis’ advice. Lattis advised the Provost to violate my due process rights and Chancellor Shields acquiesced because of Lattis’ advice.
2015 HEALTH ACCOMODATIONS INCIDENT
4-30-15 – I received an email from Tim Hawks with an attached letter from Hawks to Lattis. Tim’s letter politely asked for accommodations. (exhibit 678b)
5-13-15 –Lattis emailed Mr. Hawks, my attorney at the time. Hawks forwarded her email to me with the comment “So, now we see who is part of the problem.” (exhibit 678) I knew Lattis was part of the problem a long time before then. She empowered the administration to harass me. I wrote back with some more info (3hrNiteCrs-emailchain) Attached to my email was a screen shot showing the 3 hour course. (3hrNiteCrs-screenshot)
LEAVE OF ABSENCE – INCIDENT (June 2015)
June 27, 2015 at 7:19:19 PM CDT – Lattis sent an email to Hawks (exhibit 682) about time slips saying “We recently learned that Dr. Burton submitted time slips for April in which she claimed no leave taken. However, she was not cleared to return to work until April 17. She must resubmit time sheets as soon as possible showing sick leave for the first half of April. We have some strong guidance from the Board of Regents that we must ensure faculty members are claiming leave time when they are not working during a semester. Please have Dr. Burton contact John Lohman in Human Resources as soon as possible to make arrangements for correcting this error.” Questions that came to my mind about this communication were: Why is Lattis getting involved in a simple clerical error? Why does the Lattis feel that this issue is so important that she sends the communication about it to my lawyer? Why does she do so on a Saturday evening when she had just recently learned of it? If there was a problem why didn't HR contact me about it? Who changed my leave entries? What was their motivation for changing it? Was it to mess up my 50th birthday on Mon Jun 29th during my summer vacation hoping to provoke me to an angry act for which they could fire me?
In her email Lattis directed my attorney to tell me to contact John Lohmann as soon as possible but John Lohmann was leaving the interim HR position on June 30th. That gave me only one day, my birthday and his last day on the job, to even contact him about the matter.
6-28-15 – I sent a photo of the computer screen showing the Absence Request History on my account to Tim Hawks (exhibit 682a). Note that it shows 8 hours on 4/1/15. This had been changed from my previous entries that were approved by Jane Laufenberg, HR, in April.
Sun 6/28/15 8:09 AM – I sent proof that I had entered my leave correctly to my live.com account (exhibit 682b) to preserve the evidence.
Sun 6/28/15 8:14 AM – I sent the information in (exhibit 682b) to Tim Hawks explaining that someone went in and changed my records. I had everything entered until April 17. I believe Lattis was trying to build a false accusation against me that could be used to later fire me.
Sun 6/28/15 8:09 AM - I sent an email to Tim Hawks explaining that the administration had done this sort of account manipulation before, to Danelle Bemis. In an email she sent to me on May 14, 2013 11:32:10 AM, (exhibit 682c) Bemis wrote that Caywood had reported the incident. Bemis was fired a few months later.
Mon 6/29/15 10:36 AM – Tim Hawks sent an email to Lattis which included the photo I had sent him earlier (exhibit 682a) and asked for clarification of a peculiar contradiction. The email exchange between Hawks and Lattis is in (exhibit 682e).
June 29, 2015 at 12:23:22 PM CDT - We sent a picture (exhibit 682g) of the absence to Tim Hawks. My account had been changed again to reflect the correct leave time. Somebody had changed it back.
June 29, 2015 1:27 PM - Lattis wrote “She (Burton) needs to claim sick leave for April 1 through April 16 (weekends excluded); probably one day at a time since it is difficult to figure out the multi day process and exclude weekends. They will, tomorrow, push back her April leave report and she needs to start over.” (exhibit 682e).
Monday, June 29, 2015 2:04 PM – I sent an email to Jane Laufenberg asking for assistance. (exhibit 682f).
June 29, 2015 2:19 PM – Lattis wrote “I think they have figured it out and Sabina needs to do nothing. It appears she filed more than one time sheet for the same period. They have deleted the April time sheet with no leave claimed and substituted the other one. Unless you hear otherwise from me, Sabina need do nothing further. Phew.” Lattis only backed off because I had proof. (exhibit 682e).
June 29, 2015 2:06:53 PM - Laufenberg responded to my email with “HI Sabina – You are all set. The rest of April is considered your May leave (you’re on the 9 month academic payroll calendar). You already did your May leave report. Thanks for checking.” (exhibit 682f).