CONFIDENTIAL

Final Report
Respondent

October 22, 2018

Li Fellers, Investigator
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
PII Case No. 17-4707
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Final Report

I. Introduction 1
…………………
II. Scope of Review 3
…………………
III. Investigation Standard 3
……………….
IV. The Applicable Policy 3
…………………
V. Investigation Methodology 4
…………………
VI. Overview of Allegations and Response by Respondent 22
…………………
VII. Information Gathered Regarding Complainant 1 26
…………………
VIII. Information Gathered Regarding Complainant 2 129
…………………
IX. Information Gathered Regarding 212
…………………
X. Information Gathered Regarding 234
…………………
XI. Analysis and Findings for Complainant 1 240
…………………
XII. Analysis and Findings for Complainant 2 270
…………………

Public Interest Investigations, Inc.

Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 3

Regarding Complainant 2’s allegations, as explained below, PII finds that the
preponderance of the evidence does establish that Respondent engaged in the conduct
alleged in the Notice of Charges. Accordingly, PII finds that the allegations that
Respondent violated the SVSH Policy are SUBSTANTIATED.

II. Scope of Review

According to the October 2, 2017, Notice of Charges to Respondent from the

Systemwide Title IX Office, Respondent was informed, “[I]f these allegations are true,
the behavior could constitute Sexual Harassment as defined in Sections II.B.2.a.i and
II.B.2.a.ii of the SVSH Policy.”

This investigation sought to determine whether the conduct alleged in the notice of
charges occurred and, if so, whether it constituted a violation of the SVSH Policy.

III. Investigation Standard

The standard applied in determining whether or not there is a violation of the applicable
policy is the preponderance of the evidence. This means that the totality of the
evidence must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct
occurred in violation of the applicable policy.

IV. The Applicable Policy

A. UC Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy

1. Sexual Harassment

The current University of California (UC) SVSH Policy, effective on January 1, 2016,
prohibits sexual harassment. The Policy defines sexual harassment in Section II.
Definitions, under B. Prohibited Conduct, as follows:

“2.a. Sexual Harassment is unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests

for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal, nonverbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature when:
i. Quid Pro Quo: a person’s submission to such conduct is implicitly
or explicitly made the basis for employment decisions . . . or
advancement . . . ; or
ii. Hostile Environment: such conduct is sufficiently severe or
pervasive that it unreasonably denies, adversely limits, or interferes
with a person’s participation in or benefit from the . . . employment

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 10

b. Respondent

Respondent was first notified by the Systemwide Title IX Office of the investigation into
the sexual harassment allegations against him on or about October 2, 2017.
Respondent was first interviewed by PII on October 5, 2017. Respondent subsequently
provided several documents to PII for review, but he did not provide the names of any
witnesses. During the course of the investigation, Respondent was placed on
investigatory leave on November 9, 2017, and he retired from UCR on January 3, 2018.
On January 18, 2018, Respondent requested the UCR Chancellor temporarily reinstate
his employment; the UCR Chancellor declined to do so on January 22, 2018.

Because Respondent’s initial interview with PII had occurred prior to the participation of
Complainant 1 and Complainant 2 as complainants and prior to reports by
and to PII that Respondent also sexually harassed them, PII requested a
follow-up interview with Respondent so that he could address this new information.

Starting on March 5, 2018, PII and Respondent exchanged multiple emails regarding a
second interview. Due to Respondent’s limited availability in March and April and
urgent personal matters involving Respondent’s family that occurred during this time, a
follow-up interview with Respondent did not occur until May 10, 2018.

During Respondent’s May 10, 2018, interview, he declined to respond to additional

questions related to sexual harassment allegations made by and
to PII and ended the interview prior to its completion. Respondent advised PII that he
needed some time to consider the accounts of and prior to
answering questions about them. Respondent also raised concerns regarding his lack
of access to documentary evidence such as his UCR emails and UCR laptop.

Due to the delays with scheduling Respondent’s follow-up interview and in order to
address Respondent’s subsequent request for additional time to address the allegations
made by and as well as accommodate his request for access to
his UCR emails and UCR laptop, PII obtained two extensions of time to complete the
investigation on March 26, 2018, and again on June 1, 2018. The new time line for
completion of the investigation was August 30, 2018.

c. Additional Delays

During the course of Evidence Review, which commenced on August 13, 2018, as
discussed below, Respondent requested and received two extensions of time to review
and comment on the Summary of Evidence Review Report. On August 21, 2018,
Respondent submitted 30 pages of comments, including new information, and a request

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 17

protect his personal information. Respondent still declined to provide the username and
password.

On February 2, 2018, Respondent’s UCR email account was deactivated. On June 12,
2018, UCOP ECAS provided PII with Respondent’s UCR email account, which also
contained Respondent’s Outlook calendar. PII conducted various searches of
Respondent’s UCR emails and calendars. Relevant information obtained from
Respondent’s UCR email account is cited in this report and attached as exhibits. PII
notes that there were a limited number of emails found between Respondent and
Complainant 1, Respondent and Complainant 2, and Respondent and PII
also searched for records of email exchanges between Complainant 1 and Respondent
and between Complainant 2 and Respondent that had been previously provided to PII
by the complainants, but these emails were not found in Respondent’s UCR account.

2. Multiple Attempts to Provide Respondent with Access to

Digital Evidence

From January 12, 2018, to July 17, 2018, multiple attempts were made by UCOP to
provide Respondent with access to the digital evidence that was retrieved from his
devices and to provide Respondent with access to his UCR email account after it was
deactivated on February 2, 2018.

On January 12, 2018, the Interim Title IX Coordinator emailed Respondent 14 PDF and
Word attachments that contained all documents and data extracted from Respondent’s
iPhone and laptop.

On March 6, 2018, Witness 1 emailed Respondent that she would retrieve specific
items from his email account upon his request. Respondent subsequently requested
Witness 1 retrieve one email that had been sent from the Chancellor to Respondent.

On March 14, 2018, Respondent made a request to Witness 1, the Interim Title IX
Coordinator, and PII to obtain direct access to his email.

In May 2018, Respondent requested direct access to his laptop. The Interim
Systemwide Title IX Coordinator offered to make the laptop available on the UCR
campus. On May 31, 2018, Respondent told the Interim Title IX Coordinator in a phone
call that he was willing to go to the UCR campus to access his laptop.

On June 7, 2018, the Interim Title IX Coordinator notified Respondent that

arrangements were being made to provide him with access to his UCR email remotely

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 18

via a secure method; Respondent’s laptop would be made available on UCR campus
during the week of June 18, 2018.

On June 8, 2018, Respondent replied that he was not available during the week of June
18, and he requested an off-campus location for review. The Interim Title IX
Coordinator advised Respondent that an off-campus review would not be feasible.

On June 18, 2018, UCOP ECAS sent Respondent access to a Box file containing his
UCR email. (Box is a secure file-sharing service.) On June 25, 2018, Respondent
accessed the file but reported to UCOP ECAS that he was unable to open it.

On June 29, 2018, and June 30, 2018, the Interim Title IX Coordinator notified
Respondent that UCOP ECAS would be available at UCR on July 5 or July 6 in a
second attempt to provide Respondent with access to his laptop for review.

On July 2, 2018, Respondent informed the Interim Title IX Coordinator that he was not
available during the week of July 4. The Interim Title IX Coordinator requested that
Respondent provide his availability to schedule another time for Respondent to access
his laptop.

On July 2, 2018, UCOP ECAS made a second attempt to provide Respondent with
access to his UCR emails on Box. On July 3, 2018, Respondent accessed the email
file. On July 5, 2018, Respondent reported to the Interim Title IX Coordinator and
UCOP ECAS that he was having difficulty opening the file. Respondent also declined to
go to UCR campus to view his laptop and instead requested that his laptop contents be
searched utilizing key words that he would provide.
On July 6, 2018, Respondent informed PII that he still did not have access to his UCR
emails or his laptop.

On July 9, 2018, the Interim Title IX Coordinator informed Respondent that UCOP
ECAS was making a third attempt to provide him with his UCR emails by mailing to
Respondent’s home address a thumb drive containing his emails; she requested the
search terms for conducting a key word search on Respondent’s laptop.

On July 14, 2018, the Interim Title IX Coordinator confirmed with Respondent that the
thumb drive containing his UCR emails had been delivered to his house; a second
request was made for key words to conduct a search on Respondent’s laptop.

On July 17, 2018, Respondent informed PII that he still did not have access to his UCR
emails or his laptop. Respondent informed the Interim Title IX Coordinator and UCOP
ECAS that he did not want to access his UCR emails from the thumb drive due to

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 19

Respondent’s concern that his emails might merge with his wife’s email account. The
Interim Title IX Coordinator advised Respondent that UCOP ECAS was unable to
provide assistance to address that concern, and she made a third request that
Respondent provide key words in order to conduct searches on Respondent’s laptop.
Respondent did not respond to this request.

C. Evidence Review by Involved Parties

On August 13, 2018, the Systemwide Title IX Office provided the Summary of Evidence
for Review report for review by Complainants and Respondent through a secure web
viewing portal. The involved parties were offered the opportunity to review evidence
gathered during the investigation and to provide comments and new evidence or
request additional investigation. The review period was to conclude within three
business days.

On August 14, 2018, Respondent requested an extension of time, which was granted
until August 20, 2018.

On August 16, 2018, Respondent requested an extension of time until August 24, 2018.
Respondent wrote that he recently retained the services of an advisor and wished to
have additional time to review and provide a written response. An additional 24 hours
of time was granted until August 21, 2018.

On August 21, 2018, PII received communications from each of the involved parties.

• Complainant 1 submitted two comments regarding statements by Respondent

and Witness 1, which have been incorporated into the final report. Complainant
1 did not submit new evidence or request additional investigation. (Exhibit 49)

• Complainant 2 submitted new evidence consisting of seven undated birthday and

greeting cards that Respondent gave to Complainant 2; Complainant 2 did not
provide any written comments or request additional investigation. The contents
of these cards are addressed in the final report. (Exhibit 50)

• Respondent provided 30 pages of written comments primarily addressing

statements by Complainant 1 and Complainant 2. Respondent’s comments also
contained new information and a request for additional investigation related to
the allegations by Complainant 1. Respondent also requested access to a file
folder in his UCR email account related to Witness 4. Respondent stated that he
was still unable to open his emails from the thumb drive previously provided to
him by UCOP ECAS. (Exhibit 51)

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 29

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 40

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 41

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 43

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 44
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 45

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 46

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 53
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 57

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 58

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 60

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 61

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 62

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 63

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 64

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 65

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 66

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 67

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 68

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 69

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 70

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 71

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 72

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 73

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 74

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 75

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 76

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 78

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 79

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 80

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 81

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 82

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 85

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 92

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 96

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 97

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 98

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 99

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 101

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 102

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 105

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 106

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 107

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 114

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 116

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 117

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 119

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 120

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 121

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 122

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 123

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 124

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 125

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 128

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 130

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 131
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 132

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 138

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 142

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 143

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 144

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 147

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 148

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 152

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 162

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 164

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 165

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 242

• Was Complainant 1’s submission to Respondent’s advances implicitly or

explicitly made the basis for Respondent’s decisions regarding Complainant 1’s
employment or advancement?
• Was Respondent’s conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive that it unreasonably
denied, adversely limited, or interfered with Complainant 1’s participation in or
benefit from her employment at UCR and created an environment that a
reasonable person would find to be intimidating or offensive?

E. Analysis

1. Did Respondent make “unwelcome sexual advances,

unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome
verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”
toward Complainant 1?

PII considered the totality of the circumstances in which the conduct by Respondent
toward Complainant 1 ultimately resulted in a physical relationship between them. PII
found, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent’s conduct toward
Complainant 1 was unwelcome, and Complainant 1’s decision to “consent” to a brief
relationship with Respondent for five weeks from April 2017 to May 2017 was not based
on her romantic feelings for him but based on her fear that she would lose her job. PII
determined that although Complainant 1 used language such as “consensual” to
characterize her relationship with Respondent, she did not consent, but rather,
submitted to his advances to keep her job.

As detailed below, PII’s conclusion was based on an evaluation of Complainant 1’s

conduct toward Respondent prior to, during and after their relationship, and the
underlying reasons for her participation in a relationship with him despite not being
attracted to him. PII considered Complainant 1’s prior history of rejecting Respondent’s
advances which resulted in negative consequences for her; her continued rejection of
Respondent’s advances despite his persistence and the potential adverse impact to her
career; during the relationship, Complainant 1 expressed repeated misgivings to
Respondent and tried to end the relationship shortly after it began; and when she ended
the relationship and Respondent persisted in making advances toward Complainant 1,
she rejected his advances and left over her fears of how Respondent would treat
her now that she would no longer “go along.”

The preponderance of the evidence showed that Complainant 1 consistently

demonstrated to Respondent that his advances were unwelcome, yet he persisted.
Complainant 1’s statements to PII explaining the underlying reasons for her eventual
acquiescence to participate in a relationship with Respondent were inconsistent with

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 243

that of an individual who freely consented to engaging in a romantic relationship with

another person due to their mutual feelings for each other; PII found that
Complainant 1’s statements were consistent with that of a subordinate employee who
believed that their submission to their advances was implicitly the
basis for their supervisor’s decisions regarding their employment.

PII also concluded that Complainant 1’s account was more credible than Respondent’s
account. The circumstances that Complainant 1 identified as key factors in her decision
to submit to Respondent’s advances were corroborated by witness accounts and
documentary evidence. Complainant 1’s contemporaneous statements to witnesses
regarding the underlying reasons for her decision to submit to Respondent’s advances
and that something “unethical” had happened to her was consistent with
Complainant 1’s subsequent statements to PII that Respondent’s actions toward her
were “unethical” and that he had used his power as a vice chancellor to her
disadvantage.

Respondent disputed Complainant 1’s account. However, the investigation did not
produce sufficient evidence to support Respondent’s assertion that his conduct toward
Complainant 1 was welcome, that she initiated the relationship with him, or that
Complainant 1 was motivated by her fear of her husband to change her account and
portray her relationship with Respondent differently to PII in order to protect her
marriage. Shortly after Respondent’s retirement, he sought reinstatement, which
suggests Respondent may seek to continue his employment at UCR in some form and
therefore has a motive to characterize his relationship with Complainant 1 as
consensual and Complainant 1 as the initiator.

The investigation found substantial evidence that undermined the overall credibility of
Respondent’s account, specifically the accounts of Complainant 2, and
who reported that Respondent sexually harassed them in the past in a
manner similar to that he used with Complainant 1; PII’s separate finding that
Respondent’s conduct toward Complainant 2 constituted a violation of the SVSH policy;
and Respondent’s inconsistent statements to PII during his interviews for this
investigation.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 244

a. Complainant 1’s Conduct Consistently Demonstrated

Respondent’s Advances Were Unwelcome

1) February 2016 to August 2016 – Complainant 1

Previously Rejected Respondent’s Unwelcome
Advances with Negative Consequences

The investigation established that the origins of the relationship between Complainant 1
and Respondent began in about September 2015 when Respondent made unwelcome
advances toward Complainant 1. PII found Complainant 1’s prior history with
Respondent to be significant for several reasons: this demonstrated that Respondent’s
conduct was unwelcome to Complainant 1 because she previously rejected his
advances; Respondent knew his conduct was unwelcome to Complainant 1, yet he later
resumed making advances toward her; and the negative consequences that she
experienced because she rejected his advances heavily influenced her eventual
decision to submit to Respondent’s continued advances.

Statements by Complainant 1, which were consistent with her account to Witness 1, as

documented in Witness 1’s notes, showed that Respondent first made advances toward
Complainant 1 in September 2015 after Respondent began regularly confiding in her
after the including often breaking down in tears
with her, and discussing his other “personal traumas”; according to Respondent’s
account to PII, this resulted in the development of a “stronger emotional connection”
between them. This evolved into Respondent sending Complainant 1 late night texts
about personal matters and frequently inviting her to happy hours “under the guise” of
talking about developing her career and reclassifying her to It culminated
in one late night happy hour at the Mission Inn in February 2016 when Respondent
ignored Complainant 1’s repeated statements to him over several hours that she
needed to leave; he urged her to stay and he ordered several more drinks for her,
causing her to become intoxicated.

PII considered Complainant 1’s reaction to Respondent’s behavior at the Mission Inn as
substantial evidence that Respondent’s conduct was unwelcome to her. Complainant 1
immediately rejected Respondent’s continued efforts to engage in personal interaction
with her. She stopped going to happy hours with Respondent after that night despite
Respondent continuing to invite her several more times. She stopped responding to
any of the personal texts that Respondent continued to send to her; she eventually
ceased responding to any of his texts after 5:00 p.m. Whenever Respondent tried to
engage her in personal conversation, Complainant 1 redirected him back to work topics.
In addition, Complainant 1’s statements to PII that Respondent’s behavior was
inappropriate and crossed professional boundaries and caused her husband to become

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 247

2) August 2016 to March 2017 – Respondent

Persisted in Making Advances Toward
Complainant 1; Complainant 1 Continued to
Reject His Advances

The investigation found that Respondent’s behavior toward Complainant 1 improved

after Complainant 1 became a finalist and she told him that she wanted
to leave because he had “out of nowhere” started mistreating her after things had been
“really good” between them. As an enticement for Complainant 1 to stay, Respondent
resumed his efforts to reclassify her to which had been dormant for the
preceding six months. However, Respondent also resumed making advances toward
Complainant 1, by asking her out for drinks, about once a week.

Complainant 1’s account to PII further demonstrated that Respondent’s advances were
unwelcome to her. She stated that she wanted to maintain clear boundaries with
Respondent, she did not want to go to happy hour with him, and she avoided or made
excuses whenever he continued to ask. For the next six months, Complainant 1
repeatedly rejected Respondent’s advances.

Several documents provided by Complainant 1 illustrated Respondent’s continued

expressions of affection for her and his continued interest in seeing her outside of work.
Shortly after Respondent learned that Complainant 1 was a finalist for the
position he made an emotional plea by email, in which he expressed his strong feelings
for her. He wrote, “I unequivocally do not want to lose you. You are too valuable to
and, selfishly, too valuable to me to let you go without a fight . . . the
nature of our relationship has resulted in me feeling a tremendous sense of loyalty to
you.” Respondent concluded his email by inviting Complainant 1 to meet him for dinner
or on a Sunday, including a request that he needs to see her at least twice in the next
few days to ensure they had sufficient “quality time” to talk. Complainant 1’s email reply
showed that she did not agree to meet Respondent after hours and she instead met
with him during work hours. For her birthday, Respondent gave her a birthday card with
a handwritten note that said, “This card is good for one happy hour and dinner”; she did
not accept. In one email regarding the new Provost, Respondent wrote to Complainant
1, “I like [the Provost] a lot! Almost as much as I like you! :)”

PII found that Complainant 1’s continued rejection of Respondent’s repeated advances
to be particularly noteworthy because she knew that Respondent could potentially
withdraw his support of her reclassification again, as he did when she previously
rejected his advances; this further strengthened her assertion that his conduct was
unwelcome. However, as Respondent persisted and continued to ask Complainant 1

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 248

out for drinks, this fact would later contribute to her feeling that she could no longer
keep saying no without jeopardizing her career and her reclassification.

3) April 2017 – Complainant 1 Submitted to

Respondent’s Advances Based on Fear of
Negative Consequence to Her Employment

By mid-March 2017, as Respondent persisted with his weekly invitations to Complainant

1 to go out for drinks with him, Complainant 1 told PII that she did not feel she could
continue to say no. Although Complainant 1 did not want to say yes to happy hour with
Respondent, she told PII that she believed that she needed to do so in order to
“maintain the positive atmosphere” that Respondent had created for her at work; she
also believed she could control the situation and maintain appropriate boundaries with
Respondent at the same time.

PII found that Complainant 1’s account showed that her decision to finally acquiesce to
Respondent’s repeated happy hour requests was not based on her romantic interest in
him and did not demonstrate that she welcomed a romantic relationship with him. Her
statements showed that she did not want Respondent’s advances to escalate beyond
happy hour, and her intent was to prevent that from happening. In addition, her account
that Respondent told her that he noticed she had been saying no to him, and he was
happy that she said yes, further demonstrated that Complainant 1 did not welcome his
advances; Respondent knew this, but he persisted regardless.

Despite Complainant 1’s belief that she could control Respondent, she could not.
Respondent quickly pushed past Complainant 1’s boundaries as he rapidly escalated
the frequency and personal nature of their interactions by inviting her to more happy
hours, scheduling three-hour off campus work meetings, giving her hugs and telling her
how important she was to him. The situation culminated within a few weeks. In early
April 2017, Respondent, who had been confiding in Complainant 1 over several days
about his told her that he was still distraught over this, asked her for a hug
and then suddenly and unexpectedly kissed her as she was “backing out of the hug.”
Complainant 1 told PII that she was “in no way attracted” to Respondent, did not initiate
the kiss, did not want to kiss him, but did not know what to do except go along and
“awkward[ly]” kiss the Respondent back.

PII considered the circumstances leading up to the relationship between Complainant 1

and Respondent transforming into a physical one and determined that based on
Complainant 1’s account and Respondent’s similar prior conduct with her, Complainant
2 and that the preponderance of the evidence showed that her behavior
toward Respondent did not demonstrate that she welcomed his physical advances, nor

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 251

4) April 2017 to May 2017 – Complainant 1

Expressed Repeated Misgiving to Respondent
During Brief Relationship

Once their short five-week relationship began, Complainant 1’s account showed that
she immediately and repeatedly expressed her misgivings to Respondent on at least
three different occasions, including trying to end it after three weeks. Despite this,
Respondent ignored or dismissed her concerns each time. On one occasion,
Respondent advised that they needed to be “more secretive.” By late April 2017 or
early May 2017, Complainant 1 tried to end their relationship after her husband
discovered that she lied about being with Respondent. Complainant 1 described herself
as distraught and crying as she told Respondent that the relationship needed to end.
Respondent agreed, but he then suggested that they needed to be more cautious so
her husband would not find out and they should “scale back” rather than end the
relationship. Statements by Complainant 1 showed that she went along with
Respondent’s suggestion based on her belief that by “scaling back,” she could eliminate
the physical elements of their relationship and return their interactions to within
appropriate boundaries without actually having to end the relationship, possibly
angering Respondent, and jeopardizing her job. However, the relationship continued
unchanged.

PII found that despite Complainant 1’s acquiescence to Respondent’s advances and
her participation in a romantic, but not sexual, relationship with him, the fact that she
remained uneasy about this and voiced her qualms to Respondent several times,
including trying to end the relationship and cease physical contact, was further evidence
that Respondent’s advances were unwelcome. PII determined that Complainant 1’s
continued participation in the relationship was not due to her romantic interest in him,
but due to Respondent’s continued persistence in maintaining the relationship with her
despite her stated misgivings and Complainant 1’s continued fear of negative
consequences from Respondent if she severed the relationship.

5) May 2017 to June 2017 – Relationship Ended;

Respondent Continued to Make Advances Toward
Complainant 1; Complainant 1 Left

By mid-May 2017, the relationship between Complainant 1 and Respondent ended.

Complainant 1’s husband had confronted Respondent, and Complainant 1 said she was
“done” with Respondent, yet Respondent continued to make advances toward
Complainant 1 until June 2017. Statements by Complainant 1 showing that she
continued to reject Respondent’s advances and sought to physically separate herself
from him continued to demonstrate that Respondent’s advances were unwelcome.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 252

Shortly after the confrontation had ended, Complainant 1 described herself as a “wreck”
and crying in her office while Respondent told her that nothing would change how he felt
and that he would leave his wife for her if only he were younger. Complainant 1 told
Respondent to leave her alone. The next day, Complainant 1 started working from
home because she did not want to be around Respondent. Complainant 1 said she
tried to keep her phone updates with Respondent brief and work-related, but
Respondent continued to tell her in every phone call that he still had feelings for her,
that nothing would change how he felt for her, and that nothing had changed for him
since her husband’s confrontation. Respondent told Complainant 1 that whenever he
sent her an email with FYI, it meant “I love you.” Complainant 1’s account of
Respondent’s conduct was consistent with Witness 1’s notes; statements by Witness 7
who reported that Respondent instructed her to schedule daily 30-minute phone
updates with Complainant 1 during this time; and Witness 5’s account that Respondent
stated, “I can’t do my work without [Complainant 1]” after Complainant 1 started working
from home. Complainant 1 subsequently relayed her concerns to Witness 1 about
doing continued phone updates with Respondent and Witness 1 intervened to end
them.

PII considered Complainant 1’s statements about her conduct after the relationship with
Respondent ended and her departure from to be powerful evidence that showed
Respondent’s continued advances were unwelcome. According to Complainant 1’s
account, she feared that Respondent would resume mistreating her, including finding a
way to terminate her, now that she would no longer submit to his advances and she was
“no longer useful” to him. Complainant 1 sought to “get as far away” from Respondent
as possible and did not feel safe to remain anywhere within that was
under Respondent’s control, or in a physical location where Respondent could walk
over to find her. The documentary evidence showed Complainant 1 submitted
applications for other jobs, and Witness 1’s notes showed that Complainant 1 asked for
help because she could not continue to report to Respondent. PII determined that
Respondent’s conduct toward Complainant 1 was unwelcome and had placed her once
again in an untenable situation: continue her submission to his advances or reject him
and suffer the negative consequences again. PII found that Complainant 1’s decision to
leave where she had already established herself to start over at a
less prominent division than rather than continue to submit to
Respondent’s advances clearly demonstrated that Respondent’s advances were
unwelcome.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 253

6) Complainant 1’s Statements to PII and Witnesses

Demonstrated that Respondent’s Conduct was
Unwelcome

Complainant 1’s statements to PII further corroborated her account that Respondent’s
advances were unwelcome. Complainant 1 consistently maintained to PII throughout
her interviews that Respondent’s actions toward her were “unethical” and that they fell
“somewhere on the spectrum” of sexual harassment. Complainant 1 stated that
Respondent used their lopsided power dynamic to “his advantage and to [her]
disadvantage” by making his personal feelings for her the basis for giving her job
opportunities and for taking them away. Complainant 1 made similar statements to
Witness 6 and Witness 4 shortly after her relationship with Respondent ended.
Complainant 1 described Respondent’s conduct as “unethical” and similar to
Respondent’s sexual harassment of Complainant 2. In addition, Complainant 1 emailed
Witness 1 shortly after their conversation to request a follow-up talk because
Complainant 1 believed Respondent’s conduct may have been sexual harassment.

PII considered Complainant 1’s statements characterizing Respondent’s conduct as

“unethical” and potentially sexual harassment to be significant evidence because this
showed that Complainant 1 consistently believed Respondent’s conduct toward her was
inappropriate, despite her uncertainty about the correct terminology to articulate what
happened.

b. Complainant 1’s Account was Credible

PII concluded, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that Complainant 1’s
account was more credible than Respondent’s account. Complainant 1’s
contemporaneous statements to Witness 1, as documented in Witness 1’s handwritten
notes, taken several weeks after the relationship between Complainant 1 and
Respondent ended, were consistent with Complainant 1’s account to PII in interviews
for this investigation which took place six months to one year later. PII found Witness
1’s notes to be compelling documentary evidence that corroborated important elements
of Complainant 1’s account to PII. The circumstances that Complainant 1 identified as
key factors in her decision to submit to Respondent’s advances, such as her prior
negative experience when she rejected Respondent’s advances and Respondent’s
mistreatment of Complainant 2 and Witness 4, were also corroborated by numerous
witness statements and the documentary evidence.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 255

The notes showed that Complainant 1’s account to Witness 1 was consistent with her
statements to PII.

Although Respondent acknowledged inviting Complainant 1 to happy hours and going

to happy hours with her, he asserted that it was common for him to do this with his
employees; he asserted there was no underlying romantic motive for his interest in
going out for drinks with Complainant 1. However, there was considerable evidence
that undercut Respondent’s claims, and further bolstered Complainant 1’s account.
There were no witnesses interviewed who stated that they regularly went out for drinks
and/or dinner with Respondent, except for Complainant 2 and who reported
being sexually harassed by Respondent. PII found statements by Witness 38 to be
especially compelling. Witness 38, who was specifically identified by Respondent as a
witness who could speak to going to happy hours with him, told PII that she and
Respondent went to happy hours less than once a year during her at UCR. PII
determined that the preponderance of evidence clearly established that Respondent
had singled out Complainant 1, as he had previously singled out Complainant 2 and
with repeated invitations for drinks and/or dinner because he had a
romantic interest in them.

2) Additional Factors Undermining Respondent’s

Credibility

PII also questioned the credibility of Respondent’s statements. Shortly after

Respondent’s retirement, he sought reinstatement, which suggests Respondent has a
motive to characterize his relationship with Complainant 1 as consensual and
Complainant 1 as the initiator because he seeks to resume his employment at UCR.

Respondent also made inconsistent statements to PII during his interviews for this
investigation. When PII questioned Respondent regarding his relationship with
Respondent initially denied having a relationship with her. He then acknowledged
that they did, but then asked if he could “take back” his acknowledgment a few
moments later before ending the interview. During Respondent’s initial interview with
PII, he stated that he and Complainant 2 may have held hands one or two times, this
occurred infrequently and was “not common at all.” However, Respondent
subsequently submitted written comments during Evidence Review that stated he and
Complainant 2 held hands “throughout most of [their] time working together.”

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 263

preferential treatment was blatant and observed by numerous witnesses within

and across who described Respondent as effusive in his praise of
Complainant 1’s “tremendous capabilities” and that he “put [her] on a pedestal” above
other employees. In the months leading up to Respondent’s advances toward
Complainant 1, he began taking a series of steps to further benefit Complainant 1’s
employment as documented by HR records, his May 22, 2015 email to Witness 4 and
statements by Complainant 1 and Witness 4: to reclassify her to to change
Complainant 1’s job description and working title to “reflect the direct role [Complainant
1] is playing in the execution of [Respondent’s] executive duties: and to become her
Respondent instructed Complainant 1 to research other
positions at other UC campuses in preparation for the reclassification request.

Multiple witness accounts and the documentary evidence showed that Complainant 1
lacked the experience and qualifications to perform in the high-level roles Respondent
gave her, compared to other employees who did, but were overlooked by Respondent;
witnesses stated that Respondent’s decisions about Complainant 1 “made no sense.”
PII determined that this evidence demonstrated that Respondent’s actions to boost
Complainant 1’s career was not based on her qualifications, but his romantic interest in
her; his decision to overlook other more qualified employees was due to his lack of
romantic interest in them.

As discussed elsewhere in this analysis, Respondent’s decisions benefiting

Complainant 1’s employment also served to benefit Respondent’s romantic interest in
Complainant 1 by giving him increased control over Complainant 1’s employment and
more access to Complainant 1 so they could spend time together, ostensibly for work-
related reasons. Respondent’s actions consequently made Complainant 1 vulnerable to
his advances because she was dependent on him for continued preferential treatment.

Respondent’s subsequent advances toward Complainant 1 during this time clearly

established that there was a link between her submission and his decisions regarding
her employment and advancement. According to Complainant 1, Respondent began
regularly inviting her to happy hours every other week from late December 2015 to early
February 2016 under the guise of talking about how he could help her career, including
her reclassification. This showed that Respondent’s offer to discuss what he can do to
help Complainant 1’s career and advance her professionally came with an implicit
stipulation: she had to meet him after work and talk about it over cocktails. When
Complainant 1 agreed to meet with Respondent for happy hour drinks four or five times,
Respondent discussed how he planned to “build up” her portfolio of work by inserting
her into more leadership roles and formally reclassify her position to a higher level.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 264

b. Respondent’s Support for Complainant 1’s Career

Abruptly Ceased for Six Months After She Rejected His
Advances

Once Complainant 1 realized that Respondent had used his offers of helping her career
as a pretext to inappropriately spend time with her outside of work, she immediately
rejected Respondent’s subsequent happy hour invitations and withdrew herself from
any non-work-related contact with him. As discussed elsewhere in this analysis,
substantial evidence showed that Respondent’s treatment of Complainant 1 abruptly
changed from favorable to harshly negative. He withdrew his support of her career
development: he ceased his efforts to reclassify her position; he took away the special
project assignments he had given her; and he regularly attacked her over trivial matters.
The timing of Respondent’s dramatic and sudden “Jekyll and Hyde” transformation,
which occurred within one month of Complainant 1 rejecting his advances,
demonstrated that there was a connection between Respondent’s support of
Complainant 1’s career and her willingness to submit to his advances. During the time
period that Complainant 1 went to happy hours with Respondent, Respondent made
favorable decisions about her career; when she stopped going to happy hours,
Respondent’s support also stopped and turned negative. Respondent’s conduct
implicitly conveyed to Complainant 1 that her submission to his advances would result
in Respondent’s preferential treatment and conversely, her rejection of his advances
would result in Respondent’s negative treatment.

c. Respondent’s Support for Complainant 1’s Career

Resumed; Respondent Resumed Advances Toward Her

Starting in August 2016, Respondent resumed his support of Complainant 1’s career
while also resuming his advances toward her after Complainant 1 almost left for the
position in the office. Respondent’s change in behavior toward Complainant 1
from negative to positive and the resumption of his support for her career was further
evidence that Respondent’s romantic feelings for Complainant 1 were the basis for his
decisions affecting her employment and advancement. As discussed elsewhere in this
analysis, substantial evidence showed that Respondent was upset over Complainant
1’s possible departure: he wrote to Complainant 1 in an email, “I unequivocally do not
want to lose you . . . . [You are] too valuable to me to let you go without a fight.”
Respondent enticed Complainant 1 to stay by resuming his efforts to reclassify her. He
vigorously pursued it despite being advised against this by Witness 4 and Witness 10
who told him that Complainant 1 lacked the experience and qualifications for a
role; Respondent berated and pressured Witness 4 and Witness 10 to prepare the
reclassification regardless. The timing of Respondent’s renewed efforts to reclassify
Complainant 1, which coincided with Respondent resuming weekly happy hour

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 268

a. Respondent Made Repeated and Persistent Unwelcome

Advances Toward Complainant 1 Since September 2015

PII considered Respondent’s repeated and persistent unwelcome advances toward

Complainant 1, that consumed the last 18 months of her employment at to be
pervasive.

As previously discussed at length in this analysis, during the first time period that
Respondent made unwelcome advances toward Complainant 1, from September 2015
to February 2016, Complainant 1 rejected his advances, and Respondent subjected her
to such negative treatment that she was left in tears at work and she sought
employment outside of to escape his mistreatment.

Respondent resumed making unwanted advances toward Complainant 1 during a

second time period, from August 2016 to May 2017. Although Complainant 1 rejected
Respondent’s advances, he continued to persist about once week, for six months.
Complainant 1 eventually felt she had no choice but to submit to his advances or be
mistreated by him again. Respondent’s advances toward Complainant 1 escalated in
severity to include physical contact and resulted into a five-week relationship.
Respondent persisted in continuing the relationship despite misgivings expressed by
Complainant 1 several times and her efforts to end the relationship. This culminated in
Complainant 1’s husband confronting Respondent at UCR and putting an end to the
relationship. Complainant 1 said she was “done” with Respondent.

Despite this, statements by Complainant 1 showed that Respondent continued to make

unwanted advances during a third time period from May 2017 until June 2017. Shortly
after the confrontation between Respondent and Complainant 1’s husband,
Complainant 1 stated that she was a “wreck” and crying in her office while Respondent
told her that nothing would change how he felt and that he would leave his wife for her if
only he were younger. After Complainant 1 started working from home because she
could not work at the office, Respondent told her in every phone call that he still had
feelings for her, that nothing would change how he felt for her, and that nothing had
changed for him since her husband’s confrontation. Respondent told Complainant 1
that whenever he sent her an email with FYI, it meant “I love you.”

b. Respondent’s Unwelcome Advances Toward

Complainant 1 Escalated to Physical Contact

PII considered Respondent’s escalation of his unwelcome advances toward

Complainant 1 to include physical contact such as frequently hugging and kissing
Complainant 1 in an intimate manner during their five-week relationship to be severe.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 270

XII. Analysis and Findings for Complainant 2

A. SVSH Policy

In an investigation under the SVSH Policy, a respondent cannot be found responsible

unless, following a thorough and impartial investigation, the preponderance of the
evidence shows that the conduct, as alleged in the Notice of Charges, occurred in
violation of the SVSH Policy.

As noted above, the current SVSH Policy defines sexual harassment in Section II.
Definitions, under B. Prohibited Conduct, as follows:

2.a. Sexual Harassment is unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests

for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal, nonverbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature when:
i. Quid Pro Quo: a person’s submission to such conduct is implicitly
or explicitly made the basis for employment decisions . . . or
advancement . . . ; or
ii. Hostile Environment: such conduct is sufficiently severe or
pervasive that it unreasonably denies, adversely limits, or interferes
with a person’s participation in or benefit from the . . . employment
or other programs and services of the University and
creates an environment that a reasonable person would find to be
intimidating or offensive.

The Policy further states in 2.b.: “Consideration is given to the totality of the
circumstances in which the conduct occurred. Sexual harassment may include
incidents: i. between any members of the University community, including . . . staff; ii: in
hierarchical relationships . . .”

B. Undisputed Facts

It is undisputed that Respondent was Complainant 2’s until

Complainant 2’s and he was in a position to make decisions
affecting her employment. It is undisputed that Respondent and Complainant 2 did not
engage in a romantic or physical relationship.

The accounts of Complainant 2 and Respondent were also in agreement on a number

of important points regarding Respondent’s conduct toward Complainant 2.
Complainant 2 stated that she did not have a romantic or sexual interest in Respondent;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 271

Respondent told PII that he did not perceive that Complainant 2 had any romantic or
sexual interest in him.

Respondent acknowledged to PII that he engaged in the following ongoing conduct with
Complainant 2 on a regular basis: “tight” and “deep” hugs; hand-holding; carpooling;
expressing his feelings for Complainant 2 verbally and in text messages, e-cards, and
handwritten cards; texting and talking on the phone; meeting after work for dinners and
wine; giving small gifts of “sweets and chocolate”; traveling together on business trips,
staying in the same hotels and eating meals together; confiding in her regarding
personal crises; engaging in numerous difficult conversations with her regarding tension
in their relationship; and communicating with her in a harsh manner and regularly
“snap[ping]” at her in private and during meetings.

The accounts of Complainant 2 and Respondent were generally in agreement regarding

specific incidents cited by Complainant 2:

• In 2013, Respondent and Complainant 2 had a conversation in which

Complainant 2 discussed her concerns about “mixed signals” and told him that
she did not want him to misconstrue her behavior toward him as sexual or
romantic.
• In December 2014, Respondent brought along a bottle of wine with him on a
business trip with Complainant 2; he invited Complainant 2 to drink wine with
him, and she declined to do so.
• In December 2015, Respondent texted Complainant 2 around midnight with a
request to stop by her room while they were on a business trip together; she did
not agree to this.
• Around late 2015, Complainant 2 was upset and showed discomfort with
Respondent hugging her and told him that she did not wish to continue their
relationship outside of work.

C. No Direct Witnesses

There were no witnesses interviewed who had direct knowledge of their relationship.

D. Disputed Factual Questions

The accounts of Respondent and Complainant 2 diverged on several key points.

Complainant 2 stated that Respondent’s conduct was unwelcome. She felt obligated to
“go along” with Respondent’s advances or be subjected to Respondent’s harsh
treatment or lose her job. When Complainant 2 ceased submitting to Respondent’s

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 272

advances, she said Respondent’s conduct toward her became so abusive and bullying
that she was forced

Respondent disputed Complainant 2’s account. He denied he made any advances

toward her because he denied having a romantic or sexual interest in her. He cited his
close friendship with Complainant 2 as the basis for his conduct toward her. He
asserted that his conduct was welcomed by Complainant 2 and that his interactions with
her were appropriate, mutual, and consensual. Respondent stated that any tension in
their relationship was due to Complainant 2’s work performance issues, not due to
Complainant 2’s refusal of his advances; her early was because of
Complainant 2’s dissatisfaction with her position, not due to his conduct.

Complainant 2 and Respondent were also in disagreement regarding a 2013 incident

described by Complainant 2; she stated that Respondent grabbed her buttocks and
stated, “I do a lot for you. What are you going to do for me?” Respondent disputed this
occurred.

The following questions need to be resolved in order to reach a finding in this matter:

• Did Respondent make “unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for

sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature” toward Complainant 2?
• Was Complainant 2’s submission to Respondent’s advances implicitly or
explicitly made the basis for Respondent’s decisions regarding Complainant 2’s
employment or advancement?
• Was Respondent’s conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive that it unreasonably
denied, adversely limited, or interfered with Complainant 2’s participation in or
benefit from her employment at UCR and created an environment that a
reasonable person would find to be intimidating or offensive?

E. Analysis

1. Did Respondent make “unwelcome sexual advances,

unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome
verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”
toward Complainant 2?

PII found, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent’s conduct
toward Complainant 2 was unwelcome. As detailed below, PII’s conclusion was based
on an evaluation of Complainant 2’s conduct toward Respondent from 2013 to 2016,
which showed that Complainant 2 consistently demonstrated that Respondent’s

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 274

Complainant 2 described dozens of examples of Respondent’s unwelcome advances

toward her that consisted of frequent and ongoing conduct, such as hugging, hand-
holding while carpooling, late-night dinners and drinks, and expressions of affection,
which she tolerated. She also described several specific incidents when Respondent
made unwelcome advances that consisted of, or Complainant 2 believed could escalate
to, physical contact of a more sexual nature that she did not tolerate.

Statements by Complainant 2 showed that despite her fears of Respondent, she

conveyed to him that his advances were unwelcome by expressing her discomfort to
him in multiple conversations about their relationship dynamics; by “ignor[ing],
deflect[ing] and act[ing] stupid” when confronted with his advances; and by ultimately
refusing to continue to “go along” with his advances. Despite this, Respondent
persisted in making unwelcome advances toward Complainant 2, causing
get away from Respondent’s sexual harassment.

The investigation produced substantial evidence that supported Complainant 2’s

account that Respondent’s advances were unwelcome.

1) Complainant 2 Ignored or Deflected Respondent’s

Unwelcome Physical Advances

According to Complainant 2’s account, there were three specific incidents in 2013,
2014, and 2015 when Respondent’s advances escalated to include physical contact of
a more sexually explicit nature or that she strongly believed would lead to a sexual
advance. Complainant 2’s conduct during these three incidents clearly demonstrated
that Respondent’s advances were unwelcome. In 2013, when Respondent hugged
Complainant 2, grabbed her buttocks, and commented, “I do a lot for you. What are you
going to do for me?” Complainant 2 pretended nothing had happened and “bolted out of
there.”

In 2014, when Respondent suggested they share a bottle of wine while on a business
trip, Complainant 2 ignored his invitation and avoided him that evening. When
Respondent persisted by emailing Complainant 2 later that night at 9:50 p.m., ostensibly
about Complainant 2 responded that she did not think there
were any more “comfortable opportunities for conversation” between them that night.
When Respondent persisted the next day by telling Complainant 2 that “last night was a
missed opportunity,” she told him that his invitation was inappropriate. When
Respondent again tried to “revisit” the issue by email later that day, Complainant 2
replied she was “not comfortable meeting in private spaces” with him.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 275

While on a different business trip in 2015, when Respondent texted her at 12:15 a.m.
that he had a “completely inappropriate” request to stop by her room “just to say hi,”
which he withdrew a minute later, Complainant 2 ignored his request and instead
replied, “See you in the morning.”

PII found that Complainant 2’s reaction to Respondent’s conduct consistently

demonstrated that Complainant 2 did not welcome his advances and rejected them.
This evidence showed that Complainant 2 did not initiate these interactions, nor did she
reciprocate or accept Respondent’s invitations; she instead avoided him and told him
his requests were inappropriate. The investigation produced a preponderance of
evidence that supported Complainant 2’s account. Statements by Complainant 2 were
corroborated by text messages and emails from 2014 and 2015 and by statements from
Complainant 2 later spoke to regarding the incident in
2013. PII determined that Complainant 2’s account was credible.

Respondent disputed Complainant 2’s account. He denied the incident in 2013

occurred. He acknowledged the incidents in 2014 and 2015, but he repeatedly denied
that his conduct on those nights, as well as throughout his relationship with Complainant
2, was inappropriate or motivated by a romantic or sexual interest in Complainant 2; he
denied having any romantic or sexual interest in Complainant 2. Respondent asserted
that Complainant 2 was confused and misinterpreted his friendly and appropriate
conduct toward her; he told PII, “It’s in [Complainant 2’s] mind.” Respondent
characterized his suggestion to Complainant 2 that they share a bottle of wine as an
“innocent offer” that Complainant 2 declined. Respondent cited his tremendous grief
over as the reason he sought comfort from Complainant 2 in her
room around midnight, which she did not agree to; he told PII that it was “not about sex,
it was about my friend,” although he admitted it “look[ed] bad.”

PII considered Respondent’s explanations and determined that they were implausible
and undermined his overall credibility. Respondent admitted regularly engaging in
conduct toward Complainant 2 that he maintained was “appropriate”: such as “tight” and
“deep” hugs, hand-holding, inviting her to late-night dinners with wine, giving her
“sweets and chocolates,” and repeatedly expressing his strong feelings for her through
texts, e-cards, and handwritten cards. PII found that a reasonable person would
consider, as Complainant 2 did, that Respondent’s conduct was inappropriately
affectionate and outside the boundaries of a normal working relationship between a
supervisor and their subordinate.

The circumstances surrounding Respondent’s invitations to Complainant 2 in 2014 and

2015 – both occurred late at night while they were away on a business trip – clearly
lacked a legitimate business purpose. PII found that these two factors combined –

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 276

Respondent’s affectionate conduct toward Complainant 2 coupled with his late-night

requests to be alone with her – would cause a reasonable person to conclude, as
Complainant 2 did, that Respondent’s intentions toward her in 2014 and 2015 and
throughout their relationship were motivated by his romantic and sexual interest in her.

Regardless of Respondent’s stated motivations in 2014 and 2015, Complainant 2

strongly believed that his intent was romantic and sexual in nature, and Complainant 2
acted accordingly to reject his advances, further evidence that she did not welcome his
conduct.

Substantial evidence produced during the investigation also showed Respondent used
similar tactics on and Complainant 1 prior to making unwanted advances on
them, further undercutting Respondent’s account and credibility. During a business trip
with Respondent brought a bottle of wine and suggested to that
they drink it in her hotel room, which led to Respondent making unwelcome physical
advances toward her. Substantial evidence showed Respondent also shared his
personal crises with Complainant 1 and prior to making unwanted advances
toward them: Respondent sought comfort from Complainant 1 over the of the
same friend that he used with Complainant 2, and he did this during the same time
period that he sought comfort from Complainant 2; Respondent later cited his anguish
over his to Complainant 1; and Respondent asked to read a
eulogy that he had written for . In addition, Respondent repeatedly
recited a litany of his various “personal traumas” to PII as explanations for his conduct
toward Complainant 2 and Complainant 1 while also acknowledging his reliance on
them for emotional support.

2) Complainant 2 Resisted Respondent’s Efforts to

Hold Her Hand

Statements by Complainant 2 showed that she resisted Respondent’s efforts to hold her
hand while they carpooled by pulling her hand away from his grip and that she only
relented after Respondent refused to let her hand go and told her no; Complainant 2’s
conduct further indicated that she did not welcome Respondent’s advances.

Respondent acknowledged holding Complainant 2’s hand, but he argued that she
welcomed this, and he denied she tried to pull her hand away from his. However, the
investigation produced evidence that supported Complainant 2’s account. Statements
by Witnesses showed that Complainant 2 complained about Respondent’s
hand-holding prior to her and their accounts of Complainant 2’s statements
were consistent with Complainant 2’s subsequent account to PII that she did not
welcome Respondent’s efforts to engage in physical contact with her.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 277

3) Complainant 2 Conveyed Her Discomfort to

Respondent Regarding His Conduct on Multiple
Occasions

The preponderance of the evidence showed that Complainant 2 repeatedly conveyed to

Respondent that she had concerns about their relationship dynamics on more than a
dozen occasions in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, and she unsuccessfully sought to
establish appropriate boundaries with him. Her communications to Respondent about
her discomfort with his behavior increased in frequency and in directness by 2015,
when she decided to and was less fearful of the repercussions. Complainant 2’s
account was corroborated by text messages, emails, e-cards, and handwritten cards
between Complainant 2 and Respondent that reflected some of these discussions and
showed frequent references to difficult conversations they’d had related to tensions in
their relationship and her unhappiness about it.

PII determined that Complainant 2’s multiple statements to Respondent over the years
clearly indicated that she did not welcome his advances. Complainant 2 expressed to
Respondent that she was not comfortable with the “sexual undertow” of his behavior
toward her and the unhealthy dynamics of their relationship; she wanted to keep their
relationship “strictly professional.” In 2015, Complainant 2 had multiple conversations
with Respondent in which she explicitly told him that she was no longer willing to
participate in an ongoing “I love you, I hate you dynamic.” When Respondent texted
Complainant 2 offering her a “virtual hug” and asking her for one in return, she replied
that she was “challenged to reconcile hugging with the supervisor-subordinate
relationship . . . .” In early 2016, Complainant 2 told Respondent that she refused to be
his “business concubine.” PII found that Complainant 2’s efforts to discuss her
concerns with Respondent about their relationship dynamics and to establish
boundaries with Respondent were evidence that she wanted his inappropriate conduct
to stop and was seeking ways to stop it.

Respondent disputed that Complainant 2 expressed her discomfort to him. However,

some of the statements by Respondent were corroborative of Complainant 2’s
statements and demonstrated that Respondent knew that Complainant 2 did not
welcome his advances. Respondent and Complainant 2 both cited a 2013 conversation
to PII: although their accounts differed slightly, their statements were generally
consistent and showed that they had a discussion about Complainant 2’s concerns
regarding her perception that sexual or romantic signals were occurring between them
and that she did not want Respondent to think that she had a romantic or sexual interest
in him.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 278

Respondent also told PII that he did not perceive Complainant 2 as having a romantic or
sexual interest in him. PII found Respondent’s statement to be particularly relevant to
our finding; it demonstrated that Respondent persisted in making advances toward
Complainant 2 that a reasonable person would find to be romantic and sexual in nature
despite his knowledge that Complainant 2 did not have a romantic or sexual interest in
him. This further bolstered Complainant 2’s account that Respondent’s advances were
unwelcome.

4) Complainant 2 Did Not Reciprocate Respondent’s

Expressions of Affection or Initiate Expressions
of Affection to Him

Compelling evidence consisting of hundreds of text messages between Complainant 2

and Respondent from 2013 until 2016 showed that Complainant 2 did not reciprocate
Respondent’s many expressions of affections to her or initiate expressions of affection
to him. The evidence showed that Respondent regularly sent unsolicited texts to
Complainant 2, including late at night, in which Respondent told Complainant 2 how
much he missed her and that she was “precious,” “toooooo cute,” “very beautiful,” “one
of [his] dearest treasures,” and a “very special soul” and asked her to give him a smile
or hug. The text messages showed that Complainant 2’s typical responses were to not
respond, to change the topic, to reply, “Okie dokie,” or “Back at you,” or to send an
occasional “virtual hug.” PII considered these text messages to be substantial evidence
that further corroborated Complainant 2’s account that Respondent’s advances were
unwelcome.

5) Complainant 2 Preserved Communications with

Respondent from 2013 to 2016

PII considered Complainant 2’s decision to preserve her text messages with
Respondent starting on May 18, 2013, and Respondent’s e-card and handwritten cards
to her, as compelling evidence. Her decision provides critical insight into Complainant
2’s thoughts and concerns while Respondent’s sexual harassment was occurring. This
showed that Complainant 2 was troubled by Respondent’s conduct toward her, and she
was so upset by it that she took concrete steps to document his behavior. PII found that
Complainant 2’s actions further support her account that Respondent’s conduct was
unwelcome.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 281

account, that she did not have a romantic or sexual interest in him. Statements by
Witnesses showed that Complainant 2’s account to different witnesses at
different times remained consistent and were consistent with Complainant 2’s
subsequent statements to PII during interviews for this investigation,

c. Respondent’s Account Lacked Credibility

1) Insufficient Evidence to Support Respondent’s

Account

Respondent disputed Complainant 2’s account. The investigation did not produce
sufficient evidence to support Respondent’s various assertions that his conduct toward
Complainant 2 was welcome. Complainant 2 denied this, and the preponderance of
evidence supported Complainant 2’s account.

Considerable evidence refuted Respondent’s repeated claims that his behavior toward
Complainant 2 was appropriate, that he made no advances on Complainant 2 because
he lacked a romantic or sexual interest in her, and that Complainant 2’s belief that he
did was “preposterous.”

PII found that Respondent’s own affectionate words to Complainant 2, frequently

expressed and documented in three years of text messages, emails, e-cards, and
handwritten cards to Complainant 2; Respondent’s acknowledged conduct toward her
that included frequent hugging and hand-holding; and Respondent’s admitted efforts to
be alone with her late at night while they were away on a business trip to be convincing
evidence that establish Respondent had a romantic and sexual interest in Complainant
2. As discussed elsewhere in this analysis, a reasonable person would come to a
similar conclusion, as Complainant 2 did.

The investigation also produced substantial evidence that undermined Respondent’s

other explanations for his behavior toward Complainant 2 and further bolstered
Complainant 2’s account.

Respondent explained that he hugged Complainant 2 because he is a “hugger” who

hugs many employees and not because he had a romantic interest in Complainant 2;
however, there were no witnesses interviewed who reported regularly hugging
Respondent except for Complainant 1, who reported being sexually harassed by him.

Respondent explained that he went with Complainant 2 for dinners and wine because
he often socializes with colleagues at happy hours and not because he had a romantic

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Final Report
Public Interest Investigations, Inc.
Page 295

a. Respondent Made Repeated and Persistent Unwelcome

Advances Toward Complainant 2 from 2013 to 2016

PII considered Respondent’s repeated and persistent unwelcome advances toward

Complainant 2 during the last to be pervasive. As
previously discussed at length in this analysis, Respondent made unwelcome advances
toward Complainant 2 on a daily basis which included regularly hugging her; frequently
holding her hand; insisting on being in constant contact with her by phone and text and
spending time with her in person by carpooling, late-night dinners over “wine and
candlelight,” and traveling together on business trips; frequently expressing his strong
feelings for her in text messages, e-cards and handwritten cards and giving her small
gifts; and insisting that she provide emotional support to him during his personal
ordeals.

In addition, Respondent persisted in making unwelcome advances toward Complainant

2 despite his acknowledgment that she did not have a romantic or sexual interest in
him; Complainant 2’s repeated attempts to convey to Respondent that his advances
were not welcome in more than a dozen conversations with him in 2013, 2014, 2015
and 2016; and Complainant 2’s ignoring and deflecting of Respondent’s advances.

b. Respondent’s Unwelcome Advances toward

Complainant 2 Included Physical Contact

PII considered Respondent’s unwelcome advances toward Complainant 2 that

consisted of physical contact with Complainant 2’s body and hands to be severe. As
discussed elsewhere in this analysis, Respondent engaged in unwelcome physical
contact toward Complainant 2 that consisted of regularly engaging in “tight” or “very
deep” hugs with Complainant 2 with their bodies touching; frequently holding
Complainant 2’s hand and refusing to let go when she tried to pull away; and grabbing
Complainant 2’s buttocks in a sexual manner on one occasion.

c. Respondent’s Sexual Harassment Prevented

Complainant 2 From Continuing Employment at UCR

Due to Respondent’s position as Complainant 2’s and his high-level

position at UCR, statements by Complainant 2 showed that Respondent’s conduct had
created “an environment that a reasonable person would find to be intimidating or
offensive.” Complainant 2 described feeling afraid of Respondent and trapped by him in
an ongoing cycle of sexual harassment and bullying in which she was repeatedly
subjected to Respondent’s “creepy affection” and unwelcome advances and then forced
to endure Respondent’s “pointedly venomous” anger when she did not submit to his

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT