MILLER V UNIVERSITY Paedce-19-00965 0001.0 PDF

Case 5:19-cv-00965-GJP Document 1 Filed 03/07/19 Page 1 of 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MONICA R. MILLER : CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

1220 Sansom Street
Apt 01N :
Philadelphia, PA19107 :
:
: No. _______________
Plaintiff, :
v. :
:
:
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY :
27 Memorial Drive West :
Bethlehem, PA 18015 :
:
Defendant. :
:
CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Monica R. Miller (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through her undersigned
counsel, and avers as follows:
I. Introduction
1. Plaintiff has initiated this action to seek redress against Defendant Lehigh University
(hereinafter “Defendant”), her employer, for unlawful race and gender discrimination in violation
of the United States Constitution, and other applicable law.
II. The Parties
2. Plaintiff is an adult individual currently residing at the above address.
3. Defendant is a non-profit corporation created and existing pursuant to the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a place of business at the above address.
4. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant acted by and through its agents, servants, and
employees, each of whom acted within the scope of his or her job duties.
1
5. Defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
because it is engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce and because it maintained or
maintains fifteen (“15”) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty (“20”) or more
weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
6. Defendant also maintains a sufficient number of employees to satisfy the jurisdictional
prerequisites of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (requiring four or more employees).
III. Jurisdiction and Venue
7. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
incorporated by reference herein as if the same were set forth at length.
8. The Court may properly maintain personal jurisdiction over Defendant because
Defendant’s contacts with this state and this judicial district are sufficient for the exercise of
jurisdiction over Defendant to comply with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,
satisfying the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and its progeny.
9. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania may exercise
original subject-matter jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343(a)(4) because it arises under the laws of the United States and seeks redress for violations of
federal law.
10. Venue is properly laid in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1391(b)(1) and 1391(b)(2) because Defendant is located in and conducts business in this judicial
district and because a substantial part of the acts and/or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth
herein occurred in this judicial district (Plaintiff was employed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania at the time of the unlawful actions set forth herein).
2
IV. Procedural and Administrative Remedies
12. Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural and administrative requirements for proceeding
under Title VII as follows:
a. On or about November 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a timely written charge of
discrimination (No. 530-2019-906) against Defendant with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission alleging racial and gender discrimination and retaliation
b. On or about December 7, 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Plaintiff;
c. The instant action is timely because it is initiated within ninety (90) days of the
receipt of the aforementioned Notice;
d. Plaintiff also cross-filed the aforementioned charge of discrimination with the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and will amend the instant Complaint
to add a claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act after the PHRC’s
statutory one-year investigatory period has elapsed.
13. Plaintiff has exhausted her federal administrative remedies as to the allegations of this
Complaint.
V. Factual Background
14. Dr. Monica R. Miller, hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiff’ is an African-American
female.
3
15. She was hired by Defendant, Lehigh University, in 2013 as an Assistant Professor of
Religion and Africana studies.
16. Plaintiff was awarded tenure and promoted in May of 2016.
17. She was asked to be Director of Women, Gender and Sexuality studies to begin in July
2014 and held that position until July 2016 when she was forced to go on a pre-tenure “sabbatical
leave”’ after being awarded the early Tenure and Promotion in May of 2016.
18. Plaintiff resumed the Directorship of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies in July
2017 para (on a three-year contract) after completing her sabbatical leave (July 2016-July 2017)
in Hannover, Germany.
19. Plaintiff’s Africana Studies Supervisor was Dr. James Braxton Peterson, (Peterson)
black male who was Director of Africana Studies from until July 2013-Nov. 6, 2017.
20. The rampant sexual harassment by Peterson (against Miller) was ‘officially’ made
known to three Plaintiff’s colleagues on April 22, 2018.
21. Dr. Raposa and his wife Mary Ellen Raposa informed Lehigh University’s General
Counsel of Plaintiff’s personal situation during the second week of May 2018 having received a
privileged and confidential ‘production and preservation notice’ sent by Lehigh’s Office of
General Council as a request from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in response to a complaint
made by a student regarding the University’s handling of her complaint against Peterson.
22. Beginning on November 6, 2017, Defendant Lehigh University discriminated against
the Plaintiff on the basis of her race by forcing her to assume the job duties and responsibilities
previously held by her supervisor, Dr. James Braxton Peterson (Peterson) who had been and was
Director of Africana Studies and a full Professor of English when he was summarily put on paid
administrative leave pending an investigation for “sexual and other misconduct.”
4
23. Defendant forced Plaintiff to assume Doctor Peterson’s academic and administrative
duties because she was an African-American woman.
24. Defendant knew that Plaintiff was unqualified to assume these roles.
25. Defendant knew that other academics, were far more experienced in administration.
26. Defendant ignored these Caucasian individuals because it wanted to display the
Plaintiff as the token African-American so they could, inter alia, assuage any accusation that
Peterson’s suspension for sexual and other misconduct, was not racially motivated.
27. Defendant had its own racially biased history to overcome, as explained infra, and was
highly sensitive to any charge of racial discrimination, particularly in light of Dr. Peterson’s
suspension.
28. Defendant made Plaintiff a sacrificial lamb to its own racial agenda.
29. In doing so, as further explained, Defendant subjected Plaintiff to a hostile environment
of intimidation and harassment.
30. Further, even when Plaintiff repeatedly complained to Lehigh, about the impossibility
of her administrative and academic roles, and how untenable it was, Defendant did not care.
31. Defendant’s only agenda was present itself as a racially unbiased institution when in
fact, its actions regarding the Plaintiff, demonstrated the exact opposite.
32. Therefore, on November 6, 2017, rather than following the chain of command and
appointing Peterson’s direct supervisor, in the Department of English, Professor Dawn Keetley, a
white female, Lehigh targeted the Plaintiff as the first point of contact for disclosure of Peterson’s
suspension.
33. Defendant then required Plaintiff to organize the reassignment of Peterson’s job duties
solely because of her race.
5
34. Defendant wanted to navigate any racial fallout from Peterson’s departure by making
Plaintiff the substitute black faced figurehead that Peterson had been.
35. Because Plaintiff was given no training, no power, and no prestige.
36. Plaintiff had duties but very few rights and even fewer privileges.
37. The job which Defendant forced upon the Plaintiff should have been done by Dr.
Keetley but because she was white, she was racially unqualified.
38. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff was blamed for Peterson’s mismanagement of several
job-related duties which had now reassigned to her.
39. Twelve days before his suspension from Lehigh, Peterson published an online article
titled “Confessions of a Black Identity Extremist”
40. This article referenced Peterson’s Directorship in Africana Studies at Lehigh.
41. Lehigh conscripted the Plaintiff, because she was black, to deliver confidential
information to the Africana faculty.
42. Lehigh knew Plaintiff was not qualified to deliver this information.
43. As such, Lehigh University knowingly inserted Plaintiff into an environment of
hostility without giving her the tools to navigate it or even warn her.
44. At the same time Defendant was stoking discontent against her to ensure that she would
not be a permanent substitute for Peterson because it only needed to exploit Plaintiff’s race for a
few months, while it navigated the Peterson crisis.
45. In that regard, Lehigh also used Plaintiff to complete job functions that fell under the
auspices of the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and other university administrators
knowing she was far too inexperienced to perform them.
46. Lehigh did not care about Plaintiff’s ability to do these functions.
6
47. Lehigh only cared about appointing Plaintiff as their fig leaf of plausible deniability
against any accusations of racial discrimination and to parry an unfolding racially hostile campus
climate.
48. Defendant used Plaintiff as a racial shield.
49. In re-assigning Peterson’s duties and roles to the Plaintiff, Defendant sought to protect
itself from accusations of racial discrimination including potential allegations of racial
discrimination from Peterson himself.
50. From November 6, 2017 until mid-January 2018, while Lehigh was investigating
Peterson’s predatory conduct, Peterson had every incentive to smear the inquiry as racially
motivated.
51. Defendant wanted to avoid the accusation of the racial discrimination because it had
not taken the complaints and mandatory reports of sexual misconduct and harassment against
Peterson for years, some of which included African-American females (and other females of color)
as seriously as it would have done if the victims had been Caucasian. Colleagues and an
administrator made known to Plaintiff that a file on Peterson had been growing over the past 3-5
years.
52. Defendant used Plaintiff to provide an institutional shield against these and other racial
accusations.
53. Lehigh needed this because of its racially biased history.
54. Further, it had been aware of Peterson’s sexual harassment and predatory conduct, at
least from November 6, 2017, but despite repeated requests to address this situation, had
deliberately delayed in case it was accused of racial bias.
7
55. Lehigh sacrificed vulnerable young women, who they permitted to be abused, because
its image as an unbiased and racially diverse college was more important.
56. These issues were particularly sensitive for Defendant, given that the Office of Civil
Rights had been actively monitoring the racial environment of Lehigh University per a 2014
Voluntary Compliance Agreement.
57. This Voluntary Compliance Agreement was the result of a 2013 racial discrimination
investigation of Lehigh University by the Office of Civil Rights.
58. The findings had included, but were not limited to, Lehigh’s systemic racial
discrimination against people of color .
59. Lehigh was also desperate to retain a ‘necessary’ institutional image of racial equity,
diversity, and inclusion.
60. This image was vital to Lehigh’s strategic goal of not being smeared by its long history
of racial bias.
61. In that regard, Lehigh had self-imposed benchmarks related to “Diversity.”
62. These goals also included gender equality.
63. Plaintiff was not just slotted into Peterson’s position because she was black, but also
because she was a woman.
64. As the person who directed the “Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies” program,
Plaintiff was the perfect ‘Ms. Diversity.’
65. Lehigh attempted to demonstrate it was truly diverse in selecting an African-American
woman as an interim during this time.
66. Lehigh’s racial and gender biased motivation in this selection is clear from the fact that
her male colleague in Africana had already signed a contract to become the “Interim Director”
8
during the Spring 2018 semester to fill in for Peterson while Peterson was on his scheduled
sabbatical/academic leave.
67. By virtue of the lack of qualifications and because it was obvious, she had been
appointed as a powerless figurehead, Plaintiff suffered a backlash of hostility and alienation from
the faculty in Africana Studies.
68. Plaintiff was further used and undermined by the Dean who directed her to tell faculty
and students “not” to contact Peterson.
69. This direction, coming from the Plaintiff, in her capacity as an African-American
woman, removed the white administration at Lehigh from direct contact with its minorities and
was designed to blunt any criticism that Lehigh was engaging in racial discrimination by isolating
Peterson.
70. Lehigh also fraudulently concealed the reasons why it had selected Plaintiff to assume
Dr. Peterson’s role as Principal Investigator(PI) of the National Endowment of the Humanities
(NEH) Grant.
71. Defendant told her it was because she had tenure and that was a necessary prerequisite.
72. Plaintiff later learned, by contacting the NEH, that this was untrue. Plaintiff also
learned that Lehigh failed to inform the NEH of Peterson’s removal from campus, and instead
stated that he was preparing to go on Sabbatical.
73. Plaintiff’s appointment was part of a strategy to maintain a race/gendered “face” at the
helm of Peterson’s duties for the balance of time until his removal was finalized.
74. Despite Plaintiff’s extra responsibilities, Defendant refused to discuss any increase in
pay.
9
75. Plaintiff was discriminated because of her gender by not being compensated for the
extra duties thrust upon her.
76. As such, she was treated in a disparate manner, by virtue of her sex, compared to
Peterson.
77. Defendant also discriminated and harassment the Plaintiff by hostility, choreographed
by Dr. Essien in Africana Studies, the Dean and other disgruntled faculty members, who were
foreseeably upset at Plaintiff’s appointment.
78. This coordinated hostility, and an extra attempt to her the Plaintiff, resulted in removal
of Plaintiff’s and her spouse’s faculty line in Africana Studies in December 2017.
79. Prior to this action, Plaintiff, who was afraid this might happen, as retaliation against
her, had been continually reassured by Deans and her Department Chair that such removal and/or
reallocation was not possible.
80. Plaintiff also believes that the coordinated action against her was to ensure that her
appointment in assuming Peterson’s duty, would never become permanent.
81. Plaintiff was to be used, for a critical time, as a puppet of racial diversity but thereafter
would to be discarded and certainly, was never to be granted any permanent administrative
position.
82. For that reason, Lehigh permitted faculty to be openly hostile toward her.
83. Notably, once the investigation had concluded and Peterson had unconditionally
resigned, in mid-January 2018, Plaintiff was publicly named by Lehigh, in media sources, as the
professor who had taken over his class.
84. Plaintiff’s allegations are made even the more plausible by virtue of Lehigh’s recent
history of systemic race discrimination.
10
85. In Spring 2006, the Movement, a student-led group, accused Lehigh University of a
lack of cultural acceptance and growing racism on campus.
86. The Movement’s expressed goal was to create an environment where all students,
faculty, and staff could feel welcome to express their individuality in a safe community
atmosphere.
87. The Movement submitted a list of demands to the Administration which focused on
specific improvements in the following areas: Academic, Social, Financial Aid and Student
Recruitment.
88. In June 2006, the University Diversity Leadership Committee (UDLC) contracted with
Rankin, an outside consultant, to assist in identifying successes and challenges with respect to
underrepresented groups.
89. The climate survey took place in the Fall of 2006 and the results were presented in a
report in March 2007 and widely discussed in a series of meetings on campus and with the Board
of Trustees.
90. The climate survey’s quantitative and qualitative findings identified four primary
challenges at Lehigh that revolved around “power and privilege.”
91. On November 15, 2006, an article in the Morning Call reported that a Lehigh
University student had come home from grocery shopping and found what campus police for was
a skinned deer head lying on the steps of the multicultural student house.
92. According to the student; “The flesh was still on, the eyeballs still in it…it was a very
aggressive act.”
11
93. The animal turned out to be part of a lamb roasted at a tailgate party earlier in the day
on the steps outside the Umoja House, a student multicultural housing option named after the
Swahili word for “unity.”
94. John Smeaton, the Vice Provost for Student Affairs, said the University Police would
investigate the action to determine if it was racially motivated.
95. According to students, this incident was the latest in a string that perpetuated a hostile
atmosphere toward diversity at Lehigh.
96. Shortly thereafter, in an open forum with the University’s new president, Alice Gast,
Lehigh students recounted that incident and others which Gast characterized as “horrific.”
97. Gast promised, in her first year, to help foster a more accepting environment.
98. However, on or about November 12, 2008, racial slurs were directed toward at least
three black Lehigh University students in the week following Barack Obama's election.
99. Had In separate incidents, two black students said they heard racial slurs yelled from
cars.
100. A third student reported being called an “ignorant black (expletive)” when she was
talking to a friend about Obama's victory.
101. More than 600 people attended a university-sponsored forum to address the incidents.
102. The moderators played an audio recording of the first-year students, all women,
describing their experiences.
103. “I was shocked," said Lehigh President Alice Gast.” It was terrible and disappointing,
the events that brought us here. It was important to hear the pain over what happened.”
12
104. Gast further stated that “more than two years ago, Lehigh students marched on campus
to demand more diversity among the student body and faculty. The university commissioned a
survey in the summer of 2006 that noted issues with offensive, hostile or intimidating conduct.”
105. On November 9 2010, a photograph circulated on Facebook which appeared to be a
Halloween weekend event in the back yard of an off-campus house.
106. Students were dressed in various costumes.
107. Two white male students, in tennis clothing and wigs posed as Venus and Serena
Williams, having blackened their faces and arms.
108. The Student Affairs Advisor at Lehigh reminded students that practice of “blackface”
emerged in America in the 19th century so white performers could portray black performers in a
negative light, thus perpetuating racist stereotypes of African-Americans.
109. It further stated that this conduct was offensive, demeaning, and antithetical to the
fundamental values of the Lehigh community.
110. As a reaction to the racially divisive atmosphere, Lehigh used paraded out Peterson and
the Department of Africana studies as evidence of its born-again diversity initiatives.
111. Peterson was the de facto diversity spokesperson always praising Lehigh for its
diversity initiatives.
112. This is the main reason Lehigh ignored the fact, despite overwhelming evidence, that
Peterson was a serial sexual harasser and predator of young women, and other employees.
113. The hiring of Peterson, who was a power-wielding-and-abusing charismatic figure,
perfectly advertised Lehigh as a paragon of racial progress and to investigate him for being a sexual
predator would tarnish that image.
13
114. The over-resourcing of Africana Studies for its own diversity-related gains meant that
the program served as both recompense (for its past raced-based diversity issues) and progress -
the newly-inaugurated penultimate institutional sign of a new historic threshold for racial progress
by overwhelmingly and asymmetrically stacking and elevating the deck of Africana vis-a-vis
Peterson as both buffer and cover for prior and newly emerging race-based diversity issues.
115. Peterson was elevated as Lehigh’s “race man” and Africana Studies the institutional
“mode” for “diversity work” rather than a model of “diverse scholarship” which it should have
been.
116. Spurred from the historic 1989 President's Commission on Minorities and Commission
on Women at Lehigh University who were given a “18-month charge to examine and make
recommendations for improving the quality of life for African American, Hispanic American, and
female members of the Lehigh community,” former Lehigh President Peter Likens approached
multiple faculty members in 1992 about starting an Africana Studies program at Lehigh, in which
a team of two appointed professors were tasked with finding a director who could lead and launch
the program.
117. It was during this time that Dr. William Scott (Department of History) was hired as the
founding Director of Africana Studies at Lehigh.
118. Dr. Scott’s dedicated hire in the Africana program was the only dedicated faculty line
until the hiring of Peterson in 2011.
119. In the same year that. Peterson was hired (2011), Dean Donald E. Hall (Hall) was hired
as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
120. Over the years, among the many Interdisciplinary Programs at Lehigh University, Dean
Hall focused much time, energy, and allocated many resources to, the Africana Studies program.
14
121. As one of the trademarks of his Deanship, he offered unique institutional placement to
the program, and allocated robust budget lines, faculty lines, and additional resources to Africana.
122. Dean Hall quickly gained the reputation of being the “diversity” Dean most committed
to and responsible for ensuring College-level priority and resource allocation to Africana Studies
[most noted for enabling “interdisciplinary” and “diverse” hiring priorities which resulted in the
largest increase in the hiring of black faculty (and, faculty of color) ever in Lehigh’s history] -
often working closely and in conjunction with Peterson.
123. Taking Peterson’s hire in 2011 into account, Dr. Essien’s hire the following year, the
2013 open-hires (designated for Religion Studies, and Art History/Architecture/Design or Theatre
departments), there were five successful hires of tenure-track faculty members of color
(black/African-American, African).
124. In addition, one more tenure-track faculty member of color (black/African-American),
in 2011, replaced the Director of Africana Studies at Lehigh (hired/appointed in the early 90s as
described above).
125. Also, during this time, a prior Africana Studies Predoctoral/Postdoctoral hire was
negotiated into a Professor of Practice position (joint with the Department of Journalism).
126. So, with these hires, the historic diversity “Africana Cluster” at Lehigh was complete.
127. All preceding faculty members originally associated with the Program at various stages
throughout its 20-year history at Lehigh and responsible for “paving the way” for the hiring of
Peterson and the Cluster were (secondarily) designated as “Core Members” (with tenure).
128. Of these “Core” members, four were faculty of color.
129. At some point in 2012, while Plaintiff was a Visiting Assistant Professor of Religion
at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, she had heard about Peterson’s hire at Lehigh
15
University and the plans that were underway to reinvigorate Africana Studies based on the Cluster
hiring initiative in Spring 2011.
130. Plaintiff was put in touch with Peterson and they remained in communication about the
job from the initial time of inquiry in 2012, application process, pre-interview at the American
Academy of Religion conference (November 2012, Chicago, IL), and her campus visit to Lehigh
University in January 2013.
131. During this time, Peterson (who was Co-Chair of the joint Africana Studies/Religion
Studies job search made inappropriate comments and would often call Plaintiff late at night to
discuss the position.
132. These late-night discussions (leading up to the job talk in January 2013) often included
conversations about the vision, direction, and the institutional affirmation of Africana Studies at
Lehigh University.
133. They expressed the solitary institutional latitude afforded to Peterson, as it concerned
leverage and authority over the job Plaintiff was applying for, as well as his singular and autocratic
control over shaping and directing Africana Studies.
134. Plaintiff was one of four finalists for the position.
135. After a successful Skype interview with the search committee, and further
deliberations, Plaintiff was extended an “on-campus” interview.
136. On numerous occasions during that interview process in January of 2013, it appeared
that Peterson was the search-committee “point person” in charge of Plaintiff’s campus-visit.
137. During this time, Peterson sexually harassed the Plaintiff on numerous occasions.
138. Early into Plaintiff’s arrival he took Plaintiff to a restaurant alone and asked her to sit
on his lap.
16
139. He also requested that she kissed him.
140. Plaintiff refused.
141. Undeterred, Peterson proceeded to rub Plaintiff’s leg under the table.
142. During the one-on-one Chair/Director meeting, Peterson put his arm around Plaintiff’s
waist firmly pulling her towards his lap.
143. Plaintiff recoils but felt compromised given the high stakes of the job process and the
primary/formative role that Peterson played throughout.
144. Peterson proceeded to call a mutual colleague to celebrate that Plaintiff had arrived on
campus for the job interview.
145. Peterson on video, pointed the phone towards Plaintiff’s high heels and commented on
how “sexy” the high heels were.
146. After the job talk and dinner, Peterson dropped Plaintiff at The Hotel Bethlehem and
offered to buy her a drink at the bar.
147. Plaintiff was extremely nervous but felt she could not refuse.
148. She proceeded to stay in “text” touch with her then boyfriend.
149. Peterson again tried to kiss the Plaintiff.
150. Plaintiff turned her head.
151. Plaintiff was afraid Peterson was going to force his way up to her hotel room.
152. After the campus interview. Peterson continued to gratuitously initiate contact with
Plaintiff
153. Throughout these conversations he energetically re-emphasized that Africana was
“rooting” for her as their primary candidate.
17
154. Peterson also offered specific information related to how the Department of Religion
Studies “viewed” her scholarship and how it “fitted into the Department, and how those in the
Department had voted.”
155. Peterson led the Plaintiff to believe her that any job offer would be due to his personal
intercession.
156. Peterson delivered the verbal news of Plaintiff’s job offer alone, via phone.
157. In April of 2013, Plaintiff received a Tiffany’s gift certificate from Peterson for her
birthday.
158. In the first three years of her employment at Lehigh (2013-2016), Peterson continued
to sexually harass her on numerous occasions.
159. It is now well-known that during this time period, and not too long after Peterson’s
arrival at Lehigh in 2011, that Lehigh was made aware of Dr. Peterson’s sexual misconduct.
160. In early November 2017, when Peterson was placed on paid administrative leave,
reports of his sexual misconduct were piling up and Lehigh had been internally aware of Peterson’s
predatory behavior over the prior 4 years, if not longer.
161. Lehigh was willing to give Peterson a free pass on the sexual harassment until it could
no longer do so, because it considered its diversity image more important than the women he was
abusing.
162. During the 2013-2016 time-period of sexual harassment, given the constant advances
made, as well as the reiteration that Plaintiff received little “votes” in her Department during the
hiring process, Plaintiff felt forced, in order to protect herself physically, to interact with Peterson
mostly via text message and email in overly-friendly ways which seemed to demand her constant
18
expression of thanks, appreciation, and how important he was and how fortunate Africana and
Lehigh were to have such an advocate for scholars of color, etc.
163. It was Peterson’s modus operandi to create an obligation on the part of the women he
targeted.
164. Plaintiff felt ashamed, pressured, and too vulnerable, as a pre-tenure scholar, to make
a sexual harassment report given the clear racially-motivated power Lehigh had granted Peterson.
165. Almost immediately, upon the start of her position in the Fall of 2013, Peterson targeted
the Plaintiff and had her do a disproportionate amount of service-related work in Africana Studies.
166. Apart from her teaching load, she was given a constant barrage of service-heavy
diversity-related institutional demands.
167. She weathered, as best she could, this difficult and discriminatory environment.
168. Peterson overworked her in the hope that she would request relief from him and of
course, that would come at a ‘price’.
169. On October 4, 2013, some Lehigh students dressed in black and white formal attire
with duct-taped mouths and walked through campus to protest their unheard voices as members of
the Lehigh community.
170. These students wanted administrative action.
171. The protest—organized by a group of students which referred to itself as “FBR,”
standing for “From Beneath the Rug”—began around 11:45 a.m.
172. They met in the Multicultural Center in the University Center with the intent of holding
a sit-in on Lehigh President Alice Gast's front steps.
173. After the group began to disperse and it appeared the protest had ended, members of
the group were told that Gast and Provost Pat Farrell wished to speak with then.
19
174. They immediately re-duct-taped their mouths and reconvened in the Multicultural
Center.
175. Following the closed meeting, during which Gast was observed taking notes and then
speaking to the group, Farrell spoke with reporters and stated that this group felt that, “within the
Lehigh campus community, they're relatively invisible, their voices are not heard, and in many
cases their concerns aren't being recognized.”
176. A few days later on October 10, 2013, junior Brenda Martinez, in her student keynote
address said the university community should take a proactive stand against discrimination and
inequality on campus and become more welcoming for students of all backgrounds.
177. On November 6, 2013, the Lehigh University residence hall, Umoja House, dedicated
to campus diversity was egged and spray-painted with racial slurs.
178. “Always, always Lehigh has just shrugged it off,” Martinez said of complaints that the
Umoja House become a target on campus. “Or they’d have one discussion to calm students down
and then do nothing else.”
179. Lehigh University spokesperson, Jordan Reese confirmed there was an active
investigation into the incident by university police and Lehigh President Alice Gast intended to
visit the house and meet with students.
180. On January 9, 2014, a complaint to Department of Education Office for Civil Rights
was filed regarding the November vandalism of Umoja House.
181. Following the complaint, the federal government investigated whether Lehigh
University had created a racially hostile environment by not adequately addressing harassment
complaints made by minority students.
20
182. Notably, and not coincidentally, Gast stated her intention to leave Lehigh at the end of
July 2014.
183. This period of racism and racial unrest at Lehigh cast the most sustained and damning
national spotlight on Lehigh’s racial issues and diversity-related disparities in almost 40 years.
184. This coverage also revealed that Lehigh’s administration was aware of the continued
racial animus and hostile campus culture facing many students of color.
185. During this time, Lehigh’s administration (most notably this time including the Board
of Trustees who were incredibly concerned for Lehigh’s image and potential financial
repercussions) seemed fixated by anxiety but how the federal investigation would turn out.
186. Because of this, it became even more important to retain Peterson, despite the mounting
evidence that he was a sexual predator.
187. Perversely, this gave Peterson even more institutional capital, leverage, access, and
resources.
188. He was promoted to a full professorship with a significant salary increase which was
directly negotiated with the Chair and Board of Trustee members who took a keen “interest.
189. On information and belief, Peterson is the only faculty person at Lehigh who has ever
been granted such direct and personal access to the Board of Trustees.
190. With President Gast’s resignation in February of 2014, shortly after OCR had
confirmed, a month earlier, that the OCR complaint for racially hostile campus/institution
submitted by alumna Susan Magaziner in late November 2013 warranted an investigation,
Peterson was invited to serve as the College of Arts and Sciences representative on the search
committee for Lehigh’s next President.
21
191. Plaintiff was improperly and entirely without evidence, accused by the Provost, of
leaking information to Susan Magaziner.
192. During the search process, Peterson confided to the Plaintiff that the President and Co-
Chair of the Presidential Search, Brad Scheler, among other Trustees, had taken a very keen
“interest” in him and had begun to “court” him.
193. By the time John D. Simon, Lehigh’s 14th President arrived on campus, in the Fall of
2015, Peterson had already won the favor of the Board’s Chair and other Trustees who had
privately “consulted” with Peterson about Lehigh’s racism, campus climate, and diversity.
194. In some cases, Peterson had even developed “friendships” with Trustees some which
continued on a personal basis outside of Lehigh.
195. The Board of Trustees were very much aware of the “hushed” internal investigation of
Peterson which had begun in February 2016 and involved his rampant sexual harassment and other
misconduct.
196. Some Trustee members were seen a few months later, under the “Trustee” tent during
Commencement in May 2016, overheard patting Dr. Peterson on the back and saying that “they
were sorry for what he was going through.”
197. Lehigh’s already long-standing institutional needs/deficits arising from issues with
discrimination, harassment, and racially hostile environment became exacerbated by the high-
stakes racial vulnerability emerging from the 2013 UMOJA incident, throughout the OCR
investigation and the “Compliance/Monitoring” stage.
198. Lehigh University entered into a voluntary resolution with the OCR on September 26,
2014 and continues to remain in “Active Monitoring” phase.
22
199. The racialized and gendered disparate treatment experienced within just a few years
after Plaintiff’s hire at Lehigh were made possible by an overreaction to Lehigh’s long-standing
lack of racial diversity and racial hostility.
200. Peterson’s overwhelming access to institutional power - from the Dean to the Board of
Trustees- enabled his sexual harassment and misconduct to flourish without recourse.
201. Lehigh ignored his improprieties, inappropriate relationship with the Board of Trustees,
supervisorial abuses of power over differentially situated colleagues (pre-tenure, junior, female),
administrative mismanagement in Africana Studies (e.g., never turning in an end of the year report
for Africana Studies for over 5 years), sexism, gender discrimination, etc.
202. At the time, it was well-known that Plaintiff was carrying the bulk of service-related
obligations in Africana Studies which fell under Dr. Peterson’s Directorship.
203. Peterson repeatedly told a senior colleague in Religion Studies that he was “the face”
of the program, and Miller was the service horse expected to mentor junior colleagues into tenure.
204. In the first year of hiring, Plaintiff was also told by Africana Studies colleague Dr.
Essien (who participated in the job search process with Dr. Peterson) that she was hired in Africana
Studies to work closely with and mentor “female students of color.”
205. Given the mental and physical stress/toll of the disparate impact and treatment (race,
gender) and sexual harassment by Peterson during 2013-2016, Plaintiff had to disengage
completely from Lehigh during the period of her sabbatical July 2016-July 2017.
206. She also had almost no contact with her Department and Africana Studies during this
time.
207. Plaintiff felt escalating hostility and aggression directed towards her when she began
asking questions in faculty meetings concerning discussions related to race at Lehigh, protecting
23
Africana Studies from “whiteness” at Lehigh, as well as a clear “institutional attack” on the
Africana Studies program.
208. On multiple occasions, she was the victim of coordinated retaliation by her ‘colleagues’
and reported this hostility, and the other abuse directed against her, to the Chair and
Administrators.
209. They did nothing to investigate or remediate it.
210. Some of this retaliation unfolded in public as well as via email.
211. Public comments to Plaintiff’s partner include statements such as, “I don’t know how
you do it” and “I would need a different wife” and “I couldn’t handle her.”
212. This colleague continually stated that Plaintiff needed to slow down her
research/publication schedule which was, according to him, making “Cluster” colleagues look bad.
213. At one point during these faculty meetings, Plaintiff was so bewildered by the hostility,
she said “I feel like I missed something during the time I was away on sabbatical that has me at a
loss for how to make sense of the topics of our meetings.”
214. To this, Peterson responded, “The only thing we missed was you.”
COUNT I
Title VII Violations
216. The foregoing conduct by the Defendant constitutes unlawful discrimination and
retaliation against the Plaintiff on the basis of race and gender.
24
217. As a result of the Defendant’s unlawful discrimination, the Plaintiff has suffered
damages as set forth herein.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1981
219. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff maintained or sought to maintain a contractual
relationship with Defendant.
220. At all times relevant herein, Defendant acted by and through its agents, servants, and
employees to intentionally discriminate against Plaintiff as a result of race and thereby deny the
benefits of the contractual relationship entered or sought to enter into with Defendant by
discriminating on that basis.
221. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful discrimination and retaliation, Plaintiff has
suffered damages as set forth herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against
Defendant and that it enter an Order as follows:
a. Defendant is to be permanently enjoined from discriminating or retaliating against
Plaintiff on any basis prohibited under applicable federal and state law;
b. Defendant is to be prohibited from continuing to maintain its illegal policy,
practice, or custom of discriminating or retaliating against employees based on any

25
basis prohibited under applicable federal and state law and be ordered to
promulgate an effective policy against such discrimination and to adhere thereto;
c. Defendant is to compensate Plaintiff, reimburse Plaintiff, and to make Plaintiff
whole for any and all pay, and benefits Plaintiff would have received had it not
been for Defendant’s illegal actions, including but not limited to back pay, front
pay, salary, pay increases, bonuses, medical and other benefits, training,
promotions, pension, and seniority. Plaintiff should be accorded those benefits
illegally withheld from the date she first suffered discrimination at the hands of
Defendant until the date of verdict;
d. Plaintiff is to be awarded actual damages, as well as damages for the pain, suffering,
and humiliation caused to his by Defendant’s actions as permitted by applicable
law;
e. Plaintiff is to be awarded punitive damages as permitted by applicable law, in an
amount believed by the Court or trier of fact to be appropriate to punish Defendant
for its willful, deliberate, malicious, and outrageous conduct, and to deter
Defendant or any other employees from engaging in such misconduct in the future;
f. Plaintiff is to be accorded any and all other equitable and legal relief as the Court
deems just, proper, and appropriate including but not limited to reinstatement;
g. Plaintiff is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable legal
fees as provided by applicable federal and state law;
26
h. Any verdict in favor of Plaintiff is to be molded by the Court to maximize the
financial recovery available to Plaintiff in light of the caps on certain damages set
forth in applicable federal law;
i. Plaintiff is to be granted such additional injunctive or other relief as she may request
during the pendency of this action in an effort to ensure Defendant does not engage
– or ceases engaging - in illegal retaliation against Plaintiff or other witnesses to
this action;
j. The Court is to maintain jurisdiction of this action after verdict to ensure
compliance with its Orders therein.
k. Plaintiff is to be accorded any and all other statutory damages the Court deems just,
proper, and appropriate.
l. Plaintiff’s claims are to receive a trial by jury to the extent allowed by applicable
law. Plaintiff has also endorsed this demand on the caption of the Complaint in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).
Respectfully submitted,
KOLMAN ELY, P.C.

/s/ Timothy M. Kolman
414 Hulmeville Avenue
Penndel, PA 19047
(T) 215-750-3134 / (F) 215-750-3138
wely@kolmanlaw.net
wcsipio@kolmanlaw.net
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: March 7, 2019
27

MILLER V UNIVERSITY Paedce-19-00965 0001.0 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MILLER V UNIVERSITY Paedce-19-00965 0001.0 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 5:19-cv-00965-GJP Document 1 Filed 03/07/19 Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MONICA R. MILLER : CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Monica R. Miller (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through her undersigned

counsel, and avers as follows:

of the United States Constitution, and other applicable law.

II. The Parties

2. Plaintiff is an adult individual currently residing at the above address.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a place of business at the above address.

because it is engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce and because it maintained or

weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

6. Defendant also maintains a sufficient number of employees to satisfy the jurisdictional

III. Jurisdiction and Venue

incorporated by reference herein as if the same were set forth at length.

Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and its progeny.

Pennsylvania at the time of the unlawful actions set forth herein).

IV. Procedural and Administrative Remedies

incorporated by reference herein as if the same were set forth at length.

under Title VII as follows:

a. On or about November 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a timely written charge of

discrimination (No. 530-2019-906) against Defendant with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission alleging racial and gender discrimination and retaliation

b. On or about December 7, 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Plaintiff;

receipt of the aforementioned Notice;

d. Plaintiff also cross-filed the aforementioned charge of discrimination with the

statutory one-year investigatory period has elapsed.

14. Dr. Monica R. Miller, hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiff’ is an African-American

Religion and Africana studies.

16. Plaintiff was awarded tenure and promoted in May of 2016.

known to three Plaintiff’s colleagues on April 22, 2018.

22. Beginning on November 6, 2017, Defendant Lehigh University discriminated against

administrative leave pending an investigation for “sexual and other misconduct.”

duties because she was an African-American woman.

of intimidation and harassment.

solely because of her race.

35. Because Plaintiff was given no training, no power, and no prestige.

job-related duties which had now reassigned to her.

titled “Confessions of a Black Identity Extremist”

40. This article referenced Peterson’s Directorship in Africana Studies at Lehigh.

information to the Africana faculty.

43. As such, Lehigh University knowingly inserted Plaintiff into an environment of

few months, while it navigated the Peterson crisis.

knowing she was far too inexperienced to perform them.

48. Defendant used Plaintiff as a racial shield.

itself from accusations of racial discrimination including potential allegations of racial

discrimination from Peterson himself.

53. Lehigh needed this because of its racially biased history.

deliberately delayed in case it was accused of racial bias.

Voluntary Compliance Agreement.

investigation of Lehigh University by the Office of Civil Rights.

discrimination against people of color .

diversity, and inclusion.

61. In that regard, Lehigh had self-imposed benchmarks related to “Diversity.”

62. These goals also included gender equality.

because she was a woman.

Plaintiff was the perfect ‘Ms. Diversity.’

65. Lehigh attempted to demonstrate it was truly diverse in selecting an African-American

woman as an interim during this time.

the faculty in Africana Studies.

and students “not” to contact Peterson.

stated that he was preparing to go on Sabbatical.