Lesson learned: When unwelcome sexual conduct leads to a suspension

In a recent case, a first-year Ph.D. student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) alleged that a professor at the University of California, Berkeley subjected her to unwelcome sexual conduct while they were attending a conference in Singapore.

The professor was a director-at-large for the Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH). During its 2012 conference, he went to a bar or a club with a group of graduate students, including Jane Roe, an MIT graduate student who presented a paper.

In 2014, a U.C. Berkeley Ph.D. student made an anonymous complaint, which was reported to the school’s Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD) and to the chair of the professor’s department. The complainant alleged that the professor created a hostile environment within her research group. She briefly mentioned an alleged incident involving an unidentified female MIT graduate student.

In December 2017, Jane Roe filed her own complaint with the OPHD. She alleged that the professor:

• engaged her in unwelcome sexual conduct that impacted or interfered with her educational opportunities and created a hostile environment
• touched her lower back and upper thigh
• made sexually explicit comments about her appearance
• propositioned her to return to his hotel room
• grabbed her arm and insisted on a kiss
• invited her to an “invite only” conference in Barbados

Read more: California court rejects sexual harassment claims against school district

In March 2020, the chancellor suspended the professor from his employment for violating the university’s Faculty Code of Conduct. In a letter, the chancellor censured him for directing unwanted sexualized conduct at a junior colleague at the 2012 conference.

The professor filed a petition asking the regents of the University of California to set aside the chancellor’s disciplinary decision, which allegedly affected his fundamental vested right in employment.

The trial court denied the petition. It affirmed the Privilege and Tenure Committee’s findings that the professor:

• told Roe that he was not paying attention to her words and was instead imagining what was under her dress when she asked for a professional evaluation of her presentation
• insinuated that she manipulated the romantic or sexual interest of her co-author to become the lead author of the paper
• continued to sexualize the conversation after she made additional feedback requests for her scholarly work and after she tried to deflect his sexualized attention

Disciplinary decision upheld

In the case of O'Brien v. Regents of the University of California, the California Court of Appeal for the First District affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The professor harassed and/or discriminated against the MIT student, who was considered his colleague under the Faculty Code of Conduct, the appellate court said.

A rule of the university required it to initiate disciplinary action within three years of receiving a misconduct report. This rule prevented the regents from disciplining the professor based on the 2014 anonymous complaint, the appellate court held.

Over three years passed without any notice to the professor that the university would be pursuing disciplinary charges relating to the 2014 complaint, which was investigated formally, the appellate court said.

However, the appellate court determined that the university’s rule did not bar the disciplinary action relating to Jane Roe because the university initiated a formal disciplinary proceeding within three years after receiving her report.

Roe made a complaint that was substantively different from the 2014 complaint, the appellate court found. She complained about the way the professor treated her during the 2012 conference and not about U.C. Berkeley’s academic environment, the appellate court said.

The relevant bylaw expressly provided no time limit for when Roe could make her claim, the appellate court added.