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?
Audio Exhibit A1-youtube, Audio Exhibit A1-mp3, (audio transcript A1a) 1/29/2013
This is a meeting where Dr. Burton complained of Dr. Caywood’s retaliation to Dean Throop and HR director Jeanne Durr on Jan 29, 2013. Caywood’s 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 didn’t help Burton with her complaints of retaliation calling it a “faculty governance matter” (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 Burton’s cyber security program. This connects Caywood’s retaliation directly to the student complaint and answers the question: Would the adverse action dissuade a reasonable employee?
30:50
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 then… 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 “you have to go back, you have to go back
to class, don’t skip class, it’s very important. …. I didn’t say she has
to come to me but “you know where you can go now, to Student Affairs, they have
people there who can assist you and want you to be comfortable.”
31:35 (end short clip)
------------------------------
HR director Durr says Caywood
can ignore Burton “forever.” 2/7/2013
Here is an audio where Sabina goes to HR director Jeanne Durr
asking for help with Caywood's retaliation.
A2
- 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 “very poorly.” He “Hung her out to dry.” 4/12/2013
A6 - Grievance -Caywood- 4-12-13 - CD 2, ZM-1-Transcript-GvnceHrg
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
disparately.
Transcript:
40:30
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
“I have a problem about faculty member x” and then I would check into it,
ok? But..
Board Member: (Unintelligible)... female doesn’t want to talk to a male?
Dr. Caywood: Well, see, I didn’t know that. I didn’t 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 that’s 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 don’t know, that’s what the student
told me. Maybe there was something else if there was maybe I should have
been informed, hey, you know, you didn’t do this right. On that, so
that’s 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. Gibson’s reputation and let’s make sure
that we get the facts before we move forward.
Caywood: Um hm
Board Member: It doesn’t 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
can’t go back. Next time, you know, it will be handled differently.
Board Member: Let’s hope there isn’t a next time.
(Group laughter)
Dr. Caywood: Or, it happens when someone else is chair.
42:45
Board member: It was, I mean again, and I’m 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, let’s let’s, let’s deal with what’s in house if there’s an issue or the fact that we screwed up, let’s 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.
43:38
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caywood pulled the rug out from under Burton 4/12/2013
A6 - Grievance -Caywood- 4-12-13 - CD 2
ZM-1-Transcript-GvnceHrg
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.
Caywood:
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 it’s in the proposal that this is going to result in
this and it’s 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
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. Isn’t that what it implies?
Burton: There is now.
Board member: Ok
Caywood: There’s 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 didn’t happen.
Board member: Ok,
Caywood: am I mistaken? Did it? Was it approved?
4:35
Board member (male voice): Now, I just, you’re, Dr.
Burton your comments, I just want to make sure that I understand. With
the comparisons you’re making. It sounds to me though that the two
examples you cited were for a course and materials, cameras. Isn’t this a
full program this is going to require multiple full time staff positions.
That’s, 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 don’t know that
this example substantiates that charge because it doesn’t appear to be an
apples-to-apples comparison.
------------------------------------------------
Throop disqualifies Burton from eligibility for the chair position because she can’t handle her boss’s retaliation by talking to her boss. 12/2/2013
A13 - Grievance - Throop - 12-2-13, Grievance-Throop-Transcript
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 chair’s 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.
Transcript:
(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. Burton’s behavior in the year and a half that I’ve 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 woul… 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. Burton’s behavior in the past year had sh… had demonstrated that she wasn’t 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. It’s an easy way out to say like “why don’t you just handle it?” 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 “(Dkt 37-13) I’m 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.” Who, by the way, didn’t want to talk to me. He refused to respond to any questions. “Please tell me what I did wrong. If I did something wrong I’ll take responsibility, If I didn’t this harassment has to stop.” I asked him repeatedly. He didn’t want to answer me. Our HR director told me you know what, he doesn’t have to respond to you in fact he doesn’t 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. I’m 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)
--------------------------------------------------
Another Misinterpretation of Law? - (Recorded openly by UWP personnel.)
A13 - Grievance - Throop - 12-2-13, Grievance-Throop-Transcript
Note: WI 36.01(2) states “Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.”
Wisconsin 36.09(1)(f) states “The 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.”
Policy was misquoted that says basically that the Dean can do whatever she wants to Sabina and it is not a violation of anything, unless she takes it to court. That’s just not right.
Transcript excerpt:
54: 20
Attorney 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 chancellor’s 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 what’s more useful to us is to just look at: Was procedure violated, was there clarity in why procedure might have been violated, or, I shouldn’t say violated,. was procedure followed and if there wasn’t a following of that procedure was there clarity provided in why that procedure was not followed? And then from there it’s 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 that’s where we are.
55:44
Note: Attorney Lattis was present. She either made this statement herself, or she heard it and did not correct it.
---------------------------------------------
The end of short clips stories.