Angelica Hale Opposition To Emporia State University Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc 113) (TITLE VII)

Case 5:16-cv-04182-DDC Document 113 Filed 06/19/18 Page 1 of 166
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELICA HALE,
Plaintiff
v.
Case No. 16-4182-DDC-TJJ
Case Assigned to the Honorable
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY (ESU), DANIEL D. CRABTREE
JACKIE VIETTI, PH.D.,
DAVID CORDLE, PH.D.,
GWEN ALEXANDER, PH.D.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT
COMES NOW Plaintiff in this action, Angelica Hale (―Angelica‖ or ―Ms. Hale‖) pro se,
in opposition to Defendant‘s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff opposes defendant‘s
motion principally on the grounds she provided the Court with direct evidence of retaliatory
motive. ECF 86, pg. 184. That evidence links Angelica‘s termination and denial of permanent
employment to reporting what she believed to be a hate crime to the Provost and the Emporia
State Police. She still believes that a hate crime was committed. ESU blocked a law enforcement
investigation, and instead conducted a sham internal ―investigation.‖
An official HR document from ESU‘s own internal ―investigation‖ unambiguously states
that Angelica‘s report of the hate speech incident to the Provost and the ESUPD played a direct
role in her not being offered the position of Marketing Coordinator, which her co-workers in
SLIM wanted and expected. The position was discussed in the April 22, 2015 SLIM faculty
meeting. See Exhibit A. This admission by ESU HR is a confession to retaliatory motive.

Plaintiff was openly retaliated against by SLIM Dean Gwen Alexander (―Gwen‖ or ―Dr.
Alexander‖), and it was authorized by Interim President Jackie Vietti (―Jackie‖ or ―Dr. Vietti‖)
and Provost David Cordle (―David‖ or ―Dr. Cordle‖). In a sworn deposition taken in this district
in Case No. 15-9369 –JWL-GEB Gwen described the termination of the contracts of Dr. Rajesh
Singh and Dr. Cameron Tuai in 2014, a matter which will be discussed in more detail further on.
She described it as a joint decision between her and the Provost, and sometimes the President.
She said: ―Now, let me say this: That whole decision wasn‘t just mine. You know? That was
upper administration… I‘m not sure who made that decision, but everything that happened was
discussed with the provost. And some of what happened was discussed with the president.‖ ECF
112-3, pgs. 2–10 (See Exhibit B).1 Plaintiff was not offered the position of Marketing
Coordinator on account of decisions made by Dr. Alexander and upper administration, namely
defendants Dr. Cordle, who signs the contracts submitted by Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Vietti.
ESU stated that a hate crime could not have been committed using a technicality: the
State of Kansas does not have a law specifically called a hate crime statute. In a meeting on
September 9, 2015 in which plaintiff was present and recorded the conversation, Dr. Vietti asked
Johnson to explain the ―rationale‖ for why ESU had come to the conclusion in their internal
―investigation‖ that no hate crime occurred. Johnson stated:
―There‘s kind of a general misconception that there are hate crimes. There aren’t.
That‘s how it works. The sentence can be made stiffer. And I think that the perception,
and I‘m just guessing, comes from TV, comes from common usage. There are a lot of
things that seem to be the way things are accepted, as being the way things are, but they
really aren‘t, and so, the only way there could be a hate crime in this situation is if a
felony had been committed, and someone was convicted of that felony, and it was shown
1
Rule 804(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and FED. R. CIV. P. 32(a)(4) permits the admission of prior action
depositions into evidence in a subsequent action under certain circumstances. Rule 32(a)(4) provides for the use of
depositions from a prior action when the subsequent action involves the “same subject matter” and the “same
parties or their representatives or successors in interest.”
2
that they committed that felony for the purpose of one of those reasons. So, if there is no
underlying crime, there‘s no underlying felony, there can’t be a hate crime.‖ ECF 19-1,
pg.2.
Dr. Vietti made the same comment to the ESU Black Alumni group the Emporia
Connection. Writing to Allie Flanary, a Black Oregon SLIM alum. ECF 64-1, pg. 61. Johnson
and Dr. Vietti are flat out wrong about what constitutes a hate crime.2 The FBI website defines
hate crime as: ―[A] traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of
bias.‖ ECF 64-1, pg. 55. ESU‘s official stance is that hate crimes do not actually exist. That
designation according to them is ―pointless and/or too difficult to define.‖ ECF 86, pg. 75. ESU
violated its own Employee Grievance policy, which states: ―It is not intended that a grievance
shall fail or succeed upon a technicality. Therefore, all applications of any part of this policy
shall be equitable and reasonable.‖ See Exhibit C. Plaintiff has herein expounded upon the topic
of hate crimes, and the defendant‘s views towards them, because the views the defendants held
on this subject best explains their retaliatory conduct. Each defendant knew that they were
violating clearly established law when they took adverse employment actions against Ms. Hale.
I. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS

[See attached]
II. PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS

[See attached]
2
Angelica and Dr. Hale attended the Hate Crimes Symposium 2015 training session put on by then U.S. Attorney
for Kansas, Hon. Barry R. Grissom, and spoke with him personally. ECF 53-1, pgs. 66-68. They learned that any
crime, big or small, can be considered a hate crime if bias against a member of a protected class is a motivating
factor. That includes vandalism. Hate crime encompasses a spectrum of illegal behaviors, including hate speech,
and is not limited to sentencing guidelines for felony convictions. This is in direct opposition to the highly technical
hate crime definition that ESU’s General Counsel Kevin Johnson used to justify the denial of a hate crime in the
results of their “investigation.”
3
III. HISTORY OF THE CASE
On March 20, 2014, Dr. Melvin Hale applied for the position of Assistant Professor at
ESU SLIM. See Exhibit D. He had just completed the requirements for the doctorate in
Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) during the winter
quarter. See Exhibit E. Dr. Hale was the first (and oldest) in his cohort of seven to graduate with
his Ph.D., at age 59. More importantly, he graduated by defending a theory of visual cognition
called KBI. He was the only candidate to graduate with a theory in his cohort. Theory defenses
are rare in the social sciences, and valuable for an academic career. Dr. Hale was awarded a full
four-year fellowship, the Eugene V. Cota-Robles Fellowship funded by the University of
California Office of the President, the UCLA Graduate Division and the UCLA home
department, when he was accepted into the doctoral program in 2009. See Exhibit F. In April
2010 Dr. Hale was honored for academic excellence and leadership by UCLA Chancellor Block,
along with about 400 other students out of an enrollment of over 40,000 students. See Exhibit G.
He earned a 94% on the GRE Verbal examination with less than two weeks to prepare when he
applied to UCLA, on a timeline of less than 90 days. More could be said about Dr. Hale‘s
academic qualifications.
On April 3, 2014, about two weeks after he applied for the position of Assistant
Professor, Melvin was informed that he was invited to participate in a live interview via Skype.
That interview took place on April 11th. See Exhibit H. On April 22nd, he was informed by Dr.
Sarah Sutton, the SLIM Search Committee Chairperson, that he was invited to an in-person
interview at SLIM on either May 12th or 13th. See Exhibit I. Melvin chose May 12th. On April
24th, Dr. Hale learned from Dr. Sutton that he would have to pay for his travel expenses in
advance for the interview, and that SLIM would reimburse him afterwards. Dr. Hale responded:
4
―I regretfully will have to withdraw my name from consideration for this position,
as the travel arrangements will place too great a financial burden on my family at
this time. Although I was the first in my cohort to complete my degree, due to the timing
of the process, I was unable to obtain a dissertation year fellowship which meant that I
had to use my own finances to pay for my last three quarters in the PhD program, and
that depleted our reserves…I have not made use of credit cards during my time in
graduate school, so that is not an option.‖ See Exhibit J. Emphasis added.
This action is significant because it demonstrates that Angelica and Dr. Hale were
deceived, and they would not have come to Emporia State University at all if they had known the
truth. SLIM offers a hybrid teaching program for its Master of Library Science (MLS) degree,
which means that part of the class is taught online, and part face-to-face. There are two separate
long weekends where the instructors travel to distant satellite locations in Oregon, Utah,
Colorado, South Dakota and Overland Park to conduct face-to-face instruction and classroom
interaction. Dr. Hale turned down the position at SLIM offered by Dr. Alexander (for not only a
tenure track-professor position, but also a Director of Archives Studies position) when he learned
that he would have to front his travel expenses at SLIM. Dr. Hale was pursuing other
opportunities for employment. Gwen promised Melvin that he would have the use of an
institution-provided credit card for travel when he arrived at ESU, and that he would not have to
front his own money. That didn‘t happen. This is the first of many things that did not happen as
promised. That is why Angelica and Dr. Hale found themselves in a financial crisis shortly after
they arrived at SLIM. That is why they sold one of their Jaguars to Debra Rittgers, who saw an
opportunity to acquire the vehicle from Angelica and Dr. Hale in a vulnerable situation. She got
a very good deal on it to say the least, but plaintiff felt the sacrifice for the new job was worth it
at the time. Angelica and Dr. Hale had owned the car for over fourteen years, and it ran
impeccably. Photos of the two Jaguars on their way to Kansas are attached. See Exhibit K.
5
Despite being lied to about travel arrangements and not being paid the additional
compensation he was promised as Director of Archives Studies upon starting the job, Melvin and
Angelica, who both had to travel for their jobs at SLIM, made the best of the situation. They
even negotiated a way to acquire a house in Emporia before 2014 was over. They committed to
working on restoring a 1930‘s Colonial just one block from Alexander‘s home and within
walking distance to SLIM. See Exhibit L. The Hales were hoping for a long stay at ESU SLIM.
Most professors want a tenure-track teaching position, especially right out of graduate
school; but not Dr. Hale. He was not willing to place himself or his wife in a financially
challenging position after 5 years of struggling at UCLA and recovering from the downfall of the
economy in 2008. All total, Dr. Hale‘s doctorate cost approximately $250,000, a portion of
which included student loans. SLIM wanted Dr. Hale bad enough to waive the prepayment plan
for purposes of the interview. They purchased his airfare and had him picked up and returned to
the Wichita airport by SLIM employees. This background information is pertinent because the
defendants have attempted to portray Angelica and her husband in a false light with respect to
their financial dealings with ESU, mentioning things like personal loans from Gwen and the
purchase of one of their cars by Rittgers. ESU completely fails to mention that Dr. Hale refused
to take the job when it was first offered to him. Plaintiff and Dr. Hale wishes now he had never
taken the job. Coming to Kansas and ESU, and the debacle which has followed, have destroyed
Angelica‘s work and educational opportunities and Dr. Hale‘s opportunities for teaching in his
chosen field. He has no career after putting in years of hard work to satisfy nitpicky professors in
one of the most rigorous academic institutions on Earth, UCLA; a real accomplishment for an
underprivileged Black kid from the projects. Dr. Hale has a Bachelor‘s degree, two Masters, and
a Ph.D. He has done many things in his life, but he has never sued an employer.
6
Angelica is a consummate professional. She wants to see results for her hard work. She is
intimidatingly competent at marketing and media communications. People rave about her
thoroughness and professionalism. Angelica did not anticipate a job at SLIM, but when she was
offered an opportunity by Gwen to help her in a bad situation where she needed help with
marketing and promotion. Defendants knew that they would have difficulty dirtying-up
Angelica, so they unleashed a volley of negative portrayals of Dr. Hale. They wrote:
―While Angelica was generally liked, it wasn‘t long before Plaintiff‘s husband, Melvin
Hale, a newly minted ESU professor, brought hate and hostility to the department by
bullying secretaries, staff, and even students. Melvin Hale made SLIM unbearable with
his attacks on colleagues and subordinates alike, and often using Angelica as both a target
and shield for his bad behavior.‖ ECF 107, pg. 2.
Angelica worked closely with Gwen, as seen in the production of a photo shoot with
Gwen for a marketing campaign Angelica was working on. See Exhibit M. Melvin was a good
neighbor and painted a room in the basement of her house. Gwen made her famous cheesecake
for him. See Exhibit N. At conferences and retreats he can be seen looking positive and relaxed
around the faculty and staff in SLIM. See Exhibit O. When Gwen was away on business trips,
which was too often according to many in the department, Angelica would take Gwen‘s two
dogs, Chica and Nina, to the groomer, the vet, and for walks, at times asking her graduate
assistant to help handle the dogs, both during business hours and outside of business hours.
Angelica would sometimes walk down the street to Gwen‘s house to join Gwen for walks with
her dogs. See Exhibit P. But Gwen is a chameleon. Some would call this behavior sociopathic.
Rather than place the blame for Dr. Alexander for not doing her job by allowing the
original document with the racial slur to be tossed away by the graduate student months later,
7
ESU attempts to place that blame on Angelica. It‘s called victim-blaming. 3 They stated that
―Plaintiff has provided a copy of the picture she took with her phone, but the original was
destroyed by the GA Angelica allowed to keep the original.‖ ECF 109, footnote pg. 8. It was not
Angelica‘s job to pressure the dean, especially as a brand new employee still learning the ropes
at her new job. Rather than do that, Angelica asked Dr. Mirah Dow (―Mirah‖ or ―Dr. Dow‖), the
most senior SLIM faculty member, to follow-up with Gwen. Mirah did exactly that, multiple
times and was rebuffed. ECF 47, pg. 49. Even with previous inquiries to Gwen unfulfilled, Mirah
sent Gwen an email on July 2, 2015, the day after plaintiff went to the ESUPD, virtually begging
Gwen to work things out with Angelica and Melvin because she believed that they were ―great
contributors‖ to SLIM. See Exhibit Q.
On August 27, 2015 Dr. Hale went to Gwen‘s office asking for an explanation for the
falsehoods being told about him and his wife. Dr. Alexander and Dr. Smith instantly became
enraged and came towards Dr. Hale with their voices raised and bellowing telling him to get out.
Dr. Hale responded in a slightly raised voice, but not any louder than Alexander and Smith, and
he never shouted or used profanity. Gwen demanded that Dr. Hale open her office door, which
Dr. Hale had quietly closed when he was invited into her office. When he demanded answers he
was forced to back out of her office with Gwen and Andrew in his face amid the stares of staff
and faculty. Dr. Cordle made use of this confrontation to place Dr. Hale in a permanent ―Cooling
off period,‖ but he has never had any discussion with Dr. Hale to talk about his side of what
transpired. Dr. Cordle acted capriciously when penalizing Dr. Hale which violates ESU policy.
Gwen was placed on paid leave. Andrew Smith was not punished. See Exhibit R.
3
Victim-blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the
harm that befell them. Rape victims are often treated as responsible for the way they treated. Racists routinely
dismiss the performance of white supremacy and disparage the victim. Victim-blaming creates a chilling effect.
8
A 2017 study published in a peer-reviewed journal by the American Psychological
Association stated that: ―[P]eople see black men as larger and more threatening than similarly
sized white men… Throughout all these tests, researchers produced the same results: When
participants believed the man in the images is black, they generally saw the man as larger, more
threatening, and potentially more harmful in an altercation than a white person. And they were
more likely to say use of force was justified against the black men than the white men.‖ See
Exhibit S. This repugnant and twisted narrative seems to resonate with a segment of regressive
elements in the White community. In Goodwin v. City of Pittsburgh, the plaintiff, an African
American traffic control worker, experienced discrimination in his wages and job classification.
He was asked to withdraw an EEOC charge. In the course of a discussion in which he refused to
do so, he called one of these superiors a liar, and was terminated because of his ―uncooperative
attitude‖ and ―disruptive influence.‖ 116 480 F. Supp. 627 (W. D. Pa. 1979) aff‘d 630-31 F.2d
1090 (3rd Cir. 1980). After a bench trial, the district court held that the city‘s contention that it
fired Goodwin for insubordination must be considered in relation to his prior protected activities.
It concluded that a ―retaliatory motive . . .played a substantial causal role in the decision to fire
Goodwin when, on only one occasion, he called his boss ―a ‗liar,‘ under circumstances which
were, at the least, provoked, and, at most justified.‖ Id. at 634. Emphasis added. Goodwin‘s Title
VII complaint was granted. Dr. Hale has been falsely made out to be a bully, but that is a ruse.
Disrespectfully, Gwen allowed staff at SLIM to joke that Dr. Hale has a ―preacher‘s voice.‖
When Dr. Hale made his presentation at SLIM most of the SLIM faculty were present.
Dr. Tuai and Dr. Singh were Asian, and the only persons of color on-site representing SLIM.
That was May 12, 2014. When Dr. Hale arrived at SLIM on July 1, 2014, imagine his surprise
when he learned that both Dr.Tuai and Dr. Singh had been terminated. Dr. Tuai was about to
9
leave the State with his family, and Dr. Singh was still living in Emporia, but had no office in
SLIM. Not long after Melvin‘s presentation for his job interview Gwen had Dr. Tuai escorted out
of the SLIM offices by the Emporia State University police by whom some at SLIM perceived
was ESU‘s HR enforcer, Ray Lauber. Dr. Singh was told he was not attaining tenure, and had
been locked out of his corner office on the fourth floor. In a retaliatory move, the Associate
Dean, Andrew Smith, took possession of Singh‘s office. Dr. Singh‘s computer and other
personal property were withheld from him. SLIM faculty, staff and students were in a substantial
uproar about what had just happened. Dr. Singh ultimately filed a lawsuit in fall 2015 after his
grievance at ESU was turned down. When Melvin was hired, Gwen gave no hint of the
turbulence in SLIM until after he signed the contract to come to ESU and was informed by
fellow employees that there were problems. At that point, Gwen shared information about Dr.
Singh. It was clear that Gwen abhorred Dr. Singh.
Dr. Hale is an exceptional orator, and his presentation on April 12, 2014 nearly brought a
standing ovation from the audience, which was somewhat embarrassing because he was one of
four presenters/candidates that day, and his competitors were allowed to be present in the
audience. This form of interviewing is very unusual. Immediately after the presentations were
over, Gwen couldn‘t hide her enthusiasm for Dr. Hale. She virtually offered him the job on the
spot. At that time, Melvin mentioned that his wife, Angelica, was very good at marketing and
social media. When Angelica and Melvin set foot in Emporia, the atmosphere in SLIM was acrid
and toxic and it would only get worse. As mentioned previously, shortly after their arrival they
were bombarded by both sides in the dispute over the firing of Dr. Tuai and Dr. Singh, and other
actions taken by Dr. Alexander. They were actively solicited almost daily to take sides in the war
against Gwen and her dictatorial and non-collegial management style, and her appointed
10
henchman, Andrew Smith. Plaintiff was now on notice that SLIM culture was polarized, but for
a time, like many in the department, she just wanted to do her job. On one side was Dr. Capps
and Dr. Hinson and others who made no bones about their displeasure with Dr. Alexander. On
the other side was Debra Rittgers, Candace Kitselman and Andrew Smith among others in SLIM,
who supported Gwen no matter what. They were the beneficiaries of perks and protections due to
her abuse of power.
Despite the turmoil, Angelica did a great job. But she also came to learn that Gwen was
known on campus as ―the hatchet lady‖ for her brash reputation and her role in eliminating a
slew of jobs. Gwen was selected to be Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
in the 2012-2013 school year. On Angelica‘s first day of work, Gwen bragged to plaintiff that
she had ―taken one for the university,‖ which plaintiff interpreted as Gwen having acquired a fair
amount of skill, political power and untouchable status at ESU for taking the heat instead of
President Michael Shonrock for firing undesirables and by allowing Shonrock‘s role as the ―nice
guy‖ president intact. During plaintiff‘s trip to Utah with Gwen she was present when Gwen
purchased a Lizzie Borden ―hatchet lady‖ portrait to display in her office, to represent her
persona of running the department, and she relished and was quite amused with the concept.
However, she would hide the portrait most of the time, and bring it out when insiders were
around for laughs about who‘s next in line. See Exhibit T. Another reason for Gwen‘s power
was due primarily to the higher out-of-state tuition SLIM could command at its satellite
locations, so it was a profit center for the university. SLIM was the cash cow for ESU. What
Gwen wanted, Gwen got. Gwen had swagger at ESU, and seemed proud of the fact that she was
controversial and disliked by so many. According to her, she broke gender barriers at United
Airlines, becoming one of the earliest high-level female managers. She tried to run SLIM like a
11
business unit of United Airlines and many at ESU were upset about that. In numerous ways,
those cultures differ. Tolerating diverse opinions is the bedrock of academic culture, along with
promoting cultural diversity. Cultivating and fostering civility and collegiality among faculty and
staff was outside her circle of interest. Gwen was all about the power.
When Dr. Singh filed a formal grievance against Dr. Alexander in 2014 with ESU HR, it
was due to allegations of racial discrimination associated with his being denied tenure. SLIM
was established in 1902, but it had never promoted a person of color to tenure in its 115-year
history. Currently, there are still no core Black faculty in SLIM. During Gwen‘s eight year reign
at SLIM turnover was astronomical, and the majority of those let go were persons of color. The
Grievance Committee for Dr. Singh, comprised of five ESU professors, ultimately did not
support Dr. Singh‘s appointment to tenure, but they were nonetheless deeply troubled by what
their investigation had uncovered, and unanimously they felt compelled to send a letter to then–
President Michael Shonrock and Provost Cordle which painted a very disturbing and grim
picture of the climate and working conditions in SLIM. See Exhibit U. The Grievance
Committee Letter (―GCL‖) stated that:
―Among the SLIM Administrative staff, specifically Ms. Candace Boardman, there
appears to have been blatant prejudice, expressed openly, toward various racial and
ethnic groups, genders, members of various sexual orientations, and veneration of
despicable individuals such as Adolph Hitler. The concern regarding Ms. Boardman was
presented in a signed Affidavit. We note that Ms. Boardman is no longer listed in the
Faculty/Staff Directory, but the knowledge that this manner of offensive behavior was
allowed to continue unchecked is troubling to us.‖
Candace Boardman worked closely with Gwen, Debra Rittgers and Candace Kitselman in
the SLIM administrative office as Director of Program Administration. See Exhibit V. That was
not all. The GCL goes on to state that:
12
―It is our observation that within SLIM there appears to be a pervasive micro-
management of faculty and staff, and an undue attention to ‗protocol;‘ an insistence that
things are only done a certain way, and must be adhered to by all. This seems unusual in
an academic setting… There appears to be a lack of an inclusive atmosphere, where the
contributions and ideas of all faculty and staff are welcomed and respected…There
appears to be a leadership style among the school administration that is more suited for a
private sector organization than an academic setting.‖
In its conclusion they wrote:
―We simply felt strongly as a committee, after we worked through the grievance
documents, that some ‗climate‘ issues were present that were inhibiting the smooth and
productive performance of our colleagues in SLIM.‖
If one committee report on the climate within SLIM is not enough, the final report of the
American Library Association (ALA) External Review Panel (ERP) which examined SLIM in
2014 for accreditation said virtually the same thing as the Grievance Committee. See Exhibit W,
pgs. 12-13. In response to SLIM‘s Program Presentation, which made neutral claims about high
turnover in the department it stated:
―[T]he ERP has noted that what was stated in the Program Presentation was not the sole
cause of the turnover. Following the interviews with the Provost and based on unsolicited
information, the ERP believes that the situation was more complex and that the former
dean‘s managerial style contributed to a number of faculty leaving, both voluntarily and
involuntarily.‖ Pg. 3.‖
―Despite the collegiality evident among the current faculty, it was apparent that previous
faculty and the previous Dean did not work together either to make the major decisions,
such as about curriculum, evaluation of progress, student issues, plans for the future, etc.,
or to evaluate the results of the decisions and make amendments as necessary.‖ Pgs. 24-
25.
―The administration of the program has to be considered in flux. There is currently no

dean, and the university administration could not share the details of the plans for
administration in the near future. The strategic plan appears to be largely duplicated from
2009 –2015, which could be a result of a top-down management strategy. There is a
jarring difference in the requirements for annual evaluation at the SLIM level and the
university requirements for tenure.‖ Pg. 35.
13
―The ERP team agrees that the program has many positives, and hopes for the hiring of a
new dean with a collegial management style that can channel the energy of the faculty
into a positive future.‖ Pg 35.
Plaintiff and Dr. Hale were led into a dark room filled with gunpowder, and when they
tried to light a candle of truth to illuminate a simple matter that could have easily been dealt with
by some acknowledgement, investigation and some sensitivity training on race, Gwen exploded.
Dr. Hale did not do this. Angelica Hale did not do this. The graduate assistant did not do this.
The toxic climate in SLIM was a pre-existing condition. Dr. Alexander has to own the climate
of intolerance in SLIM and the lack of collegiality. As a glaring example of non-collegiality,
SLIM Business Manager Candace Kitselman refused to allow Angelica to donate $1 of her own
money towards the annual ESU Foundation Capital Campaign in Kitselman‘s name for the
department to achieve 100% participation, which would have been a first for SLIM in its history
of fundraising for ESU. The previous year, there were only two donors in the fundraising
campaign from the entire department: Gwen and Mirah. Nonetheless, Angelica won an award for
her record-breaking fund-raising activities on behalf of the ESU foundation. See Exhibit X.
When Dr. Hale arrived at SLIM in May 2014 for his interview and presentation, the
following eight faculty members were listed on the SLIM website: Anne O’Niell, Mirah Dow,
Andrew Smith, Janet Capps, Rajesh Singh, Sarah Sutton, Cameron Tuai and Christopher
Hinson. See Exhibit Y. When the fall semester ended in December, the faculty consisted of five
members: Mirah Dow, Andrew Smith, Sarah Sutton, Robin Kurz and Melvin Hale. See Exhibit
Z. The expectation of joining a friendly and collegial faculty right out of graduate school was
shattered on day one. Plaintiff and Dr. Hale had hoped to work with everyone he met at SLIM.
The dysfunctional climate and leadership at SLIM was discussed by Dr. Hale and Dr. Dow in
detail on August 17, 2015, a conversation which Dr. Hale recorded. Excerpts from that
14
conversation are attached. See Exhibit AA. Student and community comments on the climate in
ESU SLIM and Emporia are also attached. During that period many of GAs had made, or were
about to make, exits from their student jobs in SLIM due to the toxic climate. See Exhibit BB.
In his ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendants in Dr. Rajesh
Singh‘s lawsuit, Case No. 15-cv-9369-JWL-GEB, District Judge John W. Lungstrum stated:
―[Dr. Singh‘s] evidence demonstrates that Dr. Morales advised defendant Cordle that the
materials in the pre-grievance binder gave the ‗appearance of bias against people of
color‘ within SLIM; that defendant Cordle agreed that the materials, at ‗face value,‘ gave
that appearance; that Dr. Morales strongly suggested to defendant Cordle that he
investigate plaintiff‘s allegations; that defendant Cordle declined to investigate that
‗bigger issue‘ in light of time constraints; and that defendant Cordle admittedly made his
non-renewal decision based on his review of the materials in the binder. In light of those
facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that plaintiff’s speech about the culture of
discriminatory bias within SLIM motivated defendant Cordle, who did not want to
deal with those allegations at that time, to non-renew plaintiff’s appointment. This
issue requires resolution at trial.‖ ECF 128, pg. 36. Emphasis added.
When plaintiff and her husband asked Dr. Cordle to discuss Dr. Hale‘s ―cooling
off period,‖ and the results of the ―investigation‖ on October 12th, Dr. Cordle said:
―You know, I think it‘s probably fair to say that everything that has happened up to this
point realistically, I don‘t think, I don‘t think we can realistically expect that we‘re going
to see that the same way, because if we were, it would have happened by now. And that‘s
why, at least for me, I‘m speaking only for myself here, I just don‘t see any value in
debating what has happened before now.‖ECF 53-1, pg. 83-84. Emphasis added.
Those are his words. Dr. Cordle saw no value in listening to what Angelica and Dr. Hale
had to say, which can only be seen as deliberate indifference. Angelica and Dr. Hale wanted
dialog on the issues that ESU got wrong in their ―investigation,‖ and an independent
investigation. That was asking too much. Defendant‘s motion for summary judgment is the first
time Emporia State University has provided any answers for its actions in 2015, and its answers
15
are deficient in numerous ways. Dr. Cordle knew that Angelica and Dr. Hale‘s complaints were
made in the context of a department reeling from the recent terminations of Dr. Tuai and Dr.
Singh, and a pattern of many others before them, and the imminent termination of both
supporters Capps and Hinson, but Dr. Cordle did nothing to address these problems. Plaintiff and
Dr. Hale being vilified for sowing hate and discord in SLIM causing it to become an unbearable
place to work would be laughable were it not for the seriousness of retaliation and the
consequences that they would have to endure for courageously taking a stand against bigotry and
hate.
IV. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A fact is "material" if it could affect the outcome of the
suit under the governing law; a dispute is "genuine" where the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). Angelica carries the burden of proving that violations of Title VII and Free
Speech occurred even if defendants‘ pretext is discredited (see St. Mary's Honor Center v. t, 509
US 502 – 1993, Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255-56 (1981). A factual
dispute is "material" only if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law."
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, Bennett v, Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., 792 F.3d 1261, 1265-66
(10th Cir. 2015). A "genuine" factual dispute requires more than a mere scintilla of evidence.
Anderson. at 252.
16
V. LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. Retaliation
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee
"because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice" by Title VII. 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). To prevail on a retaliatory discharge claim, a plaintiff must establish that
the decision to terminate her resulted from retaliatory animus. Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc .,
164 F.3d 545, 549 (10th Cir. 1999). A plaintiff may meet that burden in two ways. Id. Typically,
a plaintiff will rely on the familiar framework enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973). However, the plaintiff may also establish discrimination directly,
in which case the McDonnell Douglas framework is inapplicable. Id . at 550 (citing Greene v.
Safeway Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 554, 557-58, 560 (10th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff in the instant litigation
is relying on direct evidence. ECF 86, pg. 184. ―[R]etaliation against an employee because she
has ‗opposed‘ any practice made unlawful by Title VII,‖ such as reporting an alleged hate crime
to law enforcement and management, is forbidden. Stover v. Martinez, 382 F.3d 1064, 1070
(10th Cir. 2004) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)). She may either (1) offer direct evidence that
retaliation ―played a motivating part‖ in an employment decision adverse to her interests, or (2)
rely upon circumstantial evidence under ―the familiar three-part McDonnell Douglas framework
to prove that the employer‘s proffered reason for its decision is a pretext for retaliation.‖ Fye,
516 F.3d at 1225; accord Estate of Bassatt v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 775 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir.
2014); see Debord v. Mercy Health Sys. of Kan., 737 F.3d 642, 655 (10th Cir. 2013).
Defendant‘s legal arguments throughout appear directed at a complaint for discrimination
and not retaliation. They state that discrimination requires ―a series of separate acts that
17
collectively constitute one ‗unlawful employment practice.‘‖ ECF 107, pg. 11. This line of
arguments misses the mark entirely. The EEOC official website defines workplace retaliation
and provides several examples of prohibited conduct. It states that: it is unlawful to retaliate
against applicants or employees for ―communicating with a supervisor or manager about
employment discrimination, including harassment.‖ It further states that retaliation could be
manifest by adverse actions against one‘s spouse. ―[T]reat[ing] a family member negatively (for
example, cancel[ing] a contract with the person's spouse), could be seen as retaliation.‖4 See
Exhibit CC. Plaintiff was subjected to both of these forms of retaliation. By claiming that
plaintiff was a victim of her husband‘s conduct, defendant‘s briefing could be interpreted as
inferring that Angelica was punished on account of her husband, against whom defendants
unleashed a full frontal attack. That would be illegal.
It is well established that an employee who complains about discrimination need not be
proven right, so long as the complaint was reasonable and made in good faith. Judges and juries
can find in favor of the employer on discrimination while finding for the employee on retaliation.
Title VII: 42 U.S ,C. § 2000e-3(a), Brannum v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 518 F.3d 542, 547 (8th Cir.
2008) (―‗[A] plaintiff employee need not establish that the conduct he opposed was in fact
prohibited under Title VII‘‖ (quoting Bakhtiari v, bennett, 507 F.3d 1132, 1137 (8th Cir. 2007));
Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F,3d 331,344 (3d Cir. 2006) (―[A] victim of retaliation ‗need
not prove the merits of the underlying discrimination complaint‘ in order to seek redress.‖
(quoting Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp)., 85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996))). Kessler v.
4
In Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “*W+e conclude that Thompson falls within
the zone of interests protected by Title VII. Thompson was an employee of NAS, and the purpose of Title VII is to
protect employees from their employers’ unlawful actions. Moreover, accepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is
not an accidental victim of the retaliation—collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer’s unlawful act. To the
contrary, injuring him was the employer’s intended means of harming Regalado. Hurting him was the unlawful act
by which the employer punished her. In those circumstances, we think Thompson well within the zone of interests
sought to be protected by Title VII. He is a person aggrieved with standing to sue.” LP, 131 S.Ct. 863 (2011).
18
Westchester County Dep’t of Social Servs, 461 F.3d 199,210 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting McMenemy
v. City of Rochester, 241 F.3d 279, 285 (2d Cir. 2005)); Moore, 461 F.3d at 341 ("Whether the
employee opposes, or participates in a proceeding against, the employer's activity, the employee
must hold an objectively reasonable belief, in good faith, that the activity they oppose is
unlawful under Title VII.").
The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of
material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Hicks v. City of Watonga.
Okla., 942 F.2d 737, 743 (10th Cir. 1991). Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden
shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate that genuine issues remain for trial "as to those
dispositive matters for which it carries the burden of proof." Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First
Affiliated Secs., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc.,
939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991). The nonmoving party may not rest on her pleadings but must
set forth specific facts. Applied Genetics, 912 F.2d at 1241. The Court must view the record in a
light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. See Deepwater Invs., Ltd. v.
Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
"In a response to a motion for summary judgment, a party cannot rely on ignorance of
facts, on speculation, or on suspicion, and may not escape summary judgment in the mere hope
that something will turn up at trial." Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 794 (10th Cir. 1988).
Essentially, the inquiry is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to the jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of
law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52. Plaintiff has herein provided the Court with relevant facts
19
and evidence so one-sided that it is sufficient enough to ascertain that defendants are not entitled
to summary judgment as a matter of law.
B. Qualified Immunity
―Qualified immunity ‗gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but
mistaken judgments about open legal questions.‘‖ Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2381, 2374 (2014)
(quoting Ashcroft v. al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011)). This doctrine ―protects ‗all but the
plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.‘‖ al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 743 (quoting
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). ―When the defendant has moved for summary
judgment based on qualified immunity, the court should view the facts in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party and resolve all factual disputes and reasonable inferences in
its favor.‖ Henderson v. Glanz, 813 F.3d 938, 952 (10th Cir. 2015). ―Unlike most affirmative
defenses, however, the plaintiff would bear the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial to overcome
qualified immunity by showing a violation of clearly established federal law.‖ Id. ―Thus, at
summary judgment, the court must grant qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show (1) a
reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was
clearly established at the time of the defendant‘s conduct.‖ Id. ―[The court] may, at [its]
discretion, consider the two parts of this test in the sequence [it] deem[s] best in light of the
circumstances in the particular case at hand.‖ Bowling v. Rector, 584 F.3d 956, 963 (10th Cir.
2009). University administrators cannot claim ignorance of the First Amendment.
C. Protected Activity
The Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff must prove that the employer's retaliatory
motive was the "but-for" cause of the adverse employment action. Univ. of Tex. Southern Med. v.
20
Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 570 U.S., 186 L. Ed. 2d 503 (2013). Ms. Hale has provided direct
evidence which confirms that until she complained of discrimination, her status in SLIM was not
in question. The defendants refused to renew plaintiff‘s contract, but her protected activity was
not just one of many motivating factors in their decision, it was the ―but-for‖ factor, meaning that
but-for Ms. Hale‘s protected activity she would have been hired as the Marketing Coordinator
for SLIM. It was the only reason she was terminated.
As a threshold matter, plaintiff‘s report of the alleged ―hate crime‖ to the Provost and the
ESU Police Department is the protected activity on which this lawsuit is based. Defendant‘s
motion appears to be entirely constructed around incorrect dates, legal arguments, and the wrong
protected activity. Angelica reported the April 8th hate speech incident as a hate crime to Dr.
Cordle and the ESUPD on June 26, 2015 and July 1, 2015 respectively. The initial April 8th
report of the hate speech incident to Gwen is not the protected activity on which this case is
based, although that report too was privileged. Gwen did nothing about Angelica‘s original
report whatsoever; neither did she take action when she was confronted about the hate speech
incident numerous times by Mirah before Ms. Hale reported the matter to the police.
According to the ESU policy manual: ―Supervisors and administrators are obligated to
report complaints of discrimination and/or harassment to the Affirmative Action Officer. In some
instances the supervisor or administrator may have handled the complaint through the informal
process; however the obligation to inform the Affirmative Action Officer still exists.‖ ECF 53-1,
pg. 8. Ms. Hale was a temporary contract employee, so when the hate speech incident was
reported to her, and she discreetly informed Gwen, it became Gwen‘s responsibility to take it
from there and file a formal report. But it soon became obvious that Gwen had no intentions of
doing anything, ever. That non-action by Gwen eventually became apparent and it was not
21
acceptable to Ms. Hale or Dr. Hale. It was not acceptable to Dr. Dow. It shouldn‘t be acceptable
to anyone. There were no actionable adverse employment actions for initially reporting the
matter to Gwen, just a leadership vacuum. On July 2nd, after multiple inquiries to Gwen about
the matter, Dr. Dow sent an email to Gwen which stated in part: ―Gwen, Melvin and Angelica
are really feeling badly about things at SLIM. I'm so sorry about that. I am so much in hopes
that we can make clear to both of them that we want and need their great participation.‖
See Exhibit Q. Before the email was sent by Mirah, Gwen had previously stated to her that she
did not want to hear about this anymore, and there was possibly no response by Gwen.
Plaintiff was notified that her contract would not be renewed the day after Gwen met with
Dr. Vietti. This meeting occurred directly after Dr. Hale and Gwen had a meeting in her office
which he recorded. ECF 86-2, pg. 1.
TIMELINE TO TERMINATION
December 2014 April 2015 June 2015 July 2015
Dr. Hale discusses his On April 8th the graduate After 2 months of inaction The Hales attempt to file a
concerns about the assistant (GA) assigned to by Alexander, during Police report with the ESU
perceived discriminatory work with Hale comes to which time Dr. Mirah PD on July 1st. Dr. Hale
conduct of Debra Rittgers work around 1:00 pm and Dow, faculty head in discusses the matter with
towards him and his wife. finds her office unlocked, SLIM sought to get Alexander on July 7th, at
Angelica Hale is things tampered with, and answers from Alexander, which time she stated that
transferred from the 3rd the word ―NIGGAZ‖ on Dr. Hale sends Provost she did not appreciate the
floor in SLIM to the 4th her notepad. Dean Cordle an email on June Hales contacting the
floor, to a large office Alexander is notified by 15th requesting a meeting Provost and the ESU
across from Dr. Hale. Dr. Hale and Angelica to discuss the incident and Police Dept. Alexander
Hale, and is asked to perceived retaliation by then talks with Vietti that
investigate. By all Alexander. Dr. Hale and day. Angelica Hale is
accounts, Alexander did Angelica meet with Cordle notified on July 8th that
nothing. on June 26th. her contract would not be
renewed when it expired.
This Court indicated, in its ruling on defendant‘s earlier motion to dismiss, that it viewed
the report to Dr. Cordle and the ESUPD as the relevant protected activity at issue in this case:
22
―[A]fter the Hales complained to the Provost and the ESU Police Department about the
April 8, 2015 incident, Dr. Alexander told plaintiff that ESU would not renew her
contract and that she would not become a permanent employee. Because of this decision,
plaintiff had to drop her enrollment in the college courses at ESU.‖ ECF 30, pg. 5. Order
on Motion to Dismiss.
D. Direct Evidence
―‗Direct evidence is evidence, which if believed, proves the existence of a fact in issue
without inference or presumption.‘ Shorter v. ICG Holdings, Inc., 188 F.3d 1204, 1207 (10th
Cir.1999) (alterations and quotations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Desert Palace, Inc.
v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003). Direct evidence requires ‗proof of
an existing policy which itself constitutes discrimination,‘ Tomsic v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 85 F.3d 1472, 1477 (10th Cir.1996) (quotations omitted), or ‗oral or written statements on
the part of a defendant showing a discriminatory motivation,‘ Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs.,
Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2000).‘‖ ESU HR admitted that Dr. Alexander retaliated
against Ms. Hale for reporting the alleged hate crime to the Provost, and by extension to the
Police. There is no need for inference or presumption. ESU hid this evidence for almost three
years.
E. Prima Facie Case
Defendants contend that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation
because she cannot show that the termination of her contract took place under circumstances
giving rise to an inference of retaliation. This burden was met at the motion to dismiss stage, so it
does not have to be re-argued at the motion for summary judgment stage. ―To raise an inference
of retaliation at the prima facie stage in a retaliatory discharge case, a plaintiff‘s burden is not
onerous—she need only show that she engaged in protected activity; that she was qualified for
23
her job; and that the job was not eliminated after her discharge.‖ Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d
1126, 1138 (10th Cir. 1999); see also Nguyen v. Gambro BCT, Inc., 242 Fed. Appx. 483, 487-89
(10th Cir. 2007) (prima facie step is utilized to eliminate the two most common explanations for
termination-lack of qualification or the elimination of the position). Plaintiff met this burden at
the motion to dismiss stage.
―After plaintiff resigned, Dr. Alexander sent an email to the SLIM faculty praising
plaintiff‘s work, informing them of her resignation, and asking for recommendations to
fill the vacant position. Plaintiff alleges that this email shows that Dr. Alexander did not
terminate plaintiff‘s contract based on her performance or a budget shortfall.‖ ECF 30,
pg. 5. Order on Motion to Dismiss.5
According to the ALA ERP final report dated December 14, 2014:
―SLIM has maintained and even increased enrollment numbers, and tuition revenue from
regional locations was sufficient to mitigate OOE (other operating expenses) budget
cuts…Overall, SLIM has not suffered any serious threats to faculty lines or general
funding for other operating expenses and does not anticipate any in the foreseeable
future.‖ Exhibit W., Pg. 27.
Plaintiff‘s position was not eliminated due to budgetary reasons despite what the
defendants are now claiming. Defendants point to the budget standoff that the state of Kansas
went through in 2015 as evidence that SLIM could not afford Ms. Hale. First, this allegation
contradicts the report that SLIM gave to the ALA ERP on the great financial condition it was in,
and secondly, the crisis was short-lived and in no way impacted anyone at ESU. Dr. Vietti sent
out an announcement that there would be no effect on the university a month before Gwen
notified Angelica of her termination. See Exhibit DD. The budget crisis was solved when the
Governor signed the budget. No one was furloughed. Dr. Andrew Smith received his
appointment as Associate Dean, but Angelica was told she was going to be terminated.
5
The email referenced is ECF 19-2, pg. 2.
24
F. Administrative Exhaustion
ESU claims that plaintiff has not met her burden to exhaust administrative remedies. The
KHRC had plaintiff‘s case for over 300 days and took no action on it whatsoever. On July 8,
2016, Barbara Girard from the KHRC provided Angelica with the process for closing out the
KHRC complaint and getting an EEOC Right–to-Sue Letter. See Exhibit EE. The EEOC Right-
to-Sue-letter is attached. See Exhibit FF.
G. Pretext
―Pretext can be inferred from evidence revealing ‗weaknesses, implausibilities,
inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions‘ in the employer‘s explanation…Macon v.
United Parcel Serv., Inc., 743 F.3d 708, 714 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108
F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997)). It may also be alleged ―by providing direct evidence
discrediting the proffered rationale, or by showing that the plaintiff was treated differently from
others similarly situated.‖ Jaramillo v. Adams Cty. Sch. Dist. 14, 680 F.3d 1267, 1269 (10th Cir.
2012). The critical question regarding this aspect of the McDonnell Douglas rubric is whether ―a
reasonable factfinder could rationally find [the employer‘s rationale] unworthy of credence and
hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted [non-retaliatory] reasons.‖ Crowe, 649
F.3d at 1196 (quoting Swackhammer v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 493 F.3d 1160, 1167 (10th Cir.
2007)). ESU‘s claim that it lacked the funding to hire plaintiff, or that she was not qualified, is
unsupported by the facts, and is thus pretext.
H. Matter of Public Concern
In Crawford v. Metro Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, the Court held that an
employee has an actionable claim of retaliation where she "speaks out about discrimination not
25
on her own initiative, but in answering questions during an employer's internal investigation.‖
555 U.S. 271, 129 S. Ct. 846, 849 (2009). In Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 140 (1983) the
Supreme Court stated that ―racial discrimination‖ is ―a matter inherently of public concern.‖ ECF
30, Order on Motion, pg. 12.
I. HR Grievance and Internal Investigation v. Law Enforcement Investigation
ESU continues to harp on the fact that Angelica and her husband did not file a grievance
with HR. The reason is simple. Plaintiff wanted an investigation done by law enforcement. She
expected Gwen to contact law enforcement on the front-end. Contacting the police with a report
of a hate crime or harassment is considered best practices in most universities. An example is the
Action Matters program which is a national program and is active at the University of Wisconsin
Oshkosh. See Exhibit GG. The Action Matters program suggests that the complainant call
university police, and ask for them to come and take pictures, etc… i.e., preserve the evidence.
Grievance proceedings and crime reports should not be conflated unless you are doing
something wrong. All universities have policies relating to student and employee grievances. The
complaint policy for discrimination and harassment at Kansas State University (K-State) for
example, is submitted through the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE). K-State‘s grievance
policy, like several others that plaintiff has researched, makes it clear that those who believe a
crime has occurred need to file a separate police report, and that the filing of a police report and
a harassment complaint are not to be conflated:
―If a person believes that criminal conduct has occurred, then the person should report
that conduct to the police. CARE staff should also encourage the person to file a
complaint with the police and will provide assistance in doing so if asked. The CARE
staff member will also advise the person that he/she may decline to notify the police
directly. The criminal justice system and this Policy are separate procedures, however,
26
and complaints/reports must be made under both procedures if a complainant wants both
processes to go forward.‖ ECF 53, pg. 5.
Plaintiff had no reason to trust an internal investigation, especially one led by Ray
Lauber. ECF 86, pg. 24 ¶ 53-54. Dr. Dow shared that concern. She said, ―Those things never turn
out right.‖ Angelica and Dr. Hale tried to get law enforcement to investigate. Then they could
walk away from this messy situation. However, ESU does not give its employees or student the
option to go to the police under these circumstances. ESU and K-State are both governed by the
Kansas Board of Regents. How can they have such divergent policies on the reporting of
discrimination and crime? It appears that the defendants were attempting to steer the Hales to use
a grievance policy that would effectively deprive them of claiming to have engaged in ―protected
activity,‖ and hence there would be no Title VII claim. This appears to be why they are upset
with plaintiff, and her husband. In their opposition to plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment
(ECF 109, pg.6) they wrote:
―Plaintiff cannot be alleging a claim based on the ‗participation clause‘ as it only protects
participation in proceedings that occur in conjunction with or after the filing of a formal
EEOC charge. It does not include internal investigations like the one conducted by ESU -
an internal investigation that was initiated, not by Plaintiff, but by Defendant Vietti when
she made the formal request pursuant to ESU‘s written policy (both Hales having refused
to initiate the complaint process). Mackley, 296 F.R.D at 670. Plaintiff neither filed a
charge nor participated in an EEOC proceeding until two months after she quit her
employment with ESU, so her actions do not constitute protected participation.‖
The problem here is a lack of choice. Defendants intentionally steer complainants to
use the HR grievance policy to minimize their legal liability. That can only be viewed as
unethical and detrimental to the complainant. Complaints to law enforcement constitute
protected activity. Complaints to employers are protected activity. Angelica reported what she
perceived as a hate crime and it was dismissed out-of-hand.
27
J. Failure to Follow Company Policies May Be Proof of Retaliation
In a case sent to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed a jury verdict in a
retaliation claim in part because: ―Xerox‘s policies generally state that counseling and coaching
of employees should occur prior to the issuance of formal warning letters, yet Xerox offered no
documentation supporting Jankowski‘s claim that he counseled Smith before placing her on
probation. Smith v. Xerox Corp., 371 Fed. Appx. 514 (5th Cir. Mar. 2010). ESU clearly based
their results on a technicality (there‘s no hate crime statute in Kansas), and that clearly violates
their own grievance policy. This technicality bothered the press and the public causing Dr. Vietti
to come out and tell another big lie: ―Emporia State is not hiding behind the legal definition of a
hate crime.‖ ECF 86, pg. 96. But there is no other way to interpret their ―rationale.‖
K. Constructive Discharge
To prevail on a constructive discharge claim, a plaintiff must show either that (1) "the
employer by its illegal discriminatory acts has made working conditions so difficult that a
reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to resign," Sanchez, 164 F.3d
at 534 (quotation omitted), or (2) the employer by its discriminatory actions forced the plaintiff
to choose between resignation or termination, Burks v. Oklahoma Publ'g Co., 81 F.3d 975, 978
(10th Cir.1996); Acrey v. Am. Sheep Indus. Ass'n, 981 F.2d 1569, 1573-74 (10th Cir.1992).
Defendants claim that plaintiff‘s case fails because she quit, and that ESU did not terminate
plaintiff, nor did it take any other materially adverse action as to Plaintiff. ECF 107, pgs. 2-3.
Plaintiff acknowledges that she quit, but only after Dr. Alexander began retaliatory actions that
made her working conditions trying and unbearable, and she demanded that Angelica interface
with Debra Rittgers in a subservient manner. ECF 30, pg. 5.
28
VI. CONCLUSION
Victims of discrimination must show that the employer engaged in actions that affect
employment or alter the conditions of the workplace, whereas a victim of retaliation may show
that an employer effectively retaliated against an employee by taking actions not directly related
to his employment or by causing him harm outside the workplace, and even after the victim is no
longer employed. A provision limited to employment-related actions would not deter the many
forms that effective retaliation can take. Hence, such a limited construction would fail to fully
achieve the anti-retaliation provision‘s ―primary purpose,‖ namely, ―[m]aintaining unfettered
access to statutory remedial mechanisms.‖ Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337, 346 (1997),
quoted in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67 (2006). ESU
and the defendants desperately want the Court and the world to believe that Angelica and Melvin
went rogue, and conjured a report of a hate crime out of thin air and tampering as a publicity
stunt, capitalizing on a fluke per Kevin Johnson and Dr. Vietti. ECF 86, pg. 76, even though Dr.
Hale‘s first evaluation was excellent. See Exhibit HH. This fictional narrative is highly
offensive and part and parcel of a cover-up of official misconduct designed to make ESU look
blameless. In a shocking turn, defendants are now accusing the graduate assistant (GA) of
writing the racial slur in her notepad. Important to note is how they stated it. It was just the
―GA‘s haphazard doodles.‖ ECF 109, pg. 2. In 2015 Dr. Vietti said: ―The University has stated
publicly that the written racial slur discovered by a SLIM graduate student in her notebook is
reprehensible.‖ ECF 86, pg. 96. Vietti also said in 2015: ―No one has admitted to writing the
word.‖ ECF 64-1, pg. 158. Now they are accusing the student of this act. That claim belongs in
the trash bin along with defendant‘s claim that Angelica and Dr. Hale came to ESU in the hopes
of ―making quick millions off of patsy and passive Midwesterners…that they were targeting all
29
along with their litigious lifestyle.‖ ECF 109, pg. 13. Both plaintiff and Dr. Hale‘s familial roots
are actually based in the Midwest, so it‘s a highly offensive statement to them.
When Gwen had completed the requisite components proscribed by the administration
for returning to her dean‘s position in SLIM after a month in a cooling off period, the faculty
voted no confidence in her leadership. She lasted exactly 8 hours before the reins of power were
removed from her hands, permanently. The ALA ERP stated that: ―It is important to note that the
Hale incident was not cited by administration as the sole reason for the dean‘s administrative
leave. Additional input from faculty was also cited.‖ See Exhibit V, pg. 3. Despite all the
problems she had caused at SLIM, ESU still allowed Gwen to retire with full benefits, and she
was honored by the university in the 2015 commencement program. See Exhibit II.
On September 15, 2015, Angelica and Dr. Hale conducted a march against racism where
a large number of students and others attended in person, and over a thousand individuals and
more than 100 organizations took part virtually on a matter of public concern. ECF 86, pg. 220-
222. Just because plaintiff and her husband called out racism and intolerance does not make them
bullies or opportunists. The problem is that racists are unwilling to adapt to social change which
empowers minorities.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Angelica Hale prays the Court to deny Defendant‘s Motion for
Summary Judgment, and to grant its Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated: June19, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Angelica Hale, Plaintiff Pro Se

3806 Pinnacle Circle
Lawrence, KS 66049
angelicahale@yahoo.com
916-690-7927
30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 19th day of June, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Court by email at ksd_clerks_topeka@ksd.uscourts.gov, and a notice of electronic filing was sent
via the CM/ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Angelica Hale
Angelica Hale
3806 Pinnacle Circle
Lawrence, KS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELICA HALE,
Plaintiff
v.

EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY (ESU),
JACKIE VIETTI, PH.D., Case Assigned to the Honorable
DAVID CORDLE, PH.D., DANIEL D. CRABTREE
GWEN ALEXANDER, PH.D.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS 3
II. PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS 3
III. HISTORY OF THE CASE 4
IV. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16
V. LAW AND ARGUMENT 17
A. Retaliation 17
B. Qualified Immunity 20
C. Protected Activity 20
D. Direct Evidence 23
E. Prima Facie Case 23
F. Administrative Exhaustion 25
G. Pretext 25
H. Matter of Public Concern 25

I. HR Grievance and Internal Investigation v. Police Investigation 26
J. Failure to Follow Company Policies May Be Proof of Retaliation 28
K. Constructive Discharge 28
VI. CONCLUSION 29
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
# Subject Page
A. April 22, 2015 faculty meeting minutes discussing Marketing Coordinator position 1
B. Deposition of Gwen Alexander in Case No. 15-9369 –JWL-GEB 2
C. ESU grievance policy rejecting “technicalities” 3
D. Dr. Hale email applying for Asst. Professor position at ESU 4
E. Dr. Hale Certificate of Completion of Ph.D. at UCLA 4
F. Eugene V. Cota-Robles Fellowship 4
G. Hale honored by UCLA Chancellor Block for academic excellence and leadership 4
H. Dr. Hale invited to participate in a Skype interview on April 3, 2014 4
I. Dr. Hale invited to an in-person interview at ESU on April 22, 2014 4
J. Dr. Hale withdraws name from consideration due to travel arrangements 5
K. Photos of plaintiff’s two Jaguar automobiles 5
L. Photo of plaintiff’s home in Emporia, Kansas 6
M. Angelica coordinating the production of a photo shoot with Gwen 7
N. Photo of the basement room Melvin painted for Gwen 7
O. Photos of Angelica and Dr. Hale with SLIM faculty, staff and students 7
P. Photos of Gwen’s dogs Nina and Chica 7
Q. Mirah’s July 2, 2015 email asking Gwen to work things out with plaintiff 8, 22
R. Letter to Dr. Hale from Dr. Cordle placing him in a “Cooling off period” 8
S. 2017 study by the American Psychological Assoc. re: false perceptions of black men 9
T. Portrait of Lizzy Borden the “hatchet lady” similar to one purchased by Gwen 11
U. Email to Shonrock and Cordle from Grievance Committee re: SLIM climate issues 12
V. Candace Boardman’s SLIM profile 12, 30
ii
W. American Library Assoc. report on SLIM accreditation 13, 24

X. Angelica’s award for outstanding fundraising efforts 15
Y. SLIM faculty members in March 2014 15
Z. SLIM faculty members in December 2014 15
AA. Excerpts of conversation between Melvin and Mirah on August 17, 2015 15
BB. Student and community comments on the climate in ESU SLIM and Emporia 15
CC. EEOC document defining retaliation against family member as illegal 18
DD. Dr. Vietti announcement that there would be no furloughs at ESU – June 6, 2015 24
EE. Email from KHRC to Angelica detailing process for closing her complaint 25
FF. Angelica’s DOJ Right-to-Sue Letter 25
GG. Univ. of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Action Matters program 26
HH. Dr. Hale’s first evaluation from Gwen Alexander 29
II. Gwen Alexander honored at ESU 2015 commencement upon retiring 30
Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) provides in general terms that the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent
to the admissibility of evidence is satisfied by proffered proof sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its
proponent claims it to be. A foundation for authentication of sound recordings was established in the federal courts in United States v.
McKeever, 169 E Supp. 426, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1958), rev'd on other grounds, Todisco v. United States, 298 E2d 208 (9th Cir. 1962).
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
FEDERAL CASES
Acrey v. Am. Sheep Indus. Ass'n

981 F.2d 1569, 1573-74 (10th Cir.1992) 28
Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp).

85 F.3d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir. 1996) 18
Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Secs., Inc.

912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990) 19
Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc.

939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991) 19
iii
Bakhtiari v, Lutz
507 F.3d 1132, 1137 (8th Cir. 2007) 18
Bennett v, Windstream Commc’ns, Inc.

792 F.3d 1261, 1265-66 (10th Cir. 2015) 16
Bowling v. Rector
584 F.3d 956, 963 (10th Cir. 2009) 20
Brannum v. Mo. Dep 't of Corr.

518 F.3d 542, 547 (8th Cir. 2008) 18
Burks v. Oklahoma Publ'g Co.

81 F.3d 975, 978 (10th Cir.1996) 28
Conaway v. Smith
853 F.2d 789, 794 (10th Cir. 1988) 19
Debord v. Mercy Health Sys. of Kan.

737 F.3d 642, 655 (10th Cir. 2013) 17
Deepwater Invs., Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp.

938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) 19
Estate of Bassatt v. Sch. Dist. No. 1

775 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2014) 17
Goodwin v. City of Pittsburgh

480 F. Supp. 627 (W. D. Pa. 1979) aff’d 624 F.2d 1090 (3rd Cir. 1980) 9
Greene v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

98 F.3d 554, 557-58, 560 (10th Cir. 1996) 17
Henderson v. Glanz
813 F.3d 938, 952 (10th Cir. 2015) 20
Hicks v. City of Watonga. Okla.

942 F.2d 737, 743 (10th Cir. 1991) 19
iv
Jaramillo v. Adams Cty. Sch. Dist. 14,

680 F.3d 1267, 1269 (10th Cir. 2012) 25
Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc.,

220 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2000) 23
Kessler v. Westchester County Dep’t of Social Servs,

461 F.3d 199,210 (2d Cir. 2006) 18
Macon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

743 F.3d 708, 714 (10th Cir. 2014) 25
McMenemy v. City of Rochester

241 F.3d 279, 285 (2d Cir. 2005) 19
Medlock v. Ortho Biotech, Inc .

164 F.3d 545, 549 (10th Cir. 1999) 17
Moore v. City of Philadelphia

461 F,3d 331,344 (3d Cir. 2006) 18, 19
Morgan v. Hilti, Inc.

108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997) 25
Nguyen v. Gambro BCT, Inc.

242 Fed. Appx. 483, 487-89 (10th Cir. 2007) 24
Perry v. Woodward
199 F.3d 1126, 1138 (10th Cir. 1999) 24
Shorter v. ICG Holdings, Inc.

188 F.3d 1204, 1207 (10th Cir.1999) 23
Smith v. Xerox Corp.

371 Fed. Appx. 514 (5th Cir. Mar. 2010) 28
Stover v. Martinez
382 F.3d 1064, 1070 (10th Cir. 2004) 17
v
Swackhammer v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.

493 F.3d 1160, 1167 (10th Cir. 2007) 25
Todisco v. United States

298 E2d 208 (9th Cir. 1962) iii
Tomsic v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

85 F.3d 1472, 1477 (10th Cir.1996) 23
United States v. McKeever

169 E Supp. 426, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 1958) iii
U.S. SUPREME COURT
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986) 16, 19
Ashcroft v. al–Kidd
563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011) 20
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

548 U.S. 53, 67, 68 (2006) 29
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 19
Connick v. Myers,
461 U.S. 138, 140 (1983) 26
Crawford v. Metro Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County

555 U.S. 271, 129 S. Ct. 846, 849 (2009) 25
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa

539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003) 23
Lane v. Franks,
134 S. Ct. 2381, 2374 (2014) 20
vi
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp..

475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) 19
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973) 17, 25
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.

519 U.S. 337, 346 (1997) 29
Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine,

450 U.S. 248, 255-56 (1981) 16
Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless

LP, 131 S.Ct. 863 (2011) 18
Univ. of Tex. Southern Med. v. Nassar

133 S. Ct. 2517, 570 U.S., 186 L. Ed. 2d 503 (2013) 21
STATUTES AND RULES
Title VII
First Amendment
42 U.S.C. § 1983
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
Fed. R. Evidence 804(b)(1)
Fed. R. Evidence 901(a)
Kan. Rule 6.7

Kan. Rule 7-1
vii
EXHIBIT “A”
SLIM Faculty Meeting Minutes

April 22, 2015
Present: Mirah, Gwen, Andrew, Sarah, Robin, Melvin

Meeting called to order: Dr. Dow
Minutes of the April 8th Faculty Meeting were approved: Andrew moved, Robin seconded.
Dr. Sutton: Discussed Faculty Senate meeting activities:

Dr. Singe is looking for volunteers for an HR video. Needs faculty and students.
Online Instruction Taskforce exploring tweaks to the Classroom Teaching Policy to
include online instruction.
Email usage policy was accepted.
The subject of salary equity to be taken up in the Faculty Senate in the fall.
Two bills, one regarding faculty performance and recognition, and the other regarding the
definition of “majority” for Faculty Senate voting, will be voted on in two weeks, which
will be the last meeting before the fall semester.
Dr. Sutton has been asked by KBOR to serve on the Presidential Search Committee.
Dr. Smith discussed a variety of items:
Grad Council – Agreed to no term limits for course work taken for licensure, however,
limits may be imposed on a case-by-case basis. Discussed shared hours for dual-degree
programs.
Proposed a schedule for faculty meetings for 2015-2016.
Reviewed graduate faculty status for Anne Liebst, Kris Kern, Randy Silverman, Christine
Woods, Beverly Buller and Shelly Guerke. Dr. Dow moved and Dr. Sutton seconded that
we accept these candidates. The motion was carried unanimously.
Discussed IDEA in its new electronic format. Suggested that we review it again in the
fall.
Dr. Sutton gave a brief review of Zoom. Will schedule a preview and introduction for faculty in
the near future.
Dr. Smith announced that sixty-three curriculum changes have been updated for the new catalog
providing greater uniformity.
Dean Alexander discussed a number of items:
The increase of hours for full-time status from 8 to 9 hours has an immediate effect on
student funding, and that SLIM will have to make adjustments for this. The new rules are
being waived for summer 2015, but will take effect in the fall.
Four new faculty have been offered and have accepted positions. The four new faculty
are Brendan Fay, Jim Walther, Jenny Ma and Sandy Valenti. All four will be performing
work as adjuncts for the department in the summer.
Due to ESU policy, there will be a search for an Associate Dean and for a Marketing
Coordinator in SLIM.
Dr. Dow discussed the PhD Spring Retreat which was to be held in Overland Park on April 25th.
The speaker for the morning is Julia McBride from the Kansas Leadership Institute. Roundtable
discussions are planned for the evening. Activities end at 3:30, after which there will be an
advising session for PhD students.
Dean Alexander reminded us that we will be accepting PhD applications starting in June for the
2016 cohort. The size of the new cohort is under review.
Minutes taken by Dr. Hale

Meeting adjourned.
EXHIBIT “B”
Case 2:15-cv-09369-JWL Document 112-3 Filed 06/07/17 Page 8 of 12

GWENDO LYN J . ALEXANDER, PH. D. 0 8 /1 6 /1 6
173
1 Q. And you d id n ' t h a v e a nyt h ing to do wi t h hi m
2 ge tt ing hi m ki ck e d o f f t he co mm i t tee?
3 A. I ma y h a v e. I ma y ha v e ca lled t hem a nd sa id
4 h e' s no l on g er ex pected to pa rtic ipate in a ny -
5 th i ng he re . Now , l et me say th is : Th at who le
6 dec is io n was n ' t jus t min e. You know? That was
7 upper admin ist ra t ion . Thi s i s mi n e I guess .
8 But so ma ny tim e s so mu ch o f th is o u t of
9 context a nd so p rec ise i n a way t hat 's n o t
10 suppo r ted .
11 Q. I t' s so p rec ise i n a way that i t' s not
12 s up po rted .
13 A. Wel l , we 've got h e r e -- we 've got t hree and a
14 h a lf pages of wo rd - for -word conversatio n me mor y
15 un less he was r e c or din g it. If he was
16 r e c or din g i t, I' d lik e to h e ar the r e c or din g.
17 Q. Okay . Whe n d id you mak e t he dec isio n to ki ck
18 Dr . S i ngh ou t of h is of f ice at S LI M?
19 A. I d id n ' t make t hat dec is io n . ~
20 Q. Who ma d e t hat dec is ion? ~

21 A. Th a t dec is io n was -- I' m not sure who made tha t
22 dec is io n , but eve ryt h i ng t hat happened was
23 d iscussed wi th t he p rovos t . And some o f what
24 h app en e d was d iscussed wi t h the pr e si d e n t.
25 But I thin k i t was th e p ract ice i f somebody was
HARRI SON ELLI OTT REPORTING

( 31 6) 267 -8278
EXHIBIT “C”
UNIVERSITY POLICY MANUAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GUIDING FRAMEWORK
University Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Equal Employment Opportunity, Equal Educational Opportunity and
Non-discrimination Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Affirmation of Values Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Positioning Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Organizational Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CHAPTER 1. UNCLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
1A. Categories of Unclassified Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1A.01 Academic Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1A.0101 Academic Probationary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1A.0102 Academic Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1A.0103 Non-tenure Track Academic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1A.0104 Academic Temporary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1A.02 Administrative Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1A.0201 Administrative Probationary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1A.0202 Administrative Regular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1A.0203 Administrative Temporary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1A.0204 Administrative Athletics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1A.0205 Limited Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1B. Academic Appointment Policies and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1B.01 Notices of Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1B.02 Appointment Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1B.0201 Academic Year Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1B.0202 12-month Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1B.0203 Summer Session Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1B.03 Faculty Ranks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1B.0301 Professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1B.0302 Associate Professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1B.0303 Assistant Professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1B.0304 Instructor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1B.0305 Lecturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
i
1D. Unclassified Personnel with Administrative and

Academic Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-41
1D.01 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-41

1D.02 Existing Tenure/Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-41
1D.03 Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-42
1E. Other Unclassified Personnel Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-42
1E.01 Grievance Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-42

1E.02 Grievance Policy for Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-50
1E.03 Commitment of Time, Conflict of Interest, Consulting and Other Employment . . . . 1-50
1E.0301 Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Time Reporting Procedure . . . . . . . . . 1-55
CHAPTER 2: CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
2A. Civil Service (Classified) Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2A.01 Appointment Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2A.02 Appointment Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2A.0201 Probationary Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2A.0202 Temporary Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2A.0203 Limited Term Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2A.0204 Acting Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2A.03 Supervisory Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2A.04 Return to Work Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2A.05 Furloughs and Layoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2A.0501 Furloughs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2A.0502 Layoff and Reemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2A.06 Personal Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2B. Other Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2C. Personal Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2D. Work Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2D.01 Punctuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2D.02 Portal to Portal Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2D.03 Overtime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2D.0301 Compensatory Time Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2D.04 Break Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2D.05 Meals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2D.06 Call-In and Call-Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2D.07 Travel Away from Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2D.08 Shift Differential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
iii
1-43
The complaint must be filed within 9 calendar months from the date on which the grievance
occurred or the date on which it became known. Either the grievant or the respondent may terminate
the grievance process at any time. The grievant may do so by withdrawing the petition and the
responding parties by reaching a satisfactory accord with the grievant.
Beginning with Section V, time limits are specified for different phases of the process. Time limits
are expressed in terms of class days. As it is used herein, the term “class days” is defined to include
all days that classes are conducted, excluding weekends, legal holidays, vacation periods, the period
of final examinations, intersessions, and for the purposes of this document summer school. It is
understood that any time limits in this section are the maximum time allowed and that it is the intent
to move the procedure along as fast as is reasonably possible.
It is not intended that a grievance shall fail or succeed upon a technicality. Therefore, all
applications of any part of this policy shall be equitable and reasonable.
Section I: Parties
A. The grievance procedure shall be open to all unclassified academic personnel of the University,
including all unclassified academic personnel working under the supervision of any agent of the
University, whatever the nature or location of their activity. The rank or condition of
employment of the faculty member shall not be held to prevent utilization of these procedures.
B. The grievance procedure shall be open to all unclassified administrative personnel of the
University holding regular appointments, including all unclassified administrative personnel
working under the supervision of any agent of the University, whatever the nature or location
of their activity. The rank or condition of employment of the employee shall not be held to
prevent utilization of these procedures.
Section II: Subject Matter
These grievance procedures shall be applicable to any perceived violation of the policies, procedures
and administrative directives of the University as contained in whatever publication that is in force
and effect. Charges or allegations arising from administrative action or for which administrative
action could provide remedy are appropriate matters for grievance: academic freedom;
reappointment; tenure; dismissal; promotion; salary; working conditions; conflict of time or interest;
intellectual property rights; improper, arbitrary, or capricious action committed by the University
or any of its agents; or any other matters related to employment and responsibilities of a faculty
member. Early in the process the grievant should be ready to demonstrate that the claims are
substantial and deserving of further consideration.
Section III: Selection of the Grievance Policy Panels
1. Identification of Personnel Eligible for Selection to Grievance Policy Panels
At the request of the Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, the office of the President of the
University shall construct 2 lists of unclassified personnel who are eligible for selection to
Grievance Policy Panels. One list will be comprised of all full-time unclassified academic
EXHIBIT “D”
Melvin Hale <*****@ucla.edu>
3/20/14
Dear Dr. Sutton,
I am applying to the Assistant Professor position that is listed on your website. I have attached the
documents that have been requested: Cover Letter, CV, Teaching Philosophy, Research Agenda,
unofficial transcripts and three references. I am highly interested in joining your distinguished faculty,
and in providing academic services to your diverse student body. I look forward to an opportunity to
present my qualifications.
Regards,
Melvin Hale, MLIS, PhD

EXHIBIT “E”
EXHIBIT “F”
August 15, 2012

Dear MELVIN HALE

Congratulations again on your Cota‐Robles Graduate Research Mentorship (GRM) for 2012‐13. Your fellowship provides full
tuition for the academic year as well as a stipend. The standard method for disbursing these awards is three equal payments for
those on a quarter system—fall, winter and/or spring terms or two equal payments for those on a semester system—fall and
spring.

The chart below shows Option A as the standard method by which UCLA disburses tuition/fees and stipends for your fellowship. If
you wish to remain with this standard method of disbursement, NO ACTION IS NECESSARY. However, if you wish to or have a
need to defer payment of your fellowship by one term so that payment will commence in the first term of 2013, five options (C
through G) are presented below as alternatives. No other combination of payments will be allowed. Please check one box to
indicate the alternative you wish to request.

FELLOWSHIP DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE

Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall
Option 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013

Standard
A TF1, S1 TF2, S2 TF3, S3
B (semester only) TF1, S1 TF2, S2

Check one if requesting an alternative
Alternatives Winter Spring Summer Fall
2013 2013 2013 2013
C TF1, S1 TF2, S2 TF3, S3

D TF1, S1 TF2, S2 S3 TF3

E TF1, S1, S2 TF2, S3 TF3

F (semester only) TF1, S1 S2 TF2

G (semester only) TF1, S1 TF2, S2

TF = Tuition and Fees
S = Stipend

Signature______________________________________ Date_____________________

Please return this form to the UCLA Graduate Division’s Fellowship Office by September 15, 2012: You may also scan your signed form
and email it to: uclafellowship@grad.ucla.edu

UCLA Graduate Division Fellowships Office
1252 Murphy Hall
Box 951419
Los Angeles, CA 90095‐1419

Sincerely,

Ana Lebon, Director of Fellowships and Financial Services
EXHIBIT “G”
Me
lvi
nHal
eHonore
dforAcademi
cExc
ell
enc
e
andSt
udentLeade
rshi
p
byUCLACha
ncel
lorGeneBl
ock
Ma
y1 2
,20 10
EXHIBIT “H”
Sarah Sutton <*****@emporia.edu>
4/3/14
To: Melvin Hale, Debra Rittgers
Dear Melvin,
Thank you again for your interest in the position of Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor in the School of
Library and Information Management at Emporia State University. The Search Committee has reviewed
your application and I am delighted to invite you to participate in a brief interview via Skype or
telephone on Friday, April 11, 2014. We prefer to conduct the interview via Skype but understand that
this is not always possible. We expect the interview to last no more than twenty minutes.
To accept this invitation, please contact Debra Rittgers (*****@emporia.edu) and let her know at what
times between 9:00 am and 4:30 pm (Central time) on April 11 you are available for an interview. Please
also inform Debra of the Skype contact name or telephone number at which you can be reached.
We are looking forward to speaking with you.
Sincerely,
Sarah W. Sutton, Ph.D.

Search Chair
School of Library and Information Management
Emporia State University
EXHIBIT “I”
Sarah Sutton <*****@emporia.edu>
4/22/14
To: Melvin Hale
Dear Melvin,
Thank you for your continued interest in position of assistant, associate, or full professor in the School of
Library and Information Management at Emporia State University. I’m writing today on behalf of the
Search Committee to invite you to come to our campus for a full day interview on May 12 or 13, 2014.
The interview will consist in part of dinner the evening prior to your campus visit (e.g. May 11 or 12,
2014) and a presentation by you to the SLIM/ESU community during the day of your interview. I will
provide you with a full and detailed agenda prior to your visit.
Please respond at your earliest convenience to convey to me your continued interest in our positions
and the day that would be most convenient for you to visit our campus. Please also include in your
response when I may call you with some additional details about your visit and how I may best reach
you.
Best regards,
Sarah

Faculty Search Committee Chair
EXHIBIT “J”
From: Melvin Hale <*****@ucla.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:51 AM
To: Sarah Sutton
Subject: Re: ESU SLIM faculty position
Dear Sarah,
I regretfully will have to withdraw my name from consideration for this position, as the travel
arrangements will place too great a financial burden on my family at this time. Although I was the first
in my cohort to complete my degree, due to the timing of the process, I was unable to obtain a
dissertation year fellowship which meant that I had to use my own finances to pay for my last three
quarters in the PhD program, and that depleted our reserves. This is somewhat embarrassing, but I
have to be forthright. I have not made use of credit cards during my time in graduate school, so that is
not an option.
Regards,
Melvin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Sarah Sutton <*****@emporia.edu>:
Dear Melvin,
I'm writing to follow up on our phone conversation today with details about your visit to campus on May
11 and 12, 2014. As I mentioned, you will be one of several candidates taking part in a group interview.
The interview will include brief tours of Emporia and our campus, meetings with the search committee,
meetings with Dean Gwen Alexander and Interim Associate Dean Andrew Smith, a meeting with a
representative from our Human Resources department, and your presentation to the SLIM/ESU
community to which SLIM faculty, staff, and students will be invited. I will send you a detailed agenda as
soon as I have one ready.
Dean Alexander would like you to give a 30 minute presentation (including a few minutes for questions)
that includes:
* Your background and experiences,

* Learning
* Teaching
* Library and Information Management Studies
* Prospective teaching
* Possible new courses,
* Research interests,
* Professional organizations/service
* And why Emporia?
The room in which you will be presenting is a technology equipped classroom. Please let me know by
Thursday, May 8, 2014 if you have any particular audio visual needs for your presentation.
SLIM will make your hotel reservations for your stay in Emporia. We ask that you make your own travel
arrangements for which ESU will reimburse you. Those include flights to Wichita or Kansas City the day
before your interview, car rental, and hotel for the night after > your interview if you choose to return
that night to the city from which your will fly home, either Wichita or Kansas City. If you decide to stay
the night after your interview in Emporia, please let me or Debra Rittgers know as soon as possible so
that we make those arrangements for you.
Please arrange to arrive in Emporia by 5 pm on May 11, 2014. Please remember to keep all of your
receipts because we will need them to process your reimbursement; those might include long term
airport parking and turnpike tolls. ESU will also reimburse you for meals you pay for up to the following
maximums:
Breakfast - $11.25
Lunch - $12.25
Dinner - $23. 50
If you have any questions at all about your interview or anything else, please don't hesitate to call or
email me.
Sincerely,
Sarah

EXHIBIT “K”
EXHIBIT “L”
EXHIBIT “M”
EXHIBIT “N”
EXHIBIT “O”
EXHIBIT “P”
EXHIBIT “Q”
E" 1M m=
From: Mirah Dow

Sent: Thursday,July 02, 2015 1:3? PM
To: Gwen Alexander
Subject: concern
Gwen, Melvin and Angelica are really feeling badly about things at SUM. I'm so sorry about that. I am so much in hopes
that we can make clear to both of them that we want and need their great participation.
I hope you had a good and productive time at AlA - I'm sure you are very busy now that you are back.
Mirah
CONFIDENTIAL1NFORMATION AGO -000299

EXHIBIT “R”
EMPORIA STATE Campus Box 4045

1 Kellogg Circle
Emporia, Kansas 66801-5415
UNIVERSITY 620-341-5171
www.emporia.edu
• Office of THE PROVOST
August 28, 2015
Melvin Hale, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Dr. Hale,
As the University continues to investigate the situation within the School of Library and Information
Management (SLIM), the escalation of the conflict between you and Dean Alexander has risen to a level
that is negatively affecting your colleagues as well as the department's ability to effectively conduct
business. In response to this escalation, you and Dean Alexander will both be entering a cooling-off
period through September 18, 2015. The goal of this period is to provide time for the investigative
process to be completed, while also protecting you, Dean Alexander, and your colleagues from further
escalation. Below are our expectations for you during this period.
Effective immediately, you will work from home and will not report to or be present in any SLIM office
or area, including your own office. Additionally, communication between you and anyone at SLIM will be
limited to those purposes necessary for the instruction of your current courses. Since your current
courses are all online, you are to make the necessary arrangements to meet the needs of instructing
your courses from home during this cooling-off period. Your office in SLIM will remain untouched, and
you will be notified should anyone need to access the office.
On September 1, 2015, Associate Provost Gary Wyatt will step in to serve as Acting Dean of SLIM for the
duration of the cooling-off period. Should you need to come into the office for any reason, access will
need to be coordinated in advance through Dr. Wyatt. You may contact Dr. Wyatt via e-mail at
gwyatt@emporia.edu or by phone at (620) 341-5899. Should the occasion arise that you need to
communicate with Dr. Alexander or anyone else at SLIM for a reason not directly related to your own
course instruction, that communication will also be routed through Dr. Wyatt. Prior to September 1,
please direct those communications to me. Should you receive any communication directly from Dr.
Alexander or anyone else at SLIM for a reason not directly related to your own course instruction during
this cooling-off period, please notify me immediately and do not respond to the communication.
1
I'M A An Equal Opportunity Employer
I do want to be clear that these restrictions do not affect your presence at the planned march on
September 15, 2015. Please be aware, also, that the situation will be further assessed toward the end of
the cooling-off period.
Dr. Hale, as we all know, this situation is difficult and tension-filled. Anger and frustration are to be
expected, but we must each be accountable to treat others with respect and dignity. Your concerns are
on the record and are being investigated. While the investigation is ongoing, continued accusations and
language that can reasonably be interpreted as inflammatory in any and all of your business
communications are not acceptable and will not be tolerated. The University expects these will stop
immediately.
Thank you for your prompt attention to these expectations. Please do not hesitate to contact me should
you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
David P. Cordle
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
c: Dr. Jackie Vietti, Interim President

Dr. Gary Wyatt, Associate Provost and Acting Dean of SLIM
Judy Anderson, Executive Director of Human Resources
Kevin Johnson, General Counsel
David P. Trevino, Trevino Law Office LCC, 120 E. 9th Street, Suite 202, Lawrence, KS 66044
File
2
EXHIBIT “S”
Vox
Study: people see black men as
larger and more threatening than
similarly sized white men
Researchers found this time and time again in a series of seven studies.
By German Lopez I @germanrlopez I german .lopez@vox.com I Mar 17, 2017, 8:00am EDT
There are two men. They have nearly identical bodies, with close to the same height
and weight. Which one is larger? Which one is more threatening? Which one could do
more harm to you?
Most people would probably think to answer "neither," since both men are the same
size.
But according to a new series of studies published by the American Psychological

Association, a person's answer to these questions depends largely on the men's race
- and that , researchers warn, may lead people to justify greater use of force against
black men compared to their white counterparts.
What the studies found

The seven studies, conducted by researchers John Paul Wilson , Nicholas Rule, and
Kurt Hugenberg, used a series of tests to get people to link people of different races to
different body sizes and the potential meaning of those body sizes.
In six of the studies, hundreds of participants were tasked with connecting a man's
face to body size, the potential harm a man could inflict, and whether use of force
against that man would be justified in case of an altercation. In the seventh study,
participants were asked to estimate a headless male body's size based on a color-
inverted picture (to remove racial identifiers), but some participants were primed to
believe - through a stereotypically black or white name or through a picture of a
person's face - that the body picture was of a white man while others were primed to
believe it's a black man.
http s:llw ww.vox.com/identities/20 17/311711 4945576/black-white-bodies-size-threat-study
10f5
Throughout all these tests , researchers produced the same results: When participants
believed the man in the images is black, they generally saw the man as larger, more
threatening , and potentially more harmful in an altercation than a white person. And
they were more likely to say use of force was justified against the black men than the
white men.
Again, the men in these pictures were roughly the same size. One of the studies in the
series even made sure the men even had similar bench press records. Yet identical
and similar bodies were often equated as larger and more threatening strictly because
the man was perceived as black instead of white.
The researchers argued that this was the result of stereotypes about black men being
larger than white men. And, they pointed out, these stereotypes aren't true: "The 2012
Center for Disease Control report on summarizing the 2007-2010 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey data places the average height of non-Hispanic White
men (20 years or older) at 177.4 cm and 90.4 kgs, and of non-Hispanic Black men at
176.4 cm and 90.4 kgs."
Yet these stereotypes have serious consequences if they alter people's perceptions of
black and white men. Consider the 2014 Cleveland police shooting of 12-year-old
Tamir Rice: After he was killed, the officers involved reported that they thought Rice
was 20. While it's impossible to get into these cops' heads to see what they were
thinking, it's possible they genuinely believed Rice was older because they saw Rice
as bigger than he really was. This series of studies certainly suggests that's a
possibility.
One caveat to the study: It drew participants from Amazon's MTurk, a work-for-pay
service. Previous analyses have found that use of this system can skew participants
so they're more college-educated, younger, and less wealthy than the general
population, so the study participants may not be fully representative of the rest of the
country.
There's also questions, the researchers said, about how exactly their findings would
apply outside of a lab setting, and if the restricted range of men's sizes that they
tested for - since the researchers relied largely on pictures of high school athletes -
could impact participants' perceptions compared to if, say, they were looking at the
bodies or faces of nonathletic or older men.
20f5
But this is a kind of research finding we've seen again and again: Black Americans are
often associated with threatening behavior, particularly crime. And that may explain
some of the disparities we see in police shootings.
Studies have consistently found evidence of racism in

America
As part of a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in
2014, researchers studied 176 mostly white, male police officers, and tested them to
see if they held an unconscious "dehumanization bias" against black people by having
them match photos of people with photos of big cats or apes. Researchers found that
officers commonly dehumanized black people, and those who did were most likely to
be the ones with a history of using force on black children in custody.
In the same study, researchers interviewed 264 mostly white, female college students
and found that they tended to perceive black children ages 10 and older as
"significantly less innocent" than their white counterparts.
"Children in most societies are considered to be in a distinct group with characteristics

such as innocence and the need for protection," Philip Goff, an author of the study,
said in a statement. "Our research found that black boys can be seen as responsible
for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that
children are essentially innocent."
Other research suggests there can be superhumanization bias at work as well, with
white people more likely to associate paranormal or magical powers with black people
than with white people. And the more they associate magical powers with black
people, the less likely they are to believe black people feel pain.
Another study found people tend to associate what the authors call "black-sounding
names," like DeShawn and Jamal, with larger, more violent people than they do
"white-sounding names," like Connor and Garrett.
"I've never been so disgusted by my own data," Colin Holbrook, the lead author of the
study, said in a statement. "The amount that our study participants assumed based
only on a name was remarkable. A character with a black-sounding name was
assumed to be physically larger, more prone to aggression , and lower in status than a
30f5
character with a white-sounding name."
This is just a small sampling of the overall research. But no matter how these kinds of
studies are conducted, there's a clear bias going on: Many Americans tend to
associate black people with criminal behavior and violence. And that seems to lead to
biased behavior.
These biases help explain racial disparities in police

shootings
An analysis of the available FBI data by Dara Lind for Vox found that US police kill
black people at disproportionate rates: Black people accounted for 31 percent of
police killing victims in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US
population. Although the data is incomplete because it's based on voluntary reports
from police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how police
use force.
Police kill a disproportionate number of black people

US population
BLACK HISPANIC WHITE
All people killed by police
31% 52%
People killed by policing while not attacking
39% 46%
Data from he FBI's 2012 Supplementary Homicide Report
Alvin ChangNox
40f5
Some of these disparities are explained by socioeconomic factors - such as poverty,

unemployment, segregation, and neglect by the police when it comes to serious
crimes - that lead to more crime and violence in black communities. As a result,
police tend to be more present in black neighborhoods - and therefore may be more
likely to take policing actions, from traffic stops to arrests to shootings, in these
areas.
But these structural disparities don't appear to explain everything. A 2015 study by
researcher Cody Ross found, "There is no relationship between county-level racial
bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that
the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a
response to local-level crime rates." That suggests that perhaps other factors are
involved in the disparities seen for these shootings, including racial bias.
Indeed, the series of studies published by the American Psychological Association

show that stereotypes of black men's bodies as larger and more threatening appear to
lead people to justifying more use of force against black men. That unfortunately may
offer some insight into the disparities seen in police shootings.
50f5
EXHIBIT “T”
EXHIBIT “U”
EXHIBIT “V”
[EMPORIA STATE
U N I V E R S I T Y
••
Candace Boardman
Director of Program Admin istration
cboardma@emporia.edu
William Allen White Library, Room 315
620-34 1-6159
Position
Director of Program Admin istration is available for the SLIM Masters and Doctoral programs and can help with
program inquiries, admissions, national faculty questions, and graduate assistant inquiries.
Degree
M.A. English, Emporia State University
Professional Interests
The evolving mission of libraries and information agencies in the 21st century
Teaching, learning, and assessment in current higher education environment
The nexus of e-Iearning and traditional classroom experiences
Leadersh ip and project management issues in dispersed environments
Academic and professional development
The role of public libraries in rural America
The business of children's and young adult literature and illustration
EXHIBIT “W”
This discussion refers to Angelica's promised

position as Marketing Coordinator
EXHIBIT “X”
EXHIBIT “Y”
SCHOOL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (SLIM)
Web: http://www.emporia.edu/slim
MARCH 2014
Phone: 620-341-5203
Gwen Alexander, Dean

Andrew Smith, Interim Associate Dean
Candace Boardman, Director of Program Administration
Candace Kitselman, Business Manager
Debra Rittgers, Office Manager
Nancy Brown, Kathie Buckman, Katie Hill, Adriane Juarez, Pierina “Perri” Parise,
Angeleen Wager, and David Willis, Directors of MLS Programs
Graduate Faculty
Professors: Ann O’Neill.
Associate Professors: Gwen Alexander, Mirah Dow, Andrew Smith.
Assistant Professors: Janet Capps, Sheila O’Hare, Rajesh Singh, Sarah Sutton, Cameron Tuai.
Instructor: Dale Monobe.
SLIM Mission Statement

The School of Library and Information Management is an interdisciplinary, learning-centered
program that prepares leaders for the library and information professions.
SLIM supports the mission and values of Emporia State University for teaching, research, and
service, functioning as a distributed community with local, national, and global networks.
The faculty, students, and staff embrace diversity, innovation, and academic excellence in an
atmosphere of free, open, and civil intellectual debate.
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY has been teaching library science since 1902 and began
regional MLS programs in 1987 at the request of library professionals in areas of the country
without schools of library and information studies. The SLIM MLS program provides a flexible
delivery method that enables the completion of a Master of Library Science degree in two years
for students geographically bound by employment or family responsibilities.
SLIM currently offers MLS programs in Emporia and Overland Park, Kansas; Denver,
Colorado; Salt Lake City and Orem, Utah; Portland, Oregon; and Atlanta, Georgia. Each
program is offered in a unique combination of face-to-face, weekend-intensive classes combined
with online learning. Although a number of fully-online courses are available, it is not possible
to complete the program entirely online.
Each MLS program uses a cohort model. Students are recruited for a particular starting date at a
specific location and move through the curriculum together in a six-semester cycle. Classes meet
two weekends per course, on Friday evenings and all-day Saturday. Although all of SLIM’s
courses are delivered through a web-based course management system, SLIM faculty commute
to the various program locations for face-to-face instruction in the traditional classroom format.
Each MLS program location has a site director who serves as a student advisor and is available
for consultation during class weekends, by telephone and e-mail, and during office hours for
EXHIBIT “Z”
SCHOOL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (SLIM)
Web: http://www.emporia.edu/slim DECEMBER 2014

Phone: 620-341-5203
Gwen Alexander, Dean

Andrew Smith, Interim Associate Dean
Debra Rittgers, Office Manager
Kathie Buckman, Dale Monobe, Pierina “Perri” Parise, and David Willis, Directors of
MLS Programs
Graduate Faculty
Professors: Gwen Alexander, Mirah Dow.
Associate Professors: Andrew Smith.
Assistant Professors: Janet Capps, Melvin Hale, Robin Kurz, Rajesh Singh, Sarah Sutton, Cameron
Tuai. By December 2014, there were five professors: Newly hired: Melvin Hale, Robin Kurz
Instructor: Christopher Hinson. (Alexander did not teach, but listed as professor)
SLIM Mission Statement

The School of Library and Information Management offers interdisciplinary, learning-centered
programs that prepare leaders for the library and information professions.
SLIM supports the mission and values of Emporia State University for teaching, research, and
service, functioning as a distributed community with local, national, and global networks.
The faculty, students, and staff embrace diversity, innovation, and academic excellence in an
atmosphere of civil intellectual debate.
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY has been teaching library science since 1902 and began
regional MLS programs in 1987 at the request of library professionals in areas of the country
without schools of library and information studies. SLIM programs provide a flexible delivery
method that enables the completion of a Master of Library Science degree in two years and an
online informatics Master of Science with courses sequenced over a two-year period for program
completion.
SLIM currently offers MLS programs in Emporia and Overland Park, Kansas; Denver,
Colorado; Salt Lake City and Orem, Utah; Portland, Oregon; and Atlanta, Georgia. Each
program is offered in a unique combination of face-to-face, weekend-intensive classes combined
with online learning. Although a number of fully-online courses are available, it is not possible
to complete the program entirely online.
Each MLS program uses a cohort model. Students are recruited for a particular starting date at a
specific location and move through the curriculum together in a six-semester cycle. Classes meet
two weekends per course, on Friday evenings and all-day Saturday. Although all of SLIM’s
courses are delivered through a web-based course management system, SLIM faculty commute
to the various program locations for face-to-face instruction in the traditional classroom format.
Each MLS program location has a site director who serves as a student advisor and is available
for consultation during class weekends, by telephone and e-mail, and during office hours for
EXHIBIT “AA”
Excerpts from August 17, 2015 Phone Conversation
Dr. Mirah Dow and Dr. Melvin Hale
Minute 1:00 MH – “When we went to see David Cordle, when we went to see Ray Lauber, we
made it clear that we felt that the culture of gossip and spreading people‟s business and
information around was rife [in SLIM], and that if this were a medical institution we
would be hit with HIPAA violations from sunrise to sunset cause this is people‟s private
business that they want to talk about, and it‟s not professional.‟ ECF 86, pg. 47.
DOW – “…this problem [has] been in our office for a very long time. And I also told
them that, you know. I‟ve spoken up about it more than once, saying, „This is going to
eventually get us in trouble.‟” ECF 86, pg. 47.
2:20 MH – “How far do they think they can go with this Mirah? I guess that‟s my
question. I mean, all we have been doing is trying to be very above board and outright
and direct [about the report of the bias incident].” ECF 86, pg. 47.
2:32 DOW – “They‟ve got a lot to lose, they‟ve got a lot to lose. And they‟re gonna, no
matter how dirty it is, they would in a minute put you and me on the offensive so that we
have to represent ourselves to prove otherwise. That‟s the game here.” ECF 86, pg. 47.
9:08 DOW – “They‟re looking for any excuse in the world ... for it to be something
other than what it is.” ECF 86, pg. 47.
11:25 DOW – “[Gwen] doesn‟t want to hear about it. I tell you [that] for sure. She does
not want. ..she doesn‟t want to hear it. Man...You remember that whenever, whenever
you first told me [about the bias incident]. Even though it was a week or two later, I said
that I was gonna speak to Gwen. And I did. And I said I think that Melvin would feel an
awful lot, [a] bit better, or different at least, about this, if something [was done]. Why
don‟t you just ask him what it is that he‟d like for you to do? I mean, I said, I think
maybe that there ought to be some sensitivity kinda training or event or something. You
know, I wanted so bad to say: „In my training, in my professional work, I truly believe
that I‟ve been taught, when something like this happens you should say straight out we
are NOT going to have this here.‟” ECF 86, pg. 48.
13:03 MH – “Right.” ECF 86, pg. 48.
DOW - "And then start taking steps to raise people‟s awareness, whether they had
anything to do with it or not. But boy, I‟m telling you what. She has exactly the opposite
idea about that!” ECF 86, pg. 48.
20:28 MH - Are people saying things about me, I guess I mean are they saying bad things
about me I mean I'm really concerned because I haven't done anything wrong here but
report a crime.
20:37 DOW - I don't, I am not (inaudible) they have not talked to me. I have not heard
any bad things about you or Angelica ever.
But I‟m not saying they are not saying anything. And I figure that could be one of the
reasons why they don't talk to me.
I wouldn't believe it anyway.
28:19 DOW – “I'm afraid of it too.” ECF 86, pg. 50.
28:20 MH – “Now [Gwen‟s] making the students in Portland pay for what she did. I
mean, how in the world can anyone even remotely suggest that Ashley Todd-Diaz, as
good as she is at being an archivist, can go to Portland and teach an 801class like I do. I
wanna know how that‟s possible. That‟s ludicrous.” ECF 86, pgs. 50-51.
29:27 DOW – “It is impossible, and I said that. I did speak out against that. And [Gwen],
just like the very first day, she cut me off. .. „I am not going to listen to you.‟ And to take
it away from you is ... it‟s the kind of low blow I‟ve come to expect .. . I don‟t ever want
to really be afraid. And I‟m not really afraid . But I am really concerned because this is
only the start of it.” ECF 86, pgs. 50-51.
32:05 DOW – “I‟m not sure what I‟m going to do Melvin. But I am trying to be smart
about this. I really am. And I already know, I know when the deep pockets get tapped on
the shoulder, they will fight to the bitter end and they do not care who they hurt when
they do it. And I am the least of their [worries]. They’ll punish me just like they’ll punish
anybody else.” ECF 86, pgs. 50-51.
39:38 DOW: “In my opinion, you went about it, and I've said this before and now I'm
starting to repeat myself. You went about it, both of you, you and Angelica both, went
about it in a very prudent way. It was responsible, yet it wasn't flamboyant or
unreasonable, you know. You tried to solve it…You didn't have a choice but to do that,
not just ignore it.”
41:40 DOW – “And there‟s this other thing that makes Gwen [get sympathy]...more for
people to hear. She tells them I‟m sure how nice she was to you. She‟s got this whole
litany of how nice she was to you ever since you came. But that‟s no excuse for this.”
ECF 86, pg. 53.
42:22 MH – “Well, that‟s nice. I can tell about how nice we‟ve been to her. I can talk
about going to her house and painting her basement and Angelica walking her dogs and
2
taking them to the groomer. We were all „nice‟ to each other. And don‟t look at all the
pictures! I have so many selfies taken with Gwen [that] it isn‟t funny. Selfies at
Halloween, selfies at [the] ALISE [conference]; pictures with her all the time. We‟re all
smiling; look like family . I‟m upset with her because she‟s not dealing with Deb
Rittgers.” ECF 86, pg. 53.
43:17 DOW: “When I heard Jackie say „and there are going to be recommendations‟ I
kind of viewed that optimistically. Because, while she might not say there was a crime,
which I wish she would. I wish something...there might be something...I just don‟t see
how we can go on like this…It is never going to be settled.”
44:06 MH: “Now we have heard her say things to people to their face, because we‟ve
been around her just like a lot of folk have, and when that same person walks off, she‟ll
say something derogatory about them.” ECF 86, pg. 54.
44: 19 DOW – “Yeah, I know it. I know it. I see it too.” ECF 86, pg. 54.
45:30 DOW – “And those of us who get lured into her „good charismatic side?‟ She uses
it for her own benefit. Honestly, I have a very hard time [with that]. I think she wants
good things to happen at SLIM, but she really wants good things to happen for Gwen.
That‟s what I think ... She so rarely says anything nice about the faculty. I mean she just
doesn‟t do it. I don‟t imagine she would ever do it if somehow, in some of her training,
you know, every now and then she goes to some seminar or something on leadership and
she must hear or be reminded that you‟ve got to thank people and [you‟ve] got to
compliment them from time to time, because I see a little uptick in that every now and
then, and then it goes right back to the same old thing. She is not on the side of faculty in
general. That just is not her.” ECF 86, pg. 54.
48:02 DOW - “And that‟s one of the things that I tried to have been really solid about
saying is that there really is as long as I can recall. I don‟t know of any two better people
to come to SLIM than you and Angelica. And I mean I say that consistently. And almost
using the same words every time on purpose. And I…I really mean it.” ECF 86, pg. 55.
54:15 DOW – “I told you several days ago that I think that the very best thing to do is to
do our very best every single minute with whatever we‟re doing , and don‟t let them
make you mad, don‟t let them cause you to raise your voice. Don‟t let them even cause
you to sound tense. Anything that you can do to just stay on the same even keel as you
were before this started can only help. Because I‟m telling you they‟re looking for
anything they can.” ECF 86, pg. 57.
54:58 MH – “I believe that. I believe that, and so far I haven‟t given them nothing. And I
don‟t plan to.” ECF 86, pg. 57.
3
55:10 DOW – “I believe that.” ECF 86, pg. 57.
102:02 DOW – “This is something of a disruption that Gwen has caused because of her
choices. You know, it‟s caused a hardship in the worst, worst way.” ECF 86, pg. 57.
102:40 MH – “Yeah.” ECF 86, pg. 57.
107:18 DOW – “In a certain way I see [Lauber] as very confident, perhaps under normal
circumstances, a very confident HR person. But I think he‟s probably going to do what
[Vietti‟s] told him to do. I‟m sure that he‟s listened to Kevin Johnson and he‟s probably
heard Kevin Johnson‟s opinion of this as many times as anybody. I don't know objective
he'll be able to remain. I really don‟t.” ECF 86, pg. 57.
116:15 DOW – “It‟s hard for a school, especially a little group as small as this one, to put
up with so many [bad] things. I mean we can go back to the time Gwen just let go
of…what was her name?…Yvonne Ballester. I mean she just marked her off and she was
gone. Nobody even got to say goodbye to her.” ECF 86, pg. 59.
4
EXHIBIT “BB”
SLIM STUDENT AND COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON THE CLIMATE IN SLIM
2015 to Present
Following are: 1) comments from three SLIM students, Kevin Pack, Heather Braum
and Jesse Elston. Kevin was in the Emporia cohort. Angelica and Dr. Hale have never met
Kevin. Heather Braum was a SLIM alum who was honored as an outstanding recent graduate in
a program where she interfaced with Angelica in 2015. Jesse was in Dr. Hale’s Denver class on
Foundations of Library and Information Management in 2015; 2) comments from selected
students in Dr. Hale’s LI815 Information Technology class held in Denver in 2015; 3)
comments posted on the March on Emporia page in Change.org; and 4) a very disturbing picture
of how retaliation was used against Denver student Jordan Heguy and others. Jordan tells how
SLIM Regional Director David Willis explicitly threatened her career if she did not take
down a post on the Student Chapter of the American Library Association (SCALA) website
supporting Angelica and Dr. Hale’s protests. She also tells how Adjunct Professor Keith Rocci
was dismissed from a board at SLIM and not hired the following semester for supporting
Angelica and Dr. Hale’s protests. Jordan’s comments, from Facebook messages with Angelica,
are a must read. (Some of the original messages are posted following the combined narratives.)
Kevin wrote:
“I wanted to let you know that students at SLIM still support you. During a lunch
I had with my classmates, about 6 of us, your general cause was brought up when some
of them reflected on how when they began at SLIM your protests were happening. They
felt SLIM should've addressed this as a department and come clean about it.
If you need me to reach out to any of your former students, let me know. I am
willing to testify in any capacity as well, but I do not know what value I would be since I
never had you as a professor.
I've also been through mediation in a federal civil rights court case myself, and I
will be going to law school in the Fall of 2017.” ECF 19-4, pg. 2.
Heather wrote:
“[Angelica,] I don't know if you remember me or not -- but we met last fall when
I was on campus for the ESU recent grad award recognition. You impressed me so much,
and I've heard your social media postings praised by many SLIM alums. So I was
horrified to learn of the way you and your husband have been treated on numerous levels,
particularly by the SLIM program, and commend you for speaking out against it all. This
should not be swept under the carpet, and this IS NOT how Kansans are supposed to
behave. - Heather Braum”
Jesse wrote:
“Happy New Year Dr. Hale, hope all is well! Commencement is happening this weekend
for my cohort from Emporia. They wanted to have a list of organizations and people the
students would like to thank. I was wondering if I could add you because you are an
inspirational educator. Thank you!”
2
Selected Comments from Student Evaluations - LI815 Information Technology:
1 - “This was an excellent course and Prof Hale was an excellent professor. I wish I had
more classes left to take from SLIM so I could take more of his courses.”
2 - “Dr. Hale is one of the best instructors I have had through the SLIM program!”
3 - “He gave excellent feedback on the assignments that we had due and I felt
comfortable knowing that I was on track for his expectations and was able to elaborate in
the final product using suggestions that he gave for further research. I also really
appreciated the group project at the end and being able to delve into an additional type of
technology for that. Dr. Hale was very encouraging and had great suggestions and
guidance for us. I would strongly recommend for other students to take classes from Dr.
Hale.”
4 - “This program needs more instructors like Dr. Hale. His timely feedback and flexible
course structure worked exceptionally well…Acquiring more instructors like him will
ensure future students will seek out the SLIM program.”
5 - “Dr. Hale is an engaging and inspiring teacher and I thoroughly enjoyed the course
and the class weekends with him. He was responsive and encouraging. I appreciated his
energy, exuberance, and passion for the fields of technology and librarianship.”
6 - “Dr. Hale wants his students to succeed and it shows by his teaching style and his
interactions with students.”
3
Selected Change.org petition comments:
#1 - “I’m signing because I am a.) an ESU student who believes that the school should
absolutely be leaders in the field of diversity, especially library science. 2.) as a student of
Melvin Hale’s I feel that he is a major asset to the program and to hurt, offend and
mistreat him as an individual is not only wrong but misguided. ESU cannot afford to lose
such a thoughtful and knowledgeable professor. 3.) racial bigotry in Kansas must end. 4.)
do not let the attitude of a few backwards people determine the state of accreditation for
the institution. SLIM is a decent program with hard working professors and students that
excel. To hurt SLIM is to hurt libraries.”
#2 – “I grew up in Emporia, and I took some classes at ESU in high school. I'm
disappointed that the university has not done more to address its lack of diversity. This
incident only serves to demonstrate how ill-equipped the community is for confronting
and fighting against the white supremacy that plagues this town. ESU's leaders and
community leaders have a responsibility to ally themselves with victims of racism and
make real, systemic changes to hold themselves accountable. Shame on ESU.”
#3 – “I am totally against racism and we must stand up to this behavior. I know Angel.
She is a person with integrity.
Experiences of Denver SLIM Student Jordan Heguy
“Hey. I woke to an email from my director David saying he needed to speak to
me immediately. I set up a call with him and he berated me about the ESU SCALA page
and not being professional and endearing myself to other students. He really didn’t
listen to a thing I said he talked over me. Apparently someone sent it to the Dean, not
4
Mirah, and he was trying to advocate for me (so he says) but he wanted me to know that
others don’t appreciate that online presence and I won’t be able to get a job post grad. I
told him I didn’t want to get a job and he responded with I don’t know what to say to
that. I also said that I would not want to be hired by an institution lacking transparency
like ESU so it was fine with me. It was a very negative call and I’m pretty angry. He
said I’m not telling you it’s necessary to delete what you said, but I would advise you to
take it down. Then he said if I didn’t play on the computer during class I wouldn’t be as
bored, even though I have worked in the public and academic library for past 8 years, he
said I am only hurting myself. I would say I’m surprised but I’m really am not.”
“Robin[Kurz] has brought you all up a few times this past year and the sick way
things went about I don’t know if she means that or is trying to pry. I think she does care
about social justice but maybe was too afraid to do anything. She said that if things do
not change with the upcoming school year she is leaving, since she had explored this idea
for the past two years. Then Professor Keith Rocci asked Jesse [Elston] (another
colleague who took Dr. Hale's class) if we knew you all. Then Keith explained how he
was on the board and stuck up for you all and had the only opposing position as to what
to do about the hate crime. ESU obviously took what he said into no consideration and he
said that he was removed from the board immediately, and they are taking away his
courses for next year, essentially terminating him. I had him this semester and he was
genuinely sad about the crime and his position and his voice not being acknowledged.”
5
Original
Jesse Elston
From: Angelica Hale <angelica*****@yahoo.com> Original

To: Melvin Hale <reefresh@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 1:09 AM
Subject: facebook message from alumni Heather Braum
I don't know if you remember me or not -- but we met last fall when I was on campus for the
ESU recent grad award recognition. You impressed me so much, and I've heard your social
media postings praised by many SLIM alums. So I was horrified to learn of the way you and your
husband have been treated on numerous levels, particularly by the SLIM program, and
commend you for speaking out against it all. This should not be swept under the carpet, and
this IS NOT how Kansans are supposed to behave. At all. I apologize for the way you have been
treated. Know you are very, very welcome here, contrary to what others might do or say.
Please let me know if I can do anything for you. -Heather Braum
* Faculty Experience • Melvin
LI 815 (XC): Information Technology

Q
~
Sum m er 20 15
Melvin Hale
~ ~~
"
Original
16 12 75%
Students Enroll ed Students Responded Response Rate
::. Summat ive o Formative C Qua nt itative [§] Qua litative ~ Segment Compariso n
Comments
• He made technology accessible and fun. the assignments were structured well. and he encouraged us to critica lly think and find
our own information.
• It was great the way Professor Hale divided up the larger end project as manageab le and regu lar homework assignments
th roughout the semester- not only did it make the long paper on a topic we were unfamiliar with manageab le. but it also showed
us how we might wr ite a paper we wou ld like to have pub lished . in work-ab le segments. as opposed to th inking of it as th is big
unmanageable thing.
• This was an excellent course and Prof Hale was an excellent professor. I wish I had more classes left to take from SLIM. so I could
take more of his courses.
• Dr. Hale is one ofthe beset inst ructors I have had through the SLIM program!
• It was really great to have Dr. Hale as the professor for this class. There were a lot of relevant techno logies to which we were
int roduced and the level of deta il on the papers allowed us to delve deeply into an imp lementation strategy and consider all
possib le factors. The pacing of th is course was great especially considering the compact t ime frame for Summer courses and
really helped us stay on task to product a good product for the Business Intelligence Report on our techno logy. Dr. Hale was very
helpful in gu id ing in class discussions. He gave excellent feedback on the assignments that we had due and I fe lt comfortable
knowing that I was on track for his expectat ions and was able to elaborate in the fina l product using suggestions that he gave for
further research. I also really appreciated the group project at the end and being able to delve into an add itiona l type of
techno logy for that. Dr. Hale was very encourag ing and had great suggestions and gu idance for us. I would strongly recommend
for other students to take classes from Dr. Hale.
• The was a great class! Dr. Hale responded qu ickly to quest ions. provided great feedback on assignments. throughly knew the
subject matter. and is an effective inst ructor.
• The course was excellent with lots of student conversat ion in the face-to-face portions. but the requ ired textbook was too basic to
be of particular use.
• This program needs more instructors like Dr. Hale. His timely feedback and flexib le course structure worked except iona lly wel l. In
add it ion he successfully blended practical and ph ilosophical aspects of Iibrari anship into the material. a combina t ion I haven't
encountered since lI801 . I fe lt I had to take on many roles. a library professional. a decision maker. and a leader. to be successful
in meeting Dr. Hale's course challenges. both in the projects and in class exercises. To me he was engaging and passionate. He
presented himse lf as a dedicated professiona l who was committed to prov id ing us with what we needed to th ink outside the box
and to also succeed in the rap id ly chang ing future of li brarianship. In addition to t he two main projects I th ink a last project might
include a brief wr ite up of an interview with a techno logy decision maker to compare what we learn ed with real wor ld experience.
This instructor gives un ique benefit to SLIM which helps to set it apart f rom other MLS prog rams through innovat ive content and
exceptiona l qua lity. Acqu ir ing more inst ructors like him will ensure future students will seek out the SLIM program.
• Dr. Hale prov ided excellent feedbac k on all assignments. He was encouraging and excited about the course top ic. I fee l that I
learn ed a lot from this class and I appreciated his enthusiasm for me as a student. The SLIM program is lucky to have him in the ir
ranks.
• Dr. Hale is an engaging and inspiring teache r and I thoroughly enjoyed the course and the class weekends with him. He was
respons ive and encourag ing. I appreciated his energy. exuberance . and passion for the fields of techno logy and Iibrari anship.
• Dr. Hale wants his students to succeed and it shows by his teach ing style and his interactions with students.
Original
EXHIBIT “CC”
Retaliation https://www1. eeoc.gov//laws/types/retaliation.cfm?renderforprint=l
u. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Employer Coverage
Facts About Retaliation
15 or more employees
under Title VII and ADA
NEW 20 or more employees

under ADEA
Retaliation: Considerations for Federal Agency Managers
Retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector Virtually all employers
and the most common discrimination finding in federal sector cases. As EEOC works under EPA
to address this issue , you can help.
Learn more about what constitutes retaliation , why it happens , and how to prevent it. Time Limits
Written by EEOC staff, this article ran in the summer 2015 issue of The Federal
Manager. 180 days to file a
charge
(may be extended by
The EEO laws prohibit punishing job applicants or employees for asserting their rights to be state laws)
free from employment discrimination including harassment. Asserting these EEO rights is
called "protected activity," and it can take many forms. For example, it is unlawful to Federal employees
retaliate against applicants or employees for: have 45 days to contact
• filing or being a witness in an EEO charge, complaint, investigation, or lawsuit an EEO Counselor
• communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination,
including harassment
• answering questions during an employer investigation of alleged harassment For more information ,
• refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination see:
• resisting sexual advances, or intervening to protect others
~ Facts About
• requesting accommodation of a disability or for a religious practice
Retaliation
• asking managers or co-workers about salary information to uncover potentially
discriminatory wages . ~ Equal Pay Act
Participating in a complaint process is protected from retaliation under all circumstances. ~ Title VII of the Civil
Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a Rights Act of 1964
reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws, even if he or she
~ Age Discrimination
did not use legal terminology to describe it.
in Employment Act
Engaging in EEO activity, however, does not shield an employee from all discipline or ~ Americans with
discharge. Employers are free to discipline or terminate workers if motivated by non- Disabilities Act
retaliatory and non-discriminatory reasons that would otherwise result in such
~ Policy & Guidance
consequences . However, an employer is not allowed to do anything in response to EEO
activity that would discourage someone from resisting or complaining about future
discrimination.
For example, depending on the facts , it could be retaliation if an employer acts because of the employee's EEO activity
to:
• reprimand the employee or give a performance evaluation that is lower than it should be;
• transfer the employee to a less desirable position ;
• engage in verbal or physical abuse;
• threaten to make, or actually make reports to authorities (such as reporting immigration status or contacting the
police) ;
• increase scrutiny;
• spread false rumors, treat a family member negatively (for example, cancel a contract with the person's spouse) ; or
• make the person's work more difficult (for example, punishing an employee for an EEO complaint by purposefully
changing his work schedule to conflict with family responsibilities).
For more information, Questions and Answers: Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues ,
https:l/www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/retaliation-qa.cfm.
10f1
EXHIBIT “DD”
EXHIBIT “EE”
From: Angelica Hale <angelica*****@yahoo.com>

To: "Girard, Barbara [KHRC]" <Barbara.Girard@ks.gov>
Cc: "Peggs, Jose [KHRC]" <Jose.Peggs@ks.gov>; "Glover, Ruth E [KHRC]"
<Ruth.Glover@ks.gov>
Subject: Re: Letter of Administrative Closure
Dear Ms. Girard,
Thank you for your response. I look forward to receiving the paperwork next week by email and
completing the KHRC process.
Regards,
Angelica Hale
PS: My current mailing address is below as I am not sure that it has been updated in the KHRC
contact records.
P.O. Box 6176

Goodyear, AZ 85338
From: "Girard, Barbara [KHRC]" <Barbara.Girard@ks.gov>

To: 'Angelica Hale' <angelica*****@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Peggs, Jose [KHRC]" <Jose.Peggs@ks.gov>; "Glover, Ruth E [KHRC]"
<Ruth.Glover@ks.gov>
Subject: RE: Letter of Administrative Closure
Hale v. Emporia State University Case No. 38220-16
Ms. Hale:
Thank you for your query. In order to proceed to court from this state agency, you need to have
exhausted your administrative remedies so your complaint has to have been on file with us for
300 days. You filed on September 21, 2015 so the 300th day would be Sunday, July 18,
2016. Therefore, I will send you the necessary paperwork next week for you to fill out and
return it to us after you sign off on it on July 18, 2016. You cannot sign off on that paperwork
before July 18, 2016.
In addition to the 300 day dismissal at the state level, you can request a right to sue at the federal
level from the EEOC in writing and by mail. You can do that immediately. Below is the
individual and address to whom you must send a request. You should refer to your case number
and the date on which you filed your complaint which was dual filed with both state and federal
agencies. I hope this answers you query and your request.
Mr. Joe Wilson

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Robert A. Young Bldg.
1222 Spruce Street, 8th Floor, Room 8.100
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Barbara Girard
Topeka/Wichita Investigative Supervisor
Kansas Human Rights Commission
900 S.W. Jackson, Suite 568-S
Topeka, Kansas 66612
1-785-296-3206
Fax: 1-785-296-0589
Barbara.girard@ks.gov
EXHIBIT “FF”
EXHIBIT “GG”
EXHIBIT “HH”
EMPORIA STATE Campus Box 4025

1 Kellogg Circle
Emporia. Kansas 66801-5415
UNIVERSITY 620-341-5203
620-341·5233 fax
www.emporia.edu.slim
• School of LIBRARY A D
I FORMATIO MA AGEME T
Melvin Hale, Ph.D.

1 Kellogg Circle
Emporia, KS 66801
Dear Dr. Hale:
It is my pleasure to acknowledge your achievements during your first semester as an Assistant

Professor with SLIM. You are already a valued member of the faculty and I congratulate you on
your contributions to the collaborative culture, our efforts toward consistent learning outcomes
for students, and for ultimately making a difference in the ways our graduates contribute to the
common good of the communities they serve.
You taught two sections ofLI801 Foundations of Library and Information Science in Emporia
and LI873 Archives Studies Practicum online. My experience observing you in the classroom
and the videos you have recorded are that you are able to engage students and help them to
understand what is expected of their performance. Although we have yet to receive the student
evaluations for the courses you taught, all informal comments I have heard are favorable.
You served as a member of SLIM's search committee for the three open positions we will fill for
the Fall 2015 semester. Thank you for the contributions you made toward identifying potential
candidates and the committee's recommendations regarding the eight who were interviewed.
You also served on curriculum teams and participated in the ongoing development of student
learning outcomes for all required courses. This work will continue in the coming years as we
integrate what is learned from the Kansas Leadership Center training into all of our core courses.
As we have discussed your goals for the coming year are to formalize the incorporation of social
justice principles into your Archives Studies syllabi and instruction, submit an article to a peer
reviewed journal on the same topic, and become active in leading the Black Caucus SIG of the
American Library Association. In addition you will become Director of the Archives Studies
concentration (service) and the instructor of record for the associated practicum courses all three
semesters each year, either as part of your teaching load or overload, according to student
requirements. Our group goal is to do all possible to continue SLIM program accreditation.
It is my pleasure to recommend to Provost Cordle that your appointment be continued. Thank

you for the many ways you have added to the success of SLIM during your short time as part of
the team and best wishes for continued advancement and enjoyment of our profession.
s~~ ~
Gwen Alexander
Dean
EXHIBIT “II”
SPRING COMMENCEMENT
MAY 14, 2016
n BACCALAUREATE CEREMONY
WHITE AUDITORIUM
9:30 A.M.
n DOCTORATE, SPECIALIST, AND MASTERS CEREMONY

ALBERT TAYLOR HALL
2:00 P.M.
BOARD OF REGENTS
Hon. Shane Bangerter, Chair, Dodge City Hon. Dennis Mullen, Manhattan
Hon. Zoe Newton, Vice Chair, Sedan Hon. Dave Murfin, Wichita
Hon. Joe Bain, Goodland Hon. Daniel Thomas, Mission Hills
Hon. Ann Brandau-Murguia, Kansas City Hon. Helen Van Etten, Topeka
Hon. Bill Feurerborn, Garnett
RETIRING FACULTY
Gwendolyn Alexander, School of Library and Harvey Foyle, Instructional Design and Technology
Information Management Karen Smith, Social Sciences
Raffaele DeVito, School of Business James Telfer, Mathematics and Economics
Jane Eberle, Instructional Design and Technology
ROE R. CROSS DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR AWARD

The Roe R. Cross Distinguished Professorship was established in 1979 in an effort to recognize and reward academic
excellence at Emporia State University. This designation is given to faculty members who hold the rank of assistant professor
or higher and who have records of distinction in the areas of research/scholarship/creativity, university teaching, and service.
No more than one member of the faculty can be designated as a Roe R. Cross Distinguished Professor in a given year.
2016 Recipient – Marshall D. Sundberg
The persons who have been awarded this status in previous years include the following:
1979 William R. Elkins 1998 Joella H. Mehrhof
1980 Loren E. Pennington 1999 Kenneth A. Weaver
1981 DeWayne A. Backhus 2000 William H. Clamurro
1982 Helen McElree 2001 Marie C. Miller
1983 James F. Hoy 2002 Harvey C. Foyle
1984 Stephen F. Davis 2003 Ronald T. McCoy
1985 Melvin G. Storm 2004 Larry W. Schwarm
1986 Elaine V. Edwards 2005 Donald S. Miller
1987 Thomas D. Isern 2006 Herbert K. Achleitner
1988 Carl W. Prophet 2007 Elizabeth Yanik
1989 Dan R. Kirchhefer 2008 Gary Ziek
1990 Cooper B. Holmes 2009 Karen Manners Smith
1991 Philip L. Kelly 2010 James Ryan
1992 Teresa A. Mehring 2011 J. Richard Schrock
1993 Roger C. Greer 2012 Amy Sage Webb
1994 James S. Aber 2013 David R. Edds
1995 Gaylen J. Neufeld 2014 Charles S. Brown
1996 Martha L. Hale 2015 James D. Persinger
1997 Ronald Q. Frederickson
4 EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Angelica Hale Opposition To Emporia State University Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc 113) (TITLE VII)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Angelica Hale Opposition To Emporia State University Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc 113) (TITLE VII)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 5:16-cv-04182-DDC Document 113 Filed 06/19/18 Page 1 of 166

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

in opposition to Defendant‘s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff opposes defendant‘s

investigation, and instead conducted a sham internal ―investigation.‖

An official HR document from ESU‘s own internal ―investigation‖ unambiguously states

meeting. See Exhibit A. This admission by ESU HR is a confession to retaliatory motive.

―investigation‖ that no hate crime occurred. Johnson stated:

I. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS

II. PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS

III. HISTORY OF THE CASE

four-year fellowship, the Eugene V. Cota-Robles Fellowship funded by the University of

contributors‖ to SLIM. See Exhibit Q.

A 2017 study published in a peer-reviewed journal by the American Psychological

Singh. It was clear that Gwen abhorred Dr. Singh.

her abuse of power.

Committee Letter (―GCL‖) stated that:

not all. The GCL goes on to state that:

In its conclusion they wrote:

turnover in the department it stated:

―The administration of the program has to be considered in flux. There is currently no

of intolerance in SLIM and the lack of collegiality. As a glaring example of non-collegiality,

IV. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to

V. LAW AND ARGUMENT

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee

Defendant‘s legal arguments throughout appear directed at a complaint for discrimination

against applicants or employees for ―communicating with a supervisor or manager about

employment discrimination, including harassment.‖ It further states that retaliation could be

unleashed a full frontal attack. That would be illegal.

unlawful under Title VII.").

to summary judgment as a matter of law.

2009). University administrators cannot claim ignorance of the First Amendment.

for SLIM. It was the only reason she was terminated.

which he recorded. ECF 86-2, pg. 1.

December 2014 April 2015 June 2015 July 2015

E. Prima Facie Case

the motion to dismiss stage.

to-Sue-letter is attached. See Exhibit FF.

―Pretext can be inferred from evidence revealing ‗weaknesses, implausibilities,

inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions‘ in the employer‘s explanation…Macon v.

unsupported by the facts, and is thus pretext.

H. Matter of Public Concern

30, Order on Motion, pg. 12.

I. HR Grievance and Internal Investigation v. Law Enforcement Investigation

a harassment complaint are not to be conflated:

(ECF 109, pg.6) they wrote:

The problem here is a lack of choice. Defendants intentionally steer complainants to

unethical and detrimental to the complainant. Complaints to law enforcement constitute

perceived as a hate crime and it was dismissed out-of-hand.

J. Failure to Follow Company Policies May Be Proof of Retaliation

with Debra Rittgers in a subservient manner. ECF 30, pg. 5.

achieve the anti-retaliation provision‘s ―primary purpose,‖ namely, ―[m]aintaining unfettered

Summary Judgment, and to grant its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Dated: June19, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Angelica Hale, Plaintiff Pro Se

Case No. 16-4182-DDC-TJJ

Court by email at ksd_clerks_topeka@ksd.uscourts.gov, and a notice of electronic filing was sent

via the CM/ECF system to all counsel of record.

/s/ Angelica Hale

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 16-4182-DDC-TJJ

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF FACTS 3

II. PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS 3

III. HISTORY OF THE CASE 4