,
23 tweets,
13 min read
Read on Twitter
If you report sexual harassment or retaliation, your employer will often call for an "independent investigation."
This isn't what it seems.
Here is what you need to know. [THREAD]
@celestekidd @NeuroPolarbear @anotherketurah @cantlonlab @AnnOlivarius
This isn't what it seems.
Here is what you need to know. [THREAD]
@celestekidd @NeuroPolarbear @anotherketurah @cantlonlab @AnnOlivarius
In our case, @UofR hired Mary Jo White of @Debevoise after we publicly reported what @UofR was doing. @UofR called White an "independent investigator" but in truth her job was to clean up public relations for the University. How do we know that?
Well here is what White found. She claimed that the correct legal analysis showed NOTHING we reported violated the law. 
Often that would have stopped a case. But @AnnOlivarius knew what White's real role was and our case continued. This meant that our case got evaluated by someone truly independent--a federal judge. @UofR tried to use White's arguments in court to say nothing illegal happened.
It did not go well. This week, the judge found overwhelmingly in our favor that what we reported WAS illegal. Of course, that's not what @UofR said to the media.
Almost none of White's "independent" legal analysis on our claims held any water in a real court room. @UofR paid $4.5m for her---how much of this will @Debevoise be refunding?
In fact, in her report, White confirmed many true facts supporting our claims but disqualified them using a legal standard that is now proven wrong. We *only* saw that because we continued to a real court.
White's analysis, though, wasn't just about retaliation. She also claimed nothing violated sexual harassment policy, and said to update the policies (something we'd worked on for years). This shifted the blame away from Jaeger and the administrators who covered for him.
But White was dead wrong about that too. If you look at the events she *confirmed* vs. the policy, you'll see that Jaeger plainly violated the policies. Here are just a few quotes from White and the policy. You really think the problem was the policy wording, @Debevoise?
White even tried to argue that because Jaeger made a joke about a man's girlfriend, he wasn't discriminating against women! He told men dirty jokes too!--but the jokes were about women. It is depressing that we had to explain this one to @UofR and @Debevoise:
It was reported at the Faculty Senate that in private White said---correctly---that undergraduates *could not consent* to sex with faculty because of the power differential. But she also confirmed Jaeger had sex with an undergraduate and publicly claimed it was consensual.
It gets worse. Some of the really bad facts that @Debevoise's "independent investigation" confirmed aren't even in the text. Here is part of White's footnote on the unwanted dick pic and "racy" image Jaeger sent to students.
"... One of the women characterized the photo she received as an attempt by Jaeger to get her attention, which initially angered her, while the other was uncomfortable with the picture and believed it was meant 'to taunt her' ..."
Remember how she said everything was consensual?
Remember how she said everything was consensual?
Our response to White also talks about White's inability to even correctly state the law, for instance she claimed that the standard for sexual harassment was "severe AND pervasive" instead of "severe OR pervasive."
colala.berkeley.edu/people/piantad…
colala.berkeley.edu/people/piantad…
That sounds minor, but its not. AND is a much higher standard because to meet it. One severe action doesn't qualify as illegal under the AND standard but it does under OR. The correct legal standard is OR, but that's not what White said. Funny how all of her errors favor @UofR.
More still, @Debevoise didn't protect confidentiality, even when it was explicitly promised. @Debevoise de-anonymized students who spoke against Jaeger---and then said it was accidental. @UofR itself never even apologized. @MiriamRozen @campustimes
law.com/americanlawyer…
law.com/americanlawyer…
@Debevoise (A fuller list of what White confirmed is here: colala.berkeley.edu/people/piantad… but even that did not use all of the incidents and evidence we have since we weren't part of it)
@Debevoise @UofR @MIriamRozen @campustimes White specifically and those like her are part of what @washingtonpost journalist @Sarahlellison called "The Sexual Harassment Defense Industrial Complex"
beta.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/styl…
beta.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/styl…
Why do universities use these firms? You have to understand that this is *the business model*. They use eminence to dazzle and intimidate complainants into dropping lawsuits. But they aren't objective. They aren't "independent." They don't exist to correctly interpret the law.
Who will hire them on a future case if they hurt their employer's chances in court? And who will hire them if they don't feign independence? The COI is unavoidable. The business model depends on hiding the COI. These firms are necessarily unethical.
BUT there is an important decision in our case. Our judge clearly stated that an "independent investigation" can be considered retaliatory.
In our case, @UofR knew we had pending litigation, and therefore knew that we couldn't participate -- how could we be questioned by the other side of a lawsuit outside of the protections of a court room? That would discourages complainants and therefore is retaliatory and illegal
If you report and they hire an "independent investigator," it's long past time for a real attorney--someone who is 100% on your side who knows the law. If you need someone to talk it through, we are all here. @celestekidd @NeuroPolarbear @anotherketurah @cantlonlab
