IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAI-IOGA COUNTY, OH RAYMOND S.R. KU, 17666 Stockton Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Plaintiff, vs. LAWRENCE E. MITCHELL, 3072 airmount Blvd. Cleveland Heights, OH 44118 and CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, C/o Elizabeth]. Keefer Adelbert Hall, Room 31 1 10900 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44106, Defendants. Judge: PETER CORRIGAN CV13 815935 COMPLAINT WITHJURY DEMAND NATURE or THE ACTION 1. This is a civil--rights action brought under R.C. 4112.99 for violations of the Ohio Civil Rights Act, specifically R.C. 41 In this complaint, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Professor Raymond Ku alleges that Case Western Reserve University, and Dean of the Law School Lawrence E. Nfitchell, retaliated against Professor Ku for opposing Dean Mitchell's unlawful discriminatory practice of sexually harassing females in the law--school Community. Page 1 of 29 PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Raymond Ku is a tenured professor at Case Weste1"n Reserve University School of Law. He works in Cuyahoga County. 3. Defendant Case Western Reserve University (Case) is a university located within the boundaries of Cuyahoga County. Case is vicariously liable for the acts of its supervisory employees, including Dean Lawrence Mitchell. 4. Defendant Lawrence E. Mitchell is the Dean of Case's School of Law. He works and resides in Cuyahoga County. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction because the suit concerns state--law violations by Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000. 6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. 7. Venue is proper here because all parties reside, work, and/ or are located in this county, and the events at issue took place in this county. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Professor Ku's Rise 8. Professor Raymond Ku has been a tenured professor at Case School of Law since 2003. He is an intellectual--property scholar who teaches copyright, constitutional, and property law. Professor Ku has significant expertise in teaching and publishing regarding cyberspace, Internet privacy, and related areas of technology. 9. Professor Ku received his undergraduate degree from Brown University and his law degree from New York University School of Law. Before being recruited to join the Case law faculty, Professor Ku taught at the law schools at Cornell, Seton Hall, Thomasjefferson, and St. Thomas. He clerked forjudge Timothy K. Lewis on the United States Court of Appeals for the Page 2 of 29 Third Circuit and was a litigator at Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP and Levine Pierson Sullivan Koch LLP before entering academia. 10. Professor Ku is the co-author of a popular casebook on Cyberspace Law (currently in its third edition) as well as many articles on intellectual property. A copy of his curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1. 11. When Professor Ku was recruited, Case's law school was trying to build its Center for Law, Technology the Arts. Professor Ku came in as a full, tenured professor and the associate director of the LTA Center. 12. In 2006, Professor Ku was promoted to co~director of the "Center for Law, Technology the Arts during the deanship of Gary Simson. 13. In 2008, Case created the Cyberspace Law Policy Office. Professor Ku was appointed that oflice's co~director_. 14. In 2009, Professor Ku was honored as Professor of the Year by the graduating class. He also received the Distinguished Teacher Award from the Case Association of Law Alumni. 15. In 2010, former Dean Robert Rawson promoted Professor Ku to Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, the second highest position in the law school. 16. In his capacity as associate dean, Professor Ku was responsible for the administration and management of the law school's curriculum of over 200 courses, approximately 50 full-time faculty members, roughly 100 adjunct faculty members, and the enforcement of the law school's academic policy for almost 600 students. He represented the administration at faculty and university committees, and at events and functions when the dean was unavailable. 17. Professor Ku is one of the most-cited professors on the Case law faculty. The Roger Williams University Law School Faculty Scholarship Study ranks the influence of law faculty at Page 3 of 29 institutions outside the U.S. News World Report Top 50.1 In 2010, the draft Roger Williams Faculty Scholarship Study inadvertently did not include Professor Ku on the list because he publishes under his full name (Raymond Shih Ray Ku) and the search parameters failed to account for authors with two middle names. After the parameters were corrected, he was not only one of the top Case faculty for that year, but Case law school jumped ten places in the study's rankings with Professor Ku's scholarship properly accounted for. 18. Professor Ku has served on various committees at Case, including the Faculty Senate Committee on Nfinority Affairs, which he chaired in 2011; the Promotion and Tenure Committee, which he chaired from 2008--20l0; the Clinical Faculty Tenure Committee, which he chaired from 2007--2008; the Rankings Committee; the Appointments Committee, which he chaired in 2004l*2005, and the Law School Diversity Committee, which he chaired in 201 1. 19. The Law School Diversity Committee considers and makes recommendations to improve the diversity of students, staff, and faculty at Case. This is an important committee to the institution because the Case law school has consistently fallen short in terms of diversity, which has been a major source of contention with both American Bar Association and Association of American Law Schools accreditation. At one point, the AALS threatened Case law school's membership due to the school's lack of diversity. 20. Professor Ku served as faculty advisor to the Im.'eraetLawj'oamal from 2003-2009. Since 2009, he has served as the faculty advisor to the Case Western Reservejoamal 01' Law, Technology 59" the Internet. 1 The Roger Williams University Law School Faculty Scholarship Study is "an inventory of the scholarly output on top [20] law journals to assess the relative strength of the schools in one form of scholarly research. It is the basis for the ranking of 'Per Capita Productivity Articles in Top Journals, l993-20l2: Law School Outside the U.S. News Top See Faculty Scholarship Study http:/ law.rwu.edu/ facultv/ (last visited October 15, 2013). Page 4 of 29 Lawrence Mitchell becomes dean. 21. In 2011, following an extended search, Case hired Lawrence Mitchell as the law. school's new dean. Dean Mitchell previously taught law at George Washington University Law School. 22. While Dean Mitchell was interviewing at the law school, Professor Ku had a good meeting with him. Professor Ku was looking forward to continuing in his role as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs under Dean Mitchell. 23. 0 women have joined the faculty since Lawrence Mitchell became dean of the law school, and at least two female professors and various female administrative staff have left the law school. 24. Professor Kn began to feel concerned about Dean approach to diversity early on in their professional relationship. From the time Dean Mitchell became dean, he made comments to Professor Kn regarding his Chinese heritage. Upon learning that Professor Ku was about to convert tojudaism, Dean Mitchell remarked that now Professor Ku was in two of Dean Mitchell's favorite groups, Asian andjewish. Dean Mitchell asked Professor Kn about being circumcised. Dean Mitchell's inappropriate comments made Professor Ku uncomfortable. Still, Professor Ku kept an open mind about the dean. I Professor Ku witnesses Dean Mitchell caress a married female colleague at an off-carnpus gathering. 25. On or about August 28, 2011, Dean Mitchell hosted an event for faculty and staff of the law school at his new home in Cleveland Heights. Spouses and significant others were included in this event. Professor Ku, as the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, made it a point to arrive early. Professor Ku and his wife were chatting with Dean Nlitchell, discussing Professor Ku's conversion, when Dean front of Professor Ku's raised the issue of Professor Ku being circumcised. Dean Mitchell's inappropriate comments made Professor K11 Page 5 of 29 and his wife uncomfortable. This was not the last inappropriate comment that Dean Mitchell would make that evening. 26. Dean Mitchell consumed numerous alcoholic beverages during the party on August 28, 201 l. 27. As the party was winding down, Professor Ku and his Wife were waiting to say their goodbyes to their host. As they waited, Professor Ku observed Dean Mitchell run his hand up the back of Administrative Staff Member 1,2 an assistant dean at the law school. Administrative Staff Member I's back was somewhat exposed because she was wearing a summer dress. Both Professor Ku and his wife witnessed this inappropriate physical contact?- which is best described as a caress of his colleague's exposed skin--~and found it to be sexually inappropriate as Well as urinerving and creepy. Professor K11 learns that Dean Mitchell made inappropriate, sexually flirtatious comments to at least two other faculty members at the party on August 28. 28. A few days after the party, Professor Ku had a conversation with Professor 1 (one of the other associate deans) and Professor 2, both female professors at the law school. They were discussing an ongoing search for a new faculty member and Dean Mitchell's expressed I preference for a particular white-male candidate. Professor 1 (who has since departed Case to serve on another law faculty) was, at the time, on the Appointments Committee and reported discussing with Dean l\/litchell the need to include other candidates, including women and people of color. During this conversation about diversity, Professor Ku raised what he witnessed with Dean Mitchell and Administrative Stafi" Member I at the party. In response, one of the 9 To protect the victims of Dean Mitch-3ll's harassment from retaliation and embarrassment for as long as possible, Professor Ku will refer to them by position in this Complaint. He will make their names available in discovery subject, if necessary, to an appropriate protective order. Page 6 of 29 women told Professor Ku about Dean Mitchell saying something inappropriate to Professor 3 at the party. One of the women also shared with Professor Ku that two women on the legal~ writing faculty, Professor 4 and Professor 5, had experienced discrimination/harassment issues with Dean l\/Iitchell. 29. Professor 3 herself later confirmed to Professor Ku that at the August 28 party, Dean Mitchell had said something to her and her husband about Dean Mitchell stealing her away from her husband. Professor 3 reported to Professor Ku that this sexual flirting upset her husband. Given the inappropriate comments Dean Mitchell made to her, Professor 3 expressed concern about how he would treat female candidates for the faculty. 30. As Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and as a human being, Professor Ku was concerned about what he had witnessed and now heard about Dean Mitchell'ls inappropriate behavior toward women. Professor Ku consulted with Administrative Staff Member 2, another assistant dean, who reported that Dean Mitchell had made similar inappropriate comments to her and her husband at the party that the dean had made to Professor 3. 31. Administrative Member 2, who was on the Search committee for the new dean, informed Professor Ku that the committee had concerns with Dean Mitchell during the search process relating to the number of wives he had had, his dating of students while at George Washington, and his interactions with women generally. Specifically, according to Administrative Staff Member 2, the Search committee was aware that (1) while Dean Mitchell was a professor at George Washington, he divorced his wife to marry a student; (2) he then divorced the student; (3) he then married a woman who joined the law faculty; and (4-) they divorced after adopting a child. Page 7 of 29 Professor Ku realizes Case's sexual-harassment policy requires hiin to report Dean Mitchell sexual harassment. 32. In discussing these concerns about Dean Mitcl1ell's behavior toward women, and n1indful of their obligations to the university and their students, Professor Ku and Administrative Staff" Member 2 reviewed the university's sexual-harassment policy, including its mandatory reporting requirement: "All members Qflf/726 zmiversity community must adhere to the sexual" harassment policy and report Though she agreed that the reporting requirement was not discretionary, Administrative Staff Member 2 expressed fear about losing her job if she reported Dean conduct. 33. Professor Ku likewise understood that the policy obligated him to raise these concerns about'Dean Mitchell's treatment of women in the law-school community, but as a tenured professor he was not in the more precarious position that Administrative Stafl" Member 2 faced in terms of job security. They discussed the risk of retaliation, but Professor Ku, faced with various concerns including: (1) the inappropriate physical contact to which Dean Mitchell had subjected Administrative Staff Member 1; (2) the inappropriate comments to Professor 3 and Administrative Staff Member 2; and (3) the concerns about Dean Mitchell's treatment of two female members of the legal-writing faculty (Professor 4 and Professor 3, Professor Ku felt that he had no choice but to report the 'conduct under the sexual--harassment policy. He also felt that, as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, it was in the female student body's interest that he report Dean Mitchell's sexually harassing conduct. The school year had just started. Professor K11 was concerned for the university and the law school because it would be a huge scandal if Dean Mitchell was disco_vered to be harassing not just faculty and staff but also the law students I 1 3 Emphasis added. A copy of the Case Western Reserve University Sexual Harassment Policy is attached as Exhibit 2. Page 8 of 29 who pay over $45,000 in annual tuition for the privilege of attending Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Professor K11. meets with Provost "Bud" Baeslack to discuss Dean Mitche]1's sexual harassment-and Bae-slack passes the buck back to K11 to raise the concerns directly with Mitchell. 34. Having reached the conclusion that Case's sexual~harass1nent policy mandated that he report Dean Mitche1l's behavior, Professor Ku, with the help of his assistant, attempted to meet with Dean Mitchell as well as with Provost and Executive Vice President W.A. "Bud" Baeslack the second--highest--ranking university official and Dean Mitchell's immediate supervisor. It was just before the Labor Day holiday, and Dean Mitchell apparently had departed campus for the weekend and would not return until the following Tuesday. Professor Ku had intended, as a - courtesy, to notify Dean 1\/Iitchell that he (Ku) was going to make the report required under the policy, but Dean lVlitchell's absence from campus precluded that. 35. Professor Ku was able to arrange a meeting with Provost Baeslack on or about Thursday, September 1 2011. Provost Baeslack is the administrator who is most directly in charge of Dean Mitchell and the law school. Professor K11 met with Provost Baeslack and reported what he (Ku) had witnessed and heard about Dean Mitchell's inappropriate and sexually harassing behavior toward women at Case. Professor Ku described the concerning conduct but did not share the victims' names out of concern for their privacy and potential retaliation against them for reporting Dean Mitchell's harassing conduct. Provost Baeslack stated that he had already had to address an issue with Dean Mitchell about him using profanity at university events. But during the meeting, it became clear to Professor Ku that Provost Baeslack was not going to address with Dean Mitchell the issue of him sexually harassing women at the law school. Provost Baeslack communicated to Professor Ku that he (Professor Ku) should address the sexual harassment with Dean Mitchell and report back to Provost Baeslack on how it went. Provost Baeslack put Page 9 of 29 Professor Ku (Dean Mitchell's subordinate) in the position of addressing Dean Mitchell's sexually harassing behavior with him. Professor Ku follows Provost Baeslack's instruction and meets with Dean Mitchell to discuss the sexual-harassment and Mitchell berates Ku as having "betrayecl" Mitchell and all but threatens to terniinate Ku's associate deanship. 36. Following Provost Baeslack's instructions, Professor Ku met with Dean Mitchell on or about Tuesday, September 6, 201 1 (after the Labor Day holiday). The meeting had been previously scheduled to attend to regular law~school business and Professor Ku intended to raise the sexual--harassment issues at the end of the meeting. But from the moment the meeting began, - Professor Ku could tell that something was wrong. At the outset, Dean Mitchell was defensive in his tone of voice and body language. After they concluded their agenda items, Dean Mitchell asked, "What else do you Wantto talk about?" or words to that effect. Professor Ku believes that someone tipped off Dean Mitchell that Professor Ku would be addressing the issue of Dean Mitchell's sexual harassment. 37. Professor Ku raised the issue of Dean Mitchell's sexual harassment as diplomatically as humanly possible. Professor Ku explained his concerns to Dean Mitchell about him subjecting faculty and administrative staff to behavior that violated the sexual-harassment policy. 38. Dean Mitchell never denied engaging in the inapjaropiiate conduct. Instead, Dean Mitchell expressed shock and disbelief that the affected individuals would not feel comfortable raising these issues with him personally, or that anyone would feel he would be angry or retaliate. 'Dean Mitchell then spent the rest of the meeting berating Professor Ku for reporting his concerns to Provost Baeslack. 39. Dean Mitchell accused Professor Ku of being "disloyal" and breaching Dean Mitchell's trust by reporting his behavior to Provost Baeslack. Dean Mitchell stated that he viewed Page 10 01329 Professor Ku's reporting as a "betrayal" and a "breach of trust" and questioned whether Ku could continue to work as associate dean. 40. Dean Mitchell stated that if Professor Ku ever did anything similar again report Dean Mitchell's sexual harassment to a university administrator), Professor Ku would no longer be associate dean. 41. Dean Mitchell stated his belief that it was Professor Ku's sole duty to report directly to Dean Mitchell. Professor Ku disagreed, explaining that this was not an internal disagreement over law-school policy, and that Professor Ku's report to Provost Baeslack was motivated by Professor Ku's legal and ethical duty to the university and the law school to report allegations of sexual harassment. Dean Mitchell continued to claim that he had been "betrayed" by Professor Ku and--effectively admitting the misconduct~--stated, "It's not like I raped someone." Dean Mitchell accused Professor Ku of undermining his (l\4itchell's) authority and stated that this is exactly why Case Law School was "not able toget a real dean" for the last several years.'* Dean Mitchell demanded that Professor Ku apologize for reporting his concerns to Provost Baeslack. Professor Ku stands up to Dean Mitchell to protect the university and law school; refuses to hush up Mitche]l's znisconduct as part of a "boys' club" 42. In the face of Dean Mitchell's hostility, Professor Ku responded that he took this matter very seriously, and that this was a situation with potential violations of not only university policy but also local, state, and federal law. Professor Ku declined to apologize for following university policy and assured Dean l\/Iitchell that if further sexual-harassment--policy violations came to his (Ku's) attention, he would not hesitate to report them per university policy. Professor Ku emphasized that university policy did not leave to Dean Mitchell's discretion reporting sexual~ This was an apparent reference to the distinguished stewardship of the law school by preeminent litigator Robert Rawson as interim dean while the law school was conducting a formal national search. Page ll of 29 harassment-policy violations, but rather was mandatory. Professor Ku made it clear that this matter was not going to be hushed up by some boys' club and that the university's central administration had a right to know of these issues for the sake of the university and the law school. Professor Ku explained that he was trying to protect the institution's reputation and avoid a potential controversy. Dean Mitchell directs Professor Ku to apologize to the women the dean sexually harassed. 43. Eventually, Dean Mitchell dismissed Professor Ku from the meeting stating that the "argument is going nowhere." Dean Mitchell ordered Professor Ku to convey the dean's apologies to the women who had expressed concerns (again, never denying that he had engaged in sexually harassing and inappropriate conduct with multiple women). 44. Following the meeting, Professor Ku followed Dean Mitchell's orders and conveyed his apologies to the women who had shared their concerns with him Each expressed their doubts that Dean Mitchell would change his behavior. Professor 3 expressed that her husband remained very concerned about Dean Mitchell's comments at the party on August 28 and did not want her to be left alone with the dean. Professor Ku reports back to Provost Baeslack about meeting with Dean Mitchell. 45. After following Dean Mitchell's instructions to convey his apologies to the women who expressed concerns about his sexually harassing and inappropriate behavior, Professor Ku had a phone conversation with Provost Baeslack about the meeting with Dean Mitchell. Provost Baeslack denied reaching out to Dean Mitchell before Professor Ku met with the dean. Professor Kn reported that Dean Mitchell was very angry and had threatened to fire him for reporting the sexuakharassment concerns. Provost Baeslack stated that Dean lvfitchell had contacted him (Baeslack) and was indeed quite angry. Provost Mitchell actually dgfended Dean Mitchell, claiming Page 12 of29 that the dean's anger was "understandable" and "expected" because Professor Ku went to Provost Baeslack before clearing it with the dean. Provost Baeslack stated that he would not like it if a subordinate went over his head. While Provost Baeslack agreed that it was inappropriate to threaten to fire Professor Ku for reporting sexual harassment, Provost Baeslack never acknowledged that Professor Ku had complied with universiw-mandated policy by reporting the incidents, and was not supposed to go to Dean Mitchell or otherwise obtain "permission" before reporting sexual harassment. Provost Baeslack instead concluded the conversation by explaining that he hoped that the next "step would be to repair the leadership team's working relationship. Dean Mitchell initiates a carnpaign of retaliation against Professor K11 and pressures him to step down as associate dean. 46. Following Professor Ku's report of Dean Mitchell's sexually harassing behavior and declining to apologize for doing so, Dean Mitchell began a campaign of retaliation against Professor Ku. 47. Dean Mitchell tried to discredit Professor Ku amongst the faculty and had meetings targeting Professor Ku. 48. Dean Mitchell enlisted assistance to monitor Professor Ku's blog posts. 49. Professor Ku first became aware of the retaliation at a meeting amongst Professor Ku, Dean Mitchell, and Provost Baeslack on or about "September 8, 2011 (two days after the meeting between Dean Mitchell and Professor Ku where Ku first raised the harassment concerns). Dean Mitchell began the meeting by asking if Professor Ku was willing to apologize for reporting the sexual harassment and admit he was wrong. Professor Ku again declined to apologize for following university policy and the law, and for seeking to protect the institution, faculty, staff, and students. Dean Mitchell proceeded to chastise Professor Ku in front of Provost Baeslack. Dean l\/fitchell berated Professor Ku for being "disloyal," "betraying" Dean Mitchell, and Page 13 of 29 violating his "trust." Dean Mitchell asked Professor Ku to consider whether he should continue in his role as associate dean. Provost Baeslack did nothing to correct Dean Mitchell's behavior or otherwise intervene. 50. Professor Ku again explained the seriousness with which he took the concerns shared with him by faculty and staff about Dean Mitchell's behavior toward women and their ongoing fear that Dean Mitchell's behavior might negatively impact female faculty candidates, students, and even donors. Professor Ku explained that--in his reading of the sexual-harassment policy-- complaints about harassment need not rise to the level of rape (as Dean Mitchell had previously suggested) for the school to respond or to trigger the mandatory reporting requirement. Professor Ku expressed how his actions were taken to maintain confidentiality and resolve the matter in the most amicable way possible to minimize and avoid negative publicity. 51. Dean Mitchell continued to emphasize that associate dean's role required "absolute loyalty" to the dean. Professor Ku countered that, although the associate dean 'should maintain public unity with the dean on matters of law~school policy, it was not Professor Ku's job to keep Dean Mitchell's secrets. 52. Dean Mitchell advised Professor Ku to take a few days to consider whether he should continue as associate dean. Professor Ku responded that Dean Mitchell should consider the consequences for retaliating against an employee who opposed discrimination. 53. Notwithstanding Professor Ku's_explanation and adherence to the sexual--harassment policy, Provost Baeslack sided with Dean Mitchell, never once acknowledging that Professor Ku was required by the school's own policy to report the misconduct. "Provost Baeslack instead emphasized that the dean and associate dean had to have a good working relationship. Provost Baeslack again noted that Dean Mitchell's anger was understandable, and that he (Baeslack) would be angry and upset under similar circumstances. Provost Baeslack said Professor Ku Page 14>> of29 "should have moved heaven and earth" to speak to Dean Mitchell before speaking to the provost. Professor Ku emphasized that he took no pleasure in having raised these concerns with Provost Baeslack and that he (Kn) was in an extremely difficult position. Dean Mitchell retorted: "Now you know how I have felt because you spoke to the provost." 54. Despite Provost Baeslack's lack of support in the face of Dean Mitchell's retaliation for Professor Ku's reporting the sexual--harassment concerns as required by university policy, Professor Ku was emphatic that he wished to remain in his role as associate dean. 55. Dean l\/Iitchell then insisted that Professor Ku be in the building five days per week (which had never before been a requirement of the position). Professor Kn reminded Dean Mitchell that he (Kn) was teaching an overload of courses in addition to his administrative responsibilities and that he worked from home one day per week to pursue his scholarly agenda. As for many law professors, Professor Ku finds time outside the office conducive to Writing because it allows him to focus without interruption. This was especially true in his role as associate dean whenwgiven the breadthland depth of his would regularly have to deal with last-minute appointments, telephone calls, or Crises. But despite Professor Kuw- one of the most-cited scholars at the law school~--explaining how this new requirement would hurt his writing, Dean Mitchell persisted in imposing this new requirement at the expense of Professor Ku's scholarship. 56. Dean Mitchell also ordered Professor Ku to submit a report about his plans for the office of associate dean. Provost Baeslack admitted that this was unnecessary "homeworlt" but did not discourage or dissuade Dean Mitchell from demanding it. Provost Baeslack also commented that Professor Ku must be feeling like he was on the hot seat. Themeeting adjourned with the understanding that Professor Ku would complete this unnecessary busywork and discuss it with Dean Mitchell over lunch. Page 15 of 29 57. After the meeting amongst Professor Ku, Provost Baeslack, and Dean Mitchell, Dean Mitchell never communicated with Professor Ku face to face. And Dean Mitchell proceeded to do nearly everything that one can do to a tenured professor to retaliate against him for reporting Dean Mitchell's sexual harassment. From that point forward, Dean Mitchell excluded Professor Ku from involvement in matters in which, as associate dean, Professor Ku would customarily be involved. 58. On or about September 9, 2011, Dean Mitchell reassigned responsibility for three new tasks to Professor Ku. These tasks were a teaching interest group, Case Downtown, and the North East Ohio Faculty Colloquium. These responsibilities had, until then, fallen under the auspices of another associate dean, who at the time was Professor 1. Professor 1 discouraged Dean Mitchell from reassigning these tasks to Professor Ku because she was concerned that he would be overloaded. But Dean Mitchell ignored her. University Vice President Mobley acknowledges that Professor Ku . is the victirn of "a classic case of retaliation." 59. After the berating he received from Dean Mitchell in front of Provost Baeslack on September 8 and the reassignment of various tasks from Professor 1 to Professor Ku, on or about Friday, September 9, 2011, Professor Ku met with Marilyn Mobley, the University's Vice President of the Office of Inclusion, Diversity Equal Opportunity. The meeting was in person at her office. Professor Ku reported Dean Mitchell's retaliation and explained what had happened during the meeting with Dean Mitchell and Provost Baeslack. 60. Dr. Mobley responded that this was "a classic case of retaliation." Dr. Mobley told Professor Kn that she was going to bring Dean Mitchell's retaliation to University President Barbara Snyder's attention right away. Dr. Mobley then brought Faculty Diversity Officerjohn Glochesy into the meeting. Professor Ku shared all the same details again with Dr. Olochesy. Dr. Page l6 of 29 Clochesy expressed the same opinion as Mobley, that this was clear case of retaliation. Both Dr. Mobley and Dr. Clochesy agreed that Professor Ku should file a formal complaint for retaliation based on Dean Mitchell's conduct in response to Professor Ku reporting Dean M_itchell's sexual harassment. It was late Friday afternoon, so they arranged to meet again on Monday to complete the formal complaint. As the meeting concluded, Dr. Mobley stated that she was going right over to see President Snyder to report what Professor Ku had reported about the retaliation he was facing. Dr. Mobley later confirmed with Professor Ku that she had done this. Provost Baeslack "just doesn't get it" 61. On or about September 12, 201 1, Professor Ku met with Dr. Clochesy as arranged the previous Friday. Dr. Clochesy recorded the details of Professor Ku's formal retaliation co1nplaint. During this meeting, Dr. Clochesy stated to Professor Ku that Provost Baeslack just "didn't get it" when it came to sexual harassment. Dr. Clochesy shared with Professor Ku the story of a sexual-harassment issue related to a student in a study-abroad program and how the issue's significance and the urgency of action had to be explained to Provost Baeslack. Dr. Clochesy advised Professor Ku that the women (whose privacy Professor Ku was still protecting) should be made aware that they could report the harassment confidentially through a hotline. Women fear retaliation 62. Later that day, Professor Ku, complying with Dr. Glochesy's instruction, spoke with Administrative Sta_ffMember 2. He told her that he had filed a formal complaint for retaliation, and that the university administration was going to begin an investigation. She stated that she might have to quit her job because she did not want to be forced into a position in which she would have to lie about Dean behavior to keep her job. Page l7 of29 63. That same day or shortly thereafter, Professor Ku also spoke to Professor 1, Professor 2, and Professor 3 and shared what Dr. Clochesy had asked Professor Ku to tell them about the anonymous hotline's availability. Dean Mitchell never discusses the busywork assignment with Professor Ku. 64. On or about September 14:, 2011, Dean Mitchell informed Professor Ku's assistant that their scheduled lunch (where they were supposed to discuss the busywork report Mitchell had assigned Ku) had been changed to a meeting. Later that day, Dean Mitchell--again through Professor Ku's assistant--canceled the meeting. Dean Mitchell made no effort to reschedule and never discussed with Professor K11 the unnecessary homework that-Professor K11 needlessly completed. After initially acknowledging that Dean Mitcl1ell's conduct was "a classic case of retaliation," university adxninistrators attempt to sweep under the rug the harassment and retaliation. 65. On. or about September 15, 2011, Professor Ku again met with the Dr. Mobley and Dr. Clochesy. Their attitude toward Professor Ku had changed markedly. Before, just days earlier, they had been supportive and sympathetic to Professor Ku's predicament in reporting Dean Mitchell's sexual harassment under a mandatory policy and being retaliated against in return. These officials had agreed that Professor Ku was experiencing "classic retaliation." But now Dr. Mobley and Dr. Clochesy accused Professor Kn of attempting to "collect statements" about Dean Mitchel1's sexual harassment. Professor Ku explained that he had just followed Dr. Clochesy's instruction to tell the women they could call the anonymous hotline. Professor Ku had not attempted to collect any statements. 66. On or about September 19, 201 l, Professor Ku again met with Dr. Mobley and Dr. Clochesy. Dr. Mobley and Dr. Clochesy again accused Professor Kn of trying to "collect statements" about Dean sexual harassment. Professor Ku again assured them that he Page 18 of 29 was not trying to investigate, but had simply--per Dr. Clochesy's instruction-conveyed to the harassment victims with whom he had spoken their option to anonymously report Dean Mitchell's sexual harassment of them. 67. Based on their recent meetings, Professor Ku was getting the sense that Dr. Mobley and Dr. Clochesy were perhaps focusing only on the harassment issues, and ignoring the retaliation against him. Concerned that his report of retaliation was now not being taken seriously, on or about Friday, September 28, 2011, Professor Ku sent a letter to Dr. Mobley about his concerns about retaliation by Dean Mitchell. 68. On or about September 29, 201 1, Dr. Mobley sent Professor Ku an email to follow up on their meeting on September 19. In the email, Dr. Mobley acknowledged that Professor Ku had raised "concerns [he] indicated were expressed about interactions between Dean Lawrence Mitchell and certain members of the Law School faculty and staff at a recent gathering" and that those concern "may fall under the University's Sexual Harassment Policy." She claimed that her office's inquiry into the matter was complete. Professor Ku raises concerns about being excluded from consideration for a. newly endowed chair in retaliation for reporting Dean Mitchell's sexual harassment, but again is rebuffed by university adnoinistrators. 69. On or about October 7, 201 1, Professor Ku again met with Dr. Mobley and Dr. Clochesy. At this meeting, Professor Ku shared his concerns about the treatment of women and minorities at the law school regarding a newly endowed chair for a faculty member teaching intellectual property (the Spangenberg Family Foundation Chair in Law and the Arts). Professor Ku noted that he was qualified for the position, but Dean Mitchell refused to consider internal candidates. Professor 1 had nominated_Professor Ku for consideration for this chair, but was informed by the Appointments Committee chairperson that Dean Mitchell was not allowing the Page 19 of29 committee to consider internal candidates. Upon information and belief, this was the first time that internal candidates were excluded from consideration for a law-school endowed chair. 70. On or about October 24, 201 1, Dr. Clochesy dismissed Professor Ku's concerns about the Spangenberg chair, claiming that the Dean had discretion to use the chairs as he saw fit. After initially acknowledging that Professor K11 was experiencing "a classic case of retaliation," Dr. Mobley's supposed "investigation" concludes that there was no retaliation against Professor Ku for reporting Dean Mitchell's sexual harassment of females in the law--school community. And Professor Ku reluctantly resigns his position as associate clean. 71'. On or about Monday, October 31, 2011, Dr. Mobley reported to Professor Ku that she had conducted an investigation and claimed that she had concluded that Professor Ku's concerns about being retaliated against were "unsubstantiated." 72. On or about November 1, 2011, Professor Ku reluctantly tendered his resignation as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and chair of the Law School Diversity Committee. He was constructively discharged from those positions based on Dean Mitchell's retaliation and the university administrators' respective failures to intervene or prevent the retaliation. As Professor Ku stated in his letter of resignation addressed to Dean Mitchell: "because you have effectively ended all of my substantive authority in these positions and removed me from all substantive decision making after I reported concerns about your potentially discriminatory behavior regarding women at the law school, I can no longer reasonably remain in these positions or serve in your administration." 73. I Before the end of Professor Ku's time as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, it had been the custom and practice at the law school for former associate deans to retain an increased salary following their service in that role. But Professor Ku's salary was reduced after he ceased serving as associate dean. Page 20 of29 74. Case, and specifically Provost Baeslack, Dr. Mobley, and Dr. Clochesy, failed to take any corrective action after Professor Ku complained of Dean Mitchell's retaliation. Professor Ku was not the only one who complained to Provost Baeslack about Dean Mitchell's retaliation. 75. On or about December l, 201 1, Administrative Staff Member complained in a letter to Provost Baeslack that Dean Mitchell had engaged in sexual relations with Law Student 1 and was engaging in retaliation against Administrative Stafi" Member 3 based on his knowledge of Dean Mitchell's improprieties. Administrative Stafi" Member 3 expressed that this improper conduct was part of "a pattern of unprofessional behavior." 76. Administrative Staff Member 3 went on to note that, "my close knowledge of Dean Mitchell's past and potential behavior causes me to have great concern for the integrity and reputation of the Case Western Reserve University Law School and for the safety of the students and staff." He also stated, have come to fear for my personal safety." 77. Case's sexual--harassment policy provides: "When one party has any professional responsibility for another's academic or job performance or professional future, the university considers sexual relationships between the two individuals to be a basic violation of professional ethics and responsibility. . .Because of the asymmetry of these relationships, 'consent' may be difficult to assess, may be deemed not possible, and may be construed as coercive." 78. The dean of the Case law school has professional responsibility for the professional future of each law student enrolled there. 79. Per Gase's sexual-harassment policy, for Dean Mitchell to engage in sexual relations with a law student was a basic violation of professional ethics and responsibility. Page 21 of29 80. After raising Dean sexual relationship with Law Student I with Provost Baeslack, Administrative Sta_ffM?mber 3 met with Dr. Mobley and Carolyn Gregory, Vice President for Human Resources, and shared these concerns with them. 81. Following the holiday break, Administrative StajfMember 3 was briefly reassigned outside the law school to the office of Carolyn Gregory herself--and then suddenly, days later, told that he was "laid off for budgetary reasons." At a City Club Event, Case law students pass out a flier questioning Dean sexual behavior and attitudes towards women. 82. On or aboutjanuary 17, 2012, the City Club of Cleveland held an event: "The Future of Legal Education: Responses from Northern Ohio's Law School Deans." The deans from the University of Akron School of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, and University of Toledo College of Law attended, along with Dean Mitchell. 83. During the event, one or more individuals believed to be affiliated with Case passed out the flyer attached as Exhibit 3, which posed, among others, the following questions: a. "Dean Mitchell[,] about half of all law students today are female. What should female law students expect from a dean who, in his short time in Cleveland, has already had affairs with a Case graduate student, a recent Case law grad, a local lawyer, and the girlfriend of our personal assistant?" b. "Dean Mitchell, what does it say about your attitude toward female students that you joked to Case faculty members that the Case graduate student you were having an affair with, 'wasn't good for anything but keeping the bed warrn'?" c. "Dean Mitchell, why [i]s a man who doesn't care about legal education and who regards women as objects of [exploitation of the] dean of the law school?" Page 22 of29 84. Upon information and belief, one or more Case administrators became aware of the flyer and its contents during or shortly after the Meet the Deans event at the City Club. Case's chief litigation counsel gives a presentation to the law school faculty and staff about the sexual-harassment policy and non-retaliation. 85. After the Meet the Deans event at the City Club, during about the spring semester in 2012, Peter M. Poulos, Chief Litigation Counsel and Chief Risk Management Officer in Case's Office of General Counsel, made a presentation to law-<