Short Audio Clips
that tell a story of retaliation:
Audio clips are arranged in chronological order.
Would you report sexual harassment if you knew this would happen to you?
This is a meeting where Dr. Burton complained of Dr. Caywoodís retaliation to Dean Throop and HR director Jeanne Durr on Jan 29, 2013. Caywoodís retaliation was severe enough that Burton wished the student had gone to someone else and questioned whether she would even do the right thing again next time. Throop didnít help Burton with her complaints of retaliation calling it a ďfaculty governance matterĒ (Dkt 37-13). This shows Throop knowingly, purposefully and in complete disregard for Sabina's Title IX rights failed to take appropriate action, or any action, to correct a situation severe enough that it could cause a reasonable employee to be dissuaded from reporting sexual harassment. Instead Throop added to the retaliation.
This is a meeting between Dr. Burton, Dean Throop and HR director Jeanne Durr shortly after Caywood and Throop both suddenly withdrew support for Burtonís cyber security program. This connects Caywoodís retaliation directly to the student complaint and answers the question: Would the adverse action dissuade a reasonable employee?
Dr. Burton: "I wish that student would have gone to somebody else. Oh my gosh, how different would the situation be? Cause everything was fine and thenÖ I just so wish. I feel like, what would I say if a student would come to me again? I hope I would do the right thing. Because that student was really, really upset, and she was really scared and she was sick the weekend after so it really affected her emotional and uh I knew, and she said like, she was uncomfortable in classes I said ďyou have to go back, you have to go back to class, donít skip class, itís very important. Ö. I didnít say she has to come to me but ďyou know where you can go now, to Student Affairs, they have people there who can assist you and want you to be comfortable.Ē
31:35† (end short clip)
HR director Durr says Caywood
can ignore Burton ďforever.Ē††† 2/7/2013
Here is an audio where Sabina goes to HR director Jeanne Durr asking for help with Caywood's retaliation.
- Meet-Jean-2-7-13,††† Transcript
Durr tells Burton: " he (Caywood) could totally ignore everything that you send him from now til you both retire." (1:15-1:29)
Durr re-iterated to Burton: "he can continue to ignore you forever." (10:38 - 10:40)
Caywood admits that he handled the sexual harassment complaint ďvery poorly.Ē† He ďHung her out to dry.Ē† 4/12/2013
In this audio clip story Caywood admits that the student
complaint was indeed "sexual harassment," that he handled the issue
"very poorly," and that he treated Gibson and Burton
Board Member talking to Caywood: What are your thoughts about the way that you handled that departmental meeting afterwards subsequent (to the student complaint)?
Dr. Caywood: It was probably handled poorly, on that. Uh, you know if, if a student has a complaint against a faculty member and they come to me I try to say you go talk to the faculty member first. If they make a complaint, if a student makes a complaint about some other faculty member, send them to me. And I will, I think as the chair, I may be wrong but if a student has a complaint against faculty member x they should come to me and say ďI have a problem about faculty member xĒ and then I would check into it, ok? But..
Board Member: (Unintelligible)... female doesnít want to talk to a male?
Dr. Caywood: Well, see, I didnít know that. I didnít know that! So, was the whole thing handled poorly? Yes. I think, I think, it was handled, you know, I did not handle it very well. You know, I misunderstood what was going on. I did not pers, I did not see it as sexual harassment and, you know, when we had the meeting with the Dean and the HR it was brought to my attention that thatís what this is. And so did I screw up, oh yea, yea. But then, nothing has been done since then either. So I, I and again, I donít know, thatís what the student told me. Maybe there was something else if there was maybe I should have been informed, hey, you know, you didnít do this right. On that, so thatís yea.
Board Member: Well, I guess my thoughts, I appreciate your honesty. My thoughts are more in terms of within the department. It comes across as if you had uhm, legitimate and great concerns about Dr. Gibsonís reputation and letís make sure that we get the facts before we move forward.
Caywood: Um hm
Board Member: It doesnít come across that you had the same sensitivity for Dr. Burton.
Caywood: ok, yea,
Board Member: that to me that's something that I would like to give you feedback on.
Dr. Caywood: Ok. Sure, I, I think I did I probably handled it very poorly. But, I canít go back. Next time, you know, it will be handled differently.
Board Member: Letís hope there isnít a next time.
Dr. Caywood: Or, it happens when someone else is chair.
Board member:† It was, I mean again, and Iím getting off, that, I do think there is some distressing circumstances within that circumstance, which is a terrible sentence, and some poor judgments on his part. But for our purposes what I see was that this was, it was the departmental meeting where things really changed um, in the way that Dr. Burton started to see her support from you, specifically um, and the department in general, and I think that that, again, I can empathize with your desire to say, letís letís, letís deal with whatís in house if thereís an issue or the fact that we screwed up, letís make sure that we kind of deal with it, with ourselves before we move out, but it does come across as you, you, you hung her out to dry.
Caywood pulled the rug out from under Burton †† 4/12/2013
A6 - Grievance -Caywood- 4-12-13 - CD 2
The clip demonstrates that Caywood signed off on a Cyber-Security program, thereby supporting it, and then not only withdrew his support but claimed that he had never given support for a cyber-crime program. Caywood later stated, in his deposition, that he did not withdraw his support for the program (Dkt 40 pg 11-12) and that he owed Burton an apology (dkt 40 pg 50). (Burton is still waiting for the apology as of 12/10/16)
This short clip clarifies that the ATT grant was not to build a program but that it was for course development. It was to build a curriculum so that the NSF could fund a full program.
Board Member: One of the claims is that
there is defamation of character here that comes after this event of the
student, and I just would like some clarification. It does say on this
project summary on which you have signed off
ďThis project will result in applied bachelor of science degree in Cyber
science with curriculum allowing students to get certificates and/or minors in
Cyber Security specializations.Ē So my confusion then is with the
comments about ďweíve never supported, weíve
never said we will do this.Ē
Thatís where Iím confused so if you could clarify.
Board Member: One of the claims is that there is defamation of character here that comes after this event of the student, and I just would like some clarification. It does say on this project summary on which you have signed off ďThis project will result in applied bachelor of science degree in Cyber science with curriculum allowing students to get certificates and/or minors in Cyber Security specializations.Ē So my confusion then is with the comments about ďweíve never supported, weíve never said we will do this.Ē Thatís where Iím confused so if you could clarify.
Caywood: Sure, uh, that was a proposal for a grant, on that, um. The grant, as far as I understand did not, was not funded, uh, on that. And uh, Every, you know, we really havenít made a decision within the department whether or not to have a cyber-crime program. We have one current topics course in cyber-crime and that was a concern there about saying well weíre doing something particularly in some of these other avenues that itís been disseminated that we were doing this and we have not, itís not been approved anywhere. You know, itís not gone through any, [governmental] body that says yes we have this. You know, to put it in a grant, yes, you know, hereís what we can do, if we get the funding then sure, we can hire new people we can hire people that are qualified for it we can move it through the system, get the course development and so forth but you know, this is, uh, grants are wish lists.
3:20 Board Member: Ok, so, but that im, you know, if I were reading this as a layperson, which I am obviously with regard to this topic, and itís in the proposal that this is going to result in this and itís signed off, my impression is that there is support for this program and the money that she got for the $7k from ATT was based on this was it not? Was it based on this?
3:52 Burton: Absolutely, absolutely.
Board member: OK, so that, so, I mean I understand that it has to go through all the steps because obviously, every program does, but this implies that should the money be there the program will be supported. Isnít that what it implies?
Burton: There is now.
Board member: Ok
Caywood: Thereís no funding currently for any new cyber positions, anything. You know this, make the assumption if we got the grant, yea we can do all these things. But it didnít happen.
Board member: Ok,
Caywood: am I mistaken? Did it? Was it approved?
4:35 Burton: No but, you actually endorsed that we go through another grant round and stuff like this, so I donít see how we can put in something and then we kinda like withdraw support because when we get it and suddenly, like, you know, like, because you are a female faculty member you need the approval of everybody in your department and then Dr. Gibson puts in for police integrity study and because he is male he does not need the vote of the department on it. So, there is again, a sexist, a double standard in the department. And Aric Dutelle got a grant for cameras and stuff like this and we as a department did not vote on this, whether we wanted to use that money or not. But when I get $7k from ATT with the prospect of getting more suddenly, like I am told, and I was ccíd and ATT was ccíd and my chances of getting money from them are pretty slim probably now, because itís been very embarrassing for me, that itís basically said like, I falsified information. And it was because the information was falsified to the dean and the dean was told that I did not have support and that I was never supported. So we really gotta look verbatim what was said in those emails and that is why I base my entire complaint on facts and I always quoted everything.
Board member (male voice): Now, I just, youíre, Dr. Burton your comments, I just want to make sure that I understand. With the comparisons youíre making. It sounds to me though that the two examples you cited were for a course and materials, cameras. Isnít this a full program this is going to require multiple full time staff positions. Thatís, it would make sense to me that that would require a great deal more consensus in the department. So, while I certainly am not going to counter the potential sexism that exists in your department I donít know that this example substantiates that charge because it doesnít appear to be an apples-to-apples comparison.
Throop disqualifies Burton from eligibility for the chair position because she canít handle her bossís retaliation by talking to her boss.†† 12/2/2013
In the first clip Dean Throop explains why she decided to disqualify Burton from being chair of the department.
In the second clip Burton explains that she was not able to handle things on the departmental level because her department chairís retaliation, sexual harassment and sexual discrimination is the problem.
In the third clip a grievance hearing board member sums it up.
This is evidence that Throop excluded Burton from eligibility for being chair of the department (material adverse action) because she could not handle Caywood's retaliation on the departmental level (causal link). This shows that Throop had a completely invalid, even discriminatory reason for denying Burton the chance to be chair of the department.
(Begin first clip) 10:05
Dean Throop speaking: What Dr. Burton has listed as her qualifications are really very important qualifications about her amazing abilities as a teacher. I think there is no question that her presence in the classroom is absolutely astounding. From what I can tell she is an inspired teacher. However, I think as most people know, um, in order to be an effective chair, there are other qualities that are required. The primary one is an ability to solve issues at the most local level possible instead of having Dean involvement. And my experience of Dr. Burtonís behavior in the year and a half that Iíve been here, well, at least last year was that I was drawn into departmental issues on a very consistent basis. So, when I thought of people who would be appropriate who woulÖ let me step back. When I thought about who might be an appropriate interim chair, I really wanted to have someone who would solve problems at the departmental level rather than bringing them to me,
and Dr. Burtonís behavior in the past year had shÖ had demonstrated that she wasnít solving problems at the local level so for an interim chairship, in a department that seems quite riven with conflict and difficulty, um I thought it was best to bring someone in from the outside.
11:43 (end first clip)
(begin second clip) 16:55
Dr. Burton speaking: I did not cause these problems but when I have these severe problems in the department where shall I go?
I cannot handle sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, retaliation by talking to my chair when he is the problem. It is the task of the dean. Itís an easy way out to say like ďwhy donít you just handle it?Ē And why the heck does the dean now have to get involved in departmental affairs? She told me when I said all these things I was bullied, I was retaliated against, I was sexually harassed and I told her, I wrote her ď(Dkt 37-13) Iím very sorry to bring to you yet another problem but I feel that this is a matter that cannot be resolved by continued communication with my chair.Ē Who, by the way, didnít want to talk to me. He refused to respond to any questions. ďPlease tell me what I did wrong. If I did something wrong Iíll take responsibility, If I didnít this harassment has to stop.Ē I asked him repeatedly. He didnít want to answer me. Our HR director told me you know what, he doesnít have to respond to you in fact he doesnít have to say anything to you until you both retire. What the heck do I do?
18:04 (end second clip)
(begin third clip) 34:55
Board Member speaking to Throop: And that does bring
me to. Iím hearing a concern here that there is a pattern of behavior to which she (Burton) has
been subjected, and as a result of having to deal with that pattern she
is at least feeling, and there are indications that it might be the case, that she is being further punished as
a result of that pattern of behavior against her. And so, I mean I
can understand your position of wanting somebody in there who is going to be
doing the job rather than creating more work for you, but then I can also
understand her position of what you have really experienced with her is this pattern
of behavior against her that she
had nowhere else to go but to you. And so it seems that now she is being penalized because
she had nowhere else to go and she went to you.
35:55 (end third clip)
The Chancellor and Dean can do whatever they choose to do. Faculty governance is not a legal contract.††† 12/2/2013
Alternate title:† -† Another Misinterpretation of Law.
Note:† WI 36.01(2) states ďBasic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.Ē
† Wisconsin 36.09(1)(f) states ďThe board shall delegate to each chancellor the necessary authority for the administration and operation of the institution within the policies and guidelines established by the board. The board may also delegate or rescind other authority to chancellors, committees of the board, administrative officers, members of the faculty and students or such other groups as it deems appropriate.Ē†
Can you believe that this misinformation was presented in a grievance hearing?† Policy was misquoted that says basically that the Dean can do whatever the hell she wants to Sabina and it is not a violation unless she takes it to court.†† Crazy.† This corrupt administration misapplies law regularly.
Lattis or a board member:† I do want to point out though that article Wisconsin 36.09 does begin with the statement that all of the decisions are ultimately the decision of the chancellor and the chancellorís advisory, so basically the Provost and the Dean.† So, Bottom line is that faculty governance is not a legal contract. That, in the end they can do whatever they choose to do.† And that is the case.† So it seems to me that arguing that these laws, which are not really laws, were broken is not real useful to us at this point.†† I think whatís more useful to us is to just look at:† Was procedure violated, was there clarity in why procedure might have been violated, or,† I shouldnít say violated,.† was procedure followed and if there wasnít a following of that procedure was there clarity provided in why that procedure was not followed?† And then from there itís up to whoever, to either go to the courts of law to make those decisions or to settle for what has been passed down.† I think thatís where we are.
The end of short clips stories.